CubColtPacer

True, but think about how mad all of us would have been last year when Furcal was making 13 million dollars while putting up a OPS of .688. It goes both ways.

why wouldn't those guys want to stay? Moss will get a huge deal (maybe the highest ever for a WR), and the Patriots have shown over and over again with players that they refuse to hand out those types of deals. That's why he's almost certainly gone after the year, and most Patriots fans knew that it would be a 1 year experiment one way or the other. Stallworth I think has a much larger chance of staying. No team is going to give him a monster deal, and the Patriots will want him to be one of their outside guys again next year. He stays unless some team blows him away with an offer, which is possible depending on the free agent class.

Pretty much every forum that has this info lists the payroll of the team's opening day roster. For instance, you won't see the $16m the Cubs paid Baltimore to take Sammy Sosa, or the $3+ million they paid Rusch not to pitch. They will not account for midseason acquisitions like Nomar Garciaparra, Aramis Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, or Steve Trachsel. They won't include the money the Cubs will pay Detroit to take Jones. They fail to take into account a lot of things, and when you do take this into account, it's clear the Cubs have had financial resources to spend than their divisional competition. That is certainly a factor in to why those numbers would be off. At the same time, over the years the Cardinals have added plenty of money at the deadline themselves (probably more than the Cubs have because the Cubs have rarely been good enough to add payroll during the season), and both have had years where they have cut money at the deadline. As for paying money as part of a trade, iirc the Cardinals have done that a lot less than the Cubs have. At the same time, the Cardianls have been much more active during the season of cutting struggling players, eating the dead money, and signing new players for small contracts that still add up. Those reasons do throw the reported figures off, but that still doesn't push the Cubs significantly above the Cardinals.

Agreed completely with that. The Cardinals and Cubs have been back and forth to who has the highest payroll the last 8 years (right now the Cubs have pulled ahead and are looking to end that see-saw by widening the gap). The Astros have been close in a few of the years and well behind in the others. Everybody else is typically well behind those 3. In the years where the Cardinals had the payroll advantage though, they typically dominated the Central. If the Cubs are going to have a wide payroll advantage as they seem to want to do now, then they need to dominate the division as well.

Not fair? My lord. Enough with the woe is us nonsense. It's like all the talk forgiving Hendry for any losses because of injury. The Cubs have had a decided and clear financial advantage over every single division foe, plus the advantage of playing the weakest competition, by far. The Mets also play the consistently great Yanks 6 times a year, while the Cubs have been able to play the up and down White Sox. NY has Philly and Atlanta to compete with, teams that have clearly outclassed STL and HOU in recent years. And remember, the Cubs have been the team handing out insane money to many draft picks year after year as well, grossly overpaying for guys like Samardzija. The financial advantage is not only in the USA Today listed payrolls, it's everything, and it's been ongoing for several years. Quit with the excuses already. The Cubs should win 90 games every year. If they finish with 85 or 86 once or twice, it's excusable, but when 85 is the highest win total in three years, that is inexcusable. When 88 and 89 wins are the high water mark you are doing a lousy job taking advantage of the very clear financial advantage. This is the part I agree with, and we'll have to agree to disagree if the Cubs have truly had a financial advantage over the division, especially anytime before 2006. I can't agree to disagree on such a clearly obvious statement. Where's the proof then that the Cubs have had this advantage over the last 5-10 years? Your only defense seems to be that the numbers are wrong (and these numbers can be derived from a multitude of places) that despite what the numbers say the Cubs have had some sort of advantage. Where is this advantage showing up then?

