nilodnayr

Only a fool would want the current philosophy of the front office to be validated and perpetuated, resulting in indefinite mediocrity. Like I said, Derwood makes some big assumptions, which there has been some good debate about, but I don't understand how people are so blind to what he is saying in general to respond with one liners like that. Scenario A) We make the playoffs this year and continue with making the playoffs about once every 4 years. Scenario B) We miss the playoffs this year, but begin making the playoffs once every other year. That is essentially what Derwood is saying. If you would prefer Scenario A, then you aren't a true cubs fan. This is really a false dichotomy though isn't it? How on earth can you even begin to make Scenario B a plausible alternative to trying to win this year? No one is talking about "trying" to win. The logic follows that if the cubs miss the playoffs then the philosophy of the team will change (for the better) and we will create a better team resulting in make the playoffs more often. No matter what happens, the philosophy won't change enough for your or Derwood's liking. They have gone from last to a contender, they won't bring in a person like DePo to replace Hendry. In fact, they won't replace Hendry. They aren't going to play mostly rookies and they won't be replacing Piniella. So in any business, you go for the win when you have the opportunity and they have that opportunity. They will never rip the team apart and start completely over. I think all in all, I have to agree with the fact that the assumptions made are too big. (Note: Some are not my opinions) Assumption #1. If the cubs make it to the playoffs, Hendry will continue to be the GM for the indefinite future. With new ownership looming, there is the possibility that regardless of outcome, the new ownership may clean house. Obviously, the worse the team does, the higher the probablilty this will occur. Assumption #2. If the cubs miss the playoffs, Hendry will be fired. While it will be disappointing if the cubs miss the playoffs, some may see the fact that the team improved so significantly as a positive. He recently guided the team to back to back winning seasons. He may be lauded for signing the likes of Lee, ARam, and Z to significantly undermarket deals (as well as trading for Lee in the first place). Assumption #3. If Hendry is fired, the philosophy will change and we will get a better GM. Hendry is probably a middle of the road GM. As I and others have said, theres no guarantee we get DePo or someone of his ilk. We won't get someone as horrible as Krivsky, but as Hendry's philosophy is fairly prevalent in the game of baseball, we may not get anyone better. Assumption #4. The new GM will have the ability to significantly improve the team. This team has its core locked up through 2010. Post FA guys (Soriano, Z, ARam, Lee, Lilly) accounting for about $75M and pre FA guys (Hill, Marshall, Pie, Patterson). A ton of deadweight is on the roster for 08, and a decent amount for 09. Unless a good deal of additional salary is added, the new GM will be fairly handcuffed. Additionally, minor league systems don't get turned around overnight. To counter, small changes can make significant differences, and even if a new GM/philosophy might be handcuffed, change is needed and its best to start sooner than later.

Only a fool would want the current philosophy of the front office to be validated and perpetuated, resulting in indefinite mediocrity. Like I said, Derwood makes some big assumptions, which there has been some good debate about, but I don't understand how people are so blind to what he is saying in general to respond with one liners like that. Scenario A) We make the playoffs this year and continue with making the playoffs about once every 4 years. Scenario B) We miss the playoffs this year, but begin making the playoffs once every other year. That is essentially what Derwood is saying. If you would prefer Scenario A, then you aren't a true cubs fan. This is really a false dichotomy though isn't it? How on earth can you even begin to make Scenario B a plausible alternative to trying to win this year? No one is talking about "trying" to win. The logic follows that if the cubs miss the playoffs then the philosophy of the team will change (for the better) and we will create a better team resulting in make the playoffs more often.

Only a fool would want the current philosophy of the front office to be validated and perpetuated, resulting in indefinite mediocrity. Like I said, Derwood makes some big assumptions, which there has been some good debate about, but I don't understand how people are so blind to what he is saying in general to respond with one liners like that. Scenario A) We make the playoffs this year and continue with making the playoffs about once every 4 years. Scenario B) We miss the playoffs this year, but begin making the playoffs once every other year. That is essentially what Derwood is saying. If you would prefer Scenario A, then you aren't a true cubs fan.

What Derwood is saying is that the implications of making the playoffs could be much much worse than an NBA team sneaking out of the lottery. Using the assumption that a playoff appearance validates the organizational phlosophy and therefore would mean continued lack of hope for a truly good team and missing the playoffs would create a turnover in front office personel, I see where he's coming from. HOWEVER, as Rais is pointing out, those are some big assumptions. Missing the playoffs might cause a change in the regime, but theres no guarantee it will be an upgrade. While I'm no Hendry fan, there are worse options out there. Its no guarantee that DePo will be his predecessor if we miss the playoffs.

