craig

I haven't followed this whole thread. But it seems to me that Boras is working on Seibu as much or more than Boston. I can't find the quotes, but IIRC Boras has made two public quotes to that effect within the last week. One was something about how Seibu could make a gift or something to Mats. The other was to the effect that there were three parties involved and all three needed to be satisfied. I'm sure he's trying to squirrel more cash out of Boston. But, maybe Boston holds at $40/5, which would make their outlay $55+40/5, around $18 per year. That's a pretty serious bid on their part. And, Boras doesn't want Mats to come home with "only" $40/5. Why should he? If Boston is willing to lay out $91/5, that reflects what Mats's market value is. Why settle for only $40 when a team thinks you're worth $91? Maybe he's got no choice, and $40/5 is lots better than whatever he'd get in Japan. So, maybe he'll have to take whatever he gets. But, maybe not? If deal goes down, Seibu hauls in $51. Well, that's a killing for them. But, if deal doesn't go down, Seibu hauls in...... $0.00. That is not a killing. $21 isn't as good as $51, that's for sure.... but it's still $21 better than $0.00. Why not give Matz a "gift" of $30. $30 from Seibu plus $40/5 from Boston and Mats is getting $70/5. Maybe not what Boston values him at, if they were willing to spend $91/5, but given the circumstances it works out pretty well for Boras. *Boston pays $91/5. Stiff, but you know, pitching costs. *Boras/Mats get $70/5. Not near his market value of $91/5, but close enough to make it worthwhile. *Seibu gets $51-$30 - $21 to keep. Not nearly as sweet at $51, but, well, close enough. At least, a lot closer than $0.00. I think Boras is working on Seibu as much or more than he is on Boston. Is that contrary to the principle of how these posting things are supposed to work? Well, perhaps so. But, Boras is a clever dude. I assume he's come up with some sort of mechanism by which Seibu will be able to transmit some large chunks of money to Mats within the constraints of whatever laws apply, whether those be US, Japanese, or mlb laws. Maybe he's just bluffing Seibu, maybe they won't flinch, and maybe he'll settle for $40/5 or whatever Boston's current offer is. We'll maybe never know, other than whether he signs or not. If he does, we'll never know if or how much value Seibu "gifted" back to him to make this work out.

So who on the bullpen do we DFA? Dempster? Ohman? Wood? Wuertz? Eyre? Novoa? Howry? Cotts? None of those guys have any options remaining. Both Novoa and Wuertz have an option year left. Obviously Novoa is the first to go. That leaves you with 13 guys for the 12 roster spots. The probability that all 13 are healthy, so healthy that neither Wood nor Miller nor Wood nor anybody else needs to get sent out for more rehab nor on DL, is vanishingly small. So, while there are plenty of other reasons to object to Marquis, this is not one of them, IMO. Miller is the first to go. He's got a peanuts contract, and didn't have much arm last year. If he's looking so lousy that you can't trade him, then it will be no problem to release him or send him back to Mesa to build up see if more rehab can build up some arm strength. Ohman or Cotts are next on the block. You got Cotts for Aardsma, a fringe guy. So it's not like Cotts is some superstud. You trade him for some prospect or next year's version of Bynum or whatever. If he's looking really impressive in spring, maybe you can get somebody pretty interesting. Ohman has considerable trade value, given his K/BB/inning profile, his age, his stuff, and his contract. If you need to move somebody, some teams will be thrilled to give some very significant prospect(s) for Ohman. You've certainly got an expendable (Miller), a limited value (Cotts), and some movables (Cotts, Ohman). Another option might be Dempster. If somebody scouts him in camp and he's throwing really good, and they have a need (like when we got Alf), maybe you'd move him. It's not going to be a problem. And, the frequency with which teams have all 13 of their top 13 pitcheers all healthy at the same time is, well, very tiny teensy small insignificant. Especially when three of them come to camp as Prior, Wood, and Miller with the known problems that Prior has. This kind of fuss reminds me of last winter. After Howry and Eyre were signed, there were similar fusses. Z-Prior-Wood-Rusch-Williams-Maddux-Miller, that was six roster locks plus guaranteed Miller, and some posters were Williams advocates. Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Wuertz, Ohman, Williamson, that was 6 relievers. How horrible, it seemed the roster was all locked up with 12 guys plus guaranteed Miller, before you even got to Wellemeyer, Hill, Novoa, or Guzman. How horrible to block it all up from those young talents, how dumb for the Cubs to block the hot prospects. I sure hope things don't "unblock" as quickly this year as happened last year. But sheesh, this is not at all an overstuffed pitching staff when there is considerable reason to expect at least Prior to still be in his strengthening program, and little reason to expect miller to be any more thrilling a prospect next year than he was this past year.

