fromthestretch

He's been solid in five of the past six seasons. It's not like you have to throw only curveballs and splitters to succeed in Arizona. As long as he's spotting his fastball well, he'll be fine.

Our farm system isn't lousy. Exactly.

Actually, many people here were against unloading the farm for Granderson. But I guess sine a few people wanted to, that should apply to the entire board, right? Did I say everybody wanted to trade a bunch of prospects for Granderson? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the sentiment for trading 3 good prospects for Granderson was pretty much favorable among a majority of the posters. No, but you made it seem like there were a lot, when there really wasn't. My bad, if I misinterpreted your point. That said, trading three good prospects does not equal unloading the farm.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-)) reed johnson should never get a start against right-handed pitching. evar. And yet posters were willing to give up half the farm system for Granderson and insisted he isn't a platoon player. Actually Johnson had an on-again-off-again career against RHP. Bad in 2009 and 2007, but fair in 2008 ( .280/.323/.398/.721) and great in 2006 (.317/.370/.498/.869). Actually, many people here were against unloading the farm for Granderson. But I guess sine a few people wanted to, that should apply to the entire board, right?

Howdy was solid last season. I'm curious how much they're paying him.

There's a difference between overreacting and being very disappointed in what the Cubs did. They traded a player who has the ability to be productive for a guy who is one of the most hittable pitchers in the history of the game. And this was basically done for the primary purpose of clubhouse chemistry. There's plenty of reason for people to be unhappy with this trade. The fact that you disagree does not make it an overreaction.

Is it? They're spending a lot of money on players that offer no help to a team like them. Considering their young pitching staff and how taxed their bullpen will be, Marquis is a decent addition for them. He can give them 190-200 innings of league average production. If Matt Capps can get back to his 2006-2008 level of production, they have a solid addition to the bullpen. If you're a team scraping for wins, it's nice to have someone in the 'pen that can save the few leads you get. Furthermore, none of these contracts are going to hurt them for several years, as they're all fairly short-term deals. Signing Hudson wouldn't be a bad move either (depending on years and dollars, of course), as you'd like to have a solid defense behind a young pitching staff.

You should have left the Bradley part out. It taints everything else you wrote by making it appear it was the only reason you wrote the article in the first place. It's actually very relevant to the discussion. A lot of people wanted Bradley run out of town because of his character (or lack thereof). Why shouldn't Theriot's character come into question for the way he handled the situation?

He's only a decent top of the order guy if he produces like he did in 2008. If he hits like he did in 2009, he's a #8 hitter.

Pujols is better than Lee and slightly better than Helton or Mientkiewicz. Cabrera is solid (despite a crappy 2009), but he's no Adam Everett. Izturis doesn't come close to Everett. Utley's been a lot better than people think. Although, he did look like garbage defensively in the post-season.

The Nationals are a team that should spend some on their bullpen. A stronger bullpen and solid defense could make life a lot easier on their young starting pitchers. I'm really hoping Rizzo can make this team somewhat respectable. The only thing I like about them being lousy is that it's easy to get tickets.

You could make an argument for Adrian Beltre to be on that list, but other than that, it's a solid list.

The problem with Silva is that he one of the most hittable pitchers in baseball history (top five, actually) when it comes to H/9 IP. He's been able to limit some of the damage in the past by not walking people. However, his walk rate suffered last year, albeit in a small sample size. If his walk rate doesn't get back to previous levels, you need a stellar defense or some tremendous luck for him to be effective.

Common sense says Silva is in the rotation. How do you figure? Common sense says anybody with Silva's stats doesn't immediately get a spot in the rotation. No way Piniella is that dumb to give him a spot without battling for one. Lou does like pitchers that don't issue walks, and that's the only thing that Silva has actually been good at throughout his career.

Carlos Silva wasn't exactly that good when he was healthy, and he's coming off a season where he only pitched eight games due to shoulder problems. For his career, he's allowed 11 hits per 9 innings. The only positive about him is his control, which actually regressed (albeit in a small sample size) in 2009. The Cubs better be getting a prospect or a significant amount of cash in this deal.

Hudson isn't a free agent until after the 2012 season.

Are AL west parks that bad? I thought Seattle was no longer a pitcher haven and only Oakland has any sort of significant negative affect. Angels are pretty average to hitter friendly. Looking at baseball-reference, the park factors for Seattle and Oakland have been pretty similar the past two seasons...both a little friendlier to pitchers.

He's been below average in two of the past three seasons when it comes to allowing inherited runners to score.

I'd prefer Cameron at the contract he received.

Wrong. Nomar's health was becoming an issue before he became a Cub. Prior to 2001, he was probably comparable to Aramis in the injury department in the sense that he would miss 15-20 games due to nagging injuries. That's enough of a red flag though, especially for someone in their early-to-mid 20s. Oddly enough, his two most durable seasons followed the season in which he missed the most time due to injury.

How the hell are they going to work a subliminal number "12" into the conference logo?

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop. It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works. Please find me any evidence that women's athletics has played any role in any actual or proposed conference realignment, when the women's sports interests ran counter to what would be best for revenue sports. Hint: You will be looking until the end of time. Maybe just maybe I did a 90 page assignment for the dreaded J102 class at Ball State on Title IX. And maybe for the 90 page assignment I talked to Senators active in the Title IX issue, including Nanci Pelosi, as well as AD's from the MAC. Maybe one of the topics I discussed with every AD was how much they listen to the women coaches and whether or not they get equal say on department wide decisions. Maybe every single one of them said women get 100% equal say. Finally maybe two of the AD's said they must listen because all it takes is one coach to go to the media and they would get a lot of negative press that they really don't want. I worked in college athletics for several years. Women's sports don't always get equal say. Publicly, the schools may want you to believe they do. However, when the ultimate decision is made, 99.9999% of the time it's made based on who brings in the most money. While women's basketball (and volleyball to a certain extent) is a revenue sport for many Big Ten schools, the amount of revenue they bring in compared to men's basketball and football isn't much. At Purdue, women's basketball has a bit more leverage, simply due to their success in the past 15 years or so. However, they still take a backseat to men's basketball. The conference will certainly take women's basketball under consideration if/when they do any realignment. They aren't going to totally screw them over. That said, their level of influence over these decisions is not nearly as great as you would like to think.

It's probably Flores. That sounds right, Jesus Flores. I would imagine that they'd also have him spend a little time with Bryce Harper during 2011 Spring Training, provided that they draft him next year. But like I said, they probably could have found another veteran catcher to serve the same purpose for a lot less money.

Except the proposed deal would be made by major-league GMs, who presumably aren't swayed by ESPN's fleeting mentions of Yankees' prospects. Ehh i dont know about that. Look what happened with the Santana deal and how Gomez was suppose to be an elite young OF and we all know how average he is now. If the Bluejays trade Halladay to the Redsox, i will be that Bucholz is going to be a mediocre pitcher and not the supposed future ace that they paint him out to be. His command has hurt him at the Major League level so far, but he certainly has the stuff to be a good starting pitcher.

Ugh, that deal is horrible for the Diamondbacks. They better be receiving extra quality prospects if they're giving up Scherzer. His salary and team control probably makes him the most valuable player listed. According to mlbtraderumors, the D'Backs are the ones that pushed FOR that trade.