Exile on Waveland

Can a Ranger pitcher ever not immediately give up what the offense has just gained? Ugh ugh ugh.

People can say Missouri doesn't fit with the SEC because it's not in the South; but Missouri was a slave state. So, by my lights, it makes historical/regional/geographic sense. All due respect and all. Nor do I find it hypocritical for Missouri to have complained about A&M's actions and then yet also leaving for the SEC. The Big 12 was viable before A&M left . . . it became much less so when you subtract A&M and replace it with a school of the, um, caliber of TCU (not to mention that Texas and Oklahoma almost left -- and still could leave at any time). Missouri merely reacted to a situation before things possibly got out of hand and left them without a landing spot (and the SEC is one of the top-2 landing spots).

Yeah, it's not like you're picking eight random bad starts out over the course of the season. That would be specious. Dempster's bad starts are more relevant because they (almost) all occured at the very beginning of the season. After that, Dempster pitched similarly to his previous performance as a Cub. That at least supports an inference that perhaps April was an aberration. Maybe it wasn't; but there is evidence to support that conclusion beyond mere Cubbie-blue colored glasses.

Why why why? Baseball hates us.

I remember when that happened a month ago.

Even I don't think Theriot is bad enough to do that.

I'll say it again: I'm so glad the Cubs traded him.

Baseball is the worst.

sonuva b

YES!

Well, if you believe an expensive, (possibly) marginal upgrade is worth making based on lineup construction, we're just going to fundamentally disagree.

Couple thoughts/comments: -Counting on Cashner to fill a rotation spot for the Cubs this year would be a big mistake. The Cubs tried that this year and it was a travesty. And it's not like that was an aberration because he's generally a big innings eater -- he's thrown a total of 247 professional innings in four seasons. I like Cashner a lot. If the Cubs think he's a starter, have him start in the minors. I'm on board with that. If the Cubs think he's a reliever, have him start in the bullpen in Chicago. I'm on board with that. However, if he's in the Cubs' rotation, you almost have to sign a sixth starter as a handcuff -- which is wasting resources because you're basically just signing an actual starter anyway. The Cubs simply cannot risk another year of the cavalcade of suck that was this year's fifth-spot in the rotation. -I don't get the Kelly Johnson stuff -- at all, really. The Cubs have a number of guys that could be average to above average at second base. (Heck, I don't believe it would be wise use of resources to sign Jose Reyes and he's good.) Last year Johnson had a 1.1 WAR*; Barney had a 1.0 WAR. Johnson cost $5,850, 000; Barney cost $417,000. So spend a lot more money for what might be a marginal upgrade? That seems, uh, not smart. In fact, It seems like something Jim Hendry would do. *I know the response to that will surely be "but Johnson had a 4.2 WAR the year before!" That's true. He also had a 0.9 WAR the year before.

You should have known better. Laywers are an infestation on this board; and we're all pompous enough to want to talk about it. Yes, but why would you want to talk about going to law school (or being able to go, but not going)?? It's like somebody gloating about having a journalism degree. Hey, I have one of those too! :wink:

You should have known better. Laywers are an infestation on this board; and we're all pompous enough to want to talk about it.

you beat me to it but anyway, i would not look back in regret about that decision. LSAT and law school are easy, but what comes after kind of sucks for a good 80% of people. HOWEVER, if anyone make it work it is CT that's how i justify that decision and make myself feel better about it. if my work ethic sucks now, there's no way in hell i'd be able to handle the workload of law school, much less actually being an attorney. Law school is awful . . . but also kind of great. The workload is over-stated.

So despite the fact that he is excessively overweight, you think he's pretty healthy because he doesn't eat meat? I don't even know where to begin with that. While no one is going to going to confuse Fielder for being svelte, he's really not all that fat anymore. I think "excessively overweight" is an excessive exaggeration these days. I guess you and I have a different definition of excessively overweight. Evidently. Fielder probably nearly doubled my weight at one point, but he is thinner now: http://ph.cdn.photos.upi.com/collection/upi/d99ac2200a889e1b08fca1fe3c825fe4/Prince-Fielder-is-awarded-the-MVP-of-the-2011-All-Star-game-in-Phoenix_3.jpg I really don't consider that "excessively overweight." At all.

Votto is signed through 2013. And the real important thing is not necessarily when guys will be eligible to become free agents in the far off future, but actually having those guys reach free agency. The fact that Pujols and Fielder are reaching free agency at the same time is miraculous. Most of the time teams will try and lock up their stars. It's a horrible idea to pass on signing a stud because there is a chance you might be able to sign a different stud 2 years from now. Not to mention that it's also very difficult (near impossible?) to sign the top two or three free agents in any given year. Planning to sign three in one year is almost certain to fail; planning to sign one a year is possible. Pujols and Fielder are both free agents this year. Votto may or may not be a free agent in 2013. The Cubs need a middle-of-the-order power hitter and a first-baseman. Like you said, it's miraculous two of those are available this offseason. And a few of the big(ger) money teams don't figure to be in the bidding. The timing is basically perfect.

AH!!! Ok, surely the Hawks can win a shootout . . .? Yeah, probably not.

Kane has been great (the whole year, so far, really).

So despite the fact that he is excessively overweight, you think he's pretty healthy because he doesn't eat meat? I don't even know where to begin with that. While no one is going to going to confuse Fielder for being svelte, he's really not all that fat anymore. I think "excessively overweight" is an excessive exaggeration these days.

Just think it will end up that way. The 2 biggest overspenders are unlikely to be part of the bidding, I get the sense that Theo doesn't want to make a big splash this offseason because the team isn't ready for it. So this leaves teams like the Mets (financial issues), Dodgers (still some financial issues), Angels (possible but they blew a lot of money on Wells), Blue Jays (I say this respectfully but, Canada), Nationals (no tradition or strong fan base, might not appeal to someone coming from BFIB). I guess I just don't see a team offering significantly more than what the Cardinals are going to eventually offer him, and with similar offers out there, the desire to remain on the one team he has played for and is beloved will win over. Plus they indirectly proved that they could win with Pujols making a lot more money (my logic: Wainwright hurt all year, and signing Pujols would probably cause the Cardinals to have to let him or Carp go), so the issue about the Cardinals being able to afford him and still win is lessened. It just seems like all the pieces are in place for him to stay in STL. I am also of the mind that Pujols will eventually end up back with the Cardinals (hope not -- whether that means him signing with the Cubs or elsewhere).

That has to be a bit deflating. We, and I'm sure they, were already thinking 2-0.

I'm happy the Cubs traded him. :wink:

Seriously? Ugh.

First, you are correct, Selig might not exercise his authority because he's concerned about the consequences. However, merely because he would not does not mean he could not. Second, I'm not sure why you believe the "best interests of baseball" has any limitation at all. You may repeat ad nauseum that entering into such negotiations is not within his authority, but you've given no reason that's true. By it's plain language, "best interests of baseball" can be construed so broadly to encompass basically any action within MLB. Selig may think it's in the best interests of baseball not to have an MLB employee (directly or indirectly) held hostage; not to set a scorched-earth negotiating precedent for front office positions; or even that Epstein is super awesome and should be the Cubs GM because he could make the Cubs super awesome as well. By the clause, Selig would just need some colorable rationale why his action is in the best interests of baseball. That clause ostensibly makes him a dictator.