Rob

For a long time, Mike Cameron has functioned as the litmus test to determine whether somebody knows what the hell they're talking about when evaluating players. He doesn't do the flashy stuff. He takes a bunch of walks. His power production comes from moderate amounts of doubles and home runs. He steals a decent number of bases at a pretty good rate. He plays exceptional defense. But he doesn't bat .300. He doesn't hit 30 bombs, or drive in 100 rbi, or score 100 runs, or steal 30 bases. He's actually good enough on defense that he doesn't have to make the flashy, diving plays that get him noticed on sportscenter. And that's why he's undervalued. Look at how much value he's provided his teams over the years. 2002 - $12.6 million 2003 - $13.0 million 2004 - $10.0 million 2005 - $7.0 million 2006 - $16.2 million 2007 - $8.9 million 2008 - $18.1 million 2009 - $19.4 million Yes, he's entered the age range where it'd be a mistake to commit to him long term. But I'd be shocked if he gets a better deal than Bobby Abreu just got (2 years, $19 million). At that pricetag, it's absolutely foolish of the people in this thread to dismiss him.

For reasons that I don't quite understand, some people still don't get this. Brad Hawpe is so god awful in the field that, if we assume Sam Fuld can play a league average CF on defense, he would only have to hit approximately .260/.320/.350 in the same number of plate appearances to have the same amount of value Hawpe had this season. He would also cost seven million dollars less, plus the cost of prospects in the trade. I'm not saying we need to make Sam Fuld our CF. I am saying that Brad Hawpe is an abysmal option for filling the hole in our OF. If I see another idiot suggest trading for him after how many times I've explained how terrible he is, my head may pop.

Fair enough. Just because I like to talk about myself in a positive light, I will say this. I have done a lot of volunteer work at food banks in some very poor and predominately african american communities. That's actually why I think I used the term aid... we handed out "aid boxes." Maybe some cranky old republican labeled them those being a bit racist himself. Maybe I used the term because I was being racist. Maybe it's not racist at all. All I know is that you get a lot further judging a person by their actions than simply by their choice of words.

You know damn well what I mean. Social and economic programs designed to primarily benefit african americans. Affirmative action, educational grants, etc... the system as it's set up now does not give everybody equal opportunities. But feeling guilty about slavery shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not you feel they deserve the assistance provided by those programs. There are much better reasons to help. I don't know what your problem is with me using the word "aid", as most of those programs absolutely fit the definition. But you feel free to go on LULZing. It's exactly the sort of arrogant, dismissive, and ignorant behavior we've all come to expect from you when anything remotely political comes up. Only when something ridiculous that's remotely political comes up. Nobody brought up "feeling guilty over slavery" or "white guilt." Yeah, white guilt was brought up. I sure hope you aren't trying to imply I'm subconsciously being a racist because you don't agree with the terminology I used...

You know damn well what I mean. Social and economic programs designed to primarily benefit african americans. Affirmative action, educational grants, etc... the system as it's set up now does not give everybody equal opportunities. But feeling guilty about slavery shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not you feel they deserve the assistance provided by those programs. There are much better reasons to help. I don't know what your problem is with me using the word "aid", as most of those programs absolutely fit the definition. But you feel free to go on LULZing. It's exactly the sort of arrogant, dismissive, and ignorant behavior we've all come to expect from you when anything remotely political comes up.

I recognize that there are many valid reasons to give aid to African Americans. White guilt isn't one of them.

Give up a tiny bit, get a very nice insurance policy if they cant resign Bay. If they can, he's a nice 4th OF or trade bait again. Excellent move by the BoSox.

I hadn't ever bothered to look at Brenly's final line from Peoria this season. I had recalled him doing fairly well in random box scores, but what I saw surprised me. .265/.307/.354 I'm rooting for him, but he's got a long ways to go.

I must have missed the part where we have a better internal option right now if Bradley has to leave, as you have said numerous times.

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written. Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call. I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better. You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. As Cubs fans, we've all been overexposed to the idea that being a veteran is something that's worth a bunch, and we've had it pushed on us in the dumbest way possible... our bench players, guys that should never be making the kind of money Hendry likes to pay them. But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position. Just because Hendry went about valuing experience in the wrong way does not mean that it isn't worth something... especially in the case of a situation like Fuld vs. Crisp, where risk management is really the only difference between the two players. Fuld carries higher risk, with no real benefit aside from the financial one. What's the harm in finding out what that financial difference is? If it's cheap enough, a team in our position (close to the playoffs) benefits quite a bit from taking that risk off the table.

