jmajew

Sign Lugo to play SS and let Theriot play 2b. You bat Lugo first and Theriot second. That si my ideal situation for the top of the order. However, since we know that won't happen I advocate still signing Lugo to play 2nd but when Izturis gets hurt again you put him at ss and then put theriot in the lineup. If you do that you will have Lugo bat first and Barret bat second. I think Murton is more valuable batting 6th.

I went on a serious rant here about the greed of Aramis Ramirez and how stupid i thought it would have been for the Cubs to resign him to anything more than 6/90. I'd like to apologize to Aramis for basically calling him a money hungry jerk, he really did prove me wrong. The extra 20 million he could have gotten gaurenteed obviously wasn't enough for him to leave the Cubs.

Player B is Errormiss Correct. Players A and C are both players everyone on the planet wants on their baseball teams and who made a lot of money on the FA market. Player A I've just realized is Beltran See how much better Aramis is than Beltran giong into their FA offseasons? And Player C is awesome, but his own fans hate him. I thought it was ARod, but when I looked it up, his OPS wasn't 1.206 that last year. I think you have a typo with taht OPS. Certainly makes sense that ARam's numbers match up with these guys. He's a solid player. I still can't shake the feeling that he's not in that class though...something must be wrong with me. I think both of them being gold gloves makes them worth 2-3 million more per year. Thats why they are both superstars and the other is just a very good player. Give aramis 6/90 15 million a year.

So I just came home from watching Alonzo Spellman doing some cage fighting and all I could think about was tossing Hendry in the ring with Spellman. Granted Spellman looked like garbage and barely won but he was one scary looking dude and he would wipe the floor with Hendry. I kept telling myself not to think about stuff like that because it wasn't cool and that Hendry would have Ramirez signed by the time I got home. But now that I am home I wish i would have imagined the dude Spellman fought was Hendry. I am completey disgusted. I think Ramirez is asking for too muc hand isn't worth as much as he is going to recieve but the Cubs still needed to sign him. AT this point in time I see no reason to watch a single Cubs game next year....Every day I am beginning to gain more and more respect for the White Sox and Kenny Williams. NO matter what Kenny tries to make his team better, sometimes his ideas fail, but atleast he tries which is way more than I can say about Hendry. (At least it appears that way). I will still never be a Sox fan, but for the first time in a long time I feel I can honestly say I admire their organization and I hope one day the Cubs coudl reach their level. edit: If Hendry ends up resigning Aramis I will take back half of what I said. I would no longer regret my decision to stop myself from imagining Spellman pummelling Hendry. either way Hendry must go.

So whats the deal with Igawa? Is he a free agent or is he going ot get posted? Sorry if this was already answered I can't rememeber.

Link. I'd much rather have Igawa if the winning bid was actually 38-45 million. I can't fathom paying up to 95 million for 5 years of one player. Especially an untested one at that.

well then ultimately you see no way we can contend next year at all. which is not bad in and of itself, but the problem here is that the cubs management has been and will continue to be completely inept at recognizing problems then making a plan to overcome those so long as the same figureheads remain. so what is the answer? the only way we ever come close with hendry in charge is to pay aramis that money, hope glendon retires(bad as that sounds), and a few other things fall into place. lovely world we cub fans live in ain't it? sorry if i came off harsh, but in my opinion you were making aramis out to be a greedy monster, and i just can't believe that to be the case. No worries man. I know none of this is personal. I just look at it like a sale. Would you really haggle over 90 dollars compared to 100 dollars. I know if it is me I wouldn't. 10 dollars isn't going to change the world. Just like I think 10 million won't make a big difference if you are already making 90 million.

