Rob

Exactly. Squeeze a league-average starter out of him and he's worth way more than $4M, and it's not hard to squint and see it happening. This is precisely the sort of move that I would love if the Cubs were a cash-strapped team looking to catch lightning in a bottle. But making him the starter on this team is stupid, as we shouldn't be cash-strapped. I'd be fine with him as a backup, as well. Particularly for injury prone guys like Correa or Story. But I just think Simmons clearly has a high opinion of himself and after one injury-plagued season, one season where baseball was fundamentally broken, and one down season -- I don't think he's going to view himself as a backup yet. And even if he somehow did -- why would he sign on to be the backup on a terrible team like the Cubs? Better teams would offer him that gig.

He did that twice, in his age 27 and 28 seasons, and hasn't been close in the three seasons since then. He's 32 now and will turn 33 during the season. He also did sign cheaply as a backup, that's what $4m is. Not debating that $4M would be a cheap backup. Debating the "backup" part. There's still a few weeks left. I'm hoping I'm proven wrong. But I'd bet dollars to donuts he came he because he was offered significant playing time.

I kinda figured they'd try to limit his innings a bit this year anyways. Hopefully it's nothing structural. He threw 125 IP last year, there's only so much intentional limiting you can do while still trying to get him closer to a full starter's workload, since performance/pitch economy means he's not going 6-7 every outing. Yeah, I figured roughly 150-160 IP this year and moving to a full starter's workload the following year. Though perhaps I need to adjust my perception of what a full starter's workload looks like under the new normal. My brain still defaults to 180-200 IP.

I'm not surprised. Hoping for Correa and Story after signing Simmons seemed like wishful thinking. Those potential roster moves just hand-waved away the question of why Simmons would have choosen to sign on with us. Simmons has been bad lately, but he was a guy pulling 5.0+ fWAR seasons not that long ago. If he was agreeing to sign on cheaply as a backup, it was going to be with a playoff-bound team. He came here because he was presumably promised playing time and an opportunity to rebuild his value. FWIW, I think there's a reasonable chance we get exceptional value out of him. If we still had a large core of good but expensive players, this is exactly the sort of move I'd love to see to round out a weak spot. But it's pretty inexcusable with our payroll -- particularly considering that Simmons skillset isn't one that is likely to make him an attractive trade candidate even if he does rebound. Ultimately, this just looks like more proof that the directive from on high is to shoot for cheaply being a .500ish team who can potentially sneak into the playoffs and get lucky.

I kinda figured they'd try to limit his innings a bit this year anyways. Hopefully it's nothing structural.

Honestly, yeah. If you’re going that short it’s mostly luck anyways. Might as well make it exciting.

Fast forward to Opening Day when he is starting in RF and batting 5th. He may well be starting, but I'd be shocked if he climbs above the 6th spot this season.

Matt Murton? Clint Frazier. I think I prefer Matt Murton.

We have Jorge at home, he's got all of the defensive liabilities but maybe not the bat and also he's a ginger Matt Murton?

Ultimately, I'm just surprised that once again the MLBPA seems to have settled for minor incremental change on a system that's incredibly owner-friendly as currently constructed. After they got embarrassed by how the last CBA played out, I always expected their asks to be much bigger this time around.

i watched so many non-cubs extra inning games that i wouldn't have. it's instant action/strategy, and 17 inning slogs are overrated. There is just something magical about the possibility of that 17 inning game. By no means do I want to stay up until 2am every night watching extra innings marathons, but I want to know that it "might" happen. I like the unknown of going to the ballpark and expecting a 3 hour game but understanding that we might end up being there for 5+ hours instead. That could all just be me, but I enjoy the unpredictability and the chance to see something crazy/historic on any given day. Agreed. Long ago, I went to Wrigley to celebrate my birthday, and was rewarded with a 14 inning game with a rain delay. I got to hang out in my Mecca for like 7 hours that day. Even though the Cubs lost, it was glorious, and a memory I'll always cherish.

The good changes to baseball in my lifetime: - Drug testing - The expansion teams - The first wild card - Limited replay - The rules intended to minimize contact when breaking up double plays or sliding into home. (though admittedly, I miss those moments) A ten team playoff was a lateral-move which didn't drastically increase or decrease my enjoyment of the game. It has some pluses and minuses which roughly even out. Everything else has been a bad change. Advertising on uniforms, NL DH, three batter minimums, further expanding playoffs, draft pools, international spending caps, luxury taxes, revenue sharing, even the automatic walk. That said, I'm not sure how I feel about banning the shift. I always loved seeing the extreme defensive alignments with five infielders or four outfielders for the last few batters of the game. Heck, just hearing the phrase "infield is in" has always put a smile on my face and my butt on the edge of my seat. On the other side of the coin, banning the shift could conceivably put some more runners on base and increase the value of some lost arts like stolen bases and make the game look a little bit more like I remember it looking in its heyday. I dunno, I could see this going either way. As far as the pitch clock is concerned, it seems like another bad idea. I agree that the pace of the game needs to be sped up a bit for that stuff. But I feel like a pitch clock is drastic. The same goal could be reached by lesser means -- keeping pitchers near the rubber and batters at the plate, telling umps not to allow time calls to go on so long, etc... I'd prefer something that can be flexible rather than a rigid rule.

