Amazing_Grace

I believe I read at the time of his signing that it was a straight minor league deal, without an NRI to Spring Training. He may be reporting directly to the minor league camp. Interesting. I'd give Bobby Hill a shot at the 25th roster spot before I'd give Tomas Perez a shot, but oh well. I hope and pray Perez doesn't make the team. I think that's one thing that I haven't seen anybody disagree with yet :D I wouldn't complain if he made the team over Cedeno. Cedeno needs regular playing time to iron out his issues. Perez is actually a fairly solid player, but for several reasons his bat never developed as expected. He can sac bunt and play defense at the very least. The same can't be said for the current incarnation of Cedeno. OK, read that description you wrote of "Perez" and tell me whether it's for Tomas, or Neifi. It doesn't matter because they're basically the same guy and the description you wrote could apply to either one. I agree about Cedeno in AAA, however. He needs the work. Still, I'd be glad to have Cedeno on the team if it means Tomas Perez won't be on the roster.

Maybe they wouldn't be interested in what the Cubs are offering and would be interested in somebody else's offer. I was just pointing out that opting out of his deal gives ARod the biggest freedom, without too much of a risk of throwing away money. That's true, but he'd have to take a discount to play for the Cubs. I can't imagine our budget could handle a 20M dollar player, not at least without trading one or more of Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Marquis, Lilly and not re-upping Z. If he wants to play for the Cubs as this rumor suggests, his best shot to do so without giving up much cash is to get the Yanks to eat part of his remaining contract in some trade scenario. If he cares more about the money, he should opt out and sign with Boston, who would love the opportunity to pay back the Yanks for Clemens. I obviously don't know Arod, but I'd think after being the highest paid player and being unhappy for so many years, taking 15-17 per for 4 years or something like that and playing in a town that will worship you and a manager that you respect would be something he could swallow. Yes, but the Cubs couldn't. At least not if they resign Zambrano, who will very likely make about 15-18 per season. Now, if the Yankees were to pick up about 4-6M per year of ARod's remaining 3 years, that, combined with what Texas is paying, puts him down into the 12-15M area, and the Cubs might be able to afford that and Z also. If the Cubs don't resign Z, it becomes easier to sign ARod at the price you mentioned. That's really a difficult choice. It's hard to stomach paying any pitcher what Zito got, even one who's young and effective. If the Cubs let Z go, ARod would be a great alternative this offseason, if he indeed does opt out. I don't see the Cubs getting both barring an absolutely brilliant trade, and even then, it would probably mean putting the Cubs into the 110M range with payroll in a couple of years, and I doubt the Trib is going to go that high. 110 mil is the payroll this year-did you mean higher than that? Is it that high? ESPN's salary page isn't accurate for this time of year so it's hard to tell. I thought the payroll was going to be around 100-105M this season.

I believe I read at the time of his signing that it was a straight minor league deal, without an NRI to Spring Training. He may be reporting directly to the minor league camp. Interesting. I'd give Bobby Hill a shot at the 25th roster spot before I'd give Tomas Perez a shot, but oh well. I hope and pray Perez doesn't make the team.

Maybe they wouldn't be interested in what the Cubs are offering and would be interested in somebody else's offer. I was just pointing out that opting out of his deal gives ARod the biggest freedom, without too much of a risk of throwing away money. That's true, but he'd have to take a discount to play for the Cubs. I can't imagine our budget could handle a 20M dollar player, not at least without trading one or more of Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Marquis, Lilly and not re-upping Z. If he wants to play for the Cubs as this rumor suggests, his best shot to do so without giving up much cash is to get the Yanks to eat part of his remaining contract in some trade scenario. If he cares more about the money, he should opt out and sign with Boston, who would love the opportunity to pay back the Yanks for Clemens. I obviously don't know Arod, but I'd think after being the highest paid player and being unhappy for so many years, taking 15-17 per for 4 years or something like that and playing in a town that will worship you and a manager that you respect would be something he could swallow. Yes, but the Cubs couldn't. At least not if they resign Zambrano, who will very likely make about 15-18 per season. Now, if the Yankees were to pick up about 4-6M per year of ARod's remaining 3 years, that, combined with what Texas is paying, puts him down into the 12-15M area, and the Cubs might be able to afford that and Z also. If the Cubs don't resign Z, it becomes easier to sign ARod at the price you mentioned. That's really a difficult choice. It's hard to stomach paying any pitcher what Zito got, even one who's young and effective. If the Cubs let Z go, ARod would be a great alternative this offseason, if he indeed does opt out. I don't see the Cubs getting both barring an absolutely brilliant trade, and even then, it would probably mean putting the Cubs into the 110M range with payroll in a couple of years, and I doubt the Trib is going to go that high. How do you know how much more the Cubs could spend? You keep saying they "can't" as if it's a known absolute. I obviously don't know for sure they can't. I'm just basing that opinion on their past behavior. I may be dead wrong about spending and frankly hope I am. Having ARod and Zambrano next season would be great. I personally believe there's no reason a franchise as popular as the Cubs can't have payroll at a level close to Boston, but I don't run the team.

