goonys evil twin

that was an incredibly stupid write-up, and my guess is it was satire.

Dempster blew 2 saves in '05 and the Cubs won both those games. Obviously, he meant '04. I hate when people get all hot and bothered begging the GM to go get a proven closer. Antonio Alfonseca is what happens when your GM goe after a proven closer that is available. The true greats, like Rivera, don't become available. The really good ones that are available are hit or miss. And there aren't that many available. It's like people who beg for a "true leadoff hitter". Screw that. Just get good hitters. Likewise, get good pitchers. Many winning teams just pull closers out of their butt, moreso than any other position. The worst thing you can do is try and build your bullpen with a series of big deals, because relievers have a short shelf life.

Exactly. How much of Dempster's suckage occurred because he didn't see enough work to close games to begin with? Same deal with Eddie Guardado when he was with the Mariners. I think Ryan Dempster's suckage had a lot more to do with Ryan Dempster sucking than with his lack of consistent work. Dempster doesn't suck. He's not very good, but he doesn't suck. He's OK. He's actually a decent option at closer, because closer is not necessarily where you want your best reliever.

I'd really like to see Boston charge Boras for his seat on the plane.

They were thinking that mediocre veteran pitchers are worth more than unproven prospects, which, interestingly enough, seems to be the way the baseball world is thinking now. Thankfully, Hendry has only been acquiring that type of pitcher via the free agent market.

He looks like Beltran. What has he ever done is a question about performance, not tools. Hendry would not be interested in such a debate. What had Cedeno ever done to deserve a 40 man roster space when he did? Nothing. But his tools are what appealed to Hendry.

You forgot to mention that he's not very good defensively. I don't know what the numbers say about him, but the few times I did see him play, he looked as shaky as Murton has ever looked, hesitating, misjudging and misplaying balls like many others. At best, he's average. I don't see how he can be considered defensive replacement level.

Exactly. And the "closer by committee" approach of the Red Sox in 2003 was called a failure by sportswriters after the first two games. When Latroy Hawkins struggled at the start of the 2005 season, no one said the idea of the traditional closer was a mistake. The most important thing is who you have in that committee. A closer by committee situation isn't going to work without good relievers. Boston's bullpen had the 3rd highest ERA in baseball in 2003. That's a product of not having enough good relievers, not who is pitching in the 9th.

The wild card could be Adrian Peterson, but yeah, I tend to agree. Seems to me that if the top 3 picks go to Detroit, Oakland and Tampa, then you've got three teams that don't really need a RB picking first. I'm not so sure I agree with that. You are talking about 3 teams whose running backs, and running games, are at the bottom of the league. They might have some names up there, and recently drafted guys, but they aren't getting any production. The Bears had a much better running back situation, with TJones and a quality backup in Peterson, when they drafted Benson. I think teams in that situation would be, and should be, willing to draft a RB that high. I'm guessing QB would be at the top of each of their lists, but I don't see 3 QBs going that high, and RB has to be up there. Detroit probably has the most stable RB situation of that group, and they have the worst running attack in football, and their started just got injured. Cadillac sucks. After 2 years of getting most of the carries, he's done nothing, besides the hot start. Teams start looking to replace RBs who don't produce for 2 years, it's not like the QB position where you develop. And in Oakland, Jordan has been in the league for 6 years now, and he's pretty much shown he's no franchise back. He's a nice backup and solid change of pace guy, but I don't think they should be counting on him to carry the load for long. And of course, he's injured. And Fargas isn't much of anything.

Well, I was anti-spend a first round pick on a TE. I still think the team could use some offensive firepower, but my hopes all along were more defensive playmakers (I think it's obvious the D-Line needs some) and offensive lineman (they are old, have no depth, and are not pass blocking very well).

Not only should you like him as an option over those last 4 names, those last 4 names should not be listed as options. They are terrible. Well, Brady Clark isn't, he should be an option, but those three old wash ups should not be discussed.

Maybe Matsuzaka finally stopped being a passenger on his own ride and told Boras he wants to play now. I don't think this would be the first time a Boras client ended up signing for considerably less than some insane number that Boras throws out at some point in negotiations. He definitely takes the "start as high as possible" approach to negotiations.

If he really puts any thought into fielding a lineup with Pagan and Izturis playing everyday, we can kiss goodbye any hopes of this being a solid lineup.

That's a pretty big gap considering Matsuzaka needs to be signed today so the Red Sox can get him back to Boston to get a physical before tommorow's deadline. I was on the Red Sox side before, but if that's their offer, then they are definitely lowballing Matsuzaka. 6 years and $66 million sounds about right for Matsuzaka. I don't think that's a big gap considering yesterday Boras was firm on 100+ million. Yeah, no kidding. 6/66 is quite a bit different from 100. 6/58 might be a good meeting point. That blows away what other Japanese players got in their first year. I'm actually surprised Boras is thinking about going 6 years, I figured he'd want to keep it shorter and include a provision that Boston can't offer arbitration, making him a free agent when the deal is done.

