MSG T

CUBS ARE NOW IN FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Answer the question. Are you saying hustling does not help win games? I mean, you did say that, right? Damn, you're pretty demanding for a guy that thinks a ton of bunts are important. That question was not for you. I said sound baseball is important. Sound baseball is important, yes. Things like hitting the baseball, throwing the baseball and catching the baseball. Running really hard on a grounder to 1B or a popup to 3B isn't.

Johnson and Schillings pitching and Luis Gonzalez turning into Barry Freaking Bonds had way more to do with that season than Brenly giving away 71 outs during one of the most offensive (scoring wise) seasons in history. If anything Brenly cost them runs, and possibly wins, by bunting that much. Seriously, is this a joke account?

You really think Brenly or any other manager is going to bench Soriano for (allegedly) not hustling? Did you quit paying attention to baseball in little league? Who else would they put out there? Campana. That kid has spunk. =D>

You really think Brenly or any other manager is going to bench Soriano for (allegedly) not hustling? Did you quit paying attention to baseball in little league? Who else would they put out there?

Just wondering, what would it take for people to be happy with a Soriano deal? Meaning, would the Cubs kicking 50% of the remaining contract and getting a living, breathing baseball player back be enough. Cubs only kicking in 25% and getting nothing, 80% and getting someone decent? I'll admit, I have no idea what it would take to get someone to take him. I'll also admit, I'd be willing to kick in a substantial amount if I could get someone (through that deal or another trade, MiL, whatever) that could play better D and come close to his numbers, along with saving some of the money. However, I have no idea it that would have even a moderate chance of happening. As an example... Fangraphs has Soriano as a 4 WAR (total) player over the last three seasons, and will make approx. $19 mil per over the next three years. If the Cubs could trade him and acquire, bring up, somehow put some guy in LF avg. 1 WAR per year for a combined $17 mil per, at least until they can improve performance, would it be worth it? Let's say they pick up half his money, $9.5 mil per, and sign someone else for $7 mil and get nothing back in return for Soriano. That's $16.5 mil to replicate his WAR over the next three years. Do you do it? Like I said, I don't know there's even a chance, but until something actually happens it's all hypothetical anyway.

Barney? ;)

Pena should net a decent return. Soto (and Z) you don't trade unless someone knocks your socks off with a great package. Trading any of them for average prospects in the low-mid minors should get Hendery fired immediately. Soriano I'd consider a bit differently, but he's really the only one in that situation.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn? Part of me does, yes, because I tend to lean towards not letting an impact player pass you by when they fill multiple glaring needs on your team. That said, I can't answer that definitively until after this offseason at the very earliest. Sample size, I know, but his .282 .410 .651 1.061 line at Wrigley in 293 PA is sure pretty to look at. I know what you're saying, but... this always reminds of when Harry would see the numbers some guy put up in Wrigley and wish the Cubs would sign him. Ignoring that the guy was 0-14 against Maddux, 2-13 against Sutcliffe and 19-23 w/8 HR against the rest of the crappy staff. Not a bash directed at your post, just something funny I used to think in the late 80's - early 90's.

Don't get hung up on the dollars. That's not really what I'm asking. See my previous post. Just using the $$$ for comparison purposes. The money definitely comes into play, it's just a different amount for different players. Signing Ryan Theriot to a 4/$56 is insane, Dunn? Not so much. Would anyone give Dunn the same amount as Pujols or Fielder? I'd hope not. But, would you prefer Dunn (looking at him this past offseason) 4/$56 or Prince 5/$100? Some may prefer Fielder, and I'd understand that, some may prefer Dunn because of the shorter, cheaper contract. You don't need to hang on the money, but you can't ignore it.

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million? Because these are the conditions under which GMs make free agent decisions. Knowing what we know as of this morning, do you think Dunn will be worth his contract? Yes or no. To be honest, probably not. But, the league is full of guys that earned their current contract prior to signing it and not while they are playing under that contract. I mean, has ARod been worth the $250-300 he will have earned? No, but he's been worth a whole lot more than 99% of ballplayers. It's relative. Will Fielder be worth the $20 mil per or so he signs for? Doubtful. But he could very likely be worth more than the previous $20 mil per year player. Same with Dunn. So maybe he doesn't end up worth the money he signed for, was it worth if if he's worth $50 mil over the life of that contract? Besides, you can't look at it as "they earned their money", you have to look at it as "does this guy give me something I can't get some other way?". If the answer is yes, then you decide if giving them X amount is worth it. Fielder might be worth $20 to the Cubs, but only $17 to the Yankees or Red Sox. Even if he doesn't "earn" his money over the next 5-8 years, if he provides the performance the Cubs needed then he was worth the $20 mil per year, even if his hard stats say he didn't "earn" his money. All good points, and I totally get where you're coming from. Really the bottom-line, yes-or-no question I'm asking is: will the White Sox look back three years from now and be happy they made this signing? Or even more relevant to us: will the Cubs look back three years from now and kick themselves for not making this signing? It depends. If they acquire Prince or Albert and win the WS with them in the next three years, they'd look back and say "hey, we made the right call in not signing Dunn". If both of those guys end up elsewhere and they end up with Lyle Overbay at $10 mil per year, they should want to commit Harakiri. And yes, I think in three years the Sox will most likely look back and say "he wasn't worth the $56 mil, but he was a heck of a player for us".

