davearm

The future salary makes his worth negative. Kenny Williams probably has that feeling you get when you open your Visa statement the month after your wedding and honeymoon.

Sounds like he could turn into Ryan Church without the walks.

So it's becoming conceivable that ultimately the Cards could wind up paying $63.5M for 1 start, 6 IP, and 5 ER. If true, that'd go a heckuva long way toward balancing out the Prior and Wood disasters.

I don't expect him to be called up either, but it is certainly nice to see him approaching viable option status. He's certainly an intriguing possibility, and could really turn into a "diamond in the rough" find if he keeps it up.

In what alternate universe does $24MM for a guy that's nearly 40 and showing signs of being in serious decline not scare off too many clubs?

In a situation like this one, it's up to the official scorer's discretion. He/she awards the win to whichever reliever he/she felt was the most effective.

Posada would be a terrific 2-month rental (plus draft pick(s)), provided the Yanks' asking price is commensurate with a rental player. Age and wear and tear and all that is inconsequential... all the Cubs would need him to do is hold together for the next few months.

I wonder if baseball's power brokers would be swayed if David Stern were to write what would essentially be a recommendation letter on Cuban's behalf. Imagine if a guy with Stern's clout and firsthand perspective were to come out and say something to the effect of, "Mark's had his runins with the league, but the positives far outweigh the negatives. He's an outstanding owner and has been a tremendous asset for the NBA. The turnaround he's led in Dallas has been incredible, and he's been instrumental in growing the league as a whole. MLB would be very fortunate to have him bring his keen intellect and progressive thinking to one of its franchises." I also wonder if Stern would actually hold this opinion of Cuban.

I believe that was the primary reason. They want to start the 2nd half with Jones playing CF, and hope he plays well enough to garner interest in a trade. I'm not buying the "showcase" theory. There's no point in "showcasing" Jones. You do that with prospects, not guys that have been in the league for 10 years. Everybody knows the book on Jacque Jones (decent vs RHP, lousy vs LHP, very streaky, semi-versatile in the OF, etc). The next few weeks aren't going to rewrite that book in any meaningful way. It's not a matter of rewriting a book. It's about convincing somebody that the first half was a fluke and that he actually does have something left. That is what is in doubt here. Nobody knows if he's done. So we're going to get that question answered in the next few weeks here?

I believe that was the primary reason. They want to start the 2nd half with Jones playing CF, and hope he plays well enough to garner interest in a trade. I'm not buying the "showcase" theory. There's no point in "showcasing" Jones. You do that with prospects, not guys that have been in the league for 10 years. Everybody knows the book on Jacque Jones (decent vs RHP, lousy vs LHP, very streaky, semi-versatile in the OF, etc). The next few weeks aren't going to rewrite that book in any meaningful way.

Even if this is true, the large chunk of Griffey's salary that is deferred might make for an exception. The payroll impact this year and next would be close to zero if Jones goes back to the Reds.

Why aren't people putting Murton into these packages? Acquiring yet another OF makes the guy that much more expendable, so we might as well use him to pay part of the tab for KGJ. Marshall + Murton + Jones. The Reds can then deal Dunn, play Murton LF and Jones RF this year and next, and have Jay Bruce take over for Jones in time. That leaves them with Murton - Hamilton - Bruce in the longterm.

Miguel Cabrera was switched off of SS because he was hitting for too much power, huh? Fascinating. I did not know that.

You look like you need a refresher here. If you're comparing Ichiro to Enos Slaughter, WARP3 is your only option. If you're comparing Ichiro to a current NL player, use either WARP2 or WARP3, but not WARP1... 2 and 3 will be the same since no adjustment for season length is necessary for current players. If you're comparing Ichiro to a current AL player, use any of the three. As noted above, WARP2 and WARP3 will be the same. WARP1 will be lower for both guys, without the difficulty adjustment. But the bottom line is that there's never an analysis for which WARP3 is *not* appropriate. That's why it's the one most folks migrate to. If you're adamant about using WARP1 here, that's fine by me. Ichiro's worst season is now worth 6.8 wins (not 8.2), and ARod's worst season is now worth 5.4 wins (not 7.3). The margin is still there, and actually using WARP1 hurts ARod more than Ichiro (26% decline from 3 to 1 for ARod; 17% decline for Ichiro).

I don't think that's done in baseball, so neither Neither Hill has an initial, IIRC.

more foolish than to believe the guy on your team is one of the rare exceptions to the rule? Soriano absolutely IS an exception to the rule. There are no maybe's or could be's about it. And exceptions to this particular rule are hardly rare.

Kinda blows a hole in your entire argument to point out that Soriano's two lowest OPS+ seasons since his rookie year came at ages 28 and 29, right square in the middle of his alleged peak, doesn't it? so one player shatters the evidence that 26-29 are generally peak years? Of course not. Indeed, prime years are generally 26-29. Key word there is generally. Some guys peak earlier, and some peak later. For that reason it's foolish to make definitive statements such as, "Prime years are 26-29" and "a player who is 31 is past his prime." Particularly foolish would be to apply this tortured logic to a guy that at age 31 is outperforming his age 28 and 29 seasons.