Not sure what he was going for there. That's about as awkward a statement as there can possibly be. It's almost like he wants to criticize Dusty, but is trying so hard not to that he comes out with something that just sounds bizarre.

Maybe they wouldn't be interested in what the Cubs are offering and would be interested in somebody else's offer. I was just pointing out that opting out of his deal gives ARod the biggest freedom, without too much of a risk of throwing away money. That's true, but he'd have to take a discount to play for the Cubs. I can't imagine our budget could handle a 20M dollar player, not at least without trading one or more of Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Marquis, Lilly and not re-upping Z. If he wants to play for the Cubs as this rumor suggests, his best shot to do so without giving up much cash is to get the Yanks to eat part of his remaining contract in some trade scenario. If he cares more about the money, he should opt out and sign with Boston, who would love the opportunity to pay back the Yanks for Clemens. I obviously don't know Arod, but I'd think after being the highest paid player and being unhappy for so many years, taking 15-17 per for 4 years or something like that and playing in a town that will worship you and a manager that you respect would be something he could swallow. Yes, but the Cubs couldn't. At least not if they resign Zambrano, who will very likely make about 15-18 per season. Now, if the Yankees were to pick up about 4-6M per year of ARod's remaining 3 years, that, combined with what Texas is paying, puts him down into the 12-15M area, and the Cubs might be able to afford that and Z also. If the Cubs don't resign Z, it becomes easier to sign ARod at the price you mentioned. That's really a difficult choice. It's hard to stomach paying any pitcher what Zito got, even one who's young and effective. If the Cubs let Z go, ARod would be a great alternative this offseason, if he indeed does opt out. I don't see the Cubs getting both barring an absolutely brilliant trade, and even then, it would probably mean putting the Cubs into the 110M range with payroll in a couple of years, and I doubt the Trib is going to go that high.

I'd rather not see Pie at all this season until and unless we get a significant offensive upgrade at SS. Pie doesn't have great plate discipline, and that means he's likely to face some serious difficulties as a hitter for probably a season or more when he comes up. Jones is a virtual lock to outproduce a rookie Pie in OBP, OPS, and SLG. The only area Pie has an advantage is defense, and we've discussed ad nauseum how unsatisfied we are with all glove no hit Izturis. Now, Pie, unlike Izturis, will probably get better, but this season the declared goal is win now, and Jones is going to be a better fit for that goal in this season. Now, if the Cubs need to deal Jones and use Pie in order to get Tejada/ARod, then you can live with Pie being subpar offensively.

Sounds good, but with an outfield of Godzilla, Johnny Damon and Bobby Abreu, there isn't a whole lot of room for Jacque Jones. As much as I hate to say it, to get A-Rod, it will require that we part with Aramis along with other pieces and parts. While A-Rod is an upgrade over Aramis, there is a scare that he could opt out at the end of the season, which makes Aramis the more valuable commodity in the big picture. I'm with you. I don't see Jacque fitting in NY. I also agree that getting ARod isn't worth trading Ramirez. The Cubs only chance of getting ARod has always been the possibility that the Yankees see him as a distraction and clubhouse cancer, and that ARod wants to come to the Cubs and uses his NTC to veto a trade anywhere else. If this happens, it will go down like the Nomar deal did. It will have to be some sort of 3-way or even 4-way deal that sends NY a good 3B from a team that isn't contending and will do a deal for just prospects. I think Tejada may ultimately be a more likely SS target, as the O's are unlikely to contend for anything other than 3rd in the AL east, and they desperately need what the Cubs have in abundance, pitching prospects.

