nilodnayr

Only if he fixes the gigantic hole in his swing. I haven't watched him since he left the cubs, but based on his current sitation, I'm guessing its still there.

So according to that Cliff Floyd is a Type-A free agent? I'm not all that keen on the compensation picks. Does that mean if we sign him we'd have to give up a 1st round pick? Nope. The Mets didn't offer Floyd arbitration. Ahhhhhhh, gotcha. Top 15 picks (15 worst teams) are protected.

I'll take Schmidt and Ohka if you give me 20M. Padilla is the only one out of the second tier that will be a good use of $ assuming Westbrook is off the table.

*COUGH* Jacque Jones and Scott Moore for Ian Snell *COUGH* Achem.... excuse me, what? Yeah I'm sure the Pirates would jump at that deal Well, the Pirates have been reported to be looking for a left handed hitting right fielder or first baseman with pop, along the production line of Chad Tracy, and might be willing to leto ne of the young staters in their rotation go. Tracy: .281AVG 20HR 80RBI Jones: .285AVG 27HR 81RBI They want a RF or 1B, Moore is blocked by Ramirez and Lee, he'll never make it in our system, he's better off used as a bargaining chip. He's put up solid numbers in the minors, as we all know, but the only real position he's akin to playing is 3B, and he could probably converted to a first basemen. Offering that trade would give the pirates the LH righty with pop they wanted, as well as a LH 1B prospect with pop that they also wanted. I don't think the Pirates would shoot that down immediately, I think they'd at least consider the options, especially in a market that's too rich for their blood http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6165654 Of course Tracy had a great 05, which outpaced any year Jones has ever had, is under contract for 3 years at the price of Jones' two and is 5 years younger than Jacque. Plus, they aren't going to trade Snell, they would be interested in trading one of their lefties, but probably not for Jaque. They could always sign Nixon or Floyd and not have to give anyone up.

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster. let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster. let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster. I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10. I don't think we really disagree much here, I think its more a matter of preference. Schmidt provides us with a little better chance the Padilla at making the playoffs. It all depends on if you think Padilla as our #2 can do that. I am more sure that Schmidt can do that than Padilla. I would sure love both though. It definitely all depends on what we would do with that extra 5M though. But it doesn't look like that gets you much in this market. that 5 M might mean the difference between say Izturis or Lugo. or the difference between Matteo/Marshal/Marmol and Tomo Ohka who we discussed last night. Those would be good uses of the extra 5M that would be a bigger improvement than the difference between Schmidt and Padilla. Of course 5M is also the difference between DeRosa and Theriot. The cubs are keeping finances secret, so its all speculation on if that 5M would prohibit us from improving elsewhere.

They do and they do

I don't disagree that the chances of both are poor, but your ultimate preference doesn't necessarily follow. it goes back to 'who will deserve,' discussed above, so you have to look at the other side, which stands the better chance to be a complete disaster? age and changes in 'stuff' certainly suggests Schmidt may be more likely to be a disaster. let's assume Schmidt at 15M, aka #1 money. the likelihood of him actually being a #1 is pretty poor. more likely a good 2 for a year and a 2-3 for the other years, a good chance of 3 throughout, and a chance of complete disaster. let's assume Padilla at 9-10M, aka #3 money (in this market). the likelihood of him actually being a #1 or a #2 is not much farther behind the likelihood of Schmidt doing so. but most probably a solid #3, and probably a little lesser of a chance of complete disaster. I want as good of a teams as possible from the git go, but I am not willing to let go of a lesson from Moneyball that almost everyone agrees on, the playoffs are a crap shoot and the key to getting to and winning the WS is multiple playoff appearances. the contract suggested for Schmidt, when combined with the backloaded contracts already on the books, really hurts the chances at the playoffs in 09-10. I don't think we really disagree much here, I think its more a matter of preference. Schmidt provides us with a little better chance the Padilla at making the playoffs. It all depends on if you think Padilla as our #2 can do that. I am more sure that Schmidt can do that than Padilla. I would sure love both though. It definitely all depends on what we would do with that extra 5M though. But it doesn't look like that gets you much in this market.

His BABIP was about 40 points higher than one would expect based on his line drive %.

That doesn't make any sense. Why? This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned. I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place. If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately? Yes, but this is baseball we are talking about and not golf. Why would a team try and use a platoon if they didn't have too? Especially a team with a top five payroll? There are only 25 roster spots. One guy is going to play 70 to 80% of the time and the guy who can't hit righties is almost usless. What I used is called an analogy. It shows that if a game is made up of multiple actions and one player is better at one action while another is petter at a second action, then why not let them specialize? Are you saying that during interleague games in AL parks, you'd rather let the pitcher hit? Obviously that is completely ridiculous. In the AL the rules allow for you to use a designated hitter specialist. Some one who is better at hitting than a pitcher. So if you can do that at other positions, why not?

and Schmidt's career up until 28 or 29 is indistiguishable from Padilla's career up until now. so which is more likely, Schmidt taking off and taking the triple crown, or Padilla stepping up and having three years like Schmidt did at Padilla's age? and where are you getting your info? baseballreference has Schmidt's most similar by age as Jack McDowell, Ramon Martinez, and Bartolo Colon. not that I agree with that, but that's a large disparity in similarity rankings between those guys and Clemens. but I think the comparison to Clemens is absurd in any regard. Clemens had 6 seasons of 154 or better ERA+ by the time he was Schmidt's age, and hoping that Schmidt will follow the same path as Clemens into the future is foolhearty. choosing one freak as a basis of comparison gets us nowhere. I think the chance of Padilla becoming Schmidt is just as good as Shmidt becoming Clemens...poor. Banking on one player to take a miraculous leap because some one similar did at that age is very foolish. Thats why I would prefer Schmidt.

