wilk

UK, yes, I noticed the Sox released Brian too. I know the Cubs were always big on both Brian and Sean. Brian dropped off some but he used to be known as the twin "who throws harder" and would probably make a nice sidearm lefty specialist. I thought the Cubs might pick him up too, but I haven't heard anything since he was released...

You've never heard that? I use/hear people use that fairly often. Well, I was only joking around but "jeez" and "sheesh" are both real interjections and "Jeesh" is obviously some sort of slip of the two but isn't a real word. But like I said, I was only being facetious and I suppose by principle of the interjection you can write any combination of letters you want.

I've heard of a Sheesh and a Jeez, but what the heck is a Jeesh?

Len Kasper just said on tonight's broadcast: Todd Walker is officially named the primary starting second basemen.

Bynum has played 2B, SS, 3B, LF, CF. He's a supersub. I don't think you can consider him a "MIF" and definitely not just a "second basemen." Though this does theoretically make Walker "more expendable" which would definitely be worthy of a "Sigh..."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2303134

So, what you're saying is that any player who clears waivers is not a baseball talent worthy of a roster spot, right? Since these guys with uncommon talents passed on the bench player it clearly means no team could use him, right? This is what you seem to be saying. Do you want me to list some players that have cleared waivers and see if you think they are decent players? Clearly if a guy clears waivers it's the be-all and end-all and all discussion of the player should stop because the player would be of no help to our team... right? Or hey, I have an idea! Maybe some of us have been around baseball long enough to decide for ourselves - you know, what Branyan brings and what our bench needs? If there's some big secret about Branyan that "us fans" aren't privy to then there's still little harm in giving an 800k non-guaranteed contract to see for yourself. Why would you let other baseball GM's make decisions for your team?

So Branyan and his huge $800k contract cleared waivers and the Brewers gave him his release. Hello, where are we on this? Career .807 OPS, Career OBP-BA of 100, Career IsoP of .248, averages a HR every 15.7 AB, 50% of his hits in his career have been for extra bases... Has played 39 games at 1B, 229 games at 3B, 153 games in the OF... A guy to backup 1B, 3B, LF, RF and actually add lefty thunder to the bench! He is the king of the TTO (Three True Outcomes) 54% of the time he struck out, walked or hit a homerun. A class with McGwire, Jack Clark and Rob Deer. He strikes out a lot but it still led to a .378 OBP last year. In 220 plate appearances in 2005 against righties - he hit .280 with a .405 OBP and a .943 OPS. We could have grabbed him on waivers. Please give this guy a contract and add some power to our bench.

So Bruce Miles saying Hendry didn't look into Giles means Hendry didn't look into Giles. But Giles saying he never wanted to leave San Diego doesn't mean anything. Him saying he didn't want to leave the West Coast clearly didn't mean anything either. Giles turning down the more lucrative offers you guys toss around in favor of SD doesn't mean anything either because if the Cubs did it, everything would change. Did Bruce Miles also tell you that no other team in baseball tried for him and no other team in baseball topped 3/30? Because apparently that's what happened, right? Apparently it was a big free-for-all where every team had a good chance of landing Giles then, coincidentally, he ended up in San Diego afterall. So the contracts he turned down from elsewhere would have been accepted if the Cubs offered them, and you're positive they were not offered because Bruce Miles said so. So, Bruce Miles saying something is the be-all and end-all. Giles or his agent commenting on Giles means nothing. I see. I really don't understand why some people behave as if Giles was this big secret that you're privy to but Hendry and every other GM not with the Padres was clueless to. Yeah, I get the context of "anything is possible and you can't say for sure it wasn't possible!" It's cute. I prefer reality where people make stubborn decisions. But I'm not going to have yet another "Brian Giles totally would have come to the Cubs if we just put our heads and hearts to it!" debate. He didn't. You say Bruce Miles said the Cubs never tried. Well, I have someone who told me that Giles had zero interest in playing for the Cubs and any involvement Hendry would have played to would have been moot because Giles wouldn't have come here. I'll go with that since it's backed with he and his agent's comments and what actually happened - Giles turning down bigger offers to stay in SD. But sorry to interrupt, continue pretending there was ever a chance of Giles coming here.

