davearm

Am I the only one that thinks the Rox are getting totally shafted in this one? It's not hard to argue that they're supplying the best pitcher (Jennings) and the best hitter (Hawpe) in the deal. Not only that, but in this climate both of those guys would draw a lot of interest from around the league. No reason to give them both up in a crappy deal for a blah vet and two questionmarks.

Maybe Joe Blanton of Oakland. Matt Clement seems to fit that mold, an expensive as it may be. Other guys could fit the mold are Aaron Cook, Steve Trachsel, Kris Benson, Jake Westbrook (<---yes, yes, I know Shapiro's comment, but he IS available, wheter Shapiro admits it or not) Jon Lieber, I believe those are kind of names Rosenthal is that fit into the "back end of the rotation.." So given that...which is better: Schmidt and one of Meche/Marquis/Westbrook or Lilly and Jennings? I'm surprised that with all the potential combinations, there doesn't seem to be anyone (but me) with Westbrook *and* Jennings as their first choice. Trade for 'em both, and pass on the overpriced FAs. For Jennings, build something around Jones and a young pitcher For Westbrook, give Marshall, Ohman, Dempster. Try and add Pagan for Michaels. That permits maximum flexibility and minimum commitment for 2008 and beyond. Use 2007 to evaluate both, along with alternatives like Guzman, Gallagher, Veal, Marmol, etc. Depending on how things play out, this time next year you're working to re-sign one or both (along with Miller), or moving them aside to make room for a kid or two. Lilly, Meche, etc. you're stuck with longterm regardless of how they and others perform. For CF, find a way to get a 1-year guy like Crisp, Church, Bradley, etc. that actually IS a CF.

almost too logical to be true. One way or the other I expect Hendry to enter the Winter Meetings in a Brinks truck isn't westbrook due to make considerably more than $4 million? I'm assuming here that the Tribe would want some players back. ;)

Try this theory on for size. Hendry's looking to spend ~$18M on 2 starters. His 'Plan A' is to get one guy via trade (Westbrook, Jennings) for a net of $3 or $4M, allowing him to commit another $14-$15M on Schmidt. The fallback 'Plan B' is to spend $8-$10M apiece on two free agents from the Lilly/Padilla/Meche/Suppan/etc pool. But he can't do the Schmidt deal, and blow 80%of his budget, until he nails down that trade. So maybe he goes hard for the trade early in the Winter Meetings, and then puts on the full court press for Schmidt immediately after that?

I'm thinking we'd have to give them one other player. Cedeno? Ohman? Both seem like decent fits for what Cleveland allegedly is after. Of course if the Indians are thinking of using Marshall out of the 'pen (at least initially), then maybe Ohman isn't as attractive?

It'd be great if the Sox put that $7-8M/yr offer on the table and just said, "don't call us again until you're ready to sign." I'm sure they'd love to stick it to Boras like that. Too bad that pissing him off is probably not in their best long-term interests.

Actually, if he went back to Japan for the next season, he would be a free agent after that--no more posting involved. Incorrect, he doesn't have the service time to be a FA after next year so there would be another posting according to Boras. You're sort of both right here, from what I've been able to gather about the situation. Matsuzaka will complete his service time with Seibu in April of 2008. So it's conceivable that Seibu could post Matsuzaka again next fall. It's also conceivable that (whether he's posted or not) Matsuzaka could "hold out" next offseason, and wait to become a free agent after the start of the 2008 season. At that point he would be free to negotiate with any/all MLB teams. This would be analagous to the Roger Clemens situation of 2006, where he waited until May or whatever to decide where to sign, and then joined the team midseason.

Talent aside, the off-the-field stuff has gotten so bad that the guy's basically got no future with the DRays. I thought the rumor was that they were trying to sell him really cheap midseason but got no takers. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but don't guys like that sell for Mateo/Ryu type prices, not Veal/Pawelek prices? BTW I'd love to get him as a 4th OF/Jones platooner.

Pena in CF would be a train wreck. Personally, I like the idea of Crisp. Well at least according to BP's Rate2 stat, Pena's done alright as a CF... 108 in 124 career games.

It'll be interesting to see what Boston does with their outfield. Crisp and WMP are both somewhat intriguing, if the price is something like Eyre or perhaps Eyre + Izturis. WMP and Jones would make a pretty darn powerful CF platoon.

Wow, that is absolutely ridiculous. I just cannot fathom paying that much for one unproven player in the MLB. they'll make it back and then some in t-shirt sales alone. Aren't all merchandise sales redistributed equally to all 30 teams? Yes, but not TV revenues, which is where the big money is. ... and Matsuzaka isn't likely to have much impact on Boston's TV revenues, either. Unless you believe NESN will be able to charge cable providers more in rights fees now that Matsuzaka is on the team. Their geographic TV market will not change, though.