That doesn't make any sense. Why? This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned. I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place. If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately?

I like that idea, but I have a feeling Soriano won't be playing CF. Unfortunately I have to agree, the cubs promised they wouldnt move him around. So the only way Sori sticks in CF is if Pie is moved to RF or traded. Although I don't necessarily think moving Pie to RF is that bad of an option. IMO its a harder position to play in Wrigley than CF.

QFT

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense. Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him. Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry. I loveD Nixon, but I know he has regressed significantly. However, my point is not that Nixon>Jones, my point is that Nixon+platoon partner>Jones playing against righties and lefties. Who would be the platoon partner? I'm not a big fan of platoons, unless the partner is young and inexpensive. I just don't like having two guys on the roster for one position. IMO, in the NL platoons severly limit a teams flexibility. They make much more sense with a DH. Vance mentioned Wilson, Michaels is another one that comes to mind. Its not hard to find a righty who can hit lefties effectively.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense. Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him. Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry. I loveD Nixon, but I know he has regressed significantly. However, my point is not that Nixon>Jones, my point is that Nixon+platoon partner>Jones playing against righties and lefties.

Well they definitely could still want Izturis. and what else? nothing we got. perhaps another pen arm, but I don't think Izturis plus a pen arm gets it done. It would definitely take more than just Izturis, probably one of our close to ML ready arms and someone lower. I wouldnt have said we had a good chance before, but this probably isn't the final nail in the coffin based on Shapiros comments about Peralta's defense.

Do we think Jones will be platooned? As of now, I'm leaning towards no. However, if we get rid of Jones and acquire Nixon, the positive will be that there is a much better chance he will be platooned, since he already has been used in that situation for a few years. If we keep Jones, isn't he going to be a CF? Nixon can't play CF. Any platoon that Nixon is in will be with Murton, which is uneccesary. Getting rid of Jones and acquiring nixon would push Sori to CF.

Baseball7897 is a killer skateboarder...he can pull off multiple 180s in the blink of an eye!

Based on that report And others. There is one on Cubs.com and one on ESPN.com, too. They are all the same quote.

Well they definitely could still want Izturis.

Do we think Jones will be platooned? As of now, I'm leaning towards no. However, if we get rid of Jones and acquire Nixon, the positive will be that there is a much better chance he will be platooned, since he already has been used in that situation for a few years.

And the market for our extra relievers has suddenly shrunk significantly. I don't necessarily blame Hendry for sitting on his butt, because teams were just waiting for the deadline to see who got offered arbi. But it still sucks. Who else is looking, other than Boston?

I doubt Schmidt will get an offer in the 60-70 million range. Carlos Lee got 17M a year after putting up an average of under 120 OPS+ over the last 4 years, Schmidt has put up an average of over 130 ERA+ over the same period. While Schmidt is older, Lee dresses up like the State Puff Marshmallow man for Halloween and every other day of the year and signed to a longer term contract than Schmidt is rumor to be signed for.

I don't understand your math. All reports have Schmidt ending up at 14 or 15M. So that could still leave 8-9M for the second acquired starter. And if we trade away someone we have that salary as well.

Actually, stats disagree with you. ERA+adjusts for parks Jennings since hes been in the league full time 02:108 03:93 04:92 05:94 06:127 I like Jennings. I think he has good stuff, as a qualitative observer. (My worthless scouting report.) His 127, which is really high, suggests that he has high potential. His sub-100's the previous 3 years suggests that he has not pitched to his potential. Using those, I'd say 03-05 he's been a #4 starter. 02 he was a #2 or #3+ starter. 06 he was a #1-2 starter. (I think league ERA's are actually lower for relievers, so I assume the average rotation starter would be around 99 or 98, a shade under 100?) My view is that he has the capacity to pitch at a much higher level than as a good #3, even though he doesn't have an established record of having done so past. But, the future is not always the same as the past. Further, I believe his 2005 is somewhat interesting. I recall him beating the Cubs maybe in June or so, entering the game with a horrific ERA, perhaps leading the league in walks. When he dominated the Cubs and they took hardly any walks, it fit in with the "Cubs are hackers, here's a wildman and they don't take any walks" stuff, which is why I remember it. Anyway, my point is that given how badly he started, my guess is that his second half 2005 was quite good, considerably better than 94 and very likely better than 100. So, it may be that he's sustained above-average production for the last year-and-a-half. Which may be as good a predictor for future as what was happening 1.5-4 years ago. He broke his middle finger in July of 05, so he really didn't have much of a second half. In June/July only 4 of his 8 starts were quality starts. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind taking a risk on Jennings for 1 year to see if he can repeat his one abberant year, especially if we are giving up Jones. But to extend him in this market could be a huge disaster.