MeatampPotatoesMan

don't big names tend to sign later than their counterparts? that seems to lend weight to your argument. i'll buy it.

bedtime? :lol:

If anyone should have been charged with assault in the Bradley incident, it was Mrs. Bradley. There was a reason Mr. Bradley wasn't charged with a crime and it had nothing to do with his job. The evidence didn't warrant a charge, much less a conviction of Milton Bradley. You can't legally deny someone employment based on an allegation. On a conviction you can, but not an allegation.

You just hit on the key point. A record is not the same as an "allegation." They are two completely different things. A record is sufficient grounds to deny employment. An allegation is not, as it obviously doesn't include due process and a conviction.

It's more likely that Hendry help set the market by giving ridiculus money and years to two mediocre middle relievers. There was a quote from one agent suggesting as much. An agent said it? OMG it must be true! So Hendry giving 3 year deals for $4M or less pressured the Jays into giving Ryan 5 years at over twice as much per year? If true, that seems like quite an exaggerated response. More likely is that the Mets flirting with Wagner is what pushed the Jays into that offer. All three pitchers received 200-300% raises over their 2005 salaries. OK, then based on your theory Wagner will also receive a 200-300% raise since that is the "market" Hendry has set. Let me know when that happens. When did I offer up a theory? Eyre, Howry, and Ryan all received 200% + raises from their 2005 salaries. That is a fact.

It's more likely that Hendry help set the market by giving ridiculus money and years to two mediocre middle relievers. There was a quote from one agent suggesting as much. An agent said it? OMG it must be true! So Hendry giving 3 year deals for $4M or less pressured the Jays into giving Ryan 5 years at over twice as much per year? If true, that seems like quite an exaggerated response. More likely is that the Mets flirting with Wagner is what pushed the Jays into that offer. All three pitchers received 200-300% raises over their 2005 salaries.

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol. Actually, I thought they were pretty similar. Obviously, it's the bat. Dubois looked lost out there, hunting for every fly ball. I saw Murton take a couple bad jumps and one ill advised dive, but other than that, he looked to be tracking the ball very well. Every time I saw him in Wrigley live he played the ball well. Gerut was awesome defensively (just thought i'd throw that in there, lol). His arm is fairly weak. I agree about his bat. That's the deciding factor. At worst, he's a back of the lineup guy with plate discipline and little power. At best, he's going to be an absolute stud next year, especially since the league hasn't seen a whole lot of him.

Arm strength is only one component of defense. LF is one of the positions that can most tolerate that deficiency. Murton's range is pretty good and his instinct are solid. After watching Dubois, he looks like a gold glover, lol.

Good point. Hmm... Could you imagine a Murton, Pena, Abreu/Giles outfield? Pena would be one of the top producing CF in the league I bet, and he's only 24! Pena was certainly rushed to the bigs and lacks plate discipline, but when has that scared off Hendry? lol An .800 OPS is very respectable for CF, and is very obtainable for Wily Mo Pena. Just don't bat him 1 or 2. :wink:

Good point. Hmm...

I'd rather have Dunn. If we're going to get someone with injury concerns/potential from the Reds, I'll take Kearns. Willy Mo doesn't interest me much. Hopefully those comments from Pena drive the Reds to move one or more of their outfielders.

Jenkins's performance fluctuates a lot depending on his BABIP, which was pretty high for him this last year. He could be ok, but I'd rather not risk it at his salary.

