CubinNY

only if The Macarena and Mambo No. 5 are taken You took the words right out of my mouth. I know some of them have been jokes, but a lot of people (both here and in the comments of that blog) have had some horrific choices for closer songs. That would be Meatloaf. Are you suggesting this song. That would be great too.

I'm not sure who this is aimed at, but that's my policy as well. If someone tells me something is "take it or leave it" or a deal-breaker and I find out later it's not, their credibility is gone. I don't know if anyone has suggested Jim should have used a "take it or leave it" strategy. But someone suggested that the offer was made 3 months ago and has been sitting out there open this whole time and others (including me) think Jim's insane if that's what he did. You obviously haven't been reading the Roberts thread then. No one has answered why this is an "insane" strategy. And there are only two options Option 1: This is my offer it will be good for such and such a date. (the take it or leave it, man up option) Option 2: This is my offer, see if you can beat it and get back to me. (the "insane" option)

Hustle and fundamental adeptness are certainly desirable values in an athlete. I believe the issues arise when these characteristics are deemed "the right way" to play the game by the Old Guard. Stat oriented individuals gravitate towards events which have a quantifiable effect on winning ballgames. The establishments emphasis on playing the game "the right way" has very little measurable correlation to victories. I believe this is where the two sides often clash. Great first post!

Here guys....a quote from Bruce Almight's lastest column over at the herald. That's the reason why they signed Johnson, because of the "grit factor." Have fun guys. You should have your eyes checked, pronto!!!! I read it as Bruce making a joke about the grit, and how the Cubs want that, while pointing out that they also need his OBP. Thanks for getting it, Jersey. I think it's OK to inject a little humor now and then. Hey Bruce, any news on Roberts? Just kidding. BTW> I love your humor and the little jabs at the brain trust.

That would be absolutely awesome. This sound would be great too.

Dusty will pay no attention to what others are doing and do what he's always done. He's impervious to reason. He's probably the closest thing to what Joe Morgan would be like as a manager.

Yes, actually. There's a significant school of thought in negotiation theory that says the ONLY power in a negotiation comes from the willingness to walk away from the deal. When the original offer is not accepted and you demonstrate your willingness to walk away, you increase your power. By leaving it on the table, you are demonstrating your lack of desire to walk away and weaken your position. That's only the case where the two opponents are in an equal position. This is nothing like that case. I can see no way Hendry's position is weakened by saying this is what we have to offer, see if you can find a better one. when someone is making a high pressure pitch, most of the time the right thing to do is walk away. Okay... when you enter the negotiations from roughly equal bargaining position, that basically simply means that each party is equally willing to walk away. How else do you gain power in a negotiation? In a real sense that is exactly what Hendry has done (if he's done that). Here is what I have to offer. If you can beat it good for you, if not come and see me. It's his MO, give the best offer and see if they take it.

In what business school would such a useless strategy be taught? Only someone trying to sell something that is hot or who is desperate does such a thing. Ever read a book on negotiation theory? It would seem you haven't. I'd recommend "Getting to Yes" by a group of authors representing, iirc, Harvard. I've read plenty.

Yes, actually. There's a significant school of thought in negotiation theory that says the ONLY power in a negotiation comes from the willingness to walk away from the deal. When the original offer is not accepted and you demonstrate your willingness to walk away, you increase your power. By leaving it on the table, you are demonstrating your lack of desire to walk away and weaken your position. That's only the case where the two opponents are in an equal position. This is nothing like that case. I can see no way Hendry's position is weakened by saying this is what we have to offer, see if you can find a better one. when someone is making a high pressure pitch, most of the time the right thing to do is walk away.

Pie was never platooned in the minors, though. Nor do I think he was platooned early in his winter-league stints. So if his farm and winter stints so large and somewhat consistent splits, it may be harder to blame them on sample size or opportunity. I don't know how Pie's career will play out. He got a couple of hits versus LHP the other day, and my impression was that while he was bad versus LHP this winter league, he was actually even worse versus RHP. So maybe he's going to be fine or no worse versus lefties than versus righties. I don't know. But there are numerous LH hitters who don't hit LHP well, even when afforded extended opportunities. It's hardly "old school" ignorance to recognize that not-uncommon reality. Will Pie be one of them? I don't know. But it's certainly possible. And even if we knew right now that Pie was going to spend his career as an .850-OPS guy versus RHP but a .680-guy versus LHP, a guy who should rightfully play his career in a platoon if used right, I don't think that being "only" a platoon guy should mean we should trade him right now. A good lefty platoon player is very valuable. Pie's had a grand total of 58ABs againt LHP in MLB.