Wow, that is absolutely ridiculous. I just cannot fathom paying that much for one unproven player in the MLB. they'll make it back and then some in t-shirt sales alone. If that is the case I don't understand why every team in the league didn't bid that much. Every team doesn't sell as many t-shirts as Boston. But every team gets the same $$$ as Boston does for every Boston t-shirt sold. MLB splits licensing revenues equally amongst all 30 clubs.

I'd prefer Murton, Drew, and a Jones/Craig Wilson platoon. Three year averages: Giles (overall): .282/.390/.451/.841 Jones (vRHP): .276/.339/.487/.826 Wilson (vLHP): .272/.378/.497/.875 You sacrifice a bit of OBP for more SLG, but you spend less $$$, don't give up any players in trade, and get a power bat for the bench too. I read someplace today that Wilson's struggles in NY mean he'll probably settle for a modestly-priced 1-year deal.

Can anyone explain the difference between the November "GM Meetings" and the December "Winter Meetings"? As best I can tell, for practical purposes the GM Meetings are where trades get proposed/discussed, and the Winter Meetings are where trades get finalized. I'm expecting lots of juicy rumors to come out this week, but little to no actual hot stove action.

How about this sequence of moves to change the face of the Cubs: Zambrano for ARod; Land Matsuzaka Let ARam walk; sign Iwamura for 3B Prior for Baldelli; sign a FA pitcher (Lilly/Padilla) Dempster for M Giles

That's ridiculous. Right. Optimal strategy evolves along with the game itself. Sometimes it's best to play the infield in, and sometimes it's best to play back for a DP. Sometimes it's best to guard the lines, or play "no doubles" in the OF, or put on a shift, and sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's best to pitch to a hitter, other times it's best to issue an intentional walk. By very similar logic, sometimes it's best to have So Taguchi playing LF instead of Barry Bonds, despite his noodle bat.

The bolded portions below are what I've been responding to. 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?

With respect to #1, I would go so far as to point out that one poster earlier indicated that there would be *no* logical reason to do this. You can argue one way or the other about whether it's a good idea, but you cannot (IMO) argue that there's no logical basis for considering such a move.

That's not what's being discussed at all. What the discussion is: "If you've got a 1 run lead in the 9th and Barry Bonds playing LF, is there any logical reason to remove him and put So Taguchi out there?" What the discussion is NOT: "Is there any logical reason to have So Taguchi on your roster?" Two completely independent questions altogether.

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? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

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.

To be honest, I'm not fully up to speed on the Dodgers' current payroll situation, although I distinctly remember their budget being stretched to the limit not too long ago after adding guys like Furcal and Nomar. Maybe they've got some more breathing room now, I dunno. But if they're still feeling cash-strapped, there can be a lot worse ways to save ~$7M/yr than by taking the downgrade from Drew to Jones. If making that move frees up the $$$ they need to make a run at Soriano or Matsuzaka or whomever, then it's not a stretch at all.

where would you prefer the much needed offense to come from? i don't love soriano or anything, but he's the best hope for making this offense respectable. i would much rather see drew in cf for the cubs than soriano. As would I but Drew may cost the Cubs plenty in prospects as Soriano will just cost money, especially if the Cubs lose Ramirez they'll need all the assets to get a 3rd baseman. Hendry has some very good options and if he screws this one up he deserves the boot. i dont know that to be true. the dogers have several good young Of guy like either & kemp that are ready to take his place and they might take less than you think to lose drew's large contract. they need some lefties in the bullpen so maybe eyre & ohman might be enough for drew. i know it's a longshot but stranger things have happened. I was thinking that if they're in a hurry to get rid of Drew's contract, then maybe they take Jones straight up. That saves them a pretty nice chunk of change over 2 years. If Murton could play in RF, then Burrell - Drew - Murton is a pretty potent (albeit defensively suspect) OF that would come relatively cheaply in terms of players dealt, and gives you contracts that are up in 2 years (IIRC). Add Schmidt, Kuroda, and a 2B (Durham? Giles? Ikegawa?), and that's a pretty nicely upgraded roster.

It could also be Ramirez's agent slowing things down. ARam's got Hendry over a barrel and the closer he gets to optting out, the more likely he is to get his 15M. Exactly. I'm sure it's not Hendry that's holding this up. ARam and his agent are playing chicken, hoping that Hendry blinks and jacks up his offer. There's no urgency on their side, so why not?

All of the above could be true but it still does not explain taking on another all-glove-no-bat middle infielder for anohter year and a half. I'd rather they not traded Maddux or gotten a couple of AA level roster fillers. What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world Izturis certainly has value. It's just not clear whether that value is positive or negative, given his pricetag. If it's positive, it's not by very much. It's not difficult to argue that the Cubs (or any team) would be better off having neither the player nor the contract.