davearm

My recollection is that the Walker-for-Bradley deal died a very sudden death when the Dodgers hired Grady Little to be their manager. Supposedly he didn't want TW.

The Nats asked for permission from the Rangers to speak with Soriano prior to the trade. Permission was denied. The Nats made the deal anyway (obviously).

If a guy goes from pitcher to LF, he must either remain in LF for the remainder of the inning, or return to P. If he returns to P, he has to stay there for the remainder of the inning (or leave the game) -- he can't go to *any* other position. P -> LF -> P is OK P -> LF -> (anywhere except P) is not OK P -> LF -> P -> (anywhere) is not OK

I'm not Vance, but Philly would be stupid not to accept Williams, Pie and Hill for Abreu. Boston's in a different spot. They don't have to deal Manny, since they can afford him, but if they can fleece a team, they'll deal him. My guess is it would take Lee, Williams, Cedeno, Hill and Harvey with the Cubs picking up at least 75% of his salary. And I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole. Did I read that right? A month ago the BoSox were all anxious to deal Manny, Clement, and cash to the O's for Tejada. But now from the Cubs they'd demand Lee, Williams, Cedeno, Hill and Harvey?

So let me get this straight. You think she retracted the charges because of money? Why didn't she just settle a lawsuit and save herself the trouble of being with some guy who's abusing her? There's a lot of ways she could have cashed in on that situation without actually staying in the relationship. IIRC, a victim severely exaggerating or even making up claims is pretty commonplace as well. This is true...but then definitively calling him a "wife abuser" would be somewhere between an embellishment and slander, wouldn't it? The story I seem to recall hearing is that Lugo physically assaulted his wife in the stadium parking lot, in front of the team bus and in view of many team personnel. The Astros moved swiftly to suspend him, and then shortly thereafter, they released him. Regardless of the ultimate disposition of the resulting criminal case, it seems abundantly clear that whatever the Astros' brass witnessed that day met their definition of "wife abuse". I don't think any of that is true. Allegedly, it happened at his home before he was going to the ballpark that day. If you have a link verifying that there were witnesses, please post. But I think you're dead wrong. The second link Tiger provided confirms that the incident took place in the stadium parking lot. No mention of whether or not there were witnesses. The fact remains that the Astros immediately DFAd their starting SS for what they termed domestic violence.

So let me get this straight. You think she retracted the charges because of money? Why didn't she just settle a lawsuit and save herself the trouble of being with some guy who's abusing her? There's a lot of ways she could have cashed in on that situation without actually staying in the relationship. IIRC, a victim severely exaggerating or even making up claims is pretty commonplace as well. This is true...but then definitively calling him a "wife abuser" would be somewhere between an embellishment and slander, wouldn't it? The story I seem to recall hearing is that Lugo physically assaulted his wife in the stadium parking lot, in front of the team bus and in view of many team personnel. The Astros moved swiftly to suspend him, and then shortly thereafter, they released him. Regardless of the ultimate disposition of the resulting criminal case, it seems abundantly clear that whatever the Astros' brass witnessed that day met their definition of "wife abuse".

And there's a great chance it's not going to turn out to be as good as we all hope and pray that it will. How is it cynical? You tell me what team is going to give something of value up for Jacque Jones at his current level of production. Seriously, if any team is willing to deal something of actual value for Jones, then that means one of two things: 1. Jones is actually earning his contract and producing well. 2. Jim Bowden is the GM of the team he's being traded to. Given his level of production the last two seasons, I'd say the chances of #1 aren't exactly in his favor. That's just it though, both of those guys are actually worth giving up something for. Wilkerson has a much better OBP and more power (last season's forearm injury notwithstanding), while Mench is younger than Jones and already produces as well if not better. I'm not bashing Jones, at least not intentionally. He is what he is, and there's really no mistaking what he does and doesn't bring to the table. What I am doing is stating what should be obvious...it's a bad contract and there were other options available for less time and possibly less money. Is there a chance Jones can turn things around and get back to at least the numbers he posted in 2002 and 2003? Certainly. I just don't understand how anyone can look at his 2004 and 2005 numbers and actually expect him to do so. I sure as hell hope he proves me wrong. I really do. Is Mench the better route to take if you have to give up Williams to get him? Is Wilkerson the better route to take if it costs Williams and Hill? The answer to both questions, IMO, is "maybe". Which gets me back to my original point -- Jones as a free agent is not appreciably better or worse than the guys you'd have to trade valuable pieces to get. The bottom line here is that I'm cautiously optimistic on Jones, and with good reason (IMO); you're well within your rights not to be, and there's plenty of evidence to support that side too. It's a classic half-full/half-empty debate, plain and simple.

Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107. Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong. Uh, the numbers posted for '03-'05 are 106, 90, and 99, average of 98. Whoops! Well that mathematical gaffe aside, the point remains: the MLB free agent marketplace indicates that Jones has very similar value to Dye (and Wilson, for that matter). If GMs implicitly project similar all-around production from these guys, then why shouldn't we? Why is Jones ~= Dye (not strictly in terms of OPS+, but overall) seen as an unreasonable expectation? It's not unreasonable to expect them to put up similar numbers, although looking at the last two years for Jones, I certainly wouldn't bet money on him to produce at the same level as Dye. As far as Wilson goes, you just kind of proved my point. It GMs project similar all-around production from these guys, and they're pretty much the same age, how can you justify a three-year deal for one while the other was willing to sign for a one-year deal? Were the Cubs really that hellbent on getting another left-handed bat that they had to offer three years? Well the short answer is that Wilson's lingering injury situation pretty much derailed his hopes for a guaranteed multi-year deal. Absent that, Wilson brings 3/16, or more.

At least Nomar has some offensive upside. Unlike Preston Wilson, apparently. I would've preferred a shorter contract for Jones too... I think everyone would. But it's not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. And this whole notion of trading him for junk and eating a bunch of contract is cynical to an extreme. It's not 100% implausible of course, but man, that's really pessimistic. He might end up being, you know, valuable, and perhaps even a bargain. I'm at least willing to give him a chance to stink it up before trashing him and banishing him to Sosaville. And Mench or Wilkerson are certainly viable alternatives, but it's really 6 of one, a half-dozen of the other, by the time you get done factoring in the players that would need to be dealt, versus the contracts, versus the performance expectations.

Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107. Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong. Uh, the numbers posted for '03-'05 are 106, 90, and 99, average of 98. Whoops! Well that mathematical gaffe aside, the point remains: the MLB free agent marketplace indicates that Jones has very similar value to Dye (and Wilson, for that matter). If GMs implicitly project similar all-around production from these guys, then why shouldn't we? Why is Jones ~= Dye (not strictly in terms of OPS+, but overall) seen as an unreasonable expectation?

Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107. Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong.

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy. Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return. I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year. How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)? It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all. 1. Wilson, if his knees are at least ok, is a better offensive threat than Jones. He hits for more power than Jones. He walks more than Jones. And, based on contract value, he apparantly costs $1 million less over the course of one season than Jones. Jones is better defensively. 2. Things change season-to-season. GOOD outfielders that aren't available now may be at the end of the 2006 season, whether it's via free agency or via trade. 3. If Wilson proves to be healthy and productive, you have the option of offering a contract extension. With Jones, you're already locked into two more years, good or bad. 4. If Wilson proves to be heatlhy and productive and decides to leave via free agency, then you might get a draft pick out of it. Chances are, you're better off with the draft pick than some 24 year-old left-hander with an 87 mph fastball who hasn't pitched above High A that you might get in return for Jones. But hey, at least he'll probably have good command. I'd prefer to have a line-drive hitter that sprays the ball to all fields than a Sammy Sosa lite that's going to K 150 times a year. The difference in walk rates is negligible, BTW. The Cubs could have just kept Nomar if they were interested in another game of injury roulette. Jones and Wilson are scheduled to make about the same $$$ in 2006. Jones will be paid $3M in salary plus 1/3 of his $4M signing bonus. Wilson gets $4M, plus a $500K buyout if his option is not picked up. I could be wrong, but I do not believe you can receive draft pick compensation after you decline an option on a guy and allow him to become a free agent. (Wilson's option is 3/$24M, BTW. They could buy out the option and then sign him for less, conceivably.)