In what business school would such a useless strategy be taught? Only someone trying to sell something that is hot or who is desperate does such a thing.

Huh? What's the sample size issue? I made a lot of statements in there. Which one was based on a bad sample size? what's BS about it? some guys simply don't hit same-handed pitching as well as they hit opposite-handed pitching. see jock jones as a good example, and his sample size is huge. No one is going to have exactly equal splits. The extent to which the splits are different can be a function of a lot of things. For someone like Pie, Granderson, and Hawp (Hawp and Granderson are terrible comparisons btw, as they weren't platooned). They probably are more of a function of sample size. The splits become even more pronounced with the lack of opportunity. It becomes a self fulfilling thing. For someone like JJ it is different as is his value to an organization.

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot. I don't like the idea of a platoon partner for Pie. Letting him play only against LHers is not giving him a fair shot. The Cubs have to let him play. This is the same tired old story year after god forsaken year with the Cubs. Wait . . . you mean RHers, right?? And since that's the majority of pitchers, I'd say that IS a fair shot for Pie. Rest him against LHers (that he's going to do poorly against anyway)and put him in positions that he may well excel in . . . Yea I meant RHers. Thanks for the clarification. A platoon is not a good idea for the development of young player aside from it being a terrible waste of assets. How is Pie going to get better if he never (or rarely) faces LH pitching? They might as well trade him while his value is high b/c once he get the "platoon" label he will fetch pennies on the dollar. There are several LH hitters who continually are in platoons. Curtis Granderson got sat down by Detroit against about half the left-handers they faced last year. Brad Hawpe was benched against over half of the left-handers Colorado faced. There are many, many more with significant splits...productive players who get platooned. Pie isn't likely to become a decent option against left-handed pitching. It's certainly possible, but he's very likely to become the latest left-hander in the major leagues who has a huge split difference. Give him half the bats against left-handers. If he suddenly becomes much better, give him more. He has a much better chance of succeeding in this league if he doesn't play against most of the left-handers, and he can still be a very productive player starting 135 games as Granderson and Hawpe do. And that's a bunch of bs. It's a sample size issue that old-timey baseball minds can't get there brain around.

So you make an offer. If it isn't accepted, you say "I still have interest, so if you ever figure out what you're going to do, give me a call." You don't leave the offer on the table. If you said that to MacPhail and he came back at the end of ST and said "ok we agree to (whatever it is that you offered)". Do you say, "not so fast, we are now only offering this (a lessor package")? Or do you say we have a deal?

Okay, next time you want to buy a house, put an offer down and let them sit on it as long as possible. It has nothing to do with manning up. It has everything to do with not being a fool in negotiations. If you are the only viable buyer it can be a good strategy. Here's my offer, I'm in no hurry, if you find a better offer take it and good luck to you, but I'm not bidding against myself. At that point whether you say the offer is on or off the table is irrelevant. Sometimes the other party needs more time to realize there's not going to be a better offer. Funny you should mention that. That is exactly what happened with us. We went looking for a house (this is when houses were still selling quickly). We found one on a fishing pond but the house needed some updating and we would have had to install a fence for our dogs. We made an offer to the lady. She said she didn't like it. We thought it was fair and said that was our offer. I told the agent that we would keep it there. The agent got kind of pissed as asked if we were going to counter. I told him no. I told him to call me if they reconsider. A month later he called me back, but we'd already put money down on some property.