Guzman's strong spring, if it continues, combined with Prior's health, makes Miller very expendable. I doubt we'll get much out of him. I doubt we'll get much out of Miller. The value of an oft injured pitcher coming off rehab is not high. If I were the Cubs, I'd be looking to deal him for someone fairly low in the minors who isn't an A prospect but has the talent to become one.

Actually, I think people were trashing Miller (me included) for losing his velocity. Considering Prior is 5 years younger, and has never had surgery, I think he'll regain velocity before Miller. I don't think Miller's chances are better than Prior's. I think they're worse. Miller is old and Prior is young. Prior has a good chance, with time, to reinvent himself as a finesse pitcher. If he doesn't get his velocity back, he won't be the same as he was in 2003, but he still has the chance to be very effective. By the way, no one answered my question about how many pitches he threw. What pitches does he throw? Mostly he throws a 2 seam and a 4 seam fastball and a curveball, but I'm pretty he sure he also throws a changeup occasionally. Thanks, this is what I was looking for but botched up the language.

Actually, I think people were trashing Miller (me included) for losing his velocity. Considering Prior is 5 years younger, and has never had surgery, I think he'll regain velocity before Miller. I don't think Miller's chances are better than Prior's. I think they're worse. Miller is old and Prior is young. Prior has a good chance, with time, to reinvent himself as a finesse pitcher. If he doesn't get his velocity back, he won't be the same as he was in 2003, but he still has the chance to be very effective. By the way, no one answered my question about how many pitches he threw. What pitches does he throw? I don't understand. It looks like we agree... Prior threw 40-41 pitches. Yeah, I meant to agree with you and point out that I was another one that thinks Prior has a better shot to come back than Miller. I'm making short, lazy posts while I'm at work.

When you're sliding into home and your pants are full of foam....

Actually, I think people were trashing Miller (me included) for losing his velocity. Considering Prior is 5 years younger, and has never had surgery, I think he'll regain velocity before Miller. I don't think Miller's chances are better than Prior's. I think they're worse. Miller is old and Prior is young. Prior has a good chance, with time, to reinvent himself as a finesse pitcher. If he doesn't get his velocity back, he won't be the same as he was in 2003, but he still has the chance to be very effective. By the way, no one answered my question about how many pitches he threw. What pitches does he throw?

Had the Cubs not given Jason Marquis so much money, this would be a good deal. Since they did, they're in the same boat as Philly in having too many starters. I'd only do a deal like this if Pie played great, Soriano's defense was awful in CF, and Miller and Prior both looked ineffective and/or got hurt again.