It does? Doesn't hurt me. I meant hurts us with regard as players leaving our favorite teams and thus making them even worse. well yeah, except the cubs are going to be bad regardless of whether they resign aramis Since we both agree that will probably be the case if we sign Aramis, is there even a reason to sign him? If the Cubs are gonna be bad with him wouldn't it be better to be bad without him and start a fullout rebuilding mode ala the Marlins? I still say offer Aramis 6/90 if he doesn't take it oh well. The whole point about my argument about money is pretty simple. Teams have to work around a payroll. If a few guys eat up a good portion of your payroll you can't really improve your team enough through free agency. They only way you can 5 players eat up about 75 million dollars of your payroll is if you have a lot of good homegrown talent. You have to look at it this way. If we sign Aramis to 6/100 like he wants that is 16.667 million. We already have Lee in for 13 mil a year. You have to assume Zambrano will make about 15 million a year if we sign him to an extension. That will leave us with another 30 millioin dollars to sign two of Drew, Lee, Soriano, Schmidt, Zito. Then we will have to fillup the other 20 spots on our roster for under 30 million. I just don't see how it is possible to build a contender that way. If Aramis trully wanted to be here and win he would take less money knowing that in order to win he would need all the money we can to build winner. the part about the marlins is asinine. who do we trade to get the type of players that the marlins recieved via trade? zambrano? lee? that's fine, but is hendry really going to do that considering what has happened since 2003? and the money you are talking about doesn't really make sense either. +/- 17 + 13+ 15 = 45 + 30 = 75 million. the cubs were talking early on in the offseason about bringing the payroll to somewhere around 115 million. yeah that leaves us anotehr 30 million to sign two of Drew, Lee, Soriano, schmidt, and Zito like i said. Which would add up to 115 million, which is exactly like I said. well that's still 105, but whatever you win. that still doesn't answer the more important question i posed: how do you rebuild like the marlins did in the situation the cubs are in? and do you really think that hendry is the man to do an efficient job of that? even if you trade lee and zambrano for several studs we would be lucky to get one player that ends up as productive as ramirez is now. why not just pay the man? Sorry bad math. I'm an idiot. :oops: But if we can have those 5 guys at 75 million it is still hard to build a winner unless you have good young or cheap talent. Our farm system is pretty bad so I don't have faith that that can be used to fill the holes and I don't have faith in Hendry to sign good cheap veteran ballplayers to fill those holes. 40 million is still not enough for the final 20 players on the roster with Hendry as our GM and with guys like Dempster, Barrett, Jones, and Izturis compiling about half of it. So essentially we'd have about 21-22 million for the final 16 spots. I see no way we can contend next year if we sign a bunch of free agents. Edit: I've been trying to say what Treeman just posted. Aramis should get 6/90 maybe even 6/100 however, because of the deep hole we are in right now because of bad contracts for mediocore players I don't know if signing him and another big bat and a pitcher is the way to go. Signing Aramis and waiting another year once some bad contracts are gone to go for the Series is probably the way to go.

True. But the Bears have done it 5 times this year and are being dismissed by many because of the schedule. I have to believe the easy schedule has more to do with us putting up 30 pts a game than it does with us allowing under 10 a game. Allowing under 10 is extremely hard in the NFL no matter who you play.

It does? Doesn't hurt me. I meant hurts us with regard as players leaving our favorite teams and thus making them even worse. well yeah, except the cubs are going to be bad regardless of whether they resign aramis Since we both agree that will probably be the case if we sign Aramis, is there even a reason to sign him? If the Cubs are gonna be bad with him wouldn't it be better to be bad without him and start a fullout rebuilding mode ala the Marlins? I still say offer Aramis 6/90 if he doesn't take it oh well. The whole point about my argument about money is pretty simple. Teams have to work around a payroll. If a few guys eat up a good portion of your payroll you can't really improve your team enough through free agency. They only way you can 5 players eat up about 75 million dollars of your payroll is if you have a lot of good homegrown talent. You have to look at it this way. If we sign Aramis to 6/100 like he wants that is 16.667 million. We already have Lee in for 13 mil a year. You have to assume Zambrano will make about 15 million a year if we sign him to an extension. That will leave us with another 30 millioin dollars to sign two of Drew, Lee, Soriano, Schmidt, Zito. Then we will have to fillup the other 20 spots on our roster for under 30 million. I just don't see how it is possible to build a contender that way. If Aramis trully wanted to be here and win he would take less money knowing that in order to win he would need all the money we can to build winner. the part about the marlins is asinine. who do we trade to get the type of players that the marlins recieved via trade? zambrano? lee? that's fine, but is hendry really going to do that considering what has happened since 2003? and the money you are talking about doesn't really make sense either. +/- 17 + 13+ 15 = 45 + 30 = 75 million. the cubs were talking early on in the offseason about bringing the payroll to somewhere around 115 million. yeah that leaves us anotehr 30 million to sign two of Drew, Lee, Soriano, schmidt, and Zito like i said. Which would add up to 115 million, which is exactly like I said.

