CubColtPacer

Hmmm-well, if he means starts, then I think that is high-but I can easily see him getting into 125-130 games. If they divide the starts evenly, each one of the 3 outfielders at the corners will have 108 starts (probably closer to 100-105 each because Ward will get some time out there in the corners, and even lower than that if they go with some sort of other platoon option). That means Floyd is pinch-hitting in about 1/3-1/2 of the games he's on the bench, which is actually probably a little low.

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance? The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause. I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing. How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you? Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA. The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith. There are plenty of things in the CBA that allow for things that would violate "good faith". For example, looking in the old CBA (2003-2006) there is a provision that a player can back out of arbitration after receiving the club's offer-effectively declining arbitration after agreeing to it. I'd hardly call that "good faith". So good faith gets violated by agreements like these all the time on both sides, but the key is that both sides agree. I do understand what Walker would be challenging though. In the old CBA (which I am assuming this language has not changed) the club can release the player and pay only 1/6 of the salary for what is deemed "failure to exhibit sufficient skill and competitive ability." Walker's people would be challenging that saying that the club has no reasonable basis for making that claim without an injury because the contract he has was just deemed fair for his production level by the league a short time ago, and that there has been nothing that has changed since then. Here is a copy of the old CBA (sorry that I couldn't find the new one, but I have no idea if it's even out there right now): http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance? The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause. I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing. How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you? Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA.

40 reps? are you sure? that's more than most linemen.... I would read his statement again :D

You can't keep an interim tag for too long though-at most, he could have finished the season under that tag, but still that would have caused him troubles because an interim can often not make the changes he would like to make. I like this move, although I would like to know how long of a period they are going to give him before deciding on his future again (if it's more than 4 years before they even think about doing anything if things are going sour, then I don't like this move).

I try to read my posts again, but most of my proof-reading is done as I type. If I see a mistake afterward though, I'll usually edit my mistake.

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote! It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look. Unfortunately, with the 75 percent rule, it's going to take more than 5 new people. If none of the existing committee changes their vote and votes for him, Santo would need the next 18 newly elected members to vote for him.

Honestly? I'd rank the Red Sox pitchers according to those categories (I'd rank the Cubs options as Z, Hill, Lilly, Prior as the 4th) and then I'd put Z against the best starter from the Red Sox, Lilly against the second best, and Hill against the third best. I do that for one reason-I think Z is going to beat any of those 3 Red Sox pitchers, so you want to take out their best. I think Hill is the second best option, but you only need to win 2 out of 3-make it a more guaranteed win by putting him against the worst one of the 3 for the Red Sox. Then, you maybe sacrifice Lilly, but he still has a chance against the second best person. I like your line of thinking. The real question is how do I rank the Red Sox? 1. Matsuzaka (what do we really know?) 2. Beckett (last year's ERA a likely abberition). 3. Papelbon (surprised he took him over Schilling) That's probably the best rankings I can come up with also. That would be pretty likely to win as well if you put Matsuzaka vs Z-you have to think Z will win, but like you said, who knows? Hill vs Papelbon-Hill should go more innings, so more K's will almost certainly be yours-Hill will likely have a better ERA as well, so this category is likely yours Lilly vs Beckett-not quite as much of a mismatch as you might think. Lilly has beaten Beckett in K's 2 out of the last 3 years-Beckett will likely take ERA if he comes back from the debacle last year, and then it will just come down to wins, which are unpredictable. That's probably the way I'd match them up.

Honestly? I'd rank the Red Sox pitchers according to those categories (I'd rank the Cubs options as Z, Hill, Lilly, Prior as the 4th) and then I'd put Z against the best starter from the Red Sox, Lilly against the second best, and Hill against the third best. I do that for one reason-I think Z is going to beat any of those 3 Red Sox pitchers, so you want to take out their best. I think Hill is the second best option, but you only need to win 2 out of 3-make it a more guaranteed win by putting him against the worst one of the 3 for the Red Sox. Then, you maybe sacrifice Lilly, but he still has a chance against the second best person.

I think you have to play it safe and go with Z, Hill, and Lilly on that one-they are the most sure things to stay in the rotation for the most starts, and with the categories you've picked 2 out of the 3 get better the more starts they have. Prior would be my 4th choice, but he's a question mark for the entire season, and I think Lilly gives you enough of a chance that you don't need to take the gamble on Prior.

