TheRaven

I think it is safe to say that about everyone.

Tejada isn't the force he once was. I don't think he alone would be why the WS was screwed.

He'll be back..I haven't doubted his desire to stay with the team.

Thank god Baseball Tonight was wrong and it wasn't Marshall. I nearly had a heart attack. I like this move for the Cubs. I hope it ends up being a true platoon position because I would like to see some more of what DeSoto could do. If they are going to start Kendall the majority of the time though, I would prefer if they sent him back to Iowa to get more ABs though.

The trade was terrible then and it is terrible now.

I love Salty, but he would only be an above average hitting 1B..however, as a C, his value is much higher. They should only continue to play him @ 1B in attempts to show him off to potential bidders.

Girardi should win out over Hendry if a struggle did come up. Joe = Taking a team that people seemed to feel shouldn't even be at AAA, let alone the majors to a respectable record and near a playoff berth. Hendry = Taking a team that was one foul ball away from a World Series, with a promising young staff and prospects filled to the brim to once again a desolate franchise with no present and no hope for the future. If Florida wasn't seemingly allergic to success, they would be wise to lock up Girardi beyond his remaining 2 years instead of letting a few spats get in the way of success. I can see the conversation on Tuesday.. 'Great job Joe, you took a team that we nearly guarenteed would be the worst in baseball coming into the year and nearly took them to the playoffs..I think it goes without saying that you are fired.'

Yes, a team fields 3 outs 9 times a game, or we'll just say, fields 27 outs in a game. One player does not. Your logic is a bit flawed in that comparison. Defense is an overrated quality and, for the most part, a quality that when graded, is graded poorly by those that are judging.

Because Soriano used to play next to Derek Jeter, who we all know is the most clutch player of all time..

I agree..good low risk/high reward move by Texas. They really don't even have a need for him, but he could be decent trade bait by mid summer.

The 30 homers is a bit of a stretch. I don't think it's a stretch. He had 140 AB's with 7 HR. If you extend those numbers over the season he could reach 560 AB's with 28 HR. It surely isn't a given, but he demonstrated he does have the ability/power. It is a stretch. The guy has not hit a combined 20 homers on any professional level during any season. 2003 - 2 HRs in 227 ABs 2004 - 13 HRs in 514 ABs 2005 - 17 HRs in 543 ABs Does that mean he won't continue to improve? No. Does that mean he can't develop that power? No. Is it a stretch to say he will hit 30 homers in his first full MLB season? Yes. I would rather him try to keep above a .350 OBP for the entire year than worry about trying to hit 30 home runs. I never suggested I wanted the opposite. I surely don't want him to focus on hitting HR, especially at the expense of his OBP. Is it a given that he will hit 30 HR this year? No. Do his numbers from the minors to the majors show continuing power increases? Yes. Is it then a stretch to think that with his good plate discipline, and his continuing trend of increased power numbers that he could hit 30 HR this year? No. Wow, that answer you're own question thing as they were absolute truths is fun. EDIT: Did Murton play A ball last year? I don't see it, and minorleaguebaseball.com has him with the following stats: AA 34 AB's with 1 HR AAA 313 AB's with 8 HR MLB 140 AB's with 7 HR Those numbers total to 487AB's with 16 HR, which is a better ratio of HR per AB than the 2005 numbers you have. Am I missing some numbers somewhere? I never suggested that you wanted him to develop power over OBP. I just listed my personal preference to end the note. To say someone will nearly double his previous power output in the highest form of professional ball in their first full season is a little bit of a stretch IMO. I would be weary of proclaiming that for people that have proven they are more adept for HRs in previous levels of play. It also begins to set expectations too high IMO as well, which leads to people unfairly criticizing people for something they should have never been held accountable for in the first place. I'm not saying that person is you, but I think there are quite a few people out there with the ability to exert that line of thinking.

