oldcubsfan

I really think the Padres only offered him arbitration to get the draft picks, counting on him to go the free agency route. They had no plans for him and got stuck. However, if the CBA calls for that payout on non guaranteed contracts, then Todd will get his 650 and that will be it. If he files a complaint, then there is the possiblilty of him getting unofficially "blackballed" and no team will pick him up. He isn't a "must have" kind of player, although he is a decent bench/part time player.

they must think ANY publicity, good or bad, is good for them. I know they have a right to do what they want, but I truly can't believe they can decide to PO so many people. But then again, it is MLB.

this article might be interesting to you. I hope he's right. http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/26/commentary/sportsbiz/

that is good news. Bruce, don't you have to love Lou for penciling in Rich Hill to start Sunday against AJ and the White Sox on TV?

I share that optimism, even if cautiously so. Lou seems genuinely to believe this is as much talent as he's had as a manager. I'm confident he'll put productive lineups together. The health of the pitching staff will determine much as will Ted Lilly being able to throw innings and keep the ball down and Jason Marquis to bounce back. I'm not among those counting Marquis out. I gues spring training really is a time of optimism. Bruce, heard you on the radio this morning raving about Izturis's defense. How valuable do you think that will be for this staff?

They do and they will, if they can't trade him. I'll bet he doesn't see opening day on the Padres roster. $4 mil to sit on the bench, I doubt it.

Turning against him? Who's doing that? He hasn't shown up early to spring training, and it immediately turns into "well he looked out of shape to me" and "he's not early? that's not impressing anyone". It's useless garbage and it hasn't even been a week yet. Can't comment on the out of shape thing cause I wasn't the one who said that, but what's so "garbage" about saying that he's not impressing anyone by being the only person who isn't early? Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, being the last person to arrive doesn't look good. Especially when all of your other teammates get there before they have to. It's meaningless. Geez, Manny isn't showing up until March 1st. Think that will affect his hitting? ARam is here for 5 more years, don't sweat the silly stuff.

LOL!!! Very good. Maybe we can trade him again during the spring for ARod!

Exactly. Everything is supposed to be HD sooner or later. And to touch on a point in your first post in this topic, MLB stood to make 70m this year from JUST the cable companies. That would not include the offers ponied up by Dish and DirecTV and any other service to continue providing the service as they have in the past. The combined totals might have surpassed the 100m they stand to make by going exclusive with DirecTV. Seems like a poor decision to me. Amateur economist or not. I'm not sure that you guys are actually correct on the mandate that all programming is to be in HD...I'm pretty sure that it's that all programming must be digital rather than analog. You are correct. My mistake, however, the fact that most sets being produced(at least the high end ones) are HD. People paying for these sets will not be happy if they can't get HD signals from a variety of providers and they will let congress know. Exclusivity of HD signals to one distributor just won't happen.

Nice post. That's exactly what should be happening, but I doubt anyone ever accuses Bud Selig of being a rocket scientist. Clearly Selig/MLB would not enter into this contract if they weren't going to profit from it. I'm not sure all you amateur economists know all the facts here So are we to assume you are a professional economist with access to all the facts? The way I see it, for one million per team, they are cutting the audience for the EI package by 2/3 to 3/4 of the previous year. Dollarwise a win, exposure wise a huge loss. I guess I'll spend the $160 on something else this year. I was not inferring that I was an expert. But I think that a business as successful as MLB doesn't just randomly commit to one TV provider for their sports package if they don't think it will result in the greatest profitability. Perhaps they know something we don't as far as the future of DirecTV. As I said many, many pages back, there are rumors circulating that DirecTV is trying to negotiate exclusive rights to many channels' HD broadcasts. If that happens, expect DirecTV subscriptions to soar as people with HDTV's won't have any other options Seeing that Congress has mandated all TV bradcasting to be in HD in the future, it seems impossible that these rumors you speak of have any validity at all.Unless you think Congress will mandate that there will only one distributor of television and that would be Directv. Sorry, don't buy that or the so called rumors.