Oh, a little funny factoid from the article: Pretty soon you'll hear Perry addressing the media: "When I played, and I was on base when Mark Whiten...." :D

I think the big difference is that Perry wants guys to look for a pitch that they can make solid contact on, regardless of whether it's a strike or not. Baker wouldn't acknowledge that sometimes pitches can be strikes and also be more or less unhittable (unless you're looking for Juan Pierre quality contact), and wanted them swinging at anything that was close enough for blind Angel Hernandez to call a strike. That, and he didn't' seem to acknowledge that there was any value, at times, to taking pitches for the sake of taking more pitches (i.e. getting a better look at a pitcher's stuff and how he's attacking you, tiring the pitcher out a little over the course of a game, etc.). True, but Perry doesn't acknowledge that either. I could have sworn I've heard Perry talk about wearing down a pitcher with patience. Hmm, I haven't seen anything about that (I doubt that Perry would consider that anything more than a side benefit of taking pitches that you cannot drive rather than a strategy-if the pitches were in the right spots, I think Perry would be fine with every hitter swinging at the first pitch), but just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there.

That doesn't mean he's not overpaid. True, but the original poster's point is that Hendry would only go up as high as he did if there was some other teams bidding for him as well. All of them might have been overpaying for his actual production, but the fact that Hendry signed him for so much indicates that there was a market for Marquis. Since I brought up the market think, I'll state that what I said was there wasn't much of a market. There weren't 10 teams bidding heavily, that much is obvious. Maybe somebody else offered the same money, that doesn't make it a strong market. And that doesn't support the idea that he's tradable right now. I would agree that he's not tradable right now-I think he could be tradable without picking any part of the contract up by a month in (although I don't think the Cubs would do it).

Jason Marquis for starters. So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis? :? Hendry has shown a clear pattern of overpaying for mediocrity in the past. I don't understand how you can try and defend the signing of Marquis by saying he usually doesn't overpay for starters. If you believe that he does overpay for starters, please feel free to cite some examples. I can't recall a starter that he vastly overpaid for, prior to this year. Are you trying to use that as defense of the Marquis signing? I don't see what it matters. But to entertain the notion, Rusch was used as a starting pitcher and overpaid. I think he overpaid for Maddux, who was making $9m as a mediocre starter. He paid $90+ million for one of the worst teams in baseball, so obviously he overpays. You don't think another team would give Rusch that money after two years of being an above average pitcher and then an average pitcher and also being left-handed? I very much disagree. Again-the discussion is if another team would trade for him, so money related to production doesn't mean as much as the pitcher's perceived market value. Marquis had value out in the market, and some team would have paid him 4-6 million if the Cubs hadn't.

I think the big difference is that Perry wants guys to look for a pitch that they can make solid contact on, regardless of whether it's a strike or not. Baker wouldn't acknowledge that sometimes pitches can be strikes and also be more or less unhittable (unless you're looking for Juan Pierre quality contact), and wanted them swinging at anything that was close enough for blind Angel Hernandez to call a strike. That, and he didn't' seem to acknowledge that there was any value, at times, to taking pitches for the sake of taking more pitches (i.e. getting a better look at a pitcher's stuff and how he's attacking you, tiring the pitcher out a little over the course of a game, etc.). True, but Perry doesn't acknowledge that either.

That doesn't mean he's not overpaid. True, but the original poster's point is that Hendry would only go up as high as he did if there was some other teams bidding for him as well. All of them might have been overpaying for his actual production, but the fact that Hendry signed him for so much indicates that there was a market for Marquis. I don't think anyone is questioning that Marquis is overpaid per production, but rather if he was overpaid compared to market value.

Jason Marquis for starters. So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis? :? No, that's just the most recent example. Going back for a couple more I would say Ted Lilly and Greg Maddux. The discussion is relative to the market, that Hendry offers much more than any other team-Lilly can't be thrown in there in that case, because another team was offering similar type money to the Cubs.

The Central Division is pretty good. Four of the five teams are over .500. It's the rest of the East that stinks. True but you have to admit overall the Chicago teams are a little lucky in this regard. I don't see your point. So would somebody who is a Knicks, Mets, Giants and Rangers fan. What about Philly fans? Furthermore, it's not like this is a hard and fast rule. The NFC used to reign, and will again. The NBA West wasn't always dominant. Neither was the AL. Exactly. In the 90's when the Bulls were on the run, wasn't the East considered the dominant conference like the West is now? Yup-it went a little back and forth, but there were multiple times where the Eastern Conference Finals had what experts believed to be the two best teams in the league in it.