I dont think anybody here is really that upset with losing Moore or Cherry, we all know they arent going to be anything special. However for a team trying to make the playoffs, our GM has made 3 trades this year, and every single one of them was a "hope to catch lightening in the bottle' type of trade. It sure would be nice if we could get a player under 35 years old, who has been good this year, that you dont have to hope is going to be good, but instead you say, :"hell yea he is going to help out". While in a vacuum, loosing Moore, Cherry, and Rapada is no big deal, but when you consider that instead of using them, our GM has or will sign mediocre/crappy veterans to multi-year multi-million dollar contracts, we just wasted about 4.5M/year to acquire two guys who will arguably hurt us for the rest of the season. This organization is horribly penny foolish and it adds up to hurt them.

The thing about the Clay Rapadas of the world is then you don't have to sign the Will Ohman's of the world to multi-year contracts worth a few million.

Fixed. I firmly believe that if ESPN weren't based out of Bristol, there wouldn't be as much a focus on the Red Sox/Yankees. Fox at least does a decent job of showcasing teams regionally. Can you imagine if ESPN did that with Sunday Night Baseball? Maybe more people would be interested in teams nationwide. And we wouldn't have to deal with Joe Morgan in every broadcast. A step in the right direction is to showcase on ESPN every team at least once. That, too me, is intriguing because how often would I be able to watch some of these nonshowcased time? I understand ratings drive these sort of things, but hey, I'd sacrifice seeing the Yankees for instance if it was a game against a small market club that gets no air time. COMMUNIST!

Last year was the first time we had keepers and the keeper selection was very hitter heavy. I don't like keeping pitchers because there are a lot of them available in the draft and in lower rounds. I drafted Beckett in the 14th last year, think guys like Escobar, etc. I'm great at finding those type of players as well, so I don't think I'll keep Beckett. I didn't even really want to keep Bedard, but I think I have to since hes third in the game behind Santana and Peavy and is just entering his prime. I agree that I have to keep JRoll, Braun, and Bedard. I like that Phillips is at 2b and is a 5 category contributor. Hes approaching Utley (minus the average). I think I need to keep him. So, with JRoll, Braun, Bedard, and Phillips I have 3 IF positions filled, with great 5 category contributors, but no uber mashers, which worries me. Berkman and Manny definitely have that in them, but their exiting their prime. So I'm thinking of trading them for someone like Howard, maybe Vlad, or Sizemore. Thoughts?

I'm in a 12 team league 5x5 roto with 5 keepers. I have a bunch of guys that would be keepable and am thinking of trying to trade 2 of them to a team with worse players for 1 better keeper. Here are the guys I'd consider keeping Lance Berkman Brandon Phillips Jimmy Rollins Ryan Braun Manny Ramirez Shane Victorino Erik Bedard Josh Beckett I'm in 2nd (top 3 in the money) but 3rd and 4th are close to me so I can't hurt my team too much. I can't trade pitching because I'm way behind on IPs. I was offered Sizemore and Ibanez for Phillips and Berkman. I like Sizemore, but I don't see how hes really that much better than Phillips and Phillips has 2B eligibility. I could get a closer which would help in the home stretch out of the deal as well.

