Bruce Miles

I'd prefer to keep it here. I'm in no way disrespecting what they do over there, either.

Thanks, everyone, for the kind thoughts. Anyone who's had to face illness with an elderly parent knows it's not easy.

I've been tending to some family-illness issues, but here are a few thoughts some info on what I've been told: First, Hendry doesn't "float" rumors and neither does MacPhail. I can see MacPhail hating how this is playing out, and I'm sure he'll put it on his to-do list to stop leaks like this. Second, the Orioles might be asking for Hill and Pie and whomever, but they will not get them. Hendry absolutely will not trade them for Roberts. Period. A package that includes parts of Gallagher, Marshall and/or Cedeno is what the Cubs have in mind. Third, from what I've been told today and earlier this week, nothing is imminent. The Cubs would like Roberts, but if the O's decide to move him, it's 50-50 the Cubs will get him. Fourth, the writer Peter Schmuck was mentioned above. This guy is good. He's a former Orioles beat writer who is very plugged in there. If he says it's 70 percent Roberts won't be moved, I'd tend to go with that. But that doesn't mean things won't change. Fifth, I'm told MacPhail's first order of business will be trade Bedard (no, the Cubs are not in on this). Once that get settled, then he'll turn his attention to Roberts. Thanks Bruce! Any ideas on what their plan is if Marquis and/or Dempster "crap the bed" so to speak? I hop all is well with your family. I think it's all pretty wide open with the final spots in the rotation. I'm sure Hendry wouldn't mind trading Marquis if he could find a taker. There's always a chance Dempster could end up back in the bullpen depending on how Lou likes or doesn't like what he sees in spring training.

I've been tending to some family-illness issues, but here are a few thoughts some info on what I've been told: First, Hendry doesn't "float" rumors and neither does MacPhail. I can see MacPhail hating how this is playing out, and I'm sure he'll put it on his to-do list to stop leaks like this. Second, the Orioles might be asking for Hill and Pie and whomever, but they will not get them. Hendry absolutely will not trade them for Roberts. Period. A package that includes parts of Gallagher, Marshall and/or Cedeno is what the Cubs have in mind. Third, from what I've been told today and earlier this week, nothing is imminent. The Cubs would like Roberts, but if the O's decide to move him, it's 50-50 the Cubs will get him. Fourth, the writer Peter Schmuck was mentioned above. This guy is good. He's a former Orioles beat writer who is very plugged in there. If he says it's 70 percent Roberts won't be moved, I'd tend to go with that. But that doesn't mean things won't change. Fifth, I'm told MacPhail's first order of business will be trade Bedard (no, the Cubs are not in on this). Once that get settled, then he'll turn his attention to Roberts.

It's more likely that other teams knew the situation between Prior and the Cubs was going to result in him being non-tendered. Why buy the cow when you can get it for free after December 7? Any team that traded for Prior would be faced with the same situation as the Cubs. Do you rehab him until, say, June, pay him no less than 80 percent of what he was making in 2007 and then take the chance of him walking after 2008?

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? I was on a conference call with Morgan. I'm not in agreement with much of what he has to say.

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.

It's OK with me. I try to stand by anything I do.

It's an absolute travesty and an injustice. It shows how petty and vindictive some baseball people can be. Bowie Kuhn? Give me a break. Buck O'Neil also got shafted. Marvin Miller did more to change the game in the second half of the 20th Century than anybody. And ever since the changes Miller championed were put into place, the owners' revenues' skyrocketed. Right, so baseball people from all sorts benefited from Miller yet they won't put him in. Bruce, have you written or are you going to write a piece about your take on the whole steroid bit. I'd be interested to know your opinion. Also, do you have a HOF vote? I do have a HOF vote. I have not yet written anything about the issue yet. I may after the first of the year when the announcement is made about the class currently on the ballot. Since you have a HOF vote, can I make a case for you to mark Tim Raines on your ballot? You can but you don't need to. I'm voting for him. Any love for the fastball/curveball specialist from the California Angels? No, but I like the curveball king from the Minnesota Twins.

It's an absolute travesty and an injustice. It shows how petty and vindictive some baseball people can be. Bowie Kuhn? Give me a break. Buck O'Neil also got shafted. Marvin Miller did more to change the game in the second half of the 20th Century than anybody. And ever since the changes Miller championed were put into place, the owners' revenues' skyrocketed. Right, so baseball people from all sorts benefited from Miller yet they won't put him in. Bruce, have you written or are you going to write a piece about your take on the whole steroid bit. I'd be interested to know your opinion. Also, do you have a HOF vote? I do have a HOF vote. I have not yet written anything about the issue yet. I may after the first of the year when the announcement is made about the class currently on the ballot. Since you have a HOF vote, can I make a case for you to mark Tim Raines on your ballot? You can but you don't need to. I'm voting for him. Then surely the Hawk will be getting your vote too. Yes, he will _ again.

It's an absolute travesty and an injustice. It shows how petty and vindictive some baseball people can be. Bowie Kuhn? Give me a break. Buck O'Neil also got shafted. Marvin Miller did more to change the game in the second half of the 20th Century than anybody. And ever since the changes Miller championed were put into place, the owners' revenues' skyrocketed. Right, so baseball people from all sorts benefited from Miller yet they won't put him in. Bruce, have you written or are you going to write a piece about your take on the whole steroid bit. I'd be interested to know your opinion. Also, do you have a HOF vote? I do have a HOF vote. I have not yet written anything about the issue yet. I may after the first of the year when the announcement is made about the class currently on the ballot. Since you have a HOF vote, can I make a case for you to mark Tim Raines on your ballot? You can but you don't need to. I'm voting for him.

