cubfan

That blog was from December 9th.

 

And your point would be?

 

It's from over a month ago, before he or anyone else had any idea that the negotiations would break down. For all we know, he was signing "Go Cubs" because he was convinced it was a done deal. Didn't turn out that way.

The Other 15% wrote:

Peavy was signing autographs with "Go Cubs" in Las Vegas.

 

Has this been confirmed or is it just rumor?

The blog link was posted in response to this. I do not think it was intended to be viewed as new news but just conformation that Peavy was doing this while he was in Las Vegas.

Fukudome isn't good.

 

And the cubs don't trade for more bats than they sign.

 

Until a week ago it was 50/50, so that counts as "most."

 

So I was a week behind.

 

We could have arrived at that without 15 different misrepresentations of what "good" is.

I'd call 50/50 half not most but what do I know. :)

sweet...a two page conversation that has nothing to do with the topic. Perhaps if people want to discuss the future of the Reds they could do it in...oh I don't know...another topic??

 

With all due respect, there are people who can't monitor this website constantly, so when we return to see many new pages added to the "PEAVY" thread one figures there must be news or rumors. To then sift through many many posts of Reds garbage becomes a waste of one's time.

 

you could save yourself a lot of time and just read the thread title

 

or like, espn.com

With this logic there should only be one thread that everyone posts everything in. If something is extra important, the thread title could be changed to reflect it at some point later. I really don't mind for the most part but I think it is a little hard to argue that a thread about Peavy shouldn't be about Peavy.

There also has been information about Peavy after page 147 so reading the thread title really doesn't cut it.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/bradley_cubs_1.php#more

 

Updated - 9:46pm C.T. - Bruce Levine just reported on XM Radio with Joe Casellano that the third year on Bradley's contract is not guaranteed. The third year is a vesting option based on games played in the first two seasons.

 

 

 

So if the 3rd year isnt guaranteed, I wonder if its a straight 2 year 20 million, or if maybe something like 8mil the 1st year, 10mil the 2nd year, and 12 the 3rd year? I havent seen any breakdown to the contract but Id be very surprised if we are paying him 10 mil this season. Im guessing its more like a 2 year deal for 18mil with the vesting option making it 3 and 30. If this is the case, I love this deal.

I doubt that you could defer money to a year that was not guaranteed. Maybe if the option year had a 2 mil buyout it could fly.

Intresting read.

 

Im a bigger fan of a 12-6 curveball myself (Probably from watching Sheets)

 

I also love a 12-6 slider. (Marmol's). (I think thats what he is throwing).

 

Maybe I'm wrong, or out of date but I do not think a slider can be 12-6 by definition.

Well, if you were throwing sidearm, it could be done.

Wouldn't the ball have to break up in that case then making it a 6-12? :)

Intresting read.

 

Im a bigger fan of a 12-6 curveball myself (Probably from watching Sheets)

 

I also love a 12-6 slider. (Marmol's). (I think thats what he is throwing).

Maybe I'm wrong, or out of date but I do not think a slider can be 12-6 by definition.

Reds GM is every bit as bad as Dusty, I see.

 

I can't believe that is all he received for Dunn.

 

It seems that Jockety's hands were tied since there wasn't much interest. So, he got some minor league talent which I think is a good way for the Reds to go.

 

The compensation picks would've been better.

I do not know how the PTBNL works out, but is there any chance that the 2 PTBNL are whoever the DBacks pick with the compensations picks? I'm guessing not since you can't trade a drafted player until a year after they sign but I'm just trying to figure out a way this makes since for the Reds.

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

I'm sure all owners are going to want to make a profit. I think the difference is that some will want to maximize their profit. They could probably maximize the profit by putting together a good team instead of a great team.

Ridiculous was thinking the Giants were ever going to trade Lincecum - especially for what was proposed.

I'm not saying that the Giants would have gone for it, but Murton, Pie and Hill had a lot more trade value before the season started than they do now making the trade idea look worse now than it did when posted.

