BigbadB

I've been patient. I was also aware the rules were changing. The cap was reduced to 2250 An outfielder was eliminated from the starting roster Pitching points were being looked at for adjustment for next year You put the rule changes out there for discussion. You adjusted rules based on the opinions of the rest of the league. Out of the blue, and in mid-December, the new pitching points now count towards the cap. I don't even know what changes were made to the pitching points. You claim it won't make much of a difference, but one of the guys I was trading for just took on more than 100 points by himself. Every other manager in the league may not be like me when it comes to how I work my roster, but I've spent a lot of time playing with numbers to figure out who my keepers will be this offseason, based on 2250 points. Based on the rule changes you published. Like I said, it didn't change anything with my team and I can still make the trade. But, assuming that this change you are making this late in the ball game doesn't affect anyone is asking for trouble. Trades are already being made. One was officially made prior to your announcement. What if one of the teams that made that trade didn't need to make that trade now that they have more cap room? I just think a change this significant, this late in the offseason, should be put up for discussion. If it's not open for discussion, can I ask why? I think you're doing an awesome job running the league. I want to make that clear. I also don't want to sound like a whiner. I'm just trying to understand why a change to the pitching points (which I agree with) has to count towards a season that is already over. Change the points and then have the affected change count towards the next season, which is what all the aforementioned rule changes are supposed to affect. Using it to change the cap now would be akin to going back and recalculating the entire 2006 season's head to head match ups. I don't think I'll be alone in this opinion. If I am, then once again, I'll shut up.

That would be a good plan if you want to win the AAA championship. I hope Hendry is shooting a little higher than that.

They just cleared 2 spots to get down to 37, and should not be able to fit Lilly, Marquis and Ward without making a move. Whoops. I missed that. I thought it was still over 40 with Ward, Marquis and Lilly still to be added.

People are wasting their time talking about this shortstop thing and Giles. The Cubs, whether you like it or not, are happy with Izturis and are not looking for a shortstop. They signed DeRosa for three years to be their second baseman. They are not going to sign Giles. I definitely don't like it even though what you are saying is true. It just goes to show you with all the money spent on this team we will be lucky to make the playoffs. isnt it ridiculous how much medicrity costs these days- a quarter of a billion for a third place team- Payroll jumping to 250 million!! Now we're really talking. He's referring to the life of the contracts signed this offseason.

I think we need another backup middle infielder more. Right now the team has one backup that can play both MI slots, one guy that can back up all the outfield spots, one guy that can back up the corner OF and first base, and a backup catcher. 3B is covered with our starting second baseman, but we still need a second backup middle infielder that can make sure that we have at least one left on the bench on the days when DeRosa plays 3rd. If we could get somebody that could back up 2nd, SS, and 3rd though, that would be very good. Cedeno and Theriot can both play SS or 2b. Cedeno doesn't belong on the big league roster at this point and would be better served playing everyday in AAA. But, he is still on the big league roster.

And it's decisions like these that will probably put Hendry in the unemployment line. Unrelated: I can't imagine they are done at this point. Isn't there a 40 man roster issue right now? Unrelated part 2: Come on, Jim. Give us SABR guys just one guy to hang our hats on. You've ignored our screams at NSBB for improved OBP by never going after the guy that "we" want. Just give us Church to shut us up for awhile. Thanks!

Seems to me the that the next bench guy would need to be able to play both corner infield spots.

Oh, we don't like it. You can rest assured on that. Why exactly is Hendry so enamored with him? That's what I don't understand. Izturis is just another in a long line of slick fielding/no hit SS's who come and go in this league, and are soon forgotten. I wasn't fond of his offensive output pre-injury. He's 2 years removed from that offensive output and may never match it again.

Here's what I came up with: 2004: 5.4 2005: 4.03 2006: 4.7 The 3 years combined came to: 4.73

Someone may get to it before me, but I'll see what I can find out.

He could be good if we put him in a position to suceed. For instance, if he was only ever allowed to pinch run (not steal) and never touch a bat or a glove, he'd be amazing at his job. Can't argue with that.

I appreciate that the GM of my favorite baseball team uses wins as the true metric of a pitcher's ability. :roll: I know he's just looking for something to show the fans justification for the signing. Stick with the "we found a flaw in his delivery" kick and please stay as far away as you can from the "he's won more games than Zito" crap. He also pitched for one of the best offensive teams in baseball the last 3 years. He won a lot of games he didn't deserve to win.

Well, if that's the case, let's start a pool on when Wood will be on the DL next.