Given their internal options, this certainly isn't a bad deal at all. Sanchez is above average at a key defensive position, and can contribute with the bat on occasion as well. Honestly, he doesn't have to do all that much with the bat to be worth his contract, especially since the Giants are so close to the playoff picture anyways.

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written. Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call.

Crisp hasn't been any good since testing came to baseball. and well Hudson he's going to be too expensive for a middle infielder who will be 32 on opening day. Crisp is Ryan Theriot... except better with better defense and baserunning. Coming off his injuries, he may be cheap... which is exactly what we need if we're going to be paying Bradley to play elsewhere. For a couple million bucks, he'd be a better play than Sam Fuld... who sadly may be our best internal option right now.

I really don't know what else you could ask for from a 19 year old SS. I wouldn't pay much attention to KG hating on Cubs prospects. When he has something nice to say about our system, that'll be news.

agreed and it's proof Wilken and by proxy Hendry don't know what they heck they are doing. Should've drafted Porcello. Porcello was about 5th on the list of players I wanted at that spot. If memory serves, my draft board was... Wieters Price (no chance) Heyward LaPorta Porcello Vitters Anybody but Brackman

What's wrong with Crisp or Hudson? Provided either is cheap enough, they'd be excellent additions. Likewise, I'd love to get my hands on Chris Young and see if he can't develop a bit more... depending on the cost, of course.

Goodness... Nobody, not even Milton Bradley, meant it as a personal affront to all Cubs fans by calling the few racist Cubs fans out.

That'd be about right. Trade a productive malcontent for an awful player who is also a malcontent as well as a steroid user.

He's also had a repuation as a malcontent the last two years. I wouldn't even consider dealing for him unless the Angels assumed all of Bradley's contract, plus enough of Matthews that we could cut him when he does terrible and starts bitching about his new bench role.

And obviously can never improve from his struggles last season. He could improve, but I highly doubt he will. Gut instinct, or do you actually have reasons? I guess you could call it gut instinct if you want, but from everything Ive seen of him, and taking his minor league numbers into account, I dont think he will ever be a servicable ML starting pitcher. I think he could possibly be a decent/good bullpen arm, but as a starter, I dont think he will ever be good enough. With Samardzija more than most, his numbers don't do a very good job of describing him. He's had very specific instructions as to what he was supposed to be working on most of the time, and wasn't left to his own devices of just burning fastballs by the hitters to get out of a jam.

I still think he accused the racist fans of being racist. I don't think he accused all Cubs fans of it.

Wow. Articles like that are the reason that the public is stupid.

And obviously can never improve from his struggles last season. He could improve, but I highly doubt he will. Gut instinct, or do you actually have reasons?

I think it would be a great idea to bring Bradley back next year (rather than get nothing), but I don't have to play with him or be around him for 3/4 of the year. His statement about "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" , although greatly exaggerated is probably closer to the truth, than any chance that Bradley returns. I'm not debating that at all. Really, I'm just nitpicking some sloppy logic from people. Will we keep him? No. The front office seems to have decided (for right or wrong) that he's too much of a distraction and we need to get him the hell out of here. But how some people make the jump in logic from we wont keep him to we can't keep him, is beyond me. If the front office had decided it was the best course of action to keep him around and try to salvage some value from the contract, things could have been glossed over in the clubhouse fairly easily, at least to start the year. Players get into fistfights with each other, use steroids, beat their wives, etc... and the situations are "handled" easily enough with an apology. And there is nothing from any of our players to indicate that if Milton came out the first day of spring training and said, "I'm sorry folks. I was an [expletive]. I'm in therapy now," that they'd tell him to get the hell away.

You didn't actually respond to anything I posted. The issues of whether or not the human aspect makes a difference is a contributing factor to the question of "should we keep him?". It has no value in determining whether or not we are able to, which was the crux of my post. Asserting that he has "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" would seemingly imply that there is no possible way he can make a return... and that's simply not the case at all. He hasn't done a thing that the team cannot forgive him for. There are plenty of players in MLB who have done much worse things and their teammates have forgiven them. Hell, Zambrano has done worse things by actually assaulting a teammate and he's still on the team. You can say you don't think it's a good idea to bring him back. And I'm sure you can make an argument for it like you tried to above. But when people here are asserting the he burned bridges to the point that there's no way he can possibly return to the team, they're quite wrong. And please, when I say in the post itself that something is a horrible argument for certain things, don't go ahead and assume that I wanted you to respond to it as if I meant it for that. The "watching games" is simply a way to refute "all you stats geeks do is play video games." Nothing more. I said that in the previous post, but apparently that was lost on you.