2 bad outings does not make a headcase. More likely is that the league has adjusted to him and he needs to adjust back

 

They adjusted to him by psyching him out into throwing really wildly?

The batters now wink and blow him a kiss before each pitch. If I was him, I might hit a few batters too

Anyone care to play guess the contract terms? Hendry is unlikely to go league minimum, because there must be A LOT of other teams interested - so I'll throw out $1M with PA bonuses that could reach $4.

 

As I understand it he's cleared waivers therefore, no team has put in a claim meaning all Hendry has to offer is the league minimum.

 

just because he CAN offer league minimum, doesn't mean he WILL.

 

The teams didn't pass on Edmonds, they passed on him at his current salary. THe OP is saying that Hendry is thinking that SURELY a lot of other teams are interested in him at a reduced rate, so Hendry will outbid himself.

I think Edmonds is getting 8mil this year no matter what from the Pads. Whatever the Cubs pay will just reduce the amount that the Pads will have to pay. If 3 teams offer Edmonds a contract, he will pick the one that he would like to play with and collect his 8 mil. I doubt he cares who the money comes from so all the offers should be for league min. That is at least the way I understand it.

In 2006 Ronny Cedeno as the everyday starter hit .245

In 1973 Mike Schmidt as the everyday starter hit .196.

 

In 1986 Barry Bonds as the everyday starter hit .223.

 

In 1990 Sammy Sosa as the everyday starter hit .233.

 

So enough judging a player based on his first year as an everyday starter.

 

cedeno at age 23 had a 54 OPS+

 

schmidt at age 23 had a 93 OPS+

 

bonds at age 21 had a 103 OPS+

 

sosa at age 21 had a 92 OPS+

 

 

in two cases cedeno was 2 years older than the player, and all of the players you mentioned were doing something well - hitting for power, drawing some walks, or both. cedeno wasn't doing either one. pointing this out for no other reason than to say that the comparisons aren't good ones. you need to find someone who was completely unproductive.

 

It's a little much to compare Cedeno to 3 of the greatest players in the history of the game.

I'd also expect better power numbers from 2 OF and a 3B than a SS. I think the moral of the story here is that not everybody goes nuts their rookie year like Arod or Pujols and it should not be expected.

Theriot + Pie for Greene, Cedeno to CF

 

 

Fukudome (RF)

Cedeno (CF)

Lee (1B)

Ramirez (3B)

Soto ©

Soriano (LF)

DeRosa (2B)

Greene (SS)

 

This order makes me feel all fuzzy inside.

 

EDIT: Heck, throw in Murton too if thats what it takes to get it done, I don't care.

Sounds good to me, I mentioned the same thing in the Cedeno for starter thread. If Cedeno can really play CF, I think the trade would help both teams.

.222/.277/.293 guy

You aren't really going to use this year's numbers to tell if a player's good or not, are you? I thought you were better than that. But I guess if you want to play that game, I have a question for you. There's another SS putting up these numbers: .152/.226/.238 Do you think it would be dumb to trade for him? Well if so, you just turned down a trade for Troy Tulowitzki, wtg dude.

Tulowitzki as a rookie put up superior production to anything Greene's ever done. And he's not hitting FA next year asking for 8 figures per year.

 

Tulowitzki plays in Coors 81 times, he hit .256/.327/.393/.719 away from home.

home games don't count anymore? i guess i havent been keeping up with all these rule changes. damn that bud selig.

 

Garrett Atkins also had a .254/.327/.446 road line too, which seems to indicate this guy blows as well. until you look at his road OPS in 2006 and notice it's virtually the same as his home OPS. but Tulowitzki only has one season of data which to look at and we can all think he's an inferior player to Khalil Greene because of a split which is really often fluky. everything I've seen when watching both players suggests differently.

Just to be sure, you are using Greens numbers to start the season as proof he is not worth trading for and then saying that we can't read to much into Tulowitzki's first season splits due to small sample size?