It sounds like they're quite the disfunctional couple. Probably some blame to go on both sides. Bradley is certainly no angel, but it's possible he isn't as bad as he's been villified to be. I don't know. It is unfair to blame Mr. Bradley for the whole incident. He is an off-the-field risk, but I'd still like to see him in Chicago. His health is my biggest concern, but the on-the-field upside he brings is too big to ignore, especially since he could be had for a used jockstrap right now. If he doesn't work out, just make sure we have a backup plan in CF. Pie wouldn't be too horrible of a failsafe if we acquire a big bat in RF, which is certainly doable given the low cost of Bradley. :roll: Would you mind putting your thoughts into words and justifying your stance on this issue? IMO, Bradley is well worth the risk. He's going to assault his wife regardless of signing with the Cubs or staying with the Dodgers. Are we rewarding him for his conduct or alleged misdeeds? No. He's going to get his money regardless. We might actually be doing good by bringing him into an environment of quality family guys (Wood, Prior, etc). There is no way an employer would get away with denying employment to an employee b/c of alleged conduct away from the job outside of baseball (unless there were national security issues). Did he assault his wife? No. Legally speaking he committed no crime. His wife did. She assaulted him. He gets a bad rap b/c of her actions? Please.

It sounds like they're quite the disfunctional couple. Probably some blame to go on both sides. Bradley is certainly no angel, but it's possible he isn't as bad as he's been villified to be. I don't know. It is unfair to blame Mr. Bradley for the whole incident. He is an off-the-field risk, but I'd still like to see him in Chicago. His health is my biggest concern, but the on-the-field upside he brings is too big to ignore, especially since he could be had for a used jockstrap right now. If he doesn't work out, just make sure we have a backup plan in CF. Pie wouldn't be too horrible of a failsafe if we acquire a big bat in RF, which is certainly doable given the low cost of Bradley.

That's not it at all. I was simply looking for insight into the way he/she thinks. Fair enough. I've noticed that people have been much more argumentative on here lately (not necessarily you) and just thought the comment was out of line. Now that I understand where you were coming from, I realize that I was wrong. No problem. Maybe I have been contributing to the argumentative feel around here. I just wish people would back up what they say and it gets frustrating when people offer up opinion after opinion without solid justification for their views. :( I'll try to tone it down. Some people just want to sit back and enjoy.

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades? Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters.

That's not it at all. I was simply looking for insight into the way he/she thinks. People need to stop being so sensitive. If anyone is so offended about having their opinions/ideas challenged, then they need to either develop conviction or bolster their arguments.

Pal, I have 400 posts on a message board, that's what you know of me. Leave it alone. I can't comment on your words? Stellar. I won't respond to your posts any more if that will make you less sensitive to perceived slights from some anonymous poster who you only know from a few hundred posts on a message board.

We're the Cubs not the Royals. A budget is a budget. What do you have a degree in? (if you don't mind my asking) Knock that off. Who cares what his degree is in. Thanks - sometimes I think the goal here is to discredit other posters to move up some invisible food chain instead of talking Cubs baseball. Things have been getting a little dicey around here lately, havent they? Noticeably. Well, I did say "if you don't mind my asking" didn't I? And Mr. fearthecubs, if you are going to feel "discredited" by my asking you that question, why did you answer it? I find it hard to believe that someone with a degree in international business is so dismissive of economic concerns and insight into the Cubs organization. I just find it curious, that's all. I think you're being more emotional than rational in analyzing this team's transactions.

it sounds like Mrs. Bradley is guilty of assault. :wink:

that's the attitude that gets you another 100 years of waiting with a large payroll.

Are you watching the same Pierre I am? Pierre is pretty well known as having a wet noodle for a throwing arm. Damon can go get 'em. You know what, wait, I forgot you have personal inside knowledge to how much money we can spend. Did it ever cross your mind that when Hendry signs whoever, he realizes the ramifications as far as future trades or signings. This is his job. Sorry for the multiple posts but come on...we haven't won in 100 years, the time to be nickle and diming it passed a long time ago. Damon has a noodle arm as well.

We're the Cubs not the Royals. A budget is a budget. What do you have a degree in? (if you don't mind my asking)

Our budget isn't infinite. Overpaying in one area means we can't acquire talent in another area. For example, overspending in the bullpen when we have cheap alternatives lessens the amount we have to spend on SS, OF, and another starter. There's usually a fairly sizable drop in talent for outfielders for a couple million a season.

This is good news.