It's just market forces at work in an artificially closed market (baseball is protected from competition officially by a court decision that exempts it from anti-trust laws and unofficially by tradition in Congress, hence things like steroid hearings). Here's the short version, in terms of player salaries you have supply (players) and demand (teams). To cut a long story very short, if all the teams in MLB spend the same amount of money combined and the supply of players is more or less the same as what it has been previous years, then salaries will remain stable. If teams start spending more money, regardless of the reason, while the supply of players remains constant, salary levels will increase. A few teams have spent a lot more the past couple seasons so salaries have started to go way up again, after being pretty stable for several years after the ARod and Manny contracts. If you want to read the more complicated version of my opinion, here it is. On the demand side, we have MLB teams that pay players for their services. If baseball had complete FA for all players at all times, the total payrolls of all the teams would determine how much is paid to players, and relative performance levels determine who is paid what. In practice, the rules of FA, service time, arbritration, etc., skew the market such that players who are older and have reached free agency will be overpaid and players who are under team control are underpaid. This is a direct result of the fact that baseball is unique in pro sports in that the teams actually pay a vast majority of the cost of player development. A player who is developed for years by the Brewers represents an investment in the form of the money it takes to maintain a minor league system with scouts, players, coaches, etc. Nobody makes any profit off their minor league teams. If the Brewers paid all that money only to have the Yankees sign the guy the season after he got called up, well, we see where whatever slim chance the Brewers have to compete would be altogether destroyed. It's very similar to a drug company that spends billions on a new drug then patents it for rights to its exclusive monopoly manufacture for 20 years. If they got no patent, they'd lose billions because after they developed the drug, anyone could buy a box of pills, see what it's made out of and manufacture it without paying any development costs and drive down the price to where the original developer would not be able to make any money off their investment of billions of dollars in development. In any event, when any of the 30 baseball teams increases their payroll by some amount, it means a greater amount of money is being divided between players and the average salary level will rise. Also, since we're dealing with a closed oligarchical market, the actions of one team affect every other team. The Cubs spending more will mean the Cubs have a greater share of the overall talent level because the talent level is fixed over the short term but payroll isn't. If they lowered payroll, or held it constant while someone else raised payroll, their relative percentage of talent would decline, at least in theory. As an example, this offseason the Cubs increased payroll a lot, and the result was that the Cubs got a greater percentage of the available pool of FA talent than anyone else in baseball. Now for the supply side of the equation, the players. To begin with, a team's roster is 40 man but only about 25-30 of those will have major league contracts, so the "supply" of baseball players will always be about 30x30 players. However, that doesn't tell the whole story as we're not just concerned about having 30x30 warm bodies, but having players that can play well at a MLB level. That's a baseball question, but ultimately, that is determined by the underlying talent level. The supply of talent is affected by lots of things, but basically is determined by the number of athletes capable of performing at a major league level. The more athletes that come into baseball, the more players there will ultimately be. The existence of minor league systems and the combination of HS and college players makes this issue more complicated than football. The MLB teams can themselves have an effect on the supply of talent by making their minor league teams more effective and increasing the talent supply, or letting them fall into chaos and decreasing the talent supply (baseball, until recently when the NFL bought the old world league and formed NFL Europe, wass the only pro sport where the teams have any direct impact on supply). The popularity of baseball also has a profound effect, because as we all know, some children have great athletic ability and some don't. If the talented children choose to play some other sport, then that effectively lessens the talent supply years down the road as the kids grow up. There are also other ways to increase talent supply. In response to lessened popularity, baseball has gone international, drawing talent from Latin America, Japan, Korea, etc. Recent international expansion of the game has increased the talent pool some, but it's been mostly just compensating for the decreasing popularity of baseball as a sport in the US vs. football, basketball, and soccer (don't throw the tomatos I mean kids soccer). We can see how deep the talent pool in football is when guys signed off the street as undrafted FAs such as Kurt Warner become great players. There's not just average level, but distribution of both talent and payroll to consider. Remember that relative talent level determines who gets paid what in pure free agency, which is the case for players with over 6 years of MLB service time. Now there are lots of FAs every year, but not all of them get huge contracts. If the gap between the best players and the worst is wide, the difference between salaries will be larger. If the gap is narrow, then the difference will be narrower. By the same token, the share of that talent that each team has can be wider or narrower, and that is determined by who spends more on payroll relative to the rest of the league. Since homegrown talent players are cheap, everyone has an unlimited supply of these, but most of them aren't very good and for every one that becomes a contributor there are many that don't, so they are more risky from a quality of play standpoint. Since FAs are proven, more consistent, and expensive, more go to the teams that can afford their high salaries. In any given offseason, the top FAs will get the teams willing to spend that offseason bidding competitively, driving up the price. Sometimes in an offseason, the FA class isn't as good. Sometimes it's better. Salaries inflate when there are more teams bidding on whatever players there are, regardless of skill, and deflate when there are fewer. So, to come to the point of my longwinded argument. In recent years, a few teams have markedly increased their spending while most others have remained fairly stable. The Angels, Cubs, and Nationals (remember what it was like when they were in Montreal), have all had fairly significant payroll increases. The Cubs and Angels moving into the 100+M payroll range is extremely significant because it means that these teams are getting big free agents and driving up salaries competing for them. This is one reason Selig complained about the Cubs spending this offseason. One team spending a ton of money of FAs increases the relative salary levels for everyone as a greater amount of money is spent on the same amount of players and having another team pulling all the FAs away from smaller market tems adds to the competitive gap between teams. Yes folks, after this offseason spending spree, the Cubs will definitely belong in the same category as the Red Sox, Mets, Angels, and Dodgers (not the Yankees, they are playing a whole different game). For what it's worth, I have an MBA so I'm not completely unqualified to talk about this stuff. This is my analysis of the MLB market, and it's my opinion about why salaries have gone up recently. Whoever mentioned that salary inflation is timed with the CBA is also correct. Fewer teams will risk spending a lot of money while there's a possible luxury tax or salary cap hanging over them.