I'm not so sure he refused anything. In fact last year it looked like he tried to change his mechanics. Wood was abused from High-School on. Good mechanics or not he was bound to get hurt. i dont think that is necessarily true. look at the inning & complete game totals from the 60's & 70's. 300 innings with 25+ complete games was not uncommon. having the correct mechanics & training your arm to throw more often seems to be the key to not getting injured as opposed to limiting innings pitched. It's one thing to throw a ton of innings over the course of a full season as an adult. But when you are throwing back to back games and something like 200 pitches in a day as a developing kid, that's entirely different. And remember, all the "glory days" people like to talk about everybody who went 300/25 back in the day, but those were only the guys that didn't get hurt. There were boatloads of pitchers we never heard of because they were hurt long before they had a chance to pitch in the majors. And since hitting wasn't as productive back then, it was easier to mask guys whose arms weren't 100%. Today, if you're off, the hitters will let you know. Back then, they weren't as dangerous.

I assume you mean what it would cost to resign Prior and Wood for 2008 if they were to somehow revert to 2003 form. In fantasy land, imagining Prior throwing 200 innings of 175 ERA+ type performance, I'd have to think he'd be good for a 4/72 or 5/80 next offseason. His injury history would hold him back, but guys like AJ Burnett got 5 years last season, while Gil Meche got 5 this year. If Wood stretched out this season in the bullpen, pitched effectively, and slid into the rotation throwing his 2003 form in the 2nd half, then I think he'd be able to get a 3/50. There would still be doubts about his 200 innings ability (and that seems to be the primary thing driving prices this year). But if those guys hit the top of their range this season, and the Cubs tried to keep them, I think it would cost the Cubs something like $51-55 million to keep Zambrano, Prior and Wood for 2008. But of course, that's not going to happen.

Worst case scenario is pretty bad. He could have a bad 2007, and end up getting much less. He could get seriously injured, and end up getting considerably less. The economy could take a serious hit, which would put a similar drag on salaries as it did earlier this decade. Financially I don't think he stands a good chance of making much more money. The real benefit is being able to leave Toronto. He won't really have his choice of destination, since not all teams are going to bid on him, but if he really wants out of Toronto, then he should pass on the deal. But there's still an enormous risk involved with that move. Best case scenario is that he ends up getting traded to exactly where he wants to go and is offered that type of contract when he shows up. That negates the risks detailed above, provides security and puts him where he wants to be.

Can he play for the Blackhawks? Seriously, energy guy? What is that? Pagan is just a bad back of the bench player. He's tolerable as the 25th man, but that's about it.

only problem I have with that article is he doesn't lump in Fox, especially Joe Buck, for being the original and most persistant windbags in this whole affair. So true. Buck was doing the same with Eli on Sunday. All he ever does is harp on the same thing over and over and over over the course of a telecast. Man, they focused those cameras on Plaxico and Shockey the whole time, just waiting for reaction shots.

Did they get rid of him?

Is that really what it was? Jennings was better last year than Pierre was the year before the Cubs got him. And you can't call Taveras a prospect. He's just a bad 25 year old baseball player with no upside. And with Pettite and Clemens likely gone, there's a lot of money available to sign this guy, and probably a great deal more justification than there was for the Cubs to sign Pierre.

I don't really think Buckholtz or Taverez are worth much of anything. It's all about the prospect in my opinion.

It's only one year though, right? He's a guy who, at his best, is almost without peer. He had an ERA+ of 335 in 2003, that's nutty good. It would be similar to giving a guy like Bonds a 1 year deal for $16m. Obviously the potential greatness is far more valuable out of a position player, but I don't think 1/6 is absurd for a big money team that needs bullpen help, it's high risk high reward, but the risk isn't that high, since it's short-term.

Because Gagne has pitched in MLB to earn Free Agency. Daisuke has not. Frankly, they're lucky they get to negotiate a contract that's as good as they've been offered, instead of 3 years of < 1M indentured servitude like every other player. *sigh* he's been serving his "years of indentured servitude" in Japan. Those guys have it much worse of in terms of players rights and money than the US players do. In 2 years he would have full free agent rights there as well as here. Im sure Boston wants alot more than 2 years, why should Mats sign a long term contract for below free agent market prices when he has the option of waiting 2 more years and getting paid market value? Why? Because it's guaranteed money right now. Waiting 2 years isn't always wise, especially for pitchers.

yes... listening to merrill hoge talking football I don't think I've heard him speak, outside draft day, in quite a long time. Does he still work with Jaws and Kolber?