Will there ever be a day when people stop pretending like Giles was available to us? You may be right, but doesn't everyone have a price? 3/$30 probably could have been beaten. Hindsight being 20/20 and all. No, not everyone has a price and 3/$30 was beaten by at least 3 teams and to no avail. Oddly enough, he ended up back with the team that he said he wanted to stay with. Imagine that. And for all this "probably, possibly, could have" - how are you so sure that Hendry did NOT look into the possibility? It's not as if every other team in baseball thinks Giles is junk and no one appreciates his OBP so there was hardly any involvement. It's as if Giles didn't want to leave the Pads, so he didn't.

Will there ever be a day when people stop pretending like Giles was available to us?

Maybe so, but the fact that he needs the scope indicates there could be an underlying problem that could resurface later. Well they know there is a "slight tear." He had some problems last season with it but they just drained his knee every time. It's something he could basically keep doing for awhile yet but they figure to just get it done so he gets a full Spring. Yeah, any invasive surgery no matter how invasive is reason for concern but I don't think there's going to be any problem. Usually good to go shortly after the swelling goes down. I'm sure Hendry was fully aware of it, as well.

Hm. If there's going to be a rule such as not being allowed to post two threads with similar discussion, then maybe there should be a rule on making thread names that actually say what the discussion is.

What about picking up Russell Branyan for the lefty thunder off the bench? He could backup 3B/1B/OF... always give us an OBP-BA over 100, very nice OPS vs. RHP, etc. We need a bat like this for the bench, don't we?

Vidro has never really been GG caliber defense. He hasn't even truly been above average defensively at 2B since 2002. He has slow lateral movement which has been the main Cub complaint with Walker's defense. Vidro has a better stronger arm but not a lot of foot speed and he can't really play in much. I like Vidro, especially a healthy Vidro, but he wouldn't be a move for defense in any way.

I don't quibble with your argument at all, except to say that when healthy, Vidro is quite a bit better offensive player than Walker. Regardless, I was simply posing that between these three options, and recognizing that the Cubs want Walker gone, period, for better of worse, than which of the three is the least problematic? 1. Neifi Perez/Jerry Hairston Jr. split job 2. Fonzie 3. Jose Vidro If Vidro's knee is functional, he's the best of those three options. Well, I agree with most of that too. I just think the combination of him making $23M over the next 3 years, being pretty seriously injured and likely not ready for opening day, and the fact that we have a player who is not much worse than a healthy Vidro already on the roster, it doesn't seem like such a smart move. Of course, moving Walker regardless of his alternative isn't so smart either and I understand the context of accepting he's a goner. But you're right, of those 3, Vidro would be my pick. Of course, if we can continue to make Walker an option as well, I'd take him over Vidro at this point. Personally, I'd rather we "overpay" and get a Marcus Giles rather than "underpay" on a risk like Vidro and kick Walker out.

I don't understand why anyone would want Vidro right now... He's just about the same offensive player as Walker recently and not really any better on defense either. He has a bad knee and won't even be ready for the start of the season. Oh... and he's owed $7M in 2006, and another $16M through 2007 and 2008...

That's not true... I've known about Prior's opt-out clause for quite some time. There was a lot of discussion about it last year as to whether he qualified as a Super Two or not, etc. I've been saying all offseason that Prior is arbitration eligible and will almost certainly elect it. This has definitely been documented.

And so it happens!

EDIT: Update:

Kent and Colletti are good friends and that relationship had a lot to do with the reason Bradley was traded. I doubt they trade Kent.

You're probably right, but that $6 million is still significant. Even if they could fit him, I think if we could give them a worthy replacement in Walker/Hairston and bullpen depth like Wuertz/Williamson and some cash it'd be a good start with what they want in a prospect(s) to be decided. Now, I'm not giving them Pie of course but I'd be willing to "overpay" if it made their decision easier. Even if they can afford him in 2006, can they afford him any longer than that? Or is he simply unavailable now?

