CubinNY

I don't understand what that means. It looks like one paragraph contradicts the other? :scratch:

Me either, but drinking heavily would probably be involved.

As well as Newsday and the Baltimore Sun. I think one interesting thing will be what happens to the NY Post. Murdock's long coveted Newsday and federal rules prohibits him from owning both. The question becomes who buys the Post, I don't know if Gannett and McClatchy (the two most likely newspaper companies to buy a major market paper) or any other buyer is willing to jump into the New York media bloodbath, I mean market. Paul Sullivan would go from smearing and writing gossip about the Cubs to the Editor's office. He's just the kind of journalist Murdock loves. You have to write a catchy headline.

I look forward to Bill O'Reilly taking over as the Cub President! I'm curious on how MLB is going to take this. Is it a possible conflict of interest? What sort of conflict? This is the sort of thing people were talking about when they warned that simply getting new ownership would not guarantee better ownership. Murdock owning part of the Dodgers and Cubs. Yep....be careful for what you wish for. I don't think Murdock owns part of the Dodgers any longer. But Murdock is all about what he calls "synergy". Owning the network, owning the ballclub, owning the distribution, and on and on. The biggest change would be at the Tribune though. They'd likely become as well respected as the NY Post. It would mark a sea change at the newspaper. Not good.

That's because no one wants Griffey. Griffey for Jones and a prospect? I figure Griffey would be perfect. He would play very well for the first half of the year and then get hurt allowing Pie to get called up. If they could get the Reds to pay the backloaded/deferred money that would be a great trade for the Cubs. I'd even give up one of the top pitching prospects like Marmol. It won't happen though.

I would cry loud, long, and hard if Murdock was a part owner of the Cubs. I might even stop rooting for them. I can't say if I could though, my love is pretty unconditional.

As soon as one team names the player the other team will name that player to be traded back. It's like hot potatoe. :D

But when players haven't produced in the past instead of getting rid of them, he's signed them to more than they are worth. I'm looking at you Glendon and Neifi.

tpl post

dbl pst.

Yeah, but that is why he would be a "short-term" option for CF. Pie will be up by what...July at the latest. So, all the Cubs would need from Pagan is to not embarrassed himself. The problem is that Pagan is very likely to embarass himself, and any GM/manager that let's him play. Then brings guys like Fuld/Walker, etc, etc, to camp and see if one of them can prove to be a "short-term" option in CF. I don't mind going outside the ORG, for immediate help that significantly improves the area of weakness, but that move is to find a 'young, cheap short term option for CF until Pie is ready" that is spedning money, just to spend money. The Cubs have a couple of options in the minors, that would keep the spot warm, until Pie is ready. So, unless the Cubs can land a player like Church, I would rather the Cubs look in house. I think the entire philosphy is wrong. The Cubs don't need a place holder in CF. They're not that good that they can stand one. In additon, I don't like the idea of waiting until Pie is ready. It's clear to me he is not ready, notwithstanding his strong finish in AAA last year. They are hoping he is ready by mid-season or perhaps spring training. I wouldn't bet on it. Once again the Cubs main philsophy seems to be "hope". Hope is the absence of planning and why the Cubs have not done well since 2004. I'm not promoting the notion of a placeholder myself. I'm just saying Pagan in CF would be awful. CubinNY, I also hate the idea of waiting on Pie. It's way too similar to Hendry's past ideas of hoping for Miller and Prior in May, and waiting for the trading deadline to make his moves instead of fielding the best team possible before the season starts. I don't have great faith in Pie, but they might as well start with him in center in April if they really think he'll be ready by June. The idea that he'll become ready with a couple months more of AAA is silly. I agree. If I were Hendry I get the best players I could get for the postions of need. If Pie shows he is ready then the Cubs have a guy they can trade to fill another need. There is no law against have too much talent.

Yeah, but that is why he would be a "short-term" option for CF. Pie will be up by what...July at the latest. So, all the Cubs would need from Pagan is to not embarrassed himself. The problem is that Pagan is very likely to embarass himself, and any GM/manager that let's him play. Then brings guys like Fuld/Walker, etc, etc, to camp and see if one of them can prove to be a "short-term" option in CF. I don't mind going outside the ORG, for immediate help that significantly improves the area of weakness, but that move is to find a 'young, cheap short term option for CF until Pie is ready" that is spedning money, just to spend money. The Cubs have a couple of options in the minors, that would keep the spot warm, until Pie is ready. So, unless the Cubs can land a player like Church, I would rather the Cubs look in house. I think the entire philosphy is wrong. The Cubs don't need a place holder in CF. They're not that good that they can stand one. In additon, I don't like the idea of waiting until Pie is ready. It's clear to me he is not ready, notwithstanding his strong finish in AAA last year. They are hoping he is ready by mid-season or perhaps spring training. I wouldn't bet on it. Once again the Cubs main philsophy seems to be "hope". Hope is the absence of planning and why the Cubs have not done well since 2004.

Because Pagan is not an everyday player. One of the more interesting stories that I will be watching is the amount of play that Murton receives if Floyd is signed. It seems to me that the Cubs want more pop in the lineup. I think Murton has the bat speed by he may need to change his swing to generate lift. I don't want to see a platoon at all, but if Murton struggles he will get the quick hook.