It does? Doesn't hurt me. I meant hurts us with regard as players leaving our favorite teams and thus making them even worse. well yeah, except the cubs are going to be bad regardless of whether they resign aramis Since we both agree that will probably be the case if we sign Aramis, is there even a reason to sign him? If the Cubs are gonna be bad with him wouldn't it be better to be bad without him and start a fullout rebuilding mode ala the Marlins? I still say offer Aramis 6/90 if he doesn't take it oh well. The whole point about my argument about money is pretty simple. Teams have to work around a payroll. If a few guys eat up a good portion of your payroll you can't really improve your team enough through free agency. They only way you can 5 players eat up about 75 million dollars of your payroll is if you have a lot of good homegrown talent. You have to look at it this way. If we sign Aramis to 6/100 like he wants that is 16.667 million. We already have Lee in for 13 mil a year. You have to assume Zambrano will make about 15 million a year if we sign him to an extension. That will leave us with another 30 millioin dollars to sign two of Drew, Lee, Soriano, Schmidt, Zito. Then we will have to fillup the other 20 spots on our roster for under 30 million. I just don't see how it is possible to build a contender that way. If Aramis trully wanted to be here and win he would take less money knowing that in order to win we would need all the money we can to build a winner.

It does? Doesn't hurt me. I meant hurts us with regard as players leaving our favorite teams and thus making them even worse.

I get your point and all, but isn't Warren Buffet the guy who just gave away nearly 90% of his total net worth to charity? Something like 34 billion dollars to the Bill Gates Foundation? Anyways, i just wanted to add in to the discussion since ive been a long time lurker on this board..I hope all of this discussion dealing with Ramirez looking for a 6th year and nearly 100 million dollars is just leverage to try and get the Cubs to ante up on their end. I don't want to lose Ramirez, but at 6 years and 90+ million it is getting harder and harder justifying signing him for that. Just my two cents, look forward to more posting in the future! Welcome to the Board.

Also, don't forget that the career of a major league ballplayer usually is less than 10 years, or even in the case of good players, usually less than 15. Yes, they can earn money from autograph signings and stuff after they retire, and some go on to become TV commentators or coaches, but that doesn't pay nearly as well. If they want to live like a very rich person for their entire life, they probably should take the highest offer, especially if there's a difference of more than $2-3M per year. Lets say they keep 20 million in a standard savings acount. Assuming someone like ARamis is going ot make about 90 million over six is highly probably. If it is at about what 4% interest could be wrong but if it is 4% they woudl be making about 800,000 a year for the rest of their lives. I'm pretty sure than can live a great life off of that. Again, they'd be making a life off $800,000 when they'd been used to living like someone making $15 million.. Plus, they're losing half the $15M to the government and another 10 percent to their agent. Most people that rich give fairly generously to charity, and many support their extended families. Of course people who make less than $100K will look at $800K and say "hey you can make a great living off that." But when you've been taking home $7M per year during your playing career, your perspective on $800K has to be very different. But if you buy off a house and pay off the mortage which they should be able to do. That 800,000 should be able to pay for all of their expenses for a 20 million dollar house and couple of yachts for the rest of their lives. But there is no use to even bother talking about this. People can do what they want to do. And it doesn't effect any of us other than the fact it hurts us as fans.

Also, don't forget that the career of a major league ballplayer usually is less than 10 years, or even in the case of good players, usually less than 15. Yes, they can earn money from autograph signings and stuff after they retire, and some go on to become TV commentators or coaches, but that doesn't pay nearly as well. If they want to live like a very rich person for their entire life, they probably should take the highest offer, especially if there's a difference of more than $2-3M per year. Lets say they keep 20 million in a standard savings acount. Assuming someone like ARamis is going ot make about 90 million over six is highly probably. If it is at about what 4% interest could be wrong but if it is 4% they woudl be making about 800,000 a year for the rest of their lives. I'm pretty sure than can live a great life off of that.

False. How is it false? Other than they can buy an extra yacht or an extra vacation home or their own private jet?