It's an absolute travesty and an injustice. It shows how petty and vindictive some baseball people can be. Bowie Kuhn? Give me a break. Buck O'Neil also got shafted. Marvin Miller did more to change the game in the second half of the 20th Century than anybody. And ever since the changes Miller championed were put into place, the owners' revenues' skyrocketed. Right, so baseball people from all sorts benefited from Miller yet they won't put him in. Bruce, have you written or are you going to write a piece about your take on the whole steroid bit. I'd be interested to know your opinion. Also, do you have a HOF vote? I do have a HOF vote. I have not yet written anything about the issue yet. I may after the first of the year when the announcement is made about the class currently on the ballot.

It's an absolute travesty and an injustice. It shows how petty and vindictive some baseball people can be. Bowie Kuhn? Give me a break. Buck O'Neil also got shafted. Marvin Miller did more to change the game in the second half of the 20th Century than anybody. And ever since the changes Miller championed were put into place, the owners' revenues' skyrocketed.

Not only that, but free agents EVERY YEAR if I remember correctly. Yes. There is another thread about books, but the one I always recommend is "The Lords of the Realm" by John Helyar. It's a fascinating, readable and sometimes hilarious tale of labor relations over the years. The owners have been dumb, dumb, dumb over the years. Marvin Miller had his prayers answered when the owners went for free agency after six years. Nothing like placing a premium on free agents and driving up the price. Well, even when players got free agency, didn't the owners collude for several years to not hire free agents, in effect colluding to keep their teams from improving. Owners suck. Yes, they did collude. They couldn't get anything right, making them the gang that couldn't shoot straight. On top of that, Marvin Miller and Don Fehr have been so intellectually superior to whomever the owners had negotiating to make the collective-bargaining talks seem like a game between this year's New England Patriots and a high school team. The problem with the players was that they always had the moral high ground, but they had no p.r. sense, so they didn't know how to use that moral high ground. Fehr came off as arrogant, so people didn't like him. And the public complained about athletes making "all this money for playing a game we'd play for free" (never mind that ballplayers did play it for free in their formative years and forgetting the salaries of people like TV news anchors and forgetting that baseball is a multibillion dollar industry with an antitrust exemption to boot. But don't get me started). :wink:

Not only that, but free agents EVERY YEAR if I remember correctly. Yes. There is another thread about books, but the one I always recommend is "The Lords of the Realm" by John Helyar. It's a fascinating, readable and sometimes hilarious tale of labor relations over the years. The owners have been dumb, dumb, dumb over the years. Marvin Miller had his prayers answered when the owners went for free agency after six years. Nothing like placing a premium on free agents and driving up the price.

Prior isn't represented by Boras. His agent is John Boggs, I think. Boggs is indeed the agent. And if the world were all free agents, the owners would jump for joy because you'd have a flooded marketplace instead of the constricted one you have now because players "have to" wait six years to be free agents. Charlie Finley had this one right years ago when he said, "Make them all free agents!"

Bruce, do you think that Prior's unwillingness to "play ball" stems from a strained relationship between himself and the Cubs? Or did Prior let his ego make the decision for him? Probably a little of both. I guess I wonder what he has against the Cubs at this point. I don't think he was treated unfairly, at least to the best of my knowledge. I don't think he was treated unfairly, either. He probably was stung by the demotion to the minor leagues last spring.

Bruce, do you think that Prior's unwillingness to "play ball" stems from a strained relationship between himself and the Cubs? Or did Prior let his ego make the decision for him? Probably a little of both.

You are not allowed to suggest that Prior is/was a steriod user. Last night when this story of Prior being non-tendered broke I brought up the fact that Prior may be on the Mitchell Report. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but I think the Cubs as an organization frown on bad PR. Which may or may not have contributed to the non-tendering decision. Then why re-sign Wood? Because Woody would work with Hendry on the price tag. I'm not saying the Mitchell Report was the #1 reason for nontendering Prior. I'm saying it could have been one of several reasons. I don't think it was a deciding factor, but maybe a contributing factor. Ding, Ding, Ding. So if he had taken a price cut and stayed, suddenly it doesn't matter? The bolded portion of the above statement is 100 percent correct. Throw out the Mitchell Report. It has nothing to do with any of this. Wood "played ball" with the Cubs when it came to taking reduced contracts. Prior didn't. The Cubs' viewpoint, agree or disagree is this: They paid Prior $3.575 million this year to rehab. They wanted some protection that if Prior came back strong at some point _ and no one knows when that will be _ that they could reap the benefit of having him on the mound at what they considered a fair price in an incentive-laden contract.

That about sums it up. I have to say I'm a little disappointed there were no Susie Greene quotes. I don't think I could have gotten "four-eyed ****" in the paper.

That about sums it up.

Thanks. I just did it for a little fun.

Nah, they make it easy.

I decided to have a little fun in a mini-column. Curb your enthuisiasm indeed. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=94118

Fukudome will be in Chicago next week. The Cubs are still looking at Roberts, but MacPhail has been busy with the Tejada trade, and he'll likely turn his attention next to Bedard. I don't think the Cubs are players for Bedard. With Roberts, MacPhail doesn't HAVE to move him as he felt he had to move Tejada; The owner doesn't want to move him. Anything between the Cubs and Orioles, I believe, will take the better part of a couple weeks.