I think there's a huge difference between Miller being healthy, throwing 95 mph with movement and Miller being healthy in that his arm doesn't hurt, but throwing mostly 85-87. The healthy and 94-95mph Miller, I want that dude on the team. The 86-88mph Miller, very different value, regardless of whether his arm hurts or not. The 95mph Miller, he's on the team, one way or another. The 86mph Miller, he's not bumping Hill. Listen, I won't be surprised if Prior or Miller come to camp and say their arms feel fine. But if they are throwing 83, you ship them to Mesa on rehab and have them build up their strength and velocity. The chance that Miller and Prior will both come to camp so healthy and throwing so well that you can't even consider popping them on rehab, that is so remote that it's really not worth worrying about.

Heh, I have the highest respect for Tim, and I've seen a lot of dopey trade proposals. But this is one of the worst I've seen. Or, maybe one of the worst I've seen from somebody smart. The Cubs are committed to assuming that Prior won't pitch. (For good reason). Miller is just a flier on a dispposable peanuts contract (you spend $21 on a flyer like Marquis; what does that make a $1.5 Miller investment?) The Cubs are dead set that Soriano will not play CF. (Piniella has flatly stated that he'd be in corner from the day he had press about Soriano signing till this week at meetings.) So, the Cubs are going to trade Hill because he's blocked by a $1.5 flier vet and a Prior that the Cubs completely expect to be disabled, in order to push Soriano into a position they don't consider him suited to play. Pure genius! Sorry tim, I know you were just having fun. But wow, that one is way, way, way, way, way out there.

I think the number of pitchers on the roster is now ideal, given the Miller/Wood/Prior situation. You've got 13 guys. Sure, that's an excess problem...... in the impossible event that not only do Prior, Wood, and Miller all show up healthy, but the other 10 indended guys all stay healthy. In the almost impossible event that all 13 guys do show up healthy, well, then you can worry about who's out. That's so unlikely it's not even worth fussing about. Certainly there is no need to be trading anybody on account of surplus, that's for sure. Miller is $1.5. That's your disposable contract. Guzman, Marshall, Marmol, and Mateo provide some rotation depth. None are guys you should assume are ready, although any of them might be. And, if any of them look superb in spring, Prior will be on the DL and Miller you can cut, or send to more rehab because his arm isn't still as strong as it was, or move to the pen in place of Wood or whomever else is hurt. Novoa, Marmol, and Miller provide some bullpen depth, for Wood or whomever else is disabled there. To me it seems like a pretty good balance. There's a wide open spot, so if Guzman looks like Cy Young, it's not like he's blocked. If Prior shows up and surprises, it's not like there isn't a place to put him. The only way you've got a surplus/opportunity problem is if both Prior and Guzman look like Cy Young. Well, how big of a "problem" is that likely to be? Ideally some of the Guzman/Marshall/Mateo/Marmol crowd will get a lot of Iowa time, like Hill did last year, and will dominate. So that perhaps when they do get a shot, like Hill his second round they'll really be ready, which Guzman and Ryu most certainly were not this past year. If those guys pitch well at AAA, they will be very valuable properties. Right now, they aren't really. It's not like any of them has both the polish and the stuff to be the main bait for getting Westbrook or Jennings or Vernon Wells or Brad Penny or whomever. They all look interesting but not that big-league ready. A good year at Iowa could change that a lot. Marquis could be a disaster. But I also think he has some Jacque potential. A year ago everybody was fuzzed that Jacque was getting too much too long. Where would Pie be able to squeeze in with both Pierre and Jacque blocking things? And how could you possible move jacque's contract? It took only a couple months for Jacque's value/contract to be quite movable, and now if we move him just as a salary dump, most of the posters who ripped his signing in the first place will now rip Hendry for not getting more value for him. I'm just thinking that Marquis has a shot to pitch decently enough so thatnext year he might look as appealing an average pitcher as Padilla, Meche, and Lilly. Or, at least at $14/2 rather than $40/4 he might look as attractive. So, if Prior fills #5, Guzman looks like Cy Young but he's blocked by Marquis, I imagine that if Marquis does decent you'll have a chance to move him and his salary next winter, to clear a space for Guzman (or Marshall, or marmol, or whomever...) and clear a little payroll to spend on Prior or shortstop or CF or whatever.

