goonys evil twin

26-27 is a little closer to peak.

Maybe if they didn't piss all that money away on Burnett, the could afford Wells. I think Toronto can more than afford Wells. They have plenty of cash. The issue is they don't see him as a superstar. I don't like the idea of Mathews. If he was a platoon guy, fine, but he has sucked for most of his career. Counting on him as a starter next season would be risky. I don't think an ARod trade would at all affect depth. The Yankees won't be asking for depth.

Zito's free agent contract offers have absolutely nothing to do with how much talent it would cost to get Willis in a trade. Financial cost and player talent cost are not one in the same. The fact that Willis is going to soon cost Florida more than they can afford actually decreases his trade value, because they pretty much have to trade him.

Yeah, they said Beltran type money. I think Hendry has a lot of options to make this team better and depending on what Toronto wants this should be explored. Wells is good, but far from great. He'd be a substantial improvement over Pierre though. He's exactly the type of player Hendry would go gaga over though. Toolsy, with glossy traditional numbers. He'd call him a .300 hitter even though he typically doesn't hit .300. He doesn't strike out much. All-in-all, a very Hendry guy. Now, if you end up giving him $15m per year, you aren't getting a bunch of bang for your buck, but seeing as how he's a CF, and significantly better than most CF, he's not going to kill you either. If Hendry keeps doing things the Hendry way, Vernon is one of the better options.

Can't wait for Pulford to come back to the front of the line.

There are a lot of players who are worth having if you don't have to give up much for them. It's not that easy to get those guys though. He was a valuable piece when he was very cheap. But now that he's getting paid, his value is minimal.

Rating him among lefties is pointless. What matters is how good a pitcher he is, not how good a lefty. Calling Murton a platoon guy is absurd. And the Tejada trade point is, well, pointless. I don't have a list of all the lefties in the game, but obviously Santana is better. Buerhle is usually better. Pettite is as good, and often better. Rogers is better. Verlander is probably better, Robertson might be better. Liriano, if healthy, is better. Kazmir is better. Pittsburgh has a couple guys who could easily become better with a little development. Cole Hamels will probably become better. There is a long list of quality LH pitchers. I'm not saying I'd want all of them over Willis, because some are near the end. But many are clearly better, and a good bunch are far more attractive targets, even if they are unavailable. Maybe we don't have much pitching, but we don't have much offense either. Trading Murton, already above average and on his way to being pretty good, along with Pie and a pitching prospect would be plain old stupid.

They would have to seriously upgrade via trade, because that would be ugly.

Batting in front of Bonds sure didn't help Shea Hillenbrand or Steve Finley put up good OBP numbers this year. Meanwhile, Murton managed a pretty decent .365 OBP hitting primarily in the bottom half of the order in front of the likes of Ronny Cedeno. If protection does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to have a very pronounced effect. I'm sure the topic has been the subject of various anylises if you need more in depth proof. That's the point. Their OBP wasn't as good because no one is going to pitch around them to get to Bonds. Hillenbrand's OBP hitting 3rd was 284. He also hit 5th and 6th this year, and put up respective OBP's of 344 amd 325. The worse the player hitting behind you is, the more likely you are to be pitched around, and more likely to have a higher OBP. What about guys expanding their zone because they feel they have to do the job themselves? The walks might go up, but with less to hit, the AVG and SLG could easily go down.

The new ad bar in place of the standings on the front page has been mildly entertaining.

That is horrible logic. Overpaying one guy does not justify overpaying another.

Doesn't that just indicate you are basing your argument on one year? I'm basing it on his career. Great pitchers show up on a lot of "top" lists year after year. Willis has not.

You can bet your life on it that that streak will end next week, though. I hope the Bears aren't looking ahead to next week, but I know I sure am. I'm only looking ahead in the sense that I'm still figuring out my ticket situation. I am very much focused on enjoying this upcoming Sunday.

You clearly don't understand what comparable means. It does not mean exactly the same. I brought up Lee because of the statement that free agents never sign early.

Ramirez was as productive in 2004 and 2005 as he was in 2006. He was nearly as productive in 2001. He had a setback in 2002 and 2003, but he's 28. 28 year olds who have had good careers so far and are coming off 2 straight very good years, aren't good candidates to fall off the face of the earth, production wise. Say what you will about health, but Aramis has had over 500 PA every year since becoming a regular, and has only been below 600 twice in that time. It's not just 20/20 hindsight. Ramirez has been the Cubs best hitter over the past 3 years. He was signed a pretty cheap contract, but had free agency rights. Hendry kept reassuring the public that he knew Ramirez wanted to stay a Cub, but he didn't do much to insure that happened.

