jjgman21

another tangential effect of this and the Lilly deal is it allows the Cubs to trade away some minor league pitching without worrying about the depth chart. A trade or two before April is inevitable.

His ERA, minus 2 awful performances, would be 5.12 unless I did the math wrong EDIT I did the math wrong the first time, answer is right now Not directed towards you Rocket, but I've never understood this concept. If you take away his real bad performances and chalk them up to he had a bad day, what happens with a real good performance? Honestly, could someone take away his 3 outing where he allowed 2 ER thru 24IP and then try and formulate something from it? 6.76 for those scoring at home. Well, my point was that he wouldn't have given up that many runs in normal circumstances, so the ERA isn't really reflective of his season. The Cardinals had no choice but to leave Marquis in there against the White Sox that day (and against Atlanta, I'm assuming). He took one for the team big time. there was a thread a couple months back when the Cards re-upping Marquis was a rumor where a Card fan defended him on this same basis. the way I looked at it was what his ERA would have been if he was pulled at the right time in the game, but for resting the bullpen. it didn't dip the ERA as much but it still put a dent in it. the next question is which of the 6-7 inning affairs went the same way, Marquis being left in when he rightfully should have been pulled.

EDIT: With the Tribune reporting that it's 3/20 and not 3/28, UK proves to be smarter than me, yet again. :D For me, it's the years moreso than dollars per year, it's a big risk to assume that Marquis takes that step forward to where he was. A similar pitcher to me to Marquis is Ramon Ortiz. Decent a couple of years ago has declined, he's 5 years older than Marquis but does not the baggage of being unable to work with coaches. Like Marquis, he's a flat 4 seam FB pitcher with an inconsistent slider who's often up in the zone way too much. I'd be willing to gamble that the salary difference will be greater than the difference in production between the two. nonetheless, can a mod change the thread as to make the deal as digestable as possible for the masses?

he did a nice job last offseason. I've said it many times. "bought low" on Dye is one way to put it. "getting lucky" is another. Dye was a stop gap that turned into gold. Jacque Jones on steroids so to speak. Loaiza for Contreras may seem like some huge improvement to you, but dollar for dollar is was essentially a lateral move. Uribe for Miles...I guess that says something when that is one of the moves you point to in defense of your GM. Jenks was a solid move, put still a blind dart that happened to find the dartboard. Iguchi was a nice move as well. the trade for Garcia, not bad look, the guy took a team that scored 865 runs and turned them into a team that scored 741 runs. to put that into context, the 2006 Cubs scored 716 in the NL. the fact that virtually the entire pitching staff all had career years and the Sox won 8 more games than expected based on runs scored/allowed means nothing to you in evaluating the job he did, eh?

and if he doesn't we may just be talking once again about the Kenny Williams that did the Todd Ritchie deal instead of giving credit to the guy that got lucky with virtually his entire 2005 roster.

damn. it's addictive. after that, with Pie available, him and the Brewers choice of Guzman/Gallagher/Veal and Dempster for Bill Hall. move Soriano back to second, and sign Aubrey Huff. Line Up Soriano DeJesus Lee Aram Huff (DeRosa v. lefties, batting in the eight hole) Barrett Hall Murton Bench Ward Huff/DeRosa Blanco Theriot Pagan keep Sweeney?

I would definitely do that. But I'm 99.9% sure that Moore would want some top prospects from us in return. I'm usually not into speculating on potential trades, but I've wanted DeJesus in Cubbie blue for quite some time, so I decided to give this some thought. I don't think it would take a whole lot of prospects if we gave the Royals something else they need, especially after their recent "spree," and that is payroll relief. it's no secret that the Royals have been trying to unload Sweeney for a long time. it just so happens that the Cubs are one of the teams that Sweeney can't reject a trade to. there's only one year left on his deal, so it's not the risk taking on Sweeney that it was in years past. one bad part is Sweeney's contract expands to 12.5M if he is traded. another thing the Cubs can offer is a player to fill a position that the Royals are royally screwed at, shortstop. Moore inherited the absolutely pathetic deal for Berroa. now I wouldn't be willing to take on Berroa, but the Royals need to find some other solution at short, because Berroa makes Neifi look like a legit major league player. at the same time, the Cubs have strength at one of the Royals biggest weakness, relief pitching. so perhaps you could get away dealing to them with this surplus of major league players while not dealing away much in terms of prospects. so in sum, the deal looks something like this: Ohman or Cotts/Mateo or Marshal/Jones/Izturis/$2M for Sweeney and Dejesus. now I know that taking on a poor bang for buck salary like Sweeney would give many pause, but there are two ways to mitigate his contract. first, DeJesus is extended through 2010 at very favorable terms for what he can do already, much less for what he might become. second, another team Sweeney can't block a trade to is the Angels, who were absolutely horrid at first and DH last year. eat a chunk of the salary and spin off Sweeney to the Angels for whatever (Caesar's half brother Maicer?). with a long term solution in center in place, you can now trade Pie for short or other areas of need.

and a couple of space shuttles.