That's all well and good, but in baseball, sports, hell, most anywhere in the world, people are going to go for the highest offer 90% of the time. If the Cubs had the attitude of "well what's the difference between $15 and $17 million a year, he's rich either way," they'd end up with no good players at all. Yeah money does matter for most people, but most people make under 100,000 a year. And frankly, it is tough to live a comfortable life and be able to send your kids to college if you don't make that much. So for people who make under 100,000 a year if they make 75,000 at one job but are offered 85,000 at another most people to jump to the other company because the money does make a huge difference in their lifestyles. But when it comes to people making 10 million or 15 million it doesn't change their lifestyles at all. Those are the ones who trully have a choice where they work and go wherever they would be happiest. Hey, I don't know what to tell you. None of us are that rich or ever will be. But the vast majority of guys go for the highest offer. Maybe all MLB players are just greedy pricks. Sorry for going off on this. It is just one of my biggest pet peeves. I almost compare what Aramis is doing to when Latrell Sprewell said he has to feed his family after he turned down a 3/27 million deal. Most of these pro-athletes are morons.

That's all well and good, but in baseball, sports, hell, most anywhere in the world, people are going to go for the highest offer 90% of the time. If the Cubs had the attitude of "well what's the difference between $15 and $17 million a year, he's rich either way," they'd end up with no good players at all. Yeah money does matter for most people, but most people make under 100,000 a year. And frankly, it is tough to live a comfortable life and be able to send your kids to college if you don't make that much. So for people who make under 100,000 a year if they make 75,000 at one job but are offered 85,000 at another most people to jump to the other company because the money does make a huge difference in their lifestyles. But when it comes to people making 10 million or 15 million it doesn't change their lifestyles at all. Those are the ones who trully have a choice where they work and go wherever they would be happiest.

Its not principle. We can't build a winner by signing 4 guys at 17 mil a year. It is not possible. The team will not win. You need homegrown talent to win a world series and then mix in free agents. We dont' have enough homegrown talent.

If Aramis leaves at this point I can deal with that. I just don't see the big difference in making 75-85 million over 5 years and making 90-100 million over 6. Once you make over a certain amount of money doens't the price get a bit ridiculous? I highly doubt that extra 15-25 million is really going to change his lifestyle at all. It also bothers me that these contracts are gaurenteed. I can understand why football players try to get as big of contracts as they can, since they can be cut at any moment, but in baseball it just makes no sense to me. I don't see how making 13 mil compared to 17 mil can affect anyone's life. Especially if the team offering 13 mil a year is the place you would rather be. I apologize for ranting but it really drives me crazy. I don't want a player who will squeeze out every last cent out of a team, especially when they are already making so freaking much. With all that said offer up 6/90 for Aramis and if he says no tell him to go play somewhere else. I also think the MLB should install a salary cap, one along the lines of the NFL but where the contracts are guarenteed so you can't sign someone to a huge contract and then when he sucks you can just cut him. Once again I apologize that is for a completely different debate.

Seriously? By my count, the Giants are going to be missing 5 defensive starters (Osi, Strahan, Arrington, Madison, Short). Also backups Tuck and Emmons are questionable. I don't understand how they could be so confident with so many injuries. They don't have good depth. Well we can't forget Toomer is out for the year and that Plaxico is still battling back spasms. So their offense will be just Eli, Tiki, and Shockey. We can basically keep 8 men in the box if Plaxico isn't 100%, and that should hold down Tiki pretty well.

ESPN Insider It bugs me that Hendry won't just give him 5/75 if that is what he wants. This is getting ridiculous. I can't believe Hendry won't give him that. Either the tribune is wrong in the price or Hendry is being way too stubborn.

That seems pretty fair to me. Would it be structured 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16?

JD Drew would be the best addition for this ballclub, since he can also play CF. If he opts out 4/52 seems about right for him.

The odds of that happening are remote. Yeah, no kidding. The Lee issue has really moved to the backburner in discussions, but going into last season, he wasn't a real good bet to repeat 2005. Now, a year older, after a terrible injury for a hitter that ruined an entire season (even though people maintained it was largely harmless and he'd recover quickly), we might be looking at a guy who puts up a sub 900 OPS in 2007. Quality numbers, but not superstar numbers. His OPS+ was 177 in 2005, the next highest number in his career was 135, at age 27. If he's much below his 2005 numbers, the acquisitions will have to be that much better, just to improve upon the weak 2005/2006 offense. Shouldn't the offense improve no matter what Lee's numbers are? By that I mean at his career norms. The guys we had taking his place were just awful. Lets not forget he made some serious adjustments prior to 2005 which was why he had such a good year.