Kinda blows a hole in your entire argument to point out that Soriano's two lowest OPS+ seasons since his rookie year came at ages 28 and 29, right square in the middle of his alleged peak, doesn't it?

That'd be one ridiculous argument. a) Studies consistently show OBP to be more important than SLG. Depending on who you ask, the multiplier is anywhere from 1.5x more important to 3x more important. b) The importance of SLG in proportion to OBP is going to be the same no matter where you stand when you've got your fielder's glove on. The notion that your LF and RF have to slug and your CF and SS need to get onbase is complete and utter nonsense. What's needed is lineup balance, regardless of defensive position.

I'd sure be curious to hear which 2 or 3 seasons you're tossing out as less than good. His worst season was still worth over 8 wins. That's very good. 2003: .312/.352/.436/.788, 110 OPS+, 80% SB 2005: .303/.350/.436/.786, 109 OPS+, 80% SB 2006: .322/.370/.416/.786, 109 OPS+, 95% SB Now he did add a significant amount of production in 2006 with his stolen bases, but overall those years aren't terribly impressive. You're missing a whole lot by focusing on OPS+. Above average hitting + outstanding baserunning + gold glove defense adds up to a very productive, well above average player. As I pointed out, at his worst Ichiro's been worth 8+ wins. That's nothing short of very good production. For some perspective, ARod's off year in 2006 was good for "just" 7.3 wins, even with a terrific OPS+ (140). But in 2004 ARod was good for 10 wins despite an OPS+ of "just" 133.

It doesn't matter where the supplemental income goes, it still affects the team's bottom line. And the team needs to look at Ichiro's net impact on their bottom line. If they don't I think that's hilarious. Exactly. Revenue is revenue. Whether or not it's rolled back into payroll is really not the issue.

Butler drew walks, Ichiro doesn't. Playing until you are 40-42 is not the same thing as maintain the level of performance through your mid-30's. Who, exactly, would you expect to "maintain [their] level of performance through [their] mid-30's"? If you're looking for a guy that'll be just as good at 38 as he was at 28, well, good luck with that. Virtually all players decline through their mid-30s. That's the way things work. Nobody's arguing that Ichiro is somehow immune to this reality. The point is, Ichiro is arguably less prone to a mid-30s decline than other guys with different skillsets. You've been shown anecdotal evidence to support this (your hairsplitting notwithstanding), there have been studies done that support this, and beyond that, it's just simple common sense that a more fit and athletic player is going to be less prone to natural age-related decline than a less fit, less athletic one. Ichiro most definitely is in the more fit, more athletic column. Therefore the notion that, because Ichiro is speedy, his production is therefore going to tail off more rapidly than joe average ballplayer is completely nonsensical and false.

Ichiro's game is not built on speed. It's built on an incredible ability to hit a baseball in almost any direct.Why are you telling me that? Tell it to the folks that seem to think Ichiro is going to suck in 3 years simply because his game's built on speed.

Provide some scrutiny that disproves it. I don't know of any thinly built speedy guys like Ichiro whose game held up throughout their mid 30's. We're talking about a guy with little patience and very little power whose entire game is based on his ability to make contact and run to first. The closest comparable I can think of is Kenny Lofton, but he had more patience and more power. He has stuck around a while, but has been quite inconsistent. Lofton Otis Nixon Ricky Henderson Ozzie Smith Lou Brock Willie Wilson Brett Butler Davey Lopes Omar Vizquel What a terrible attempt to defend your stance. LOL! You said, "I don't know of any thinly built speedy guys like Ichiro whose game held up throughout their mid 30's." Well now you know of several. Happy to be of service. Except for the fact that Ricky was never thinly built, and Brett Butler, Davey Lopes, Otis Nixon, Lou Brock, Omar Vizquel, Ozzie Smith, and Kenny Lofton were pretty much medicore to crappy players by their mid 30s. Is it really that hard to look up statistics? Baseball reference is your friend. So you're saying these guys weren't as good at 38 as they were at 25? Gosh, I hadn't noticed that. :roll: The point is, the decline seen in these guys' career paths is not at all atypical for any player, or indicative of some enhanced risk associated with being thin and fast. In fact these guys aged much better than the general baseball population does.

The bottom line is this: Baseball players decline as they age for a whole slew of reasons: * diminished batspeed * slipping hand/eye coordination * eroding defensive skills * fading power * declining endurance and ability to hold up to the daily grind * sapped arm strength * declining footspeed We could probably come up with a dozen more reasons too. But of them all, declining footspeed would be well down the list. It might even be at the bottom of the list. It's just not a skill that's susceptable to rapid decline. Therefore guys whose game is built on speed don't have as much to worry about compared to guys whose game is based on power, or defense, or whatever else.