When 2008 is all said and done, it will be anothe 800+ Away OPS for Greene. I'd do a Pie for Greene swap in a heartbeat.

I think a lot of us would, but what about a Greene for Pie+Cedeno? or Greene+Prospect for Pie+Cedeno+Murton?

I'm guessing the Pads would want a SS back along with Pie?

 

I'd guess Cedeno unless they don't know what they're doing, Theriot.

 

I'd hate like hell to give up Ronny.

 

Two best everyday prospects (I don't think of Soto as one cause he's doing fine) yeah, it'll hurt.

I'd hate to give up Cedeno too, but I guess he really dosen't have a place if Greene is on the team. Before the season started I would have jumped at the prospect of getting Greene for Pie+Cedeno but I'm not sure now. Cedeno may never be better than Greene, but I'm starting to think that he might be close enough that I wouldn't want to lose Pie for the difference.

didn't see much from the anti-theriot crowd after his game-winning rbi yesterday. plus, isn't it generally a good idea to try to hit the ball hard? that's what he did in the 8th inning; unfortunately it was a line drive right at helton and it was a dp.

 

Seriously. Ryan Theriot hit a single yesterday. I want you to find me a quote from anyone that says that Ryan Theriot will never hit a single.

 

I'll wait.

 

Take all the time you need.

 

Oh? Nobody has said that? Okay then.

 

The argument against Ryan Theriot is not that he will never, ever do anything, and will hit .000/.000/.000 with zero putouts and zero assists. The argument is that over the course of a full season, Ryan Theriot is unlikely to be especially productive at shortstop - his median forecast is basically right at replacement level, and his high-end forecast still falls short of league average production from his position. He will occasionally have good days, sure - I'm sure I can find some game-winning hits from Neifi Perez if I go back and check the play-by-play records. But over time, the likelihood is that the bad days will outnumber the good.

 

That said. If for whatever reason you will only be satisfied with Ryan Theriot's detractors if we say bad things about him even on the good days - I am there. I am so there. If that's really all that you need to... well, I have no idea why this seems to bother you, but if it does, I will go ahead and provide that valuable service to you. So far as I am capable, I will go ahead and find a way to communicate to you, personally, Ryan Theriot's worth as a starting shortstop - in game threads, in postgame discussions... any time, any place. You're welcome in advance.

 

I think I am in love with this post!

 

Welcome to the boards.

 

Me too, because just what these boards need is more condescending posts.

 

Somebody has to fill the Meph-void.

 

Hopefully Colin loves the draft, because Meph was almost essential on draft day.

What happened to Meph? I take it from this that he dosen't post here any more?

I kind of understand what Sarcastic is saying. I had a spanish teacher that would get outraged by any thing that could possiable be seen as racist. She left teaching to work at a bank that needed a translater for a large number of hispanic people that were working at a local factory. She quit working there after a few months and when asked why, she said she couldn't stand working with those people. Some people over react and make a big deal over things like this, and when they witness extreme racisim right in front of there face do nothing. It is easy to be outraged and make a big deal about something like t-shirts, but it is hard to tell a coworker or boss that a joke offends you or stop going to your favorite resturant when you see staff or a manager be racist.

That said, I'm glad they put a stop to selling the t-shirts and found them offensive. I wouldn't say that I was angry that someone sold them, but really dissapointed or depressed that so many people must of bought them.

 

I'm just trying to find some sort of gauge as to how much more intangibles a player must have in order to cancel out a deficiency in stats. Posts above were deciding based on age, which is not the discussion I had in mind (yes, kinda shortsighted of me in my original post). I, myself, would also choose the guy with the better stats. However, a friend of mine last night convinced me that, given a deficiency in stats small enough that can be explained away by "randomness", then you should go with the player with the intangibles. I just wanted to find out what everybody else thought.

If the difference is small enough to explained by "randomness", then the question is pretty much "If you have two identical players, do you want the one with more intangibles?" If that is the case, then I would say sure, why not.