Exactly. Selig has done a lot of good as an executive for MLB. However, he also bilked the city of Milwakee out of a lot of money on the new park and managed to run a once good franchies into the ground. He's a business man who focuses on the bottom line. He and Jeff Loria have a lot in common.

I don't know about the rankings. I think they are subjective. But the comments are right on the money for each GM. I do think Cashman is better than he is percieved to be. Anyone who can manage the NY media and Steinbrenner's Tampa group is pretty damn good.

Len has a great rock voice.

Soriano has a strong enough arm to play CF, he just hasn't played it before (that I know of). In Wrigley CF may be slightly easier than either right or left feild. I am hoping he takes a lot of fungo during ST.

Guessing makes it sounds as if it's just picking possibilities out of a hat. Scouts will assign a different ceiling for a player, it's an arbitrary system based on the opinion and knowledge of the scout. Not recognizing their efforts and intelligence towards a logical conclusion (ceiling) would be similar to saying teaching methods while different are basically shots in the dark as far as effectiveness and a guess as to whether or not it will work with kids. It's very important to grade their ceiling, especially kids that haven't fully developed, the younger you go, the more important it becomes compared to where he is in the present. If you draft a HS kid, you're more concerned with how good he'll be 5 years from now moreso than how good he is now and if he has the tools and tangibles to get there. Players are mostly graded on their tools as well as the intangibles. Ceiling (projection tools) factors greatly in drafting a kid as did his signability and intangibles. I don't know why Farnsworth was drafted when he was, it went to some Georgia agriculture school so exposure could've been limited, he might not have shown anything beyond a straight FB, or his FB could've been topping at 90 and straight and been reworked once drafted. Hard to say why with so many potential reasons. You are absolutely right. Good scouts can make a difference just as good teaching practices can make a difference. However, I think good player development people are probably more important. Nevertheless, potential or ceiling is an unknowable, but I certianly would want good people to help pick talent. Be that as it may, when I hear people here write about a player like Jake Fox, Ryan Theriot or Angel Guzman's ceiling I cringe.

Ok. So could we call it a best guess? It seems as though some talk of ceiling as a finite entity, as if it actually exists. For example, I would think that my elementary school teachers and probably many of my highschool teachers would have said my career ceiling was dishwaser at TGIF, that didn't make it so. From my limited reading much is made of a minor leaguer's ceiling. However, if so few live up to their ceiling how important a judgment is it? All players are drafted on thier potential, no? Is that what a ceiling is? If so, (going back to my first post) dose draft slot matter. I think it would, at least in the higher rounds. Let's take Farnsworth for example, he was drafted in the 40th round or something like that. Was he drafted that low in spite of his ceiling or because of his ceiling?

An objective anchor is smething tangible that the label is tied to. For instance, Mental retardation is tied to IQ scores and adaptive skills. However, Learning Disability is not tied to any objective anchor. Instead most states use a discrepency critiea between IQ socres and achievement. What is ceiling tied to? How is it projected. How accurate? Do players break their ceiling? If a player with a low ceiling makes it to the bigs does that mean that the imposed ceiling was wrong? If a player who supposedly has a high ceiling doesn't make it and wasn't injured was the ceiling wrong? Or did the player not live up to his ceiling? If so why? Or is projecting "ceilings" non-sesnsical BS scoutspeak?

When I read what scouts say about prospects inevitably they talk about a player's "ceiling". What is a ceiling? To me it is a tottaly subjective projection of where a player should end up. I don't much care for the projection. Does it have objective anchors? What is the difference between ceiling and toolsy? Can a player be toolsy but have a low ceiling? Can a player not be toolsy and have a high ceiling? Does it have to do with where the player is drafted? To me it is scoutspeak nonsense.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, part of the excitement is that he's as good as he is even though he's never pitched a full season. In high school, he was an OF. What you see now is a draft pick that has only been pitching part time for a few years while primarily training for a different sport that was able to step into SS-A and A-ball and get excellent results. He was able to learn very quickly a feel for a changeup and is able to get good spin on a slider, though he needs to be more consistent with it. He's a tremendous athlete for a pitcher which is commonly believed to assist with repeatability of motion. He's got a great "pitcher's body". Oh yeah, and he throws hard. And while he's "raw" for a college pitcher, he's still more advanced than an 18-year old straight out of HS. But he's not 18. Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread with my skepticism. I'm not really down on Samardjia. I kind of have a "show me" attitude. I hope all the hype is deserved.

I am certianly no expert when it comes to prospects, heck I wouldn't even attempt to rank the Cubs prospects. However, I don't really get all the Samardjia love from everyone. Just like everything with ND I think he is way over-hyped. Everything I've read says he is "raw". From what I've gatherd it reads to me like he has a good fastball but his secondary pitches are a work in progress and he's 22. He's pitched what, seven games in professional baseball? None above low A. In addition has he played a full season of baseball since highschool? I guess I can't get too excited until I see how he does this year.

That is exactly what I would do, roughly the same amount of money for less years. I'd give him a NTC and, an out clause, a paid membership to Mr. Skin, and pretty much anything else he wants.

Colbert has a set of brass balls the size of Rhode Island. First he shows O'Reilly's book with a 30% off sticker of O'Reilly's face and says they have great deals at Barn's and Nobble. Then he mocks he mocks O'Reilly at every turn. It was great.