RynoRules

Bedard Not sure. I guess bedrard is better, but can't he walk after 08'? Blanton is locked up through 2010, IIRC. Is the difference between them so great that you'd risk only getting one season out of Bedard and then have to pony-up as much as $15 mill a yr to retain him?

Wow are they going to regret that deal.

Agreed. He should have a shot at a .900 OPS season there.

Anyone have any idea of the last 2b we had that performed adequately that people were happy with? Johnny Evers? This clearly a personal attack against me.

I think I recall Tim saying that cabrera's defense is so over-the-top good that he is one of the few players whose relatively weak bat is tolerable.

Sheesh, you can get away with a lot around here these days.

he's blowing smoke to try and get more for him.

what? Look at the way Kerry handled himself while rehabbing - and once he was healthy again. IMO - Mark's a jerk. Have you met Mark? I have. I don't think it's much of a stretch to call him a jerk. I just don't think that he deserves any venom for it. He's not malicious, he's just not a people person. Yup...that was my experience as well when I met him a couple years ago. He's just not a very, umm, "warm" person, at least towards those he doesn't know. Hard to blame the guy. He's been in the spotlight since his early teen years, so I'm sure he's had plenty of posers around. I don't feel a great loss now that it appears certain he's gone; as others have said, 2003 was a long time ago; we need to move on.... Guess I had a different experience when I met him, but then again my friend was a classmate of his at USC. I think a lot of players that might be shy come off that way. I don't have the numbers to prove it though. :lol:

Sorry, that is not the case: From the facts we have its safe to conclude that this was a mutual decision, IMO. The Cubs did not want the risk, Prior did not want to play for the Cubs for any longer for whatever his reasons are. I wish we had him back, but I get why the Cubs made the decision they did. It makes sense on both sides, IMO. Sorry, but you're wrong. The Cubs made the decision not to offer arbitration. That's the only fact that matters. The story that they couldn't get Prior to agree to what was undoubtedly an extremely team friendly contract does not make it a mutual decision. If I offer $20,000 for a Mercedes and they don't take it, that doesn't make it a mutual decision. Yes it does. Whether or not the sides agree on value is another issue, but if they agree to disagree and move on (apparently the case with Prior), that's a mutual decision: Cubs: Mark, we will offer you a one year contract for $1 mill plus incentives if you reach certain goals. Team option for the second year. Mark: Jim, that is not good enough. I want a two year guarantee for $3.0 mill each year, plus incentives if I reach those goals you mentioned. Cubs: We cannot agree to that, Mark. Your history of health issues is a problem for us. It doesn't warrant that kind of commitment. Mark: Fine, but I don't agree. Please do not offer me arbitration, just non-tender, b/c no matter what happens at arbitration, I am walking after 08'.

No actually it is because the Cubs didn't offer him a contract. Wrong again. It's both. The Cubs did offer a contract, just not the one that Prior wanted. Then the Cubs refused to offer a standard contract. Sorry, that's not the case. The Cubs didn't want to abide by the "standard" contract so they attempted to get Prior to sign a more "team friendly" deal. After all, he's been stealing money for years and years. When Prior didn't want that they cut him lose. The decision was solely up to the Cubs. Sorry, that is not the case: From the facts we have its safe to conclude that this was a mutual decision, IMO. The Cubs did not want the risk, Prior did not want to play for the Cubs for any longer for whatever his reasons are. I wish we had him back, but I get why the Cubs made the decision they did. It makes sense on both sides, IMO.

remember how we all agreed that alan trammell's 129.4 career warp3 was really good? ozzie smith's career warp3: 139.1 ozzie's one of the rare players whose defense is so good it really does make up for his crappy to mediocre bat. I get it, but check this out: Ozzie Smith comparables: Trammel comparables: And I take back the Ripken comparison. Trammel is a cut below Cal.

I 100% agree That's not even close to what was happening. Cuse was basing his extreme dislike of Prior in part on his opinion that Prior was not mentally tough when under pressure. After proving this wrong both statistically and logically, the argument took a turn towards Kakfaesque. I really love it when people try and group people into little liques like "stat-heads" and such. NSBB is a bit more complex than the old "Us v Them" thing. Prove it. :wink:

Having Ozzie Smith in the Hall over Trammel is a freaking disgrace. Trammel was every bit as good as Ripken; probably better.

It's OK with me. I try to stand by anything I do. Good man. Do you think Ronnie will ever get in? I would hope so, and I think this is his best chance, with the Veterans Committee under a lot of pressure to vote someone in instead of keeping their country club as exclusive as they can. Bruce, please be honest :wink: - did you want to vomit after listening to Joe Morgan try to justify the Vet Committee's rational for not letting anyone in (Santo included) last year? As a follow-up, do you despise Morgan as much as we do here?

Greene's career home/away splits are astounding. If I did not know better I'd say they are a typo.

I like the Blanton idea quite a bit. Murton and Gallagher would be enough, IMO.

Are you a high school baseball coach? Yes. And you believe that your background as a longtime high school baseball coach qualifies you as somebody who can accurately determine the level of mental focus of an elite level major league pitcher from moment to moment, given game conditions? To me, that is part of the fun of this game - we haven't developed metrics that can quantify each and every factor, so you can argue over some of the issues.

They can, but they have a very difficult burden of proof. B/c they are unquestionably public figures in the eyes of the law, they will have to prove that the statements about them were made with malicious intent, as well as knowledge of their falsity/reckless disregard of the truth. This is really hard to do, and believe me, Mitchell and DLA Piper (the law firm he worked with - one the biggest in the world) know it.

Not worth it. They have been a trading partner muiltiple times recently; wouldn't want to ruin that relationship.

most of it is hearsay Yeah, but Robert's is hilarious b.s. @#$@ ^ the heck? That's incredibly flimsy. They'll be lucky if Roberts doesn't file a charge of defamation against them for that. He's a public figure, so that case would go nowhere. All the same, if I were him I'd do it just to try and clear and my name.

Wonder if some of those current players could have their contracts voided. GM Jr. comes to mind.

I'm sure that's exactly right. He only did this for the pub. I think (hope) swetpete was kidding.

I am glad he did not (or at least he is not named in the report, which does not necessarily mean he is/was not a user). Its bothersome enough that several players I appreciate and admire are on the list. For example, I love Glenallen Hill and those HRs he hit that landed on Kenmore.

What, you're concerned about the validity of a glorified witch hunt/McCarthy communist report? Exactly. A) Politician, B) Red Sox owner, C) based on hearsay. No oversight, no transparancy. I had an open mind when it was first announced, but the more I've heard about it the less I care about it. It really has nothing to do with Cubs names being on it, I said this before I ever heard the names. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of a name being in a report equalling a fact that a guy did steroids. Again, I think you have to read it yourself before drawing conclusions weither way. I heard Olney on Mike and Mike this morning saying that an agent for a former Mets player told him (Olney) that his client (the former Met) was approached about a check he wrote to a clubhouse attendant, who (the attendant) told the Mitchell people that it was for drugs. The player responded that he didn't remember what the check was for - it could have been for pizza, a tip, etc. - but that he has never, ever used drugs. Apparently the Mitchell people took his name out of the report (according to the agent, that is).