He definitely used one in 2004 for Detroit and one in 2005 with the Cubs. But he did not use one in 2006. He appeared in only four games for Iowa, and he was never optioned there. You may recall that he had some valley fever or something in spring training, so he hardly pitched at all. Thus he opened at Iowa not on option, but on a rehab assignment. And after his 4-game rehab, he was called back up. Even if he had been optioned, I believe it still wouldn't count as an option year. I believe there is some minimum number of days that you need to stay down for it to count, can't remember if it's 15 or 30. He wasn't on the Iowa roster long enough for it to burn up one of his options years. Wuertz of course spent all of 2005 with the cubs. I am very certain about this, that Novoa has another year remaining. I'm also positive that Guzman does, too.

I see the staff much as you do, Tim. The way I'm looking at it is that Hill and Wuertz are locks, even though both have option year left. That gives 13 guys who are either locks-despite-options (Hill, Wuertz) or have guaranteed contracts. (I'm not including Rusch). Three of those 13 are health problems (Prior, Wood, and Miller.) Novoa, Marshall, Guzman, and Mateo provide a reasonable pool of options if more than one of the 13 safe-spot guys are hurt.

Tim, I believe both Novoa and Wuertz have a remaining option year. So I've got Novoa in Iowa, barring injury need.

I agree. Given that we have two open rotation spots, both of those players could be good $$/talent guys. It's not like signing Marquis would block out Guzman. If both look good, then both could pitch. That is, unless some dude named Prior is healthy. Which would be more good news. If the worst problem we have is that Prior is so healthy that he's locking a spot, and Z and Lilly and Hill are all healthy and locking down spots, and Guzman is so healthy and pitching so great that we want him to have a spot, but Marquis is pitching at least adequately enough to hold off going-great-Guzman, then I believe 2007 might be a very fun season. It depends on the money, IMO. If Marquis was to be signed, and at stiff price, a guy with a big contract keeps his job no matter what. But, if you signed him to a 1-year deal at $4-5, I'd think that if Guzman is looking really great and if Marquis is looking lousy, I don't think that a $4 1-year contract would necessarily insulate Marquis from being replaced by some stud prospect.

That makes sense as an offer by the Cubs. $5 guaranteed for one year, or $12/2 if he vests. In this current market, I can well see that as making sense to the Cubs. On the table. Whether that makes sense for Marquis, not so sure. Given the money this month, I'd think he might well get a better offer than that. Certainly if I were him, I'd not take that deal unless the 2nd year came with a player opt-out. If he can have a decent year and return to his 2004-2005 numbers (*ERA+ above average, win 15 games, 200 innings...), he could get Lilly/Meche/Eaton kind of offers next winter. He'll probably want an opt-out. Still, if he only cost $4-5, that's not that much for a Cub team with a $125-type payroll. If he pitched solid, that would be great. If the offense scores runs, and the bullpen is excellent, he can throw 4.20 ERA and win 14 games. But, at $4, if he stinks and two of Prior/Miller/Guzman/Marmol/Marshall are looking really good, $4 is not that large a commitment, relative to a $125 payroll. I'm not sure a $4 commitment would be so large that it would interfere with Piniella making a decision based on merit rather than on contract. If Marshall or Guzman was looking really good, I'm not sure that $4 Marquis would block them, unless he's pitching at least half-way decent.