Wow? I didn't ignore the age of the players, because the age of Cedeno and Theriot is insignificant - unless the Cubs are banking on either one of the two guys to being the SS of their future. So, why should the Cubs suffer through having Cedeno learn "on the job?" Sure he has plenty of talent, but mentally he is not a mature player - as you can tell if you note his baserunning miscues, his mental errors defensively, and his mindless approach at the plate. I'd love for Cedeno to pull it all together and take the SS job, but until that happens Theriot is best option on the Cubs roster. It's not a "man crush" or hate for Cedeno. Because you don't lose anything, Theriot is already the baseline of performance. If Cedeno fails, then he's Theriot. Perfect way of putting it. Hell, even in Cedeno's TERRIBLE 2006, the difference in OPS was only .610 to Theriot's .672 of 2007. I wouldn't quite go to that level. 62 points is a pretty dramatic difference. If you added 62 points to Theriot's total, you'd be getting close to Cedeno's upside for this year, wouldn't you? I can't see him suddenly figuring out major league pitching and becoming an .800 OPS SS, at least right away. Plus his 2006 included some terrible defense from Cedeno, and also an 8 out of 16 SB ratio (Theriot's 28 out of 32 SB's does add value, although not as much as the people who think he should be a starter think it does). Those have to be factored in. So Cedeno's ceiling is much higher than Theriot's, and his floor is also lower than Theriot's. The Cubs need offense enough to warrant giving Cedeno another chance to gamble on his upside, but it definitely is a gamble and I don't believe for a second that Cedeno at his worst is Theriot. Take out Theriot's 1 huge month and does that change anything? I frankly don't think Theriot's 2007, as bad as it was, is his floor. You could say the same thing about Cedeno's April 2006 month where he had a .815 OPS, which happened to be the only month that season where he was above .665. Cedeno's floor could definitely be below his 2006 numbers, especially since he had 4 straight months where he he had OPS numbers of .599, .605, .467, and .465 while playing everyday.

Not fair? My lord. Enough with the woe is us nonsense. It's like all the talk forgiving Hendry for any losses because of injury. The Cubs have had a decided and clear financial advantage over every single division foe, plus the advantage of playing the weakest competition, by far. The Mets also play the consistently great Yanks 6 times a year, while the Cubs have been able to play the up and down White Sox. NY has Philly and Atlanta to compete with, teams that have clearly outclassed STL and HOU in recent years. And remember, the Cubs have been the team handing out insane money to many draft picks year after year as well, grossly overpaying for guys like Samardzija. The financial advantage is not only in the USA Today listed payrolls, it's everything, and it's been ongoing for several years. Quit with the excuses already. The Cubs should win 90 games every year. If they finish with 85 or 86 once or twice, it's excusable, but when 85 is the highest win total in three years, that is inexcusable. When 88 and 89 wins are the high water mark you are doing a lousy job taking advantage of the very clear financial advantage. This is the part I agree with, and we'll have to agree to disagree if the Cubs have truly had a financial advantage over the division, especially anytime before 2006.

Wow? I didn't ignore the age of the players, because the age of Cedeno and Theriot is insignificant - unless the Cubs are banking on either one of the two guys to being the SS of their future. So, why should the Cubs suffer through having Cedeno learn "on the job?" Sure he has plenty of talent, but mentally he is not a mature player - as you can tell if you note his baserunning miscues, his mental errors defensively, and his mindless approach at the plate. I'd love for Cedeno to pull it all together and take the SS job, but until that happens Theriot is best option on the Cubs roster. It's not a "man crush" or hate for Cedeno. Because you don't lose anything, Theriot is already the baseline of performance. If Cedeno fails, then he's Theriot. Perfect way of putting it. Hell, even in Cedeno's TERRIBLE 2006, the difference in OPS was only .610 to Theriot's .672 of 2007. I wouldn't quite go to that level. 62 points is a pretty dramatic difference. If you added 62 points to Theriot's total, you'd be getting close to Cedeno's upside for this year, wouldn't you? I can't see him suddenly figuring out major league pitching and becoming an .800 OPS SS, at least right away. Plus his 2006 included some terrible defense from Cedeno, and also an 8 out of 16 SB ratio (Theriot's 28 out of 32 SB's does add value, although not as much as the people who think he should be a starter think it does). Those have to be factored in. So Cedeno's ceiling is much higher than Theriot's, and his floor is also lower than Theriot's. The Cubs need offense enough to warrant giving Cedeno another chance to gamble on his upside, but it definitely is a gamble and I don't believe for a second that Cedeno at his worst is Theriot.