The moves that I made or didn't make are not the point. I've spent mega hours working on trades based on the points I currently have and assuming the cap was 2250. It certainly doesn't answer my question. I know all about the rule that you created that lowered the cap to 2250. Where is the announcement (prior to your announcement yesterday) that says that the 2250 cap is being kicked to the curb and will be recalculated based on new pitching points? When you point me to that, I'll shut up. I appreciate all of your efforts to improve the league. But, I don't appreciate being talked down to when I don't understand something or I don't agree with a change being made. I value my time and I wouldn't waste if I can avoid it. The trade I'm making does not affect the points, but my concern isn't about just me. It's about fairness to the rest of the managers who have possibly wasted tons of their own precious time working on cap space based off of old pitching points. I was aware you were changing the pitching points. I don't ever recall you saying that the new pitching points would count towards the cap. I just want it clarified that you said this somewhere so that I can see that I missed a very valuable piece of information. And I'm not referring to yesterday's announcement.

Can you point me to where you said the new points would be figured into the cap? All I remember is that the cap was being lowered.

Nevermind. I'm still one of the new kids on the block. I've put a stop on my trade until this gets ironed out. I'll let the seasoned vets decide what is and what shall be. But, I did have a lot of time invested in a trade. That's what frustrates me the most.

Why base it on new scores? I've been fiddling with my roster this offseason based off of old scores. I would tend to agree w/ this. you have two months to tinker some more. using new scores is far more fair. I'm in the middle of making a trade. Tim has already made one. I can't go through with my trade now, because I don't know what this new points system will do to my cap space. The league is already dealing with a lower cap. This throws a whole new wrinkle into the offseason.

I'm not so sure Huff will be less expensive than Vidro. His market is growing more and more as less and less players are available. And he's actually a pretty good player. I almost mentioned Giles, but Seattle isn't going to use Vidro at 2nd. They have a good 2b already. Arguably better than Giles at this point.

Weird. I think I would have thrown money at Aubrey Huff before taking on Vidro's constant ailments.

i agree that some good minor leaguers end up being bad major leaguers. but that sure as hell doesn't mean that bad minor leaguers end up being good major leaguers. I don't think RH was saying Pagan was going to turn into a superstar, I was agreeing that he could be a decent major league player, nothing more. He wasn't a terrible minor league player. I just think he can be a fine 4th or 5th outfielder and may be a short term answer in CF until Pie is ready. He certainly isn't the long term answer, but short term he could be. That's all I'm agreeing with. A 4th outfielder on the Royals or the Rockies, sure. He shouldn't be getting consideration for anything more than the 5th outfielder on a large market team like the Cubs. I actually wouldn't mind him as the 5th outfielder. I certainly don't like the plan if the plan is to let him play CF until Pie is ready. I don't think the Cubs offense can afford to have a no hit CF in combination with a no hit SS and a no hit C when Blanco plays. I can buy into RichHillisaBeast's argument that Pagan has more power. A lot of guys develop more power as they hit their middle 20's. But, it's not a significant increase of power. He won't be an ideal bat off the bench, but he can play multiple outfield positions. He's no Jose Macias.

Why base it on new scores? I've been fiddling with my roster this offseason based off of old scores.

They were thinking that mediocre veteran pitchers are worth more than unproven prospects, which, interestingly enough, seems to be the way the baseball world is thinking now. Thankfully, Hendry has only been acquiring that type of pitcher via the free agent market. Before the offseason got too deep in moves, I was kind of looking forward to what the Dodgers would be like next year with a line up of: Furcal Ethier Nomar Kent Loney Martin Kemp Betemit Now, it's looking more like: Furcal Pierre Nomar Kent Gonzalez Ethier Martin/Lieberthal Betemit I wonder how much better they think their new line up is?

Hendry subcribes to the "earn it" policy. Some guys don't get it done in ST, others step up. Pagan stepped it up bigtime. If what you say is true, Hendry is a worse GM than anybody realizes. Spring training is about the absolute worst time to be making decision about your 25 man roster. A great amount of the time teams are playing people who won't even make the 25 man roster and might never make it for even a cup of coffee in MLB, not to mention the limited number of ABs in the six weeks of get in shape, golf after the game, don't go on road trips, split squads, get in to get some work done baseball. Shoot, I've already mentioned some of the myraid problems with evaluating talent during ST. One last thing, if what you say is true Brandon Sing should have been on the 25 man roster out of spring trainging last year. And the year before "Die Hard" what's his name should have been on the 25 man roster. You list a lot of good reasons for why ST shouldn't be the be all/end all of earning a job at the major league level, but the biggest one to me is that Arizona and the dry air makes a lot of guys look better than they are. They typically play day games in warm weather and the ball off the bat there is nothing like a hot, humid day in the Midwest. If Chase Field didn't have a roof on it through a huge percentage of the summer (besides fans dying of heat exposure), it would battle Coors Field as the best hitting park in baseball.

I think Lou does not like his work ethics. I read this somewhere but can't find the link. Good to see you, Roadster. Where you been hiding?

I like Baldelli. Gabe Gross would be interesting as well. And you might as well include Jacque Jones, because I like him as an option over the likes of Darin Erstad, Steve Finley, Bernie Williams and Brady Clark.