Rob

It's not about greed, it's just the way the system works. Players have absolutely no leverage whatsoever on their contracts for the first three years of major league service time and so are vastly underpaid compared to their market value. Hell, he's still being vastly underpaid compared to his market value. I agree he's WORTH the money he's asking for, based on production. But, if Theriot was an actual free agent this offseason, you think he would have commanded MUCH MORE than the 3.4 he's asking for? I'll give you the fact that at his age, he'd get a multi-year deal. Probably 3-4 years actually. But, with the market turn we've seen over the last couple of years, I doubt we'd see a team give him more than 3-4 mill per year honestly. That's hard to say. Pretty much everybody was signed before the downturn in contracts, signed a team-friendly long term contract to get some financial security, or is still under team control. The only FA SS who have signed recently have been Marco Scutaro (2 years/12.5 mil, 7.5 WAR over the last 3 years), Cristian Guzman (2 years/16 mil, 5.2 WAR), Edgar Renteria (2 years/18.5 mil, 6.1 WAR), and Rafael Furcal (3 years/30 mil, 6.6 WAR). Theriot has been worth 7.5 WAR in the last 3 years. That's not to say Theriot would get the same contract. It's worth noting that Coletti, Sabean, and Bowden are/were 3 of the dumbest GMs in the game. Then again, Theriot wouldn't have the same warts that all those guys have either...

It's not about greed, it's just the way the system works. Players have absolutely no leverage whatsoever on their contracts for the first three years of major league service time and so are vastly underpaid compared to their market value. Hell, he's still being vastly underpaid compared to his market value.

The mods should really step in. The mods here are a joke.

Well that's a completely different argument than what I said, but I'm not going to disagree with you.

Castro gets to dictate when he comes up. I keep trying to temper my expectations for him, but I'd say that as long as he has a pretty good season, he'll probably at least get a cup of coffee. If our middle infield gets banged up or he has another season like last one, he could be our starter by the deadline. Cashner is a maybe. I'd like to see him get some more work in the minors as a starter to see if he doesn't have a long term future there, and there's certainly no lack of middle relief arms in the system that could do just fine if we need them. But this is the Cubs, and I'm sure Lou will be screaming for bullpen help every single day from now until the end of the season. Whether Hendry can hold out is anybody's guess. The only other one of our top prospects that could force his way up is Jay Jackson, but I'd put the odds of that pretty low. Aside from them, you've got the usual suspects like Gaub, Russell, Atkins, etc... for the pen or a spot start. And guys like Snyder for the bench.

To be fair to Hendry, I'm sure he thought it was going to cost him money to move Bradley even if he ate an unfavorable contract. Nobody expected him to get money back in the deal.

What hat is he wearing? And did he get the same skin treatment that Sammy Sosa did on his right arm? That's a sleeve. No, it is a hat. Oh... I was WAY off.

What hat is he wearing? And did he get the same skin treatment that Sammy Sosa did on his right arm? That's a sleeve.

I don't like that his pay will be starting out this high in his first year of arbitration, but let's not fool ourselves... he's certainly worth this much.

I've never been one to shy away from handing out minor league deals, but in this particular case, I'd have to insist that he not start off in major league spring training. I'd hate to see his rehab taking away even ST innings from guys who could really use them.

When he's healthy, he generally works 93-94. But I imagine the odds that we see that guy again are low. How reliant was he on being able to hit those speeds when he was able to do so? Generally he throws about 2/3 fastballs and 1/3 curveballs, with a rare changeup tossed in here and there. But it appears the fastball has been his out pitch more than the curveball.

When he's healthy, he generally works 93-94. But I imagine the odds that we see that guy again are low.

Hoff is a perfectly adequate fill-in for Lee, and Fuld is actually better than Dye as a backup at any of the OF positions, especially when facing a righty.

what makes it unreliable? http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/how-reliable-is-uzr/ There's a quick little blurb about the reliability, or lack there of, of UZR. That's not a bad explanation, but again, reliability problems are not solved by more observations (samples taken), they are solved by re-calibrating the measurement system. It's like stepping on a scale and having the scale weigh you differently each time. Sometimes the weight will be correct, but simply averaging all the times it is incorrect and correct doesn't give you your correct weight. The only way to do that will be to fix the scale. IMO, there's no real way to calibrate UZR. At best it might be a rough measure of something, but just watching and using good judgment is probably much better. Those correlation coefficients are terrible. Anything below a .3 means nothing. So you don't believe in offensive stats either?