I'm with the crowd, some celebrity manager, Ryno being first guess. Some celebrity ownership change, second guess. Heh, other joke prospect guesses, of zero probability but more prospect interesting: *Ryan Harvey announced his conversion to pitching! *Jeff Samardzija announces that he's going to go baseball fulltime and give up football.

I think that would give you an excellent chance at contending. Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez could be really good, and the 2-5-6-7 spots could all be at or above league norms for those spots. That rotation could be good, if Hill pitched close to his 2nd half level and if Jennings pitched like last year rather than the previous several. But, "chance" is the key word. If Jennings regressed, Hill is erratic, and at least one of Z-Soriano-Lee-Hill is disabled, and assuming Prior is useless, it wouldn't take a lot of bad breaks to turn that into a losing team again.

I don't understand your math. All reports have Schmidt ending up at 14 or 15M. So that could still leave 8-9M for the second acquired starter. And if we trade away someone we have that salary as well. I'm figuring Schmidt at $15. From what Bruce and other sources (including an agent who was quoted) have said, I don't get the feeling that Hendry thinks he can afford both $15 Schmidt AND one of the $8-11 Lilly/Padilla/Meche guys. If he had $25 to spend on additional pitching, without cutting anywhere, I think he'd have been able to go straight for both Schmidt and Lilly etc., without it being an either/or. (One big ticket, or two $10 guys...) I think it's an either/or. And I'm guessing that somehow or other, the net cost increase shoudln't go much past $20, if that. I assume Jennings would be around $7-8, but if you subtract $5 in Jones, then perhaps add a $2 CF to replace Jones, you'd be back at around the budget endpoint that signing two Lilly's will get you. I think early on, Hendry may have hoped Schmidt might come a little cheaper, and that Igawa or Marquis might come cheap enough so that Schmidt plus one of those guys might fit into his budget framework. With the way the prices have gone, though, maybe not. My math was kind of confusing because, in a sense, if you trade for Westbrook or Jennings, Schmidt plus one of those would sum to $23 or so in pitching. That's what I had when I kind of suggested $23 being on the high end. But, I expect you can only go there, as you suggested, if you're trimming significant salary elsewhere, be that Jones or Dempster or whatever. Which wouldn't necessarily happen if you're signing Lilly and Schmidt.