Since when was a 334 BABIP on a 20.1 LD% really high? .013 above expected BABIP? Thats nothing. His BABIP is 256 this year on a 17.4 LD%. Thats .038 points below expected, or 3x as unluck as he was in 2006. In 2005 he had a 286 BABIP on a 20.7 LD%. Thats .031 below expected. Is Dye as good as his 2006 campaign? No, but hes better than he was in 2005 and better than hes been this year (especially because hes had to deal with injuries. He has a 20.6M MORP for 2008-2009. The Sox were hoping to have 4 serviceable, cheap OF options for 2008 with Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and Fields (until he takes over for Crede in 2009). Of those Fields is the only one whos been anything close to adequate (only trails Konerko, Thome, and Dye in OPS). With no adequate internal options, no options on the FA market for the $ or years, and PR, I don't see how this is nothing short of a really good move by the whitesox. .334 is high when you have a career average of .297 over 5900 PAs and have only had a similarly high BABIP once, 5 or so years ago. Maybe he became a significantly better batter in terms of core skills at age 32 and this is just a fluke. I don't know, I don't watch the Sox. Maybe I'm way off base. Still, aside from last year and 2003 (a terrible injury year) he's been pretty average this decade. Not bad average, but $11 million average? Its more appropriate to look at the variance of the difference between his expected BABIP and actual BABIP. .013 "lucky" is not high whatsoever. I think no one really expects him to repeat 2006, but hes provided very solid, consistant production over the course of his career. Like I said, you have to look at the opportunity costs. What are the white sox going to put in RF if they don't resign Dye? Can they get production anywhere close to Dye's for similar or less money in a contract for similar or less years on the FA market? The answer is a resounding NO. Can the whitesox offense afford to hand RF over to an unproven youngster (unproven as in they've all sucked this year) or a crappy 25th man. Again, the answer is a resounding NO. Can the whitesox from a PR perspective let one of their more popular players leave in a critical time as their following is waning in a possible last place finish, just two years after a WS Ring? Again, a resounding NO. Regardless of whether you believe a .013 BABIP over eBABIP is significantly high or not, I don't think anyone can dispute with the answer to those 3 questions, and thats all that really matters when making the decision. Resigning Dye was a good PR move, but a lousy baseball move. The Sox should have been big-time sellers at the deadline and should be selling again this off season. As I've written before, the Sox should have received more for Taguchi, traded Dye, Konerko, and Contreras (for a bag of sunflower seeds) at the deadline. During the off season, they should trade either Garland or Vasquez and Uribe (if anybody wants him). The trading of Dye, Konerko, and Garland/Vasquez should have gotten them 2 major league ready players and at least 2 more very good prospects. The White Sox have no hope of competing in 2008, so their focus should have been on 2009-2010. They will be a 4th place club next year. Above all of what you said, if we are saying to hell with PR, we are rebuilding, the Sox should have traded Jenks. They had the opportunity to blow the whole thing up and they should have. But I can see how from a PR/business perspective thats hard to do (unless you're Wayne Huizenga). But if you aren't going to blow the whole thing up, this is an absolutely necessary signing.

I suspect this as well. I think it's likely that the Cubs' only chance to keep Prior for another year is to tender a contract and fork over the $3M. Prior may legitimately feel that the Cubs treatment has already cost him millions of dollars he would have earned this year, and next, by making him unavailable (yes, they did also pay him millions, but that was justified by his draft status and early success). I think the only way to get him to come back, without just tendering, is to offer him something like $1m guaranteed next year, with the potential to make $8-10m in incentives, via different things, like making the 25 man roster, throwing 25, 50, 100, 150, 180 and 200 IP, etc. Then throw in a $10m team option, with a $1.5m buyout. Brings the total guarantee to about $2.5, below what he'd get in a tender, but because of that, you're giving him a chance to make $20m additionally. You don't think if we non-tender him that another team wouldn't offer him something like that?

We better non-tender the hell out of him this offseason.

Since when was a 334 BABIP on a 20.1 LD% really high? .013 above expected BABIP? Thats nothing. His BABIP is 256 this year on a 17.4 LD%. Thats .038 points below expected, or 3x as unluck as he was in 2006. In 2005 he had a 286 BABIP on a 20.7 LD%. Thats .031 below expected. Is Dye as good as his 2006 campaign? No, but hes better than he was in 2005 and better than hes been this year (especially because hes had to deal with injuries. He has a 20.6M MORP for 2008-2009. The Sox were hoping to have 4 serviceable, cheap OF options for 2008 with Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and Fields (until he takes over for Crede in 2009). Of those Fields is the only one whos been anything close to adequate (only trails Konerko, Thome, and Dye in OPS). With no adequate internal options, no options on the FA market for the $ or years, and PR, I don't see how this is nothing short of a really good move by the whitesox. .334 is high when you have a career average of .297 over 5900 PAs and have only had a similarly high BABIP once, 5 or so years ago. Maybe he became a significantly better batter in terms of core skills at age 32 and this is just a fluke. I don't know, I don't watch the Sox. Maybe I'm way off base. Still, aside from last year and 2003 (a terrible injury year) he's been pretty average this decade. Not bad average, but $11 million average? Its more appropriate to look at the variance of the difference between his expected BABIP and actual BABIP. .013 "lucky" is not high whatsoever. I think no one really expects him to repeat 2006, but hes provided very solid, consistant production over the course of his career. Like I said, you have to look at the opportunity costs. What are the white sox going to put in RF if they don't resign Dye? Can they get production anywhere close to Dye's for similar or less money in a contract for similar or less years on the FA market? The answer is a resounding NO. Can the whitesox offense afford to hand RF over to an unproven youngster (unproven as in they've all sucked this year) or a crappy 25th man. Again, the answer is a resounding NO. Can the whitesox from a PR perspective let one of their more popular players leave in a critical time as their following is waning in a possible last place finish, just two years after a WS Ring? Again, a resounding NO. Regardless of whether you believe a .013 BABIP over eBABIP is significantly high or not, I don't think anyone can dispute with the answer to those 3 questions, and thats all that really matters when making the decision.

