wilk

OK, I see the misunderstanding.

Deleted.

Um, that's an entirely arbitrary point. They are credible due to outside circumstances and come to the board AS authorities on the matter. Not vice versa. Now if Bruce Miles posted under a different name and didn't reveal that he was Bruce Miles - then yes, he'd be dismissed in favor of Jeff from Iowa (not a reference to any one real poster). If Bruce Miles posted under a different name and made accurate predictions in regards to what would happen, he would be reputable with or without a large number of posts. In the case of this particular thread, it is an instance of someone with fewer posts using that as a crutch, not the other way around. Well, I disagree. I think if Bruce said some of the things he's said as a regular anonymous poster, especially some of the "new" things - such as Hill and Pie no longer being unavailable - he'd be treated as a "troll" and his posts would be entirely dismissed. By the time it was proven accurate, no one would remember his post. I have firsthand experience with this actually. These type of boards are almost always a selective clique. My point wasn't that people with high post counts use it as leverage, I don't recall seeing that occur. My point was that people with low post counts get the crappy end of the stick more times than not when it comes to credibility, moderation, and the etc. which usually ends in them being dismissed. I'm not attacking anyone and I think my stance on this is plenty reasonable. You're welcome to thinking people are more open-minded than I think they are. But I don't want to continue this debate.

Yes, saying "I AM CERTAIN [that Rogers knows to write juicy and phony stories to sell papers and is reminded if he doesn't]" is libel. No, anything mentioned about post counts is not libel. I'm only being technical here, I'm not suggesting anyone file a suit and I'd find that laughable if someone did. But some people might take offense to such things. I'm not going to sit here and have a stupid argument with you guys. If you want to believe what I say is entirely untrue, then fine. But if you're going to warn a poster about defending his comments, then warn the posters dismissing and attacking that comment while stating they are "certain" of something untrue.

But that's an entirely arbitrary point. They are credible due to outside circumstances and come to the board AS authorities on the matter. Not vice versa. Now if Bruce Miles posted under a different name and didn't reveal that he was Bruce Miles - then yes, he'd be dismissed in favor of Jeff from Iowa (not a reference to any one real poster).

I'm all for peace, but he does have a point and I see it evident all the time here. Maybe for good reason considering how some "communities" like Cubs.com operate but it's true that you have no credibility on this board unless you have a huge post total. And in all sincerity, what truly credible person close to the business is going to have the most posts? The people who post the most are usually the people without a whole lot else to do. That's just logic. And besides, while "jabs" are not proper... is libel? C'mon, "I'm certain [Rogers is reminded to juice up stories to sell papers]." Plainly untrue and perhaps some people take offense to THOSE jabs. But preference to the post total holds true there, also, when deciding who to hush.

Exactly. The most credible people are the dorm room GMs with the most time and the most posts. Your fault for not realizing that.

You are certain? I am certain that no one tells nor reminds him "Hey, our numbers are slipping, why don't you cook up some absurd article today and get more subscribers!"

Ohman is arbitration eligible, Prior's contract is for 3.55M but he's also eligible to opt out for arbitration, Lee escalates $9.42M for his MVP votes. EDIT: Oops, I didn't see that this was already pointed out.

I think there's much more reason to assume that Prior will not accept a new deal than Zambrano. And I definitely get the impression that the Cubs value Zambrano ahead of Prior currently. Word is Prior doesn't like Baker and has told friends and family that he wants to be a FA when it's his time and isn't giving any service time / "hometown" discounts now nor then. That'd be a huge consideration. Prior has reportedly already provided difficulties this offseason when dealing with a new deal over arbitration (according to a source of mine). We'll see.

And they traded Renteria for Marte. They could have included Tampa and got Lugo plussome, but they instead chose to keep Marte. There's no way Marte would be included even if the unlikely scenario of swaping Ramirez's were to take form. Patterson and Neifi for Marte? Nope!

Patterson would almost have to be included in a deal for Green... especially since they're probably our best bet to trade him, anyway. I still don't see why Green would accept the trade when he's expressed an unwillingness before. And yes, considering this source guaranteed Soriano and Furcal in two, separate, $100M deals... I'll remain very skeptical of any credibility to this.

I don't know of any published report to direct you to. Prior was $2M incentive-escalated to $2.75M + 800k of the signing bonus which is paid at the start of each year 2002-2006. Barrett I had $4M salary + 130k bonus. His base salary could be as high as $4.5M but I'm not positive on that.

Kerry Wood, 12M Aramis Ramirez, 10.5M Derrek Lee, 9.42M Greg Maddux, 9M Carlos Zambrano, ~6M *Arbitration eligible Juan Pierre, ~5.5M *Arbitration eligible Ryan Dempster, 5M Michael Barrett, 4.13M Bob Howry, 4M Scott Eyre, 3.7M Mark Prior, 3.55M Corey Patterson, ~3M *Arbitration eligible Glendon Rusch, 2.75M Neifi Perez, 2.5M Todd Walker, 2.5M Jerry Hairston Jr., ~2.5M *Arbitration eligible Henry Blanco, 1.5M Scott Williamson, 2M John Mabry, 1.075M Will Ohman, ~700k *Arbitration eligible Ronny Cedeno, 320k * League minimum Matt Murton, 320k * League minimum Roberto Novoa, 320k * League minimum Jerome Williams, 320k * League minimum Mike Wuertz, 320k * League minimum = 92.925M with estimated arbitration cases. That would give us $7 - 12M to spend if the payroll is $100 - 105M Or, $15-20M if Hairston, and when Walker and Patterson are traded.