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive. Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie. no, the lie is that the situations are comparable. Ramirez had a guaranteed contract for two more years. Lee didn't. not the same thing. pretty obvious. These are two different questions. Somebody insinuated that pending free agents don't sign before going to free agency. I pointed out that Lee signed. And you said it's not comparable. You made a point, an inaccurate one, that was about a different topic. Pending free agents do not always wait for free agency before signing. Secondly, there is a difference between saying something is comparable, and saying something is exactly the same. It's ignorant to claim these situations are not comparable. Ramirez was a pending free agent. Lee was a pending free agent. Ramirez had less motivation to sign, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a pending free agent. You might have had to offer more than you offered Lee, but you still have to do that now, regardless. I never said Lee and Ramirez's situations were exactly the same. But they indeed were comparable. The comparison is the Cubs risked losing both at the end of 2006. They chose to resign Lee, they chose to wait on Ramirez, and by all indications, assumed he wouldn't use his option, or hold out for big money. Yes, Ramirez had a better fallback option that made it easier not to sign, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have signed him less then than what they will have to sign him for now.

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive. Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? I think the better question is how often does that defensive prevent a run from scoring that the other defender wouldn't have prevented, minus how often a run scores anyways (plus runs scored because of errors by that defender) and that no stick defender fails to produce what the original player could have produced. If you replace a good hitter with a bad hitter, but the oppositon takes the lead on a HR, your defensive replacement becomes a liability. You are much better off going with your best players.

I know that, he just doesn't do a good job of defending such a claim. Talking about "righting the wrong" of the Wrigleys' selling doesn't hold up. It was a good thing they sold, because they were terrible owners.

It sure is comparable. It's not the same, but clearly comparable. If you guaranteed Ramirez 4/48 last February, are you telling me there's no way he thinks about it because he's guaranteed 2/22? Ramirez was a free agent to be last offseason, and the prudent thing would have been to starting talking turkey then, not waiting until the last minute. Hendry never realized Ramirez was going to exercise the option. He relied on his faith that Ramirez wanted to stay a Cub as a means to keep the cost down.

1 guy can play MI, 1 guy can play the corner. You don't need guys who play 7 positions.

You said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. And you ridiculed the notion that there was no need for such players. There are 8 specific positions, but no need for a player who can play all 8. 2 backup OFers, one who can play CF in a pinch, 2 backup infielders, 1 backup catcher. And a 6th player should be around as a wild card, hopefully somebody who can really hit. You don't need to be 3 deep at 2B. There is no numerical necessity for guys who can play all over the field. I never said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. You seem to be reading what you want to read instead of what I write. I said there is a need for positional flexibility off the bench. You said "eliminate the need for Bynum and Macias" and then scoffed at my claim that there was never a need for those players. I'm not reading into anything.

There was no incentive to listen to an offer last winter/spring? I doubt that. There is always incentive for a player to talk about an extension. More guaranteed years and more money is incentive enough. If Ramirez suffered the same injury Lee had, or had a down year, he wouldn't be in line to get the monster contract he'll get this offseason. That's why guys will always listen to offers. Listen and sign are two completely different things. If you sign early, you are essentially betting against yourself and robbing yourself of the opportunity to play the open market. How many talented athletes like Aramis Ramirez who are close to the best at their position have the type of ego that is going to bet against themselves? Not many, if any. The only way this deal gets done early and avoids the open market is if Hendry makes such a large offer that Ramirez is willing to give up the opportunity to miss out on being a FA. So does that mean D. Lee has no confidence in himself? Players routinely sign before going to free agency.

There was no incentive to listen to an offer last winter/spring? I doubt that. There is always incentive for a player to talk about an extension. More guaranteed years and more money is incentive enough. If Ramirez suffered the same injury Lee had, or had a down year, he wouldn't be in line to get the monster contract he'll get this offseason. That's why guys will always listen to offers.

You said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. And you ridiculed the notion that there was no need for such players. There are 8 specific positions, but no need for a player who can play all 8. 2 backup OFers, one who can play CF in a pinch, 2 backup infielders, 1 backup catcher. And a 6th player should be around as a wild card, hopefully somebody who can really hit. You don't need to be 3 deep at 2B. There is no numerical necessity for guys who can play all over the field.