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson. ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away. How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year? About the same way it did Jones this year. Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu. Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing? Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu. Dye 1999: 120 OPS+ 2000: 134 2001: 109 2002: 105 2003: 41 (half a season) 2004: 103 2005: 118 Jones 1999: 96 (half a season) 2000: 89 2001: 96 2002: 125 2003: 106 2004: 90 2005: 99 Dye had much more past success to base future performance. That constitutes "much more past success"??? I'm seeing a guy (Dye) that averaged 106 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('01, '02, '04), and got rewarded with a 2/$10 deal with an option for a third year. I'm also seeing a guy (Jones) that averaged 107 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('03, '04, '05), and got rewarded with a 3/$16 deal. Dye responded in '05 by posting his second-highest OPS+, @ 118, roughly 10% above the three-year average. If Jones can do 118, that would be his second-highest too, and also a ~10% improvement. These guys couldn't be more similar, statistically.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson. ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away. How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year? About the same way it did Jones this year. Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu. Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing? Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu.

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy. Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return. I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year. How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)? It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

Well stated. It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option. That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

I understand this decidedly pessimistic and skeptical viewpoint, and I also realize that it's shared by many. I just think things aren't nearly so bad as some folks make them out to be. I also think that by and large, Hendry has made good decisions as a GM. He's had a few clunkers too (Neifi @ 2/5 for one), but none of great significance, IMO. I'd also point out that his last kick-butt trade wasn't back in 2003 or whatever, it was last May (Hawkins -> Williams+Aardsma). Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I still believe Hendry has put this club in a very good position to be a perennial contender, based primarily on the pitching he's compiled. There's an awful lot to be excited about with many of these young guys. Ultimately some will contribute for the Cubs, and some will be traded for quality hitters (just as you're advocating). You don't need to recite all the 'cons' on Hendry and co. I'm well aware of them all. I just see the glass as half full, personally.

None of those impact players play a position of need of the Cubs though (a case can be made for Beckett I suppose) The idea isn't that the Cubs should've gone out and gotten them, the idea is that the respective teams got those impact players without giving up anyone near Prior's worth. And the Cubs would have been more than willing to meet the asking price for one or more of those players, if there had been a fit. There wasn't a fit, so that particular list of players is irrelevant to this discussion. The players where there *is* a strong fit (Tejada, Abreu) have not been dealt, because the GM of their current team is insisting on a frontline starter, not prospects or average ML talent (as was the case for the list of guys you referenced). Now having said that, if Bobby Abreu ends up being dealt for a prospect package that the Cubs could have met or exceeded, then, and only then, will he become a poster-boy for Hendry's shortcomings.

Remind me again how Hendry acquired offensive "difference makers" named Lee, Ramirez, and Garciaparra (and, hopefully, Pierre). A fair point, but the trouble is that the last and least profitable of those deals was pulled off over 18 months ago now. Garciaparra has since walked, and the offence now has nothing to really commend itself besides Lee and Ramirez. I can see why other people may have their concerns about Walker, Barrett, Murton and Cedeno, individually and collectively, but personally I was reasonably happy with the prospect of those four all being in this year's lineup on one condition: the Cubs filled the two remaining positions, right field and centre field, with one solid above average player and one proper impact player. Three big bats in the middle of the order, supported by three above average bats, plus the two wild-card rookies, that would have given the Cubs the kind of lineup to really put themselves in which a good shot at the World Series. Instead, Hendry went out and he got for himself a pair of mediocrities in Juan Pierre and Jacque Jones. Now we have two offensive stars, two above average bats with questionable defence, two average bats, and two wild-cards. That's not a recipe for any kind of success: instead, if we're going to succeed, it'll be because we got away with heavily relying on the rookies and the starting pitching, things we should have learnt not to do last winter when putting a lot of eggs in the Dubois, Wood and Prior basket didn't turn out to be such a profitable move. I'm in full agreement, and I bet Jim Hendry is too. The problem is that there comes a point where the cost to acquire that third impact player becomes too high. In this case, that price apparently was Mark Prior (for Tejada or Abreu). At that point you have to ask yourself, "is that crucial third heart-of-the-order bat worth having a significant hole in the rotation?" I, for one, think Hendry was right to answer, "no". Sure we'd all like to have gotten either of those guys for prospects, but that wasn't in the cards... not for our prospects, or anyone else's, if the various reports are accurate indicating each team was holding out for an established #1 or #2 starter.