What a friggin waste of an asset that would be. Err, what SSR said. Asset? What exactly does Cedeno bring to the table? 24 year old who has torn up AAA. Could be valuable in a trade if we find a gullible GM...so basically if we try to make a trade with ourselves. But has been nothing short of pathetic at the big league level. His career OPS+ is lower than Neifi's. That should tell you all you need to know about the guy. Career OPS+, seriously? Does that really bring value to the discussion? No one has argued that hes been great over the entirety of his major league career. Interesting note...in Neifi's 24 yr old season, he had an 85 OPS+, his career high. The only other season he had an OPS+ over 70 was (you guessed it) 2005 with the cubs (77). If thats not an idictment as to how idiotic baseball GMs are, I don't know what is.

They didn't waste an option year. He already was on the major-league roster when they optioned him during spring training. Ok good. NC made me feel like an absent father who doesn't pay any attention to their kids and then comes back and is like, "wow, you graduated highschool? I had no idea you were even in highschool."

2 things... 1) When was Samardz sent down? I must have completely missed him being brought up. Why the hell did they waste an option year 2)Can he please learn how to strike people out before we call him up?

I don't remember where it was but I believe I calced 111 or so including Ohman and Cotts (since they are under our control for next year). I excluded Wood, Miller, Izturis, Floyd, and Barrett and everyone else who isn't under control. I included cheap guys like Fontenot, Murton, Theriot, etc. I think I put Z down as 18, so you can drop a couple M from that #. There still were a few spots that will probably be filled in the minimum that I didn't even count. Just because we are dropping some players doesn't magically make our total payroll decrease. Thats the beauty of escalating contracts...its gonna be a lot worse in the next few years. And according to Cotts, our 2007 payroll is just over 99M.

Since when was a 334 BABIP on a 20.1 LD% really high? .013 above expected BABIP? Thats nothing. His BABIP is 256 this year on a 17.4 LD%. Thats .038 points below expected, or 3x as unluck as he was in 2006. In 2005 he had a 286 BABIP on a 20.7 LD%. Thats .031 below expected. Is Dye as good as his 2006 campaign? No, but hes better than he was in 2005 and better than hes been this year (especially because hes had to deal with injuries. He has a 20.6M MORP for 2008-2009. The Sox were hoping to have 4 serviceable, cheap OF options for 2008 with Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and Fields (until he takes over for Crede in 2009). Of those Fields is the only one whos been anything close to adequate (only trails Konerko, Thome, and Dye in OPS). With no adequate internal options, no options on the FA market for the $ or years, and PR, I don't see how this is nothing short of a really good move by the whitesox.

Yes, but not significantly. We are paying all but 700k of Barrett's salary. The prorated portion of Bowen is about 200k, so it saved about 500k in payroll. Okay. Now we have Kendall. What are the circumstances now. How about now with Z's contract? That doesn't change anything about this year, does it? I meant with the table...just looking for an update as I've had to battle the "we can now add 30M in payroll this offseason" crowd.

How is he a retread?

Yes, but not significantly. We are paying all but 700k of Barrett's salary. The prorated portion of Bowen is about 200k, so it saved about 500k in payroll. Okay. Now we have Kendall. What are the circumstances now. How about now with Z's contract?

He also had 7Ks I believe.

We have a 1.2M clubs option with a 50K buy out. No brainer to pick that up.

Um, because we already have 100-110M committed for next year? We are already on the hook for more money next year than we've paid this year without any free agent acquisitions. If you want to argue for ARod, don't use the fact that we don't have to make any other FA acquisitions as evidence that its possible. The only way we can do it is if we up payroll by 30-40M. On the plus side though, we could still do so and be under the luxury tax threshold.

Never hurts to have backups. But he'll most likely move to the OF.