This is just a convenient excuse to funnel ~$3B or so to an ally of Putin.

Pretty sure this is it, but they haven't realized it yet.

The economics of baseball escape me when it comes to stadium-level stuff. But $1M doesn't seem like it would support very many employees for very long.

Kill the draft and bonus pools. Let the free market sort it out.

Yeah, this is awful. Lots more watching the Cubs shoot for 82 wins and luck in the playoffs.

You're also not already a couple of dozen times over millionaire, I assume. Context is everything. In a rarity, I'm with CubinNY on this one. When you're poor, it's easy to justify selling out one's morals and ethics in order to provide for their family. After all, that's supposed to be our #1 concern, right? We may try to be good, but the pull is certainly there when you have a family to support. But once you already have enough in the bank to provide your family for a few lifetimes, there's no apparent need which stands to justify acting so unethically. It's just pure avarice. Somebody like Phil has no business taking an offer like this. He has an ethical obligation to consider, and he's discarding it in favor of pure material gain. It's inexcusable.

I mean, you hit the nail on the head. It gives teams more options for where to play those superstar hitters in the late stages of their mega-deal. And when you shift them there, it opens up another potentially-high paid starting spot. Is it a huge difference maker for players? No. But it’s good for their major earners, and some slow footed sluggers. Possibly could increase longevity for some select pitchers, as well, though I imagine a lot of that number will be replaced by other fluke injuries such as those caused by line drives off a DH’s bat.

I hate both Donald Trump and the universal DH. If there's any sort of correlation between those two issues, I have to imagine it's a weak one. I love democracy, and I love classic, strategic baseball which encourages deeper benches and creative problem-solving.

I've said from the beginning that this will almost certainly impact spring training. It's possible it gets together in quick enough fashion to allow for an otherwise-normal season. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see it bleed (slightly) into the regular season. If we don't have games by late May I'd be shocked. The MLBPA leadership is pretty weak and risk-averse. They lack the stones to manage a real work-stoppage. They're only up to threatening it as a negotiating tactic.

As somebody who recently got an A- in their torts class, I can state with certainty that this case will settle. The only cases that go to trial involve railroads and ships.

Normally I think that'd be a pretty significant bounce. But he's now got to deal with the added factor that Bonds didn't get in despite his numbers and the career he put up before he started using -- which was pretty analogous to, though significantly better than, A-Rod's situation. That argument, in theory, could make it easier not to vote for him. They may cancel out, more or less. But I'd guess he still sees a slight bump.

And now that you've backed off Clemens, we can begin to find some common ground. I agree that if Ortiz is in, Sosa should almost certainly be in. Granted, typically I compare players to the others at their position and by that yardstick Sosa falls short on the numbers while there aren't really enough DH's to establish a bar for Ortiz to clear -- so looking at it that way, I can kinda see a statistical argument for the disparity. But it's not an argument I'm seeing from the actual voters. Their vote to hold Sosa out seems to be based on the same test which Ortiz allegedly failed. It's hypocritical and absurd. [And for the record, Sosa and McGwire, despite borderline numbers, absolutely deserve to be in based solely on the fact they basically saved baseball's popularity.] The Santo thing drove me nuts, and his numbers are HoF worthy at a position which is severely underrepresented. Again, I can squint and see the statistical argument against it -- using the outdated metrics adored by HoF voters at the time, he looked more like a borderline candidate. But that usage of the character clause was clearly an overreach -- he wasn't accused of being an actual bad person. He just rubbed some NY writers the wrong way. Totally inappropriate use of the character clause. I'll even extend a further olive branch by saying that trying to keep people like Tim Raines out of the Hall for cocaine usage was an inappropriate use of the character clause. They weren't hurting anybody but themselves with that. The only times I've advocated for the use of the character clause are merely to postpone [not prevent] induction when people have actively hurt others (Bonds, Clemens), are encouraging others to hurt people (Schilling), or have actively undermined the integrity of the sport itself (Rose). And hell, for that last one I'm perfectly fine saying Rose has done his time and should be in. Not all postponements need to be until postmortem. I'd love to see MLB slap a set penalty on PED suspensions including not just a 60 game ban, but a 20 year ban on Hall of Fame eligibility. I think that would cut down on the pearl-clutching by the writers and give the Veterans Committee implicit permission to say "they've done their time and we shouldn't hold it against them anymore." Just a thought. I can't speak to other sports -- I don't have much interest in them.

That's a fair take and pointing out a legitimate problem with the way these character allegations are being handled by a number of voters. Of course, I never understood why he was getting the support he received before the allegations...