Sorry, but you're failing to apply logic to this debate. The plan was never to develop great pitchers and then trade them. The plan was develop a core of players (which Zambrano and Prior are apart of) and then trade others for the difference makers. If Hendry doesn't have those others to trade for a difference maker, than he either failed to develop them, or squandered them frivolously. Either way, the plan was not carried through well enough. Remind me again how Hendry acquired offensive "difference makers" named Lee, Ramirez, and Garciaparra (and, hopefully, Pierre). To say that Hendry, can't/won't/hasn't done exactly what you're advocating is either misguided, uninformed, or both. By taking advantage of monetary dilemmas in the Lee and Ramirez deals, and by orchestrating a crazy enough deal that he was able to deal quantities of prospects rather than more proven qualities, the Nomar deal. In this(and other cases), the team isn't in a financial bind(although money plays a role in every deal), and there are teams willing to give the more proven commodities that Hendry is unable to provide, because of the reasons I stated before. The bottom line is that Hendry got these guys, and in the exact manner being described -- system-bred prospects dealt for "difference makers". What I'm hearing folks here say is that it's a shame that the Cubs don't have more solid-but-unspectacular veteran talent hanging around that could be traded for Bobby Abreu. Instead, we've got a core of bonafide stars surrounded by unproven young guys, essentially -- nothing much in the middle. This mentality assumes two things: a) the Phils are indeed prepared to deal Abreu for mediocre veteran talent, and b) absent such trade opportunities, having an abundance of mediocre talent is somehow advantageous to the "high/low" structure the Cubs have instead. It also ignores that the Cubs have their share of solid-but-unspectacular veterans too -- they just don't happen to be of the type the Phils are apparently interested in. Although that's too bad, it's hardly an indictment of the system that's in place.

Sorry, but you're failing to apply logic to this debate. The plan was never to develop great pitchers and then trade them. The plan was develop a core of players (which Zambrano and Prior are apart of) and then trade others for the difference makers. If Hendry doesn't have those others to trade for a difference maker, than he either failed to develop them, or squandered them frivolously. Either way, the plan was not carried through well enough. Remind me again how Hendry acquired offensive "difference makers" named Lee, Ramirez, and Garciaparra (and, hopefully, Pierre). To say that Hendry, can't/won't/hasn't done exactly what you're advocating is either misguided, uninformed, or both.

Really? Seems to me Philly won 88 games last year and Hendry's team won 79. Gillick is new to the job though, so claiming one GM has done a better job than the other is impossible. The failure on Hendry's part is that the plan was to build the farm up through pitching, develop a core of players, and then trade for or sign the position players who can put the team over the top. If the Cubs are in a position where they can't sign difference making position players (whether that's due to a lack of available funds/space or interest from the player, or a lack of players), and he can't trade for difference makers, then he's failed to carry out the team's plan. The other failure, of course, is this team just hasn't won enough under Hendry, and they aren't in a position to make a huge dent in that poor record. But I apologize to those Cubs fans who don't want to hear management has failed. Let's just go on pretending they've done a marvelous job. You're completely missing the point. Hendry is absolutely in a position to carry out the plan you describe (namely, develop young arms and then trade them for a big bat). The rub is, the young arms they've developed (Prior, Z) are worth more than Abreu. So by your logic, the "failure" here is that Prior and Z turned out *too good*. Either that, or you're in favor of a straight swap of Prior or Zambrano for Abreu. As I said at the top, that would be completely consistent with the strategy that you claim Hendry should be pursuing, but somehow can't.

No matter how much of the text I included, the point still stands. The Cubs plan was to draft and develop pitchers, then trade for and sign big bats when the time came to contend. The time has come, they aren't signing the bats, and can't trade for them. That is the fault of poor management. Bobby Abreu is the Phils' best player and most valuable trade commodity. Jim Hendry has assembled a roster with *four* better players, that he would not deal straight up for Abreu (Prior, Z, Lee, Ramirez). Unfortunately, whoever you designate as the fifth-best Cub isn't someone that can be dealt for a first-best guy like Abreu. Now explain to me again how this situation constitutes some sort of failure on Hendry's part. Seems to me, Hendry's got his club well ahead of Philly/Gillick.