Nice post. That's exactly what should be happening, but I doubt anyone ever accuses Bud Selig of being a rocket scientist. Clearly Selig/MLB would not enter into this contract if they weren't going to profit from it. I'm not sure all you amateur economists know all the facts here So are we to assume you are a professional economist with access to all the facts? The way I see it, for one million per team, they are cutting the audience for the EI package by 2/3 to 3/4 of the previous year. Dollarwise a win, exposure wise a huge loss. I guess I'll spend the $160 on something else this year.

Buck Coats could be the one to go.

I believe Michaels just signed with them, would be suprised to see him involved in any trade.... They traded for Michaels last year, and he didn't do what they wanted, so he's probably pretty far down the list. Yeah, they wanted him to hit and knock in runs, which he didn't do. He's a nice platoon player against lefties, nothing more.

this has to hurt old Paul http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6351798

Mike Fontenot is a a limited talent midget.

According to my ticket rep with the Cubs, they had a 95% renewal rate before they signed Soriano. BTW, as a reminder to season ticketholders-the money is due by Jan 15th.

That is a real ringing endorsement of BP's forecasting ability.

Maybe people should consider what the Marcus Giles wanted: "Two years ago, Marcus expressed his hopes of eventually playing on the same team as his brother while visiting the Padres in Milwaukee when he was on the disabled list. “I think playing on the same team has been one of our desires for a long time,” Brian Giles said last year while talking about his younger brother. “When I was in the minor leagues, Marcus used to join me for a couple of weeks each summer and ride around on the bus with me.”

I'm with you 100%. I think the original question is somewhat of a strawman - of course the Cubs will try to win every year, but as far as trades and (especially) FA signings it should be recognized that future years' chances to win are affected just as much as next year's. The Cubs have spent money like a drunken sailor in this off-season so far. I have no problem with them spending money with a sense of urgency to win; it's just agonizing to see how poorly they've spent it. It would have been better to wait for a more talented FA class. And while you're waiting for a more talented FA class, you might realize that one might not come along and you've grown old waiting. I wouldn't be surprised to see more teams signing their stars long-term to big contracts like the Blue Jays did with Wells. At least you know what you're getting for the money. That is one of the main reasons this years FA class was perceived as weak, more and more teams are locking up their key players in advance. Look what happens to next years pitching if Z gets locked up. Wells is already gone and more will be also. Look at the Bonderman deal today, that eliminates him for early free agency. Next year you can spend all you want on Mark Buerhle, but the Sox won't and neither would I.

The questions about Johnson weren't like they were with Sisco. We'll see what happens the first time he runs afoul of Ozzie. A third franchise this early means there are definite red flags. Doesn't he have the same type of "makeup" questions that Jenks had? Get your calculator out and hit the multiplication key. Believe me, there were people in the Cubs organization from teammates on up who weren't sad to see this guy go. That's what I had heard also. Thanks. It should be interesting to see how happy Ozzie will be with his act.

The questions about Johnson weren't like they were with Sisco. We'll see what happens the first time he runs afoul of Ozzie. A third franchise this early means there are definite red flags. Doesn't he have the same type of "makeup" questions that Jenks had?

please provide me with a better predictor of future performance thanks! Why? Do you think minor league stats can be equated to major league performance absolutely? If so, you have your opinion already. great answer. you've really provided a lot of support for your position. And your postion is that minor league stats are a great predictor, is that correct? Well, Vance added a few more recent examples of how your preddictor has failed to predict accurately.

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.

please provide me with a better predictor of future performance thanks! Why? Do you think minor league stats can be equated to major league performance absolutely? If so, you have your opinion already.

Just pointing out that the people who claim minor league stats are predictive are not always correct. The predictability factor is not absolute. If that bothers you, sorry.