The 30 homers is a bit of a stretch. I don't think it's a stretch. He had 140 AB's with 7 HR. If you extend those numbers over the season he could reach 560 AB's with 28 HR. It surely isn't a given, but he demonstrated he does have the ability/power. It is a stretch. The guy has not hit a combined 20 homers on any professional level during any season. 2003 - 2 HRs in 227 ABs 2004 - 13 HRs in 514 ABs 2005 - 17 HRs in 543 ABs Does that mean he won't continue to improve? No. Does that mean he can't develop that power? No. Is it a stretch to say he will hit 30 homers in his first full MLB season? Yes. I would rather him try to keep above a .350 OBP for the entire year than worry about trying to hit 30 home runs.

I'd take Weaver for 4.25.

The 30 homers is a bit of a stretch.

I still wish the Cubs could have plucked Julio Lugo away from TB, although I imagine they wanted too much. Hendry already vastly overpaid for Pierre, couldn't really afford to go above and beyond for Julio I imagine.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/illiniblue35/dusty_dice.jpg Finally, he has been exposed!

Nobody is going to be eager to add Jones' contract, especially if he just continues to play like he has. It is not going to be just as simple as trading him should the time come when the Cubs might look to.

I know what the reason is, it just isn't a realistic reason. There is no reason for Prior to take that deal when he can command as much in each year of the arb process if he stays healthy and can command much more once he hits the open market. From the Cubs point of view, assuming they know they can't take away a year of FA, locking him up would also be pointless. It's just not a realistic scenario, which is why I am sure it hasn't happened. And that's the whole point of why they haven't and why they shouldn't. He is not going to give up that first year of FA at this point and that is why they shouldn't give him an extension.

I would say in context to the market, it wasn't an absolute horrible deal. I don't even mind the 12 million per season average the deal has. The five years is what would have made me walk away from the table, but like I said, comparing to the deals that were being thrown around for other players this offseason, it wasn't that outrageous I guess.

I think, if anything, we can take away from this conversation that Ronnie will indeed hit .400 this season.

Neither can I..if it happens, it will be a miracle, and I don't like to count on miracles to win baseball titles. I would like to see some of the younger arms get a shot as well, even though the success rate has been low lately (Mitre, Welly). Guzman seems to be another talented and often hurt arm and Hill is still a big question mark unfortuantely. I am not usually one to ever want to trade young pitching, but I think while Hill was at his hottest, the Cubs probably should have struck a deal with someone and got some offensive help.

I only mentioned 5/50 because that's what you included in your original reply to me. I never mentioned those numbers before, as they are quite unrealistic. I know Wood and Prior's injury pasts are different, but why commit anything long term to Mark right now when he still hasn't shown that he can be the kind of ace that would merit that contract? My comparison to Wood was that, at the time, the thinking was that his injuries were behind him and the Cubs committed to him long term. At the time, it seemed to be a very good deal. Now, we couldn't even move the guy if we wanted to, without eating some of it and getting little back in return. If he dominates, then we pay in arbitration or in an extension. He would probably get close to 10 million per year in arbitration the next two years, which, in your contract extension that you want to sign him to, is what you pretty much would be paying him anyways. There is no guarentee that he would give up a free year of FA, which might be the only benefit the Cubs would garner. And if he never lives up to his full potential, than all of these what ifs are moot anyways.

If you do wait one more year, you won't have the chance to lock him up for a reasonable deal. Starting next offseason, with anything close to a dominant 2006, he'll be looking for 5/50 to just talk about an extension. If he has a dominant year, I am fine with that..A 5 year, 50 million deal would be more than reasonable. Also, thats pretty much the numbers that the posters here have mentioned that they want to give him now. If he proves it this year, I have no problem with it then.

I, for one, am glad they have resisted the urge to sign Prior to a long term deal up to this point. He still has to prove he can and will be the ace of this staff and not the next Wood of this staff. I love Prior, I think he is the most talented pitcher in baseball, but he can go a long way with a dominating, healthy season this year. Then let's start talking about locking him up through the rest of his arbitration years and possibly beyond.

I disagree..I don't think the pitching is as good as it was once perceived to be, and not quite on WS level yet. Zambrano is really the only proven commodity in the rotation at this point, and although we paid big money to improve the pen, I still reserve the right to see it in action first. That's also banking on Baker being able to actually use them correctly as well. Sure, there is loads of talent, but thats been there for years. In 03, it almost got them to a WS, but every other year, it hasn't done anything for the Cub fans except give them another reason to hang their head in shame.