Are we talking about the Jim Hendry who GMs the Cubs? He has a history of signing or trading guys who have little market value for inflated prices. Who? I can think of one, maybe two guys that this is true of.

Partially because he took significantly less than some other pretty crappy pitchers. Partially because there just wasn't any talk about him going elsewhere. It's pretty clear there wasn't a big bidding war for him. I don't see how it's a stretch to say that. First off, I'd say there was very little talk about all the St. Louis pitchers. Suppan was also getting ignored about where he was going till pitchers like Lilly, Meche, and others had signed, and Marquis had already signed by then. I heard barely a thing about Suppan, and nothing about Weaver or Mulder till well after Marquis was signed, so the fact that there wasn't rumors about teams interested in him doesn't mean that they weren't there. Sure-Marquis's 2006 basically made sure that he would have to accept less money. He was in the third tier of pitchers-there were probably other teams out there willing to pay him 4-6 million per year though. Here is one writers take on it: Notice he didn't say that Marquis signed with them because they were offering him much more than anybody else (and he did note the signing as very controversial earlier in the article) but rather because of a personal relationship. I don't know how credible the writer's sources are though. Here is the article: http://www.kffl.com/article.php/63380/88

We can't trade Marquis yet. If Marquis was told he was being put in the bullpen, I'm sure he'd ok a trade. I think that's the smallest part of the difficulty. Not only does he have to okay a trade, the big problem is getting the opposing team to okay the trade. Nobody would take him right now. There wasn't much of a market for him this offseason, and any team that may have been interested likely spent that money on other options. Basically, if Marquis was a free agent right now, it would be virtually impossible for him to get the same contract he got from the Cubs from any other team. So how can they trade him? The only way is for him to pitch relativley effectively for a considerable period of time. I could see the Mets being desperate enough for starting pitching to take him on, but it would have to be after he's shown something this season. There's no way they take the risk that his 2006 was an aberration right now. While I would agree that nobody would probably take him now, I don't know why you would say there wasn't much of a market for him-I'm not sure anybody has any idea what the market for Marquis was. If he pitches and has an ERA under 5 through the first month or two of the season, I could see a pitching-thin team trading for him-I just don't know if the Cubs would trade him.

Well, I'm sure Phoenix and Dallas will meet sometime during the playoff series-that should be a great series. I still think the East has a decent chance in the finals, which is kind of sad considering that no team in the East is nearly as good as the top teams in the West-it's all about matchups though, and I think an Eastern team would have a reasonable chance (30-40 percent) of winning the Finals.

I definitely agree with the first part of that. Murton looks pretty good coming in, but when he gets near the wall he gets a little lost back there. I would only classify Murton's arm as average (maybe a little below, but not too much)-it's accurate and much stronger than Pierre's, although still not quite the strength you'd want for a left fielder. Overall, I think he's a pretty average fielder. Soriano as you said is a huge question mark, and Jones is hard to judge because he is pretty good at fielding, sometimes good at throwing, and sometimes absolutely awful at throwing. When you combine those 3 with having Floyd out there in the OF for 300-400 PA's (who struggles now to play LF), you have a potentially bad situation defensively.

This is exactly what we should be striving for on defense. Not spectacular, but not a problem. This is going to be a subject that gets completely overblown in the media because we don't have a proven OF and I've already read the opinion that we will have the worst OF in the league. It's possible that the Cubs do have the worst outfield defense in the league (but not the worst outfield). If they can make all the routine plays, I will be absolutely thrilled-with this outfield, I don't care about making the above and beyond plays. The whole key to the outfield defense is Soriano. If he can move very well laterally with good instincts, then the outfield will be ok, because at least Jones and Murton have decent to good range at their positions as well. If Soriano struggles a little bit moving laterally and getting to balls, then the outfield could be in trouble defensively, especially in the bigger ballparks and any times that they put Floyd/Soriano/Murton out there.

40.5? For a RB? :shock: The only thing is, I don't think that's exactly that important for him. I think he can succeed as an alternative back in the NFL, but he will need a little bit of seasoning first.