CubinNY

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance? The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause. I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing. How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you? Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA. The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith.

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance? The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause. I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing. How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you?

Mac, Jurko and Harry played a soundbite from a brief interview Bruce Levine held with a member of the Hall of Fame board (Jane something) and Joe Morgan. Levine kept calling out Morgan and saying that perhaps the players on the veterans' committee aren't intelligent enough to vote in the right players. Hopefully they make it available on espn1000's website. If Levine actually said that he's earned a gold star in my book for asking a tough question. Making Joe Morgan the Vice Chairman of the committee is a perfect example of what is wrong with the vetrans committee. It's like making Ralphie Wiggum the Mayor.

Why even have a vetrans committee if their sole purpose is to keep people out. No one even came close.

It's bull crap.

Just thinking back to "This Old Cub" when Ronny was waiting for the call... lets hope its a lot different If he gets in I will have to close my office dooor so I can cry in private.

Are we talking about the Jim Hendry who GMs the Cubs? He has a history of signing or trading guys who have little market value for inflated prices.

Partially because he took significantly less than some other pretty crappy pitchers. Partially because there just wasn't any talk about him going elsewhere. It's pretty clear there wasn't a big bidding war for him. I don't see how it's a stretch to say that. It's pretty weird how the entire Rothschild/Marquis off-season dating and love fest occurred. They just happened to meet in Florida. Rothschild was able to spot some things that Duncan couldn't in a matter of minutes. And then viola' Marquis signs with the Cubs. When Marquis was bad he was really bad, but he also had some pretty good games too. I don't expect much good from Marquis, but I do expect Marquis will be a Cub for the entire 2007 season.

I don't think there is any way Patterson ever moves to the outfield. He'll either make it as an IFer or won't make it.

Beer is god's way of telling us he loves us. Get in line and get a good seat. Don't sit in the first row of the bleachers, you won't be able to see. If you want to get a shot at a HR ball sit in between rows 3- 20. I like to sit between CF and LF in the third row. Bring sunscreen, share your peanuts, and don't expect much indepth analysis of the game. I love the bleachers, but they are not for everyone.

It's her mouth and teeth. Sometimes she looks hot, sometimes she looks like she needs to see the dentists, like last week.

Yankee most likely. I agree with the Cardinals fan. I'm not happy about it, but I agree.

In regard to Prior, there is plenty of reason to doubt them. Fool me once shame on me, fool me tiwice,. . . fool, you won't get fooled again?

What if 1.5 is the difference between scouting an area like Asia? Is it worth it then? maybe the money is alocated differently but it has to be included in the overall budget. I'm hitting what you are pitching. I'd take the money Hendry has spent on all the washed up players over the years and put it into scouting and player development. Remember Chad Fox?

Just to set the record straight. Miller didn't have TJS he had a torn labrum. In 2004 he had surgery. Since 2004 he's had two more surgerys. Miller has worked hard and might have been worth a gamble when the Cubs orriginally signed him. I was really hoping he'd be able to make it back, but last year he didn't show much. I guess $1.5 isn't a lot of money in this market, but I don't think it was wise to resign him. Finally, location is important for any pitcher. But for one who is throwing BP fastballs, location is low on the list of worries.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. Now, that's just ridiculous to say. Please tell me more of your fascinating insight.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball. Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value. He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him. What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher. Put the hits and walks together and you get WHIP. To me WHIP is more important than ERA when projecting into the future. http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=568&position=P&page=6&type=full Edit: In additon checkout his BB/9 and K/BB

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball. Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value. He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil: I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made. It's alright Cuse I have him on ignore. I don't believe I've commented on the resigning of Miller after the first year. The only thing I'm hatin' is being called Dude. It reminds me of all the frat boys who use to hang out at the bar I worked. "Dude, she hot" "Dude, no way" "Awe, dude?" "Dude, come on"

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston. Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes. I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

Miller is done.

Send an email to Santo. Someone will read it and someone will probably eamil you back, probably not Santo, but you could get confirmation on the story from its original source.

Vizquel circa 2007 or Vizquel circa 1997? http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=411&playerid2=656&playerid3=&position=SS&page=0&type=full either on would be fine. i was looking at omar's career ba of .276 & ops of .702 though. That would pretty much be a career year for Cesar, not an impossibility but not a probability either.

Vizquel circa 2007 or Vizquel circa 1997? http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=411&playerid2=656&playerid3=&position=SS&page=0&type=full