I'm not a big advocate of the 11-man pitching staff. Miller, Prior, Wood will all have guaranteed contracts. If they are really hurt, you can get them off the roster for rehab/DL. But often when you have these post-injury guys, they are on the staff but not giving you tons of innings. You know, maybe wood is on roster, but isn't allowed to be used in back-to-back days. Or, Miller is on roster but doesn't pitch well enough to win rotation spot. Maybe in relief he can't pitch back-to-back days, or maybe he's in the pen but so lousy that the manager doesn't actually want to use him, but his contract prevents Hendry from releasing him. Or, Prior sooner or later does come up for his usual try-to-make-comeback deal, but he's on 80-pitch count at first and he's only good for 3-4 innings. Or, Miller is the #5 starter, but he's so wild and has to nibble around so much with his curveball that he's basically a 5-inning pitcher. Or, Cubs do end up snagging Lilly, who has usually averaged less than 6 innings. Or, maybe Mateo or Marmol or Marshall end up getting the #5 spot; none except maybe Marshall have given indications that they'd be likely to rack up innings quickly and work deep. Point is: I think the rotation may work out great, but there are a variety of scenarios in which guys often shouldn't be going even 6 innings. (And, if they do they may be getting hit pretty hard and losing their stuff in that 6th inning...) If the pen averages 3.5 innings per game, that sums to almost 600 innings for the year. If they average 3 innings per game, that's still almost 500 innings for the year. If you have a 6-man pen, do you want all your relievers needing to eat 80-100 innings each? That's a lot of innings for some relievers. *Especially for a guy whose arm needs special care (Wood, and perhaps Miller). *And, especially for a guy who may be used primarily as situational loogy (Ohman, perhaps Cotts, even though I'm not sure his splits demand anysuch usage.) *Especially for a closer, who may be used almost only in one-inning stretches. (I don't expect the closers to score 80 saves this year...) So, if you've got only 6 relievers, and you need them to cover 480 innings (3 inniings per game), then if several of them don't take 80 innings, that's all the more that the workhorse guys (Howry, Eyre, Wuertz) might get stuck with. In which case they might well be fried by September. I think carrying a 7th reliever makes a lot of sense. That way somebody whose arm is tired can get a break. That way the manager isn't constantly tempted to extend Z to 125 pitches to get him through the 7th or maybe even the 8th, in order to protect the tired bullpen. That way you aren't tempted to try to squeeze another inning out of rehabbing Prior. Or Hill. Or a tiring-and-losing-his-effectiveness Lilly or Miller, etc.. And, if things go well, you might be roster squeezed to carry only an 11-man staff. What if it so happened that Miller was healthy enough to be on the roster? And, what if one of Wood or Prior was actually on the active roster, much less both? I know it's unlikely, but imagine a situation where Prior, Miller, and Wood were *all* active simultaneously. Wood and Miller could make the 11th and 12th pitchers on the staff and Wuertz the #13 man shipped to Iowa. [/i]

Excellent point. My guess is that Hendry has some basic budgetary limits on what he can do for pitching. I think around $20-23 might be kind of the range we're talking. You can fit Lilly and Meche, or Lilly and Batista combined at under $20. You can maybe fit Schmidt and Marquis (maybe) at not much over $20. Of the Lilly/Padilla/Meche/Jennings/Westbrook dudes, none will go over $10, although jennings or Westbrook certainly could a year out (if Jennings posted another 127-type year, for sure...). I think Jennings and Lilly or Jennings and Meche might well end up outperforming Schmidt plus Kyle Lohse, or Schmidt plus Marquis, or Schmidt plus Rodrigo Lopez from Baltimore. In terms of realistic trade targets, Rodrigo Lopez is one name i've seen. I don't like him at all, woeful 5.90 ERA this past season, and some ugly peripherals. But, he's won 14-15 games for bad Baltimore teams in 3 of last 5 years, and thrown 170-209 innings in four of last 5. His salary and trade value is low enough that you could certainly access a dude like that for Jones. (Unlike Westbrook or Jennings or Blanton, etc., none of whom Jones alone would get even close to getting...), One of the other threads has talked about Jones to Pittsburgh for one of their inexpensive back-end starters. Hendry has often liked Aaron Heilman. I don't see Jones making any sense there, though, having just gotten Alou and Shawn Green. Beats me. But, I think that when you look at how much awful-potential some of the potentia back end starters are, it helps to explain why Hendry may not want to spend way too much on Schmidt. You may lose more with your second bad pickup than you'd gain with Schmidt, relative to the middle-rotation guys.

Actually, stats disagree with you. ERA+adjusts for parks Jennings since hes been in the league full time 02:108 03:93 04:92 05:94 06:127 I like Jennings. I think he has good stuff, as a qualitative observer. (My worthless scouting report.) His 127, which is really high, suggests that he has high potential. His sub-100's the previous 3 years suggests that he has not pitched to his potential. Using those, I'd say 03-05 he's been a #4 starter. 02 he was a #2 or #3+ starter. 06 he was a #1-2 starter. (I think league ERA's are actually lower for relievers, so I assume the average rotation starter would be around 99 or 98, a shade under 100?) My view is that he has the capacity to pitch at a much higher level than as a good #3, even though he doesn't have an established record of having done so past. But, the future is not always the same as the past. Further, I believe his 2005 is somewhat interesting. I recall him beating the Cubs maybe in June or so, entering the game with a horrific ERA, perhaps leading the league in walks. When he dominated the Cubs and they took hardly any walks, it fit in with the "Cubs are hackers, here's a wildman and they don't take any walks" stuff, which is why I remember it. Anyway, my point is that given how badly he started, my guess is that his second half 2005 was quite good, considerably better than 94 and very likely better than 100. So, it may be that he's sustained above-average production for the last year-and-a-half. Which may be as good a predictor for future as what was happening 1.5-4 years ago.

