CubinNY

Yes. He is now the manager of the Giants.

That Louisville WVU score tells me that neither team can handle the big boys. No defense.

Not true - on both counts. I'm just going by what on your avatar. And it is true.

I agree. People are being way too anal about that comparison and missing goony's very valid point because of it. There's nothing anal about it. There's a huge difference. The insurance that Aramis had makes him unlikely to sign another contract unless Hendry just felt like giving money away. You only sign another deal if it's better than what you have (more money and years). Ramirez had over 30MM coming his way and DLee had nothing guaranteed. You think Hendry was going to offer him more than 3/33M he had left at that point (not to mention the option tacked on at the end)? Get real. BTW, I don't remember having heard or read of anyone saying we should get Ramirez to sign another contract pre-empting the use of that opt out clause. NO ONE. 20/20 hindsight is great. I do remember loads of people complaining about that opt out clause. People saw what was coming. Aramis would play his 2 years, opt for FA if he played well, and get more money. The only way he stays with us for the life of that contract is if he underperforms. Crappy contract for the Cubs. Great for Ramirez. you've only been on this site since Aug 21st. People were talking about it at this time last year.

You clearly don't understand what comparable means. It does not mean exactly the same. I brought up Lee because of the statement that free agents never sign early. Comparable? Yes. A good comparison? No. Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency. Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him. Both would have been free agents at the end of the season. A good compaision, I think so.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that? Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team. I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit. The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage. That's a different argument then. Sure, people on the bench who can hit are more valuable, and players should not be kept on the roster who are seen as only defensive replacements. If they are on a roster though and a team is up late, there is value in a defensive replacement-just not nearly as much usually as an offensive player on the bench. People thought you were arguing originally that a defensive replacemnt in-game is never a good move instead of the value between an offensively minded bench guy and a defensively minded bench guy. That is exactly what I'm saying. Baseball is a game of %. Having a guy on your bench simply becuase he is a good glove is never a good idea. the opportunity costs are just too high over the long haul.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that? Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team. I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit. The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage.

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive. Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie. I also don't think this is just about the money. If the Cubs go to Aramis and tell him they want him around and would like to work out an extension before the opt-out clause kicks in, I think he talks. The Cubs might not have liked to hear what he said, but at least they are talking. Now Hendry is holding none of the cards.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings? A team needs guys on the bench who have some pop and can hit a fastball. And they need a backup catcher. Anyone else can be brought up.

Len should write an Op-Ed piece for the Tribune sports page.

aaaaaaaaaahh.....Hershal Walker..the one name that can absolutely kill any Viking fan's arguement....lol I'm a Vikings fan, that's why I brought it up.

Can you go 1 day without posting an Iraq/Bush reference on a baseball message board? Just checking. :wink: I was just pointing out it is not only sports. BTW>Someone has to do it, becuase the media is too lazy. We are at war and American's are dying (at an average of more than 3/day last month) and all they can talk about is John F. Kerry's stupid attempt at humor. With Aramis they are taking a minor flaw and parroting it as if it is a defining characteristic. He's been the most productive Cub player for three years and all they can talk about is running out grounders and fly balls. I think the FJM blog is over the top at times, but with the Aramis blog they were right on the money.

Lately I've given it more thought, but I've really gone 180 on the Tribune. I might be in the minority here, but I don't mind the current ownership. They've pretty much done everything I would like an owner to do. What I mean is that, they haven't won or put up a consistent winner, but I don't think it is from lack of trying. They've put money back into the team and they've let the "baseball people" make the baseball decisions. If there is one thing I could criticize it would be that they've let the baseball people make poor decisions for too long. I really fear what might happen if an owner buys the Cubs as a vanity acquisition. Jerry Jones got lucky when he hired Jimmy Johnson. And Jimmy got lucky that Minnesota was stupid. There are far worse owners than the Tribune Co. in professional sports.

Thanks for checking in, Bruce! I admitted that it's highly unlikely that Hendry has anything to do with the volume of anti-Aramis articles in the papers and reoprts on the radio, but the frequency of it all is just amazing to me. I know you said a lot of media aren't sabermetrically clued in, so to speak, but Aramis isn't a player you need to look at deep stats to see the value of. He puts up big numbers in the traditional "triple crown" stats. I just don't get the articles ignoring all of his positive contributions. How bad with the media must he be, then! That is exactly right. No slight to Bruce, but these articles are examples of lazy journalism. Marriotti is typical of this type of journalism, as is Mike Lupica. They write the esay story and don't delve into the facts or tell the reader anything they might not already know or be predisposed to think. It's not just sports, it's this type of journalism that helped us get into Iraq.

The Orioles and Rangers could have interest. Jim Duquette sounds like Jim Hendry.

Jones like Soriano has to prove he can play CF. I think Soriano has the better tools to play CF over Jones. As far as Lee, how long till he eats himself into playing DH/1B? He's not that much better than M. Ramirez right now defensively. Speaking of, is there any chance of acquiring Ramirez this offseason? That would be nice. I always have liked Manny. hahaha. I thought he was talking about Aramis. I guess I should read the referenced post.

He made 30 starts and threw 211 innings in 2003. He was on the DL that year too. Which means he has never pitched in a full season without being hurt. Plenty of people who aren't hurt throw less than 30 starts or 211 IP. It's really nitpicking to say he didn't pitch a full season. He hasn't pitched in a full season without being hurt. IF he didnt get hurt in 03, then he would have pitched in a full season. He missed a month of baseball because of that injury. That is about the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while. Prior was hurt in a freak accident and then pitched with a bad leg down the stretch, and pitched well. It's petty.

I don't think so. I think there is no way Aramis signs before the Nov. 11 deadline. I think he is going to see what he can get and see if Hendry will match the offer. My guess is that Hendry doesn't because there is a lot of money to spend of free-agents this year and not a lot of talent on the market, especially at 3rd base. I think a team with less holes with throw big, big dollars Aramis's way.

Now that is a blockbuster!

I could see an Adam Dunn for Bonderman trade. They could use him at 1st and as a DH. If I'm Detriot, I'd be all over that.

Well, they seem to really like Colvin. That's good. The ND dude, I won't get excited about until I see where he's drafted. If he's a first rounder I think he plays football.

How about giving him a Beltre or Lee like contract? If the Cubs knew he was going to opt out, why not "give him an offer he can't refule" to keep the Godfather refernce going? Hendry is playing with fire here. And I was upset in 2005 when the contract was announced. I hope the Cubs resign him, but I don't like the odds.

Bruce, I understand what you are saying. However, at the same time I can't help but wonder why? If Aramis wants to stay in Chicago If Hendry wants Aramis to stay in Chicago Then, shouldn't they have worked out the parameters of a contract before this? I mean, holy crist, he's only been the most productive Cub player for the last three years (combined). What is the problem? He's 28, he's arguably one the best players at his position in MLB, and he's publically stated he wants to be in Chicago. I can't help but panic.

I've said it before, but anyone who gives Soriano a five year deal will have very expensive 36 year-old player. I don't mind giving younger players longer contracts but Soriano will already be on the wrong side of 30 when he signs his next deal. I don't think I like it unless the contract is heavily front-loaded.