Ah, I've been using that stat for a while now without realizing what it was by mentally subtracting AVG from OBP in my head to see how dependent his OBP is on batting AVG. EDIT: Argh, I just realized I replied to something from 2 years ago.

Is that you, Joe Morgan? :lol:

I agree. If he can't hit the 90's with his FB, he's done for. I think we can all agree that if his velocity stays in the 80's we won't be expecting much from him this year or maybe ever. I might feel differently if he was a multi-pitch guy. But it's basically 2 pitches. If a pitcher is going to succeed as a starter in the majors with 2 pitches, then both need to be "plus." Or so I've been told ;) Does Prior really only have 2 pitches? I thought he threw a fastball, slider, and changeup.

QFT That's the kind of package you give up for an elite player at a high-demand position, say Tejada or ARod.

Wasn't Ichiro discussed at considerable length about a month ago? Ichiro would be a good pickup, but not worth giving up Murton for. Ichiro is basically an older Murton with more speed but less power, who is more expensive now and will get a lot more expensive this offseason. No way do I trade Murton for Ichiro straight up, much less Murton AND Gallagher AND Marshall. Ichiro has played a grand total of 41 games in his career in CF, so there's no guarantee he'd be a better option than Soriano or Jones. It will have to be a lot less than that before the deal looks good for the Cubs. I wouldn't give up Pie, Murton, Veal, or Gallagher. I might deal EPatt, Jones, and one of Marshall/Guzman/Mateo. If it got that low, I'd take a chance on Ichiro being good enough to hold down CF for a year. It would be a rental either way. With Murton and Soriano, I don't see an overpaid Ichiro being in our plans longer than this year.

That would be a good trade for the Cubs, and SD might do it depending on how badly they want out of Walker's deal and what they think of Greene long term (his numbers have been OK but not outstanding). He only has 4 years of service time so he'll be cheap for a while longer. They probably would take Murton, but I think I could live with that. The reason I think this doesn't happen is because I think the Hendry/Dusty regime didn't like TWalk and Hendry wouldn't consider bringing him back.

He obviously doesn't realize that merchandise sales are split between all MLB teams Is that true in Japan as well as the US? Sometimes the rules for things like copyrights are different in different countries and MLB may allow teams to take advantage of that while looking the other way. Also, does the CBA bar teams from doing their own merchandising above and beyond what MLB does?

The more I hear from Piniella, the better I like him. I think his comments are more about the fact that the players are not playing good baseball and smart baseball than about the "talent" level of players in terms of running speed, bat speed, power, etc. To me, this seems like a signal that Dusty's wrongheaded philosophies and lack of coaching important fundamentals like plate discipline and throwing strikes have left the team as a whole in a woeful state. He's realizing that he and his staff have a lot of work to undo everything that Dusty did and change the lackidazical attitude that Dusty inspired in his players. The hardest thing to change in any organization is the culture.

To me, it all depends on how well Soriano is handling CF defensively. I think the Cubs know they already have 2 automatic outs in their lineup when Blanco plays and having a probably inconsistent hitter in CF would put a big hit on our offense. I think they would honestly prefer to go with Soriano in CF and hope Pie can come up as a RF and backup CF initially this season after Jones is traded, knowing that there's not a ton of risk if he does poorly since there's still Murton, Floyd, and Ward on the team. If Soriano shows he can't play CF however, I think all bets are off and it becomes a choice of Jones or Pie in CF, with the likely outcome being a trade of Jones if Pie plays well.

That was a terrible contract regardless of whether he juiced to get it or not. The Angels are probably stuck with this one as it's unlikely anything will ever be proven legally. Don't know who the Angels GM is, but I'd like to introduce him to a definition. Career Year: Noun; The term used in baseball to denote a baseball season in which a baseball player's performance level both far exceeds previous levels, and is unlikely to be repeated. For that matter, maybe we should introduce Hendry to this one also.