They've had the advantage for several years now. Under Omar Minaya, the Mets have averaged 89.333 wins per year. This season's 88 win season was considered a disaster due to the late collapse. And that is just with 3 years to work with what his predecessors did, averaging 70.67 wins the previous 3 seasons. To compare, Hendry has average 81.4 wins, coming off a 3 year average of 73.3. There is absolutely zero reason for this team to not consistently win 90 games. Average payrolls over the last 3 years: Mets: 105.87 Cubs: 93.71 Cardinals: 90.43 Astros: 85.69 As you can see, the Cubs advantage in their division has been smaller than the difference between the Cubs and the Mets over the last 3 years. If you took it out as far as 2001, the Cubs and Cardinals average payroll is practically identical, while the Mets advantage becomes twice as large. It's simply not fair to say the Cubs have had a big financial advantage over the rest of the division and then compare them to the Mets, who have had a much bigger financial advantage over the Cubs. Now, I expect the Cubs to move into Mets territory financially here in the next few years, but they have never spent nearly as much as the Mets so far. Note that I am not saying that the expectations should be set at what the Cubs have done over the last 5 years. That is too low of a bar, but at the same time an average of a 90 win team is too high for the Cubs spending over the last 5 years. If their spending continues to rise to be much higher over the rest of the division (such as the Red Sox and somewhat the Mets), that's when I believe the 90 win mark as an average win total will be appropriate.

A team with the resources of the Chicago Cubs should never have to think in terms of "windows". The Cubs should be a 90+ win team virtually every season. I dont think I buy that, but I do think they should be far more successful then they have been The Cubs hold a clear and substantial financial advantage over everybody in their division. Likewise, there are no Yankees or Red Sox like teams in the NL. The Cubs are usually in the top 2-4 of NL payrolls, and get to play against the weakest competition, year-in and year-out. An 85 win season should be the lower end of the expected range. They should easily be able to rip off 3-5 year runs of 90+ wins, or, at the very least, average 90 wins over that time frame. The Cubs now have the financial advantage over everybody in the division, but they haven't had the financial advantage consistently even in the past 5 years. I also disagree that they should be able to average 90 wins a year just because they are 2nd-4th in payroll in the National League. How many National League teams have broken 90 wins twice in the last 3 years? The answer is: 0. Only 5 teams have even hit 90 wins once during that time, and 3 of those 5 had exactly 90. Expectations shouldn't be that the Cubs should be able to do close to what the Yankees and Red Sox do unless they continue to increase payroll into that range.

It would take the equivilent of "more" than Rich Hill to get Greene, actually. So it's rather pointless to even bring his name into it anymore. Furthermore, if the Cubs beat out San Diego for Fukudome, does anyone honestly believe the Padres would turn around and trade one of their best players (Greene) to the Cubs as well? IDK. how bad do they want Prior? Obviously not very much, if they had offered good value for him the Cubs would have traded him without a second thought.

He's put in more innings because he's been in the majors longer. He's also injury prone, coming off a career year, and in GAPB he's going to suffer even more. I agree mostly with your side of the Hill/Bedard debate, but Bedard moving to the National League from the AL East should help him, even if he's moving into GABP. He's been incredibly dominant against the NL, albeit in only 70 innings (1.93 ERA, 6.56 H/9, 87K/23BB). The fact that he is moving to a hitter's ballpark will negate at least most of the moving leagues positive effect though.

Not likely. Those rankings are based on the totals of the previous 2 years, and the fact that Prior would have pitched less than 1 of those 2 years would weigh heavily on his ranking.

I'll tell you one thing, it will be very interesting to see how the Patriots passing game is affected next year without Moss and possibly without Stallworth.