For a ex-decent prospect? Jones has more value than that. I know if I were the GM I would try to get the best available player for Jones. I wouldn't trade Jacque to trade Jacque. Lofton SHOULD NOT be considered an every day player. And no way in hell would I pay him 6 million. If he is willing to take 2 million then I would consider it. Hendry didn't help out Jones' value by saying he would be open to trading Jones to any other team. you know, this has been refuted. Hendry never said that or expressed anything but a willingness to make a trade to improve the team, but you keep going to that well repeatedly. Hendry's made enough mistakes. you don't need to make crap up or keep throwing out some unnamed source in an unattributed article to bash him. Repeatedly? This is the first time I mentioned that. I took my information from that thread. I don't know how I am making up "crap." perhaps I mistook you for someone else, but if you got your info from that thread, perhaps you need to read it again. maybe then you will understand my "crap" assessment.

This doesn't apply to Campusano. It's really strange that the Blue Jays took Jason Smith when he was availble as a free agent about a month ago. why is Holdzkom different than other Rule 5 picks? teams don't usually have to roster drafted players after they are returned, do they?

For a ex-decent prospect? Jones has more value than that. I know if I were the GM I would try to get the best available player for Jones. I wouldn't trade Jacque to trade Jacque. Lofton SHOULD NOT be considered an every day player. And no way in hell would I pay him 6 million. If he is willing to take 2 million then I would consider it. Hendry didn't help out Jones' value by saying he would be open to trading Jones to any other team. you know, this has been refuted. Hendry never said that or expressed anything but a willingness to make a trade to improve the team, but you keep going to that well repeatedly. Hendry's made enough mistakes. you don't need to make crap up or keep throwing out some unnamed source in an unattributed article to bash him.

not so tough anymore considering Pettitt's deal includes a second year of 16M at that players option. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Aq50tkNw5m37pko9MpM6YEE5nYcB?slug=ap-yankees-pettitte&prov=ap&type=lgns

I just caught a little bit of Rothschild on WGN radio while on an errand to the store. apparently the Cubs got to talking to Marquis because shortly after the end of the season, Marquis rang up Maddux, and Maddux recommended Marquis to Rothschild. shortly thereafter Marquis auditioned for Rothschild. Larry said there was mutual interest, but didn't really sound on fire about acquiring Marquis. not sure what it might mean, but Greg Maddux is one helluva reference when applying for the position of baseball player. I wonder what he sees that we don't. anyone else hear the rest of the interview and have a summary, if not here than in its own thread somewhere? I only caught the tail end and post interview where Kap was going on and on about how everyone he talks to, including Maddux and several baseball people he talked to at the winter meetings all say Rothschild is the very best.

thanks for the info Hoops. maybe those Tums will start to take effect now. don't want him as a Cub, but that is livable.

Pretty much everything Jim has done this winter has given me, and a lot of others, that he is determined to trade Jones. Except that he hasn't done or said anything with respect to Jones other than cryptic GM-speak. This is a media driven issue alone. No it isn't. He signed a guy to play Jones's position. He's said he tries to accomodate players who request trades, and insinuated that he knows Jacque doesn't want to be here. He's talked about getting other LH OF help, and has stated repeatedly that Murton will remain. And there are other baseball people out there saying that Jim seems intent on dealing Jones. That's not media driven. Just because he didn't come out and say, "I am going to trade Jacque Jones this winter" doesn't mean he hasn't done or said anything with respect to Jones being dealt. It seems pretty clear to me Jones won't be back. The odds are heavily in the favor of a trade. I don't think Jacque will be around, but that's some pretty selective choices of factoids from a myriad of other factoids you use to build your case. there have been equal reports of which position Soriano will play. I don't recall him saying anything about 'accomodation,' nor do I know where you get anything about Hendry insinuating Jones wants out. he's talked about getting leftfield help and built up Murton, but never said Murton was his full time leftfielder and speculation about where his desire for more left handed hitting will play goes to taking away Murton's PT as much as anywhere. but yes, there was one unidentified baseball source who allegedly said 'Jones for anything.' you can selectively pull from the volumes of reports and quotes throughout an offseason to draw any conclusion. certainly what you point to above would not pass any reasonable burden of proof to conclude Hendry is "determined" to deal Jones, especially when faced with equal or greater evidence to the contrary. now I will admit there are signs that the Cubs are willing to move Jones and looking at various offers, but I don't know how you draw the 'determined' conclusion here and not for any and every player that is rumored to be on the trading block. but even if these rumors do somehow go beyond normal trade whispers. I think people should consider the possability that Jones in fact is demanding a trade and the Cubs have done a pretty damn good job of keeping a lid on it to keep his value up, despite Hendry's co-workers (the writers at the Trib) attempts to blow it open and shoot the company they work for in the foot.

fricken Havlat. get back already. two close games like this, he probably makes the difference between 2 points and 4 points.