Negotiation 101. If Hendry made an offer 3 months ago and kept it on the table, he's a bigger moron that I thought. Yeah, but once again, I don't think we really know that sort of thing. We're just hearing media jabber, it doesn't necessarily match up with the details of what happened behind the scenes. Well I'm not the one who said this is what happened. Cubinny seems to think all the Roberts talk is fan/media nonsense, and that Hendry made one offer a few months ago and left it on the table. I'm saying I doubt that is the case because it would be incredibly stupid. Why do you doubt it is the case? It's Hendry's exact MO. During the Maddux nonsense a couple of years ago that is exactly what Hendry did. He gave Maddux an offer and let it set until Maddux found a better one or signed with the Cubs. I don't have any more knowledge than the next fan (this side of BigBird) but it seems to me (by reading the actual news reports) Hendry hasn't significantly changed his offer, nor has he walked away. You may call it stupid, but that doesn't make it so. What good does walking away do for Hendry? I guess he can say that he really showed MacPhail by walking away, but then he doesn't get the player he wants. MacPhail may be shopping Roberts but can't get the deal he wants. He'll either come back to Hendry or Roberts won't be traded. In either case Hendry is not stupid for leaving the offer out there. It's only a stupid strategy if doing it precludes doing anything else he'd want to do. That doesn't seem to be the case. Or it's only a stupid thing to do if one has a false sense of manhood. You could call it the "man up" argument.

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot. I don't like the idea of a platoon partner for Pie. Letting him play only against LHers is not giving him a fair shot. The Cubs have to let him play. This is the same tired old story year after god forsaken year with the Cubs. Wait . . . you mean RHers, right?? And since that's the majority of pitchers, I'd say that IS a fair shot for Pie. Rest him against LHers (that he's going to do poorly against anyway)and put him in positions that he may well excel in . . . Yea I meant RHers. Thanks for the clarification. A platoon is not a good idea for the development of young player aside from it being a terrible waste of assets. How is Pie going to get better if he never (or rarely) faces LH pitching? They might as well trade him while his value is high b/c once he get the "platoon" label he will fetch pennies on the dollar. Bit a platoon COULD help him ease into MLB pitching better, and PERHAPS reach the potential we all hope he has. Lefties just kill him, so I guess I don't have a problem with putting him in positions where the odds are in his favor . . . I guess I have a hard time seeing how having him NOT face MLB left handed pitching could help him ease into a situation where he feels comfortable facing MLB left handed pitching. My thinking is that he either is or is not going to be able to hit major league pitching, trying to protect him isn't going to help him one bit.

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot. I don't like the idea of a platoon partner for Pie. Letting him play only against LHers is not giving him a fair shot. The Cubs have to let him play. This is the same tired old story year after god forsaken year with the Cubs. Wait . . . you mean RHers, right?? And since that's the majority of pitchers, I'd say that IS a fair shot for Pie. Rest him against LHers (that he's going to do poorly against anyway)and put him in positions that he may well excel in . . . Yea I meant RHers. Thanks for the clarification. A platoon is not a good idea for the development of young player aside from it being a terrible waste of assets. How is Pie going to get better if he never (or rarely) faces LH pitching? They might as well trade him while his value is high b/c once he get the "platoon" label he will fetch pennies on the dollar.

Negotiation 101. If Hendry made an offer 3 months ago and kept it on the table, he's a bigger moron that I thought. That's just a ridiculous statement. How does it hurt? In what way does it negatively impact a team in Spring Training? This isn't some team sport where a wide receiver and QB have to get their timing down. Hendry could have left the offer on the table and still attempted to make other deals. If one of the players is included in another deal, so what? I'm not trying to defend Hendry here, I don't see the point of trading for Roberts. But the idea that Hendry is somehow being played as a sucker is just testosterone filled foolishness.

on some cases they have ridiculous self-inflicted mandatets, in others they let trades drag on for the better part of four months. I think you (by that I don't necessarily mean you specifically, but fans/news media) have let it drag on. My thinking the Cubs made an offer and left it on the table. The rest is mental masturbation by fans and the media. You'd have to be a complete moron to leave an offer on the table that long. And why is that? It's not like any of those players are going anywhere unless a trade is done. I fault Hendry for a lot of things, trying his best to make a trade isn't one of them.

on some cases they have ridiculous self-inflicted mandatets, in others they let trades drag on for the better part of four months. I think you (by that I don't necessarily mean you specifically, but fans/news media) have let it drag on. My thinking the Cubs made an offer and left it on the table. The rest is mental tantric masturbation by fans and the media.

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot. I don't like the idea of a platoon partner for Pie. Letting him play only against LHers is not giving him a fair shot. The Cubs have to let him play. This is the same tired old story year after god forsaken year with the Cubs.

Vitters: Those are useless words. The guy is talking about a session of batting practice. We talkin' 'bout practice? The report reads like a cheap romance novel.

What's funny is that you think that a player should have to win or lose a job during ST.