I don't think I've ever seen a team empty their bench out halfway through the third quarter. The Colts are playing their second stringers on both offense and defense right now.

didn't know you were such an expert talent evaluator when it comes to Conference USA quarterbacks. vance nicholson, jack of all trades. Well, I just think it's quite pathetic that you'd rather your team lose than have a chance to win it all. Of course, I guess that happens when your team has never won anything. If your team was eliminated, wouldn't you want your team to suck more to get a better draft pick? That's not what he said. He said he'd rather his team get a good draft pick than lose in the Super Bowl. Even if my team lost, I'd rather see my team in the Super Bowl each and every year. My bad. Yes, you are correct. Too bad the Browns aren't stinking it up for you guys. I mean, I'm happy about it, but its a case of "oh, what could have been" had they sucked as was expected. True. But we'll still have 2 first rounders with not a lot of holes and with the exception of receiver, a fairly young team. So, while I hoped the Browns would completely suck, it still looks like their pick will be in 22-24 range and last season we gave up the 22nd to make the deal, so it's ok by me. There are a lot of Patriots fans speculating as well that the Patriots will trade down with the pick that they get from San Fran and the most likely suitors for that pick would be the Cowboys trading their 2 first rounders for it.

I also heard the officials were as bad as they come in favor of the Cowboys from several reliable people that I know that could care less about who won.

If SD was having a better season, my guess is that Rivers would be getting the Grossman treatment. The only thing Rivers has done better than Grossman did last year was a better completion percentage, and that doesn't mean much without the other stats to accompany it.

:( Damn. This stuff was all unattributed speculation from Paul Sullivan. I'd love to here where he got the "June at the earliest" bit. I haven't heard one piece of reliable information on Prior's rehab for weeks. I wonder the same thing. That would mean he'd be out for longer than a year after the surgery, and I don't think recovery from shoulder surgery takes longer than a year. Jayson Stark said a week or two ago that Prior hadn't started throwing off a mound yet and that the Cubs would "love to have him back by May" which makes the June or later date seem very reasonable.

There are also reports that the Reds are very, very hesitant to trade Hamilton within the division. I doubt Prior comes anywhere close to the offer needed.

True, although that wouldn't be much better in Wrigley where his fly balls would be battling the Wrigley wind blowing in 2/3 of the year.

8 million for a guy who may or may not be ready by Opening Day (IMO, it's doubtful he's ready then). It's also an injury where seldom the player is the same until the second year back. Finally, even when you are optimistic about that injury and even if you disregard the character issues, he still has plenty of other injury issues. The likelihood is that he would only play half the season, and that half would be good but not great production (he's been up and down between being an 820 and a 950 OPS player, and coming off this injury I'd lean much more to the 820 number that is more common for his career). IMO, that isn't worth 8 million dollars.

I would agree that they are more referring to how big the trade was at the time, not the trades that have made the biggest impact on baseball. That LoDuca trade was discussed a great deal over baseball over the last couple months of that baseball year. It is certainly worthy of being near the bottom of the list. The Beckett deal is probably a bit too high IMO. Other then that, it doesn't look that bad, although I'm sure there was a trade or two that sent waves through the baseball community at the time it was made that I'm forgetting about that should be on the list.

Don't see that happening at all. That would be one of the most wonderful turnarounds ever. You come from a coach that likes to power run on 3rd and 10 to a coach that likes to double reverse pass on 3rd and 1. I doubt Michigan fans are ready for that big of a shift. :D

I think in this case the Padres don't think it's realistic for Barrett to accept arbitration. They are offering him that because they expect he will be gone and want the draft pick, while in Walker's case they were simply hopeful that he would sign somewhere. If Barrett does agree to arbitration, yes they will likely try to either trade or cut him after the arbitration hearing. Remember though, there's a risk for the Padres as well. When they cut him, they have to pay him 1/6 of his salary, so it could be almost a 1 million dollar mistake. Barrett runs the risk of them doing that, but his worst case scenario is that he makes almost a million from the Padres and then becomes a free agent at the beginning of 2008.