I suppose that's one way to frame it. another is to say that his OPS at the ASB was .878 and his OPS on August 31 was .871. And at the end of the year? he slumped at the end. no doubt about it. not surprising for a guy who played 40% more that during any other season of his career. but you keep trying to talk about a 'terrible second half' like it was three sustained months of crappitude. it was not. it was one month of total crapitude. guys have slumps. I try not to use that as a basis to sum up what a player is or can be at a given point of time. Okay, "terrible" second half is an overstatement. But his OPS dropped by 122 points in the second half. His overall numbers were clearly a creation of his first half, not his second half. see my post above. his numbers were clearly a creation of four months of solid production. he had an OPS of 920 for the month of August. And .722 for July and .590 for Sept. Which adds up to a distinctly mediocre second half. fair enough. sign Todd Walker.

I suppose that's one way to frame it. another is to say that his OPS at the ASB was .878 and his OPS on August 31 was .871. And at the end of the year? he slumped at the end. no doubt about it. not surprising for a guy who played 40% more that during any other season of his career. but you keep trying to talk about a 'terrible second half' like it was three sustained months of crappitude. it was not. it was one month of total crapitude. guys have slumps. I try not to use that as a basis to sum up what a player is or can be at a given point of time. Okay, "terrible" second half is an overstatement. But his OPS dropped by 122 points in the second half. His overall numbers were clearly a creation of his first half, not his second half. see my post above. his numbers were clearly a creation of four months of solid production. he had an OPS of 920 for the month of August.

I suppose that's one way to frame it. another is to say that his OPS at the ASB was .878 and his OPS on August 31 was .871. And at the end of the year? he slumped at the end. no doubt about it. not surprising for a guy who played 40% more that during any other season of his career. but you keep trying to talk about a 'terrible second half' like it was three sustained months of crappitude. it was not. it was one month of total crapitude. guys have slumps. I try not to use that as a basis to sum up what a player is or can be at a given point of time.

I tend to agree with you here. There wasn't $95 million worth of talent on the field for most of 2006 not that he got the most out of what he could have gotten for what he spent, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to dollars on the DL.

and get on base 45% of time. bonds is still a great hitter, and he's not as bad as people make him out on defense. he's much more likely to be worth 16 million dollars during his contract than soriano is to be in any season during his. no he's not. no matter how extraordinary he may be, he's not going to be doing anything in about one third of the games the Giants play. and he'd still be more valuable than most of the cubs' hitters. than maybe you should have said "most of the cubs' hitters" in the first place instead of saying "Soriano." I have little doubt that Bonds in 2/3 of the Giants games will be more valuable than Mark DeRosa in a full season. i didn't say soriano. you're getting confusing me with tree, who wants to be just like me. maybe you should read a little more carefully since we're giving out advice. sorry. but saying 2/3 of a season from Bonds would be more valuable than most of the Cubs hitters isn't saying much. it would be more valuable than most of the hitters from most teams.

I suppose that's one way to frame it. another is to say that his OPS at the ASB was .878 and his OPS on August 31 was .871.

Baker never used the lineup shown above, not even once. The players with the most starts by lineup order were as follows....... 1. Pierre (159) 2. Walker (32), Theriot (29), Cedeno (26), Perez (20) 3. Ramirez (52), Walker (35), Barrett (34), Lee (33) 4. Ramirez (72), Nevin (21), Jones (19), Barrett (15), Murton (14) 5. Jones (57), Murton (28), Ramirez (23), Barrett (22) 6. Jones (38), Murton (28), Mabry (24), Barrett (18) 7. Murton (45), Cedeno (22), Jones (22), Blanco (20) 8. Cedeno (85), Blanco (30), Perez (21) 9. pitchers (153), Blanco (6), Hairston (2), Perez (1) could that be because you need more than eight players to assemble a lineup?

Plan A- obviously wanted to play on West Coast Plan B- will sign a contract that will burn the team he signs with Plan C- don't have the chips Plan D- don't have the chips Plan E- Jason Jennings Plan F- had the chips until the Indians signed FAs. no longer have the chips Plan G- never sign an ex-Cardinal. they all fail after leaving StL Plan H- got him Plan I- Gil Meche Plan J- Greg Maddux Plan K- Angel Guzman Plan L- Carlos Marmol Plan M- Shawn Marshall Plan N- Juan Mateo Plan O- Any warm body I forgot to list other than Jason Marquis Plan Z- Jason Marquis there has to be some other letters. Z is waaaay to high for Jason Marquis. btw, Padilla has to fit in there somewhere. would have been my plan A.

and get on base 45% of time. bonds is still a great hitter, and he's not as bad as people make him out on defense. he's much more likely to be worth 16 million dollars during his contract than soriano is to be in any season during his. no he's not. no matter how extraordinary he may be, he's not going to be doing anything in about one third of the games the Giants play. and he'd still be more valuable than most of the cubs' hitters. than maybe you should have said "most of the cubs' hitters" in the first place instead of saying "Soriano." I have little doubt that Bonds in 2/3 of the Giants games will be more valuable than Mark DeRosa in a full season.