Will the Braves trade Marcus Giles? We heard that reportedly he'd be available if they kept Furcal, and they didn't, but they did dedicate most of that money to Renteria instead. They don't have much money and Giles will get the largest raise of their five arbitration eligibles. Everything I've heard is that their having trouble making moves because of limited financial room. They're also apparently thinking of using Giles to leadoff. They want a closer/relief and have reportedly been interested in Craig Monroe. I'd think Hairston, Walker, or both could suit their 2B/leadoff hole. We can give them a guy like Wuertz/Novoa/Williamson. We can give them Patterson if they have any interest. We can instead give prospects or pieces if they want to carry out moves for a closer / OF. We can send them cash too. In all, I think a deal could be found if they are open to trading him still. It seems from comments earlier in the offseason that they would deal him if they had to pay Furcal, so is the story still the same? He'd be perfect for 2B, adding speed and defense that Hendry wants over Walker, and a perfect #2 hitter. Pierre Giles Lee Ramirez Jones Murton Cedeno Barrett That looks more like a lineup. Get another starter and a RH 4th OF to platoon with Jones (heck, I'd like Craig Monroe for ourselves - but I'm sure he'd be too expensive of a trade for a 4th OF) and it's a baseball team.

I'm probably not the only one, but if I knew you I'd try to bet you that lee would wind up with an ops at least ..075 lower than last season's But I don't think it's something worth arguing about at length at this point. I'd call .075 lower close. I think the question is whether he drops about .220. If he's still over 1.000, then that's still much more similar to 2005 than any other point of his career.

1. I really don't see how the Dodgers would make this deal. Billingsley alone is their top prospect and at least a top 20 prospect in all of baseball. He's Felix Hernandez territory but they'd also give us Lowe and Kent and Drew? Maybe they'd do something like those three for Drew and Lowe. We offered them Walker and Patterson in separate deals for Bradley and Colletti wasn't interested. Though it'd make sense to trade Kent, I don't think they will. Especially since Colletti and Kent are friends and that had a lot to do with Bradley being traded in the first place. 2. The Rangers would give almost anything for Prior, sure, but Teixeira is as untouchable as they get. Especially considering money, I think they may not do Teixeira alone - but I'd say especially not with one of their top 2 prospects thrown in. I'm pretty sure the reluctance to trade Danks or Diamond is what stopped them from getting Beckett and that was without their #1 guy (Tex) even being involved. They'd probably want Prior, Lee and Hill for Teixeira and Diamond. I'm in no way saying I agree that's a fair deal but I know Texas is VERY strong about keeping Tex and VERY reluctant to trade Danks and Diamond. 3. We'd have to include one of our top prospects to get them to include Bailey but it could probably be a deal that's made. 4. I'd say it's questionable if we could get the top prospect in all of baseball for Prior. Mostly because of the inevitable mutual stubbornness between teams when dealing with the top prospect in baseball. But how do you see them including Lugo and Gomes? They definitely think very highly of Gomes. They'd probably want Pie too. And then there's the gigantic question of if Prior would sign an extension there. They know there's no possible way they compete in the next 2 years. They can not afford what he will cost after that. Gomes and Young don't have a choice. They'd love to keep Lugo if they could afford him and would only face that again to a much larger degree with Prior in a couple years. They probably just wouldn't trade Young for anything considering what the return would cost and their huge dedication to him. 5. Yes, they'd do this but my jaw would drop for the rest of time if we did. 6. The first response for Abreu was straight-up for Prior. Of course, the price would drop from there but I don't see it dropping to the point of them including their top prospect. We'd have to throw in some more but Abreu would probably have been the smarter target if we're thinking of trading Prior. Here's one: Chad Tracy. The D'backs don't want to trade him and consider him more untouchable than Quentin or Jackson but I'm sure they never considered if they could get Prior in return. Of course, I would have thought this before signing Jones.