Ha! My friends and I were standing right behind you during the Meet the Ricketts portion, Tim. Maybe you should consider posting pictures of yourself from behind so this sort of situation doesn't happen again.

I agree as it pertains to the posters here. I disagree as it pertains to the players and team officials that see and live the situation daily, although I'd readily admit that the relationship between clubhouse atmosphere and wins and losses is nebulous at best. Put yourself in Theriot's shoes. Let's pretend that while you're in the clubhouse eating a light breakfast, Milton Bradley walks up, unzips, and pisses in your cheerios. You are not happy. In the next week you got 7 for 24 with 3 walks, a handful of strikeouts, and a couple doubles. Are you going to think Milton helped you bat .292 by making you more focused and aggressive? Or are you going to think he kept you from batting .300?

I'm willing to acknowledge that it's certainly a possibility. Do you disagree? Tell me where I lose you: - One player could respond positively to a negative clubhouse - A team is composed of more than one player - If a team has more players who respond positively in a negative clubhouse than those who respond negatively, the net effect could be positive for that team

I could point you at a few where CubinNY bashes UZR without understanding it or davearm acts contrary and gets upset at the board calling him obtuse (showing they don't know the meaning of the word) if you'd like. There's always the movie thread, too. I understand UZR just fine. Rob, put me on ignore. but then he wouldn't be able to insult you and then run away You were acting dumb. I called you on it. You got pissed off and snapped back at me. I didn't care to embarrass myself by playing a game of dirty dozens with you. Get over it.

Prove that Derrek Lee didn't have a great year due to Milton Bradley's presence. Oh my lord. So now we've reached a point where anything at all that can't be disproven must consequently be true. Actually scratch we, and replace with you. I don't think I'd throw that blanket over anyone else here. You're confusing yourself, I think. Nobody here, even myself and SSR are making the claim that negative chemistry leads (on the whole) to positive performances. We are playing Devil's Advocate in an attempt to show that claims that negative chemistry leads to negative performances aren't a slam dunk. Here's the crux of it though, summed up as best I can. Nobody here (and likely not even the players themselves) has a [expletive] clue what effect a negative player in the clubhouse has on team performance.

I could point you at a few where CubinNY bashes UZR without understanding it or davearm acts contrary and gets upset at the board calling him obtuse (showing they don't know the meaning of the word) if you'd like. There's always the movie thread, too. I understand UZR just fine. Rob, put me on ignore. My ignore list is approximately 5-10 people long and is generally reserved for people whose stupidity is so over the top it offends me... do you really think you belong on that list?

I wish I knew Tim and a few others were going to be there. I'd have bought a couple rounds.

I could point you at a few where CubinNY bashes UZR without understanding it or davearm acts contrary and gets upset at the board calling him obtuse (showing they don't know the meaning of the word) if you'd like.

He's pretty bad. Yet he's still far, far better than Dye.

Try reading my post. The important bits at the bottom are where I say how I feel about the subject.

I didn't wish to add this to the previous post in fear that it might detract from the message of my argument, but I think as Cubs fans we may all find it relevant. Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers are two names every Cubs fan worth his salt should know. They were the HOF members of our keystone combo while the Cubs were still considered a dynasty back at the beginning of the 1900s. In mid september of 1905, the two got into a fistfight and didn't talk to each other again for more than 30 years, despite playing right next to each other for many of those years. I think we all know how the next three seasons went. 1906 - Went 116-36, setting records that still stand for the most wins in a single season (tied with the 2001 Mariners), and the highest winning percentage in baseball history. 1907 - World Champions 1908 - World Champions This isn't to make a judgment that the team performed better because of the profoundly negative chemistry. No. It's simply meant to illustrate a single point: There are much more important things to consider than chemistry when constructing a ballclub.