Raisin, has Guzman still only pitched just the once, last weekend? Did he start that game, or pitch in relief? Of all the winter leaguers, he's the one I'm most interested in. This may be a hassle, but would you mind including his stats in the regular updates, even on days he doesn't pitch? Heh, I've just scrolled through the whole page trying to find out if he's made his second appearance or not. If his line was listed down next to Cedeno and Blanco and Walker and those dudes, I could just look at the most recent posting... (heh, I'm lazy, so no point in you doing extra work because I'm too lazy to do my own...)

Pie has a lot of assets, his speed and arm being among them. I think a good projection for what Pie could become, if his power grows as is not uncommon, is Jacque Jones offensively. A Jacque Jones who played high-level CF would make a lot of money. But some of these Sosa, Vlad type analogies, I think those are unrealistically and unfairly high.

No. According to ESPN, it's Dec. 7. But as your quote showed, they changed some of the implications of whether or not it's offered. As your quote shows, the failure to offer arb no longer precludes a team from signing the guy as a FA. That's good for everybody. It just means that the player can't accept arb and force the team to accept an outside arbitrator's one-year salary. In past it was often tough; team and player want to stay in the mix, team doesn't want to get stuck with arb salary, but player still wants to explore the market. Now, team and player can stay engaged and get back together via free agency, after they both know what the market considers to be a fair price. If you do offer arb, it still offers the player the choice to use an outside arbitrator to arbitrate salary offers. (A route which is almost never taken.) As before, refusal to offer arb vetoes any team eligibility to receive compensation draft picks. (If the team isn't willing to pay the guy a supposedly fair, impartially arbitrated salary, why should they get compensation back for losing a guy they didn't really want anyway?) As before, offering arb is required to get draft comp for guys signed after the arb deadline. (Anybody signed before the dealine, comp applies.). However, unlike before the draft comp has changed. Before, a B like Pierre would cost the signing team a pick. Now, the team that loses a B still gets a pick, but it doesn't cost the signing team anything. That's advantageous because now B's can get signed on their merits, without having teams wait till after the arb day to find out if they can get the dude without losing a pick. This also accelerates the free agent season. If it isn't going to cost you a pick, why not get to work and sign DeRosa or Matthews or Pierre in November? In past it made sense to wait till after December 7, but by removing that stall motive, the whole FA process is likely to get rolling faster. Which I think we've already seen this year. I think that too is advantageous. Players can perhaps resolve their futures faster, and have more time to buy new houses or move families or whatever. Agents can get more of their work done earlier and not get it all jammed back into the Christmas season. GM's can get everything going faster, allowing more time to process decisions that depend on whether or not you actually get Soriano or DeRosa or pierre, etc.. And perhaps get their rosters established earlier so they have more time left for working on contract extensions (Barrett and Z this year, Lee last year, Aram year before that, Wood year before that.)

There could be an easy solution to the problem that's good for everybody. Boston: After $51 on bid, they don't want to go more than $30/5 on contract, if that. They hold the line at $30/5, $6/year. Net: $81/5, that's plenty of money spent for them. Mats: He and Boras would like to get at least $10/year. Obviously they'd like $16/year, or whatever. But they can compromise some. But, $6/year is too much and they won't go there. No deal unless..... Seibu: They'd like to clear the $51. But they'd rather clear $31 than to end up with zero. No deal is bad for them, unless..... Solution: Boras tells Seibu to kick back $20 to Mats. Bottom line: *Seibu: $51 - $20 = $31 to the good. That's enough to make it worth their while, and some. *Mats: $30/5 from Boras, plus $20 from Seibu. $50/5 combined, less than what he'd like or get on free market, but better than going back and still good enough for a guy without real bargaining leverage. *Boston: $51 for bid + $30/5 = $81/5. That's pretty stiff money, but for a young ace, that's a reasonable price to pay. You can adjust the numbers some, to make the balance work out better. But I think a deal where a good chunk of the $51 bid kicks back to Mats is the solution for everybody. No way Boston should pay $10/year on top of the $51 bid. If Boston is willing to put in $70 and more in combined bid+contract, no way that Mats should end up with only $20-30 of it and Seibu with $51. Seibu's $51 cut is obviously way to big. By Seibu cutting a chunk of that and giving it to Mats, they insure that they still get a big chunk (way better than nothing), and they insure that Mats is able to go to Boston. Win-Win-Win.