I wonder what happened to him. He only pitched in three games for West Tenn in 2005. Maybe he was injured. Yep. Tommy John surgery in May.

So much for that thought. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5164460

Yeah, but it's not like he asked for that NTC clause to stay in AZ. If you recall, he got that from the Dodgers, and was less than enthused about going to Arizona. As someone else mentioned, he's from around the Chicago area, I don't think he'd put up too much resistance to come to Chicago. Shawn Green moved from "around the Chicago area" to New Jersey when he was 11 months old - then moved to California shortly after where Green was raised and grew up. His wife is from Arizona, which is why he accepted that trade. He has no real connection to Chicago. He's not a Chicago boy. He's a California boy.

I'll try this again... Anyone who listened: ... I didn't get to listen but did Bruce really say "no chance" in these scenarios?

... I didn't get to listen but did Bruce really say "no chance" in these scenarios?

As SouthSideRyan said, you don't have to keep them on the 40-man roster to protect them enough. If you keep them on the 38-man Triple-A reserve list then the drafting team would need to keep them on their 25-man roster all year - and if he's ready to be on any 25-man roster then it's probably time to protect him entirely on your 40-man roster. For the most part, the extended prospects in the minor league phase are after you've already rostered over 50 prospects. The guys on the AA and A reserve lists are mostly organizational players and not true prospects and usually you know a lot more about the guys in your own system than someone elses.

Even more annoying is taking offense to corrections rather than considering it constructive. The concept that documents often outline things as Roman numerals is all the more reason to inform that the document actually says "5." and not "V." Technically, or legally, it's referred to as "Rule 5." You're right, there was no problem - just information.

First of all, he said this to the Associated Press in a phone interview... how often do they get these things wrong? And then the Orioles entertained exploratory trade scenarios based on a report that was never even true? There was a quote from Sam Perlozzo (O's Manager) that he had called for Tejada and never got a call back. Then the O's talk to Tejada's agent and the O's decline comment... why not a denial? Wasn't there a quote from Flanagan that he was "not confident" after talking to his agent? Why didn't Tejada return calls from the Orioles the next day? Now - it was all a misunderstanding, story over? BS. The talks already started, they can now continue at the O's leisure or they can convince Tejada they're serious and get some pitching. Either way, Tejada said it and the Orioles have now been discussing it.

No disrespet to Mr. Miles, but how is Chicago any different? In fact, I've listened to both and NY is much more credible than Chicago in terms of sports talk. But as I said, only time will tell. I guess untill or if he is traded we can all have fun talking about it. How'd I say Chicago radio is any different? You keep thinking this is about the credibility of sports radio... The difference is that the ex-Cubs scouting director is now the assistant to GM (and pro scouting director) with the Orioles. We have a farm that he, personally, helped stock. He's as big on guys like Marshall, Dopirak, Harvey and Hill as some overrating Cub fans are. That's a huge edge. Hendry is clearly after a big middle-of-the-order bat and quite evidently is still hot on finding a shortstop. The Mets need neither. We have the need, the resources and the intangible relationship. There's no proof that the Mets have contacted, or been contacted by, the Orioles but we know the Cubs have -- in fact there's enough credibility to suggest that the Cubs were the first team contacted back. The reason that the Cubs have been so closely linked to a Tejada move is all the factual evidence - not the credibility or pollution of radio talk.

Why do you say that? Teams trade withing the division all the time. Sean Casey, the Captian of the Reds was just traded to Pittsburgh for a left handed pitcher. The Mets are most definately a player for Tejada. The sports talk radio here is polluted with the rumors. It's not about how often teams trade within the division. It's not about Sean Casey going from the Reds to the Pirates. A player of Tejada's caliber is not going to move from a team struggling for its place in the division to the team that always dominates them. The rumors root from the concept that there isn't massively lost production if you swap the "disgruntled" workers of Manny and Tejada. However even within that rumor, Orioles' officials have reportedly said quite simply - "it's not going to happen." Does that entirely discount it? No, but it surely weighs at least as heavily as "sports talk radio polluted with rumors." The ONLY way that the Orioles trade Tejada in the division IS if they get Manny. I very much doubt Tejada goes to any AL East team. But there's, yes, no chance that Tejada goes to Boston and the O's don't get a player of equal caliber from the Red Sox in return. As for the Mets, talk radio prattle means nothing. It's New York. The availability of any superstar will pollute the radio with rumors.

Well, there's no chance the Cubs take Manny and there's no chance that Baltimore decides to trade Tejada within the division while Manny leaves the league. The Rangers aren't at all after Tejada and if it were a matter of the Cubs doing it to get Floyd - the 3-way just wouldn't make very much sense. I doubt the Mets are even players for Tejada anyway and the guys Stockstill would want "back" aren't the caliber of prospects that would be needed for Tejada nor traded for Floyd. If the Cubs are involved in Tejada's movement, it's because Tejada is coming to the Cubs.