Negron was one of the guys derostered for cherry and Rapada.

Did anybody else there, cause I don't know? Wish Bruce was on to give the real story. That sounds like a recycle of the same rumor supposedly coming from Kaplan on Wednesday or Tuesday. Which Bruce subsequently pooh-poohed.

Correct. Sandwich picks are given to teams, but they are nto taken away from anybody. They are just extra picks added to entitled teams, those being teams losing A and B free agents (assuming the free agents are comp eligible. If the team declines to offer arb, of course no comp picks happen). So we give up our 2nd round pick for Soriano. Washington gets that 2nd round pick, plus they get a sandwich pick. But the sandwich is *not* from us. The Cubs get a sandwich pick for Pierre. And they will keep that no matter what. Their first round pick and their sandwich pick are both protected, even if they sign Schmidt and Floyd and Lugo in addition to Soriano.

The previous deal, it was a one-year extension before opt-out. This deal, we're getting 4 good years at good price. You have to make some concessions, and this seems a reasonable one. Aram will be 32. He may be in decline, from complacency or injuries or getting too fat or something. But he's a really special hitting talent, with his ability to swing so hard and hit with so much power, while being such a pure contact hitter and K'ing so rarely. Not certain, but there's a good chance that he will remain one of the best hitters in baseball at that time. And will earn another big contract. He may get better, too. Lots of guys do after age 28. A new manager, new hitting coach might help him. Being in what might be a stronger lineup might help him too. (RBI situations bring out more concentration; having stronger hitters behind might make a guy more willing to be selective and take more walks if the guys behind you are good enough to drive you in fairly often.) Being on good teams can also help, because it's easier to concentrate and stay focused in a pennant race than when the team is in 27th place.

Wolf could be interesting. Counsell, kind of depends on Theriot. I'd like for Theriot to be a guy who can play SS. Not sure if that's true or not. But his career as a utility dude would make a lot more sense if he could be the spunky low-power decent-OBP 2B/SS guy. Then your second infielder could be more of a bat, more of a 3B/1B hitter without SS responsibilities. But, if the view is that Theriot can't play adequate SS, then you're stuck. I think Cedeno should be out of the picture for this spring. He needs to go to Iowa and show he can hit and catch and hustle and concentrate. I don't think it makes any sense to keep him as a bench guy. So, if Cedeno is in Iowa hopefully developing, and if Theriot can't play SS, then you need a reserve SS. Counsell can play SS. Bynum can't. No-brainer, then, if the premise is that Theriot can't either. Counsell can also catch the ball at 2b. Bynum can't, or at least didn't seem able to last year. Counsell is also a better OBP guy. Less power, but Bynum went through periods where he seemed an auto-out. My problem with Counsell is that it's another no-bat bench guy, were you to sign him. Blanco can't hit. Counsell has no punch. Theriot for whatever he offers, punch is not included. Pagan is a weak, no-power hitter. If you can only carry 5 bench players, now you're looking at just one player with any pinch-hitting power. I'd prefer two. I'd like: *Pagan, CF/speed light-hitting OF reserve *Theriot, no-power middle infield reserve *Blanco, defense-oriented no-punch catcher reserve *Corner outfield bench with a bat and some power (Floyd could fit this profile) *Corner infield bench with a bat and some power