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million? Because these are the conditions under which GMs make free agent decisions. Wait, what? GM's make their decisions only if they can definitely know if a player is going to be worth all of (or exceed) the contract being offered? You keep refusing to answer a very simple, direct yes-or-no question on the grounds that you can't predict the future. Well guess what. GMs can't predict the future when they're offering free agent contracts, either. I thought that was obvious but you managed to butcher the interpretation anyway. Not that I expected a straightforward answer from you anyway. You can't say "yes, I expect Dunn will turn out to have been worth 4/56" because that'd be kinda foolish knowing what we know now, and you can't say "no, I don't expect Dunn will turn out to have been worth 4/56" because that would prove my point: the folks that were against signing him look like they were right. So just keep on obfuscating and evading with some more "look at it this ways". They're fascinating, even if tangential. That's not what GMs have to worry about, though. They have to worry about whether the player is worth the gamble to sign him to a big contract, not is he worth that money. Will Dunn be worth 4/$56? No, probably not. Was he worth the gamble to sign him to that contract? Absolutely. Why? Because even if he didn't earn every dime, he was still worthy of giving a large contract to, given the numbers he'd put up in his career. As I alluded to earlier, the Cubs need a 1B in the offseason. Will Prince or Albert be worth the contracts the sign? Very doubtful. Would it be worth the risk, for the Cubs, to give Prince $18-20 per or Albert $25-30 per? Considering the other options, yes, it would most likely be worth the risk. Just because a player doesn't earn every dollar in his contract doesn't mean he isn't worth signing to that contract. If that was the case, and people looked at the $$$ value of the players, no one would ever sign a single player to a huge contract. Guess what, there is more value there than just the $$$.

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million? Because these are the conditions under which GMs make free agent decisions. Knowing what we know as of this morning, do you think Dunn will be worth his contract? Yes or no. To be honest, probably not. But, the league is full of guys that earned their current contract prior to signing it and not while they are playing under that contract. I mean, has ARod been worth the $250-300 he will have earned? No, but he's been worth a whole lot more than 99% of ballplayers. It's relative. Will Fielder be worth the $20 mil per or so he signs for? Doubtful. But he could very likely be worth more than the previous $20 mil per year player. Same with Dunn. So maybe he doesn't end up worth the money he signed for, was it worth if if he's worth $50 mil over the life of that contract? Besides, you can't look at it as "they earned their money", you have to look at it as "does this guy give me something I can't get some other way?". If the answer is yes, then you decide if giving them X amount is worth it. Fielder might be worth $20 to the Cubs, but only $17 to the Yankees or Red Sox. Even if he doesn't "earn" his money over the next 5-8 years, if he provides the performance the Cubs needed then he was worth the $20 mil per year, even if his hard stats say he didn't "earn" his money.

Well, I don't know. It would be one thing if 3B was dealt with, but with 3B and 1B AND (to a lesser degree because of the position it is and not because of who is currently there) all question marks they can't discount any options at this point. Sign someone like Reyes and move Castro to 2B and then getting Prince for 1B makes the hole at 3B a LOT more tolerable. Good point, I keep forgetting about 3B being open this winter. Baker/DeWitt platoon at 3B? Kidding...kind of.

BTW, I'm not saying they have to get Prince/Reyes/Kemp + a pitcher, just that they could. Of those four, I'd take Reyes last, not that I wouldn't take him, just given where their needs will be this winter and next, he'd be below the other three spots in terms of needs.

Ack, had a post then lost it. Long story short, the Cubs have about 64 million coming off the payroll the next 2 years . Considering Prince/Kemp/Reyes are looking at 17-18+ per year, that doesn't really leave you the necessary resources to fill out a rotation that would consist of Garza, Wells, and a pocketful of wishes. ? Am I missing something? Cots shows a payroll of $134 mil this year, $72.6 for 2012 and 28.8 for 2013. Even figuring the number of arbitration eligible guys they have, appears to be six, and the raises they'll get, that's a lot more than $64 mil coming off over the next two years. They could sign Prince and Reyes this year and have plenty of money next year for Kemp and at least one high quality pitcher. And still end up with a lower payroll than they have now. If you have 28.8 million in 2013 and you add Kemp/Prince/Reyes at 18 each per year and a high quality pitcher at 13, then you have a payroll of 95 million already. Garza/Soto will probably together be around 20 million by that point so you're already at 115. Wells will probably be 3-5 million by then so 118-120. Castro will probably be another 4-5. So that's 122-125 and that's only 10 players. So they would only have 10 million or so for the other 15 players. Unless the Cubs go to a complete stars/scrubs model, there's no way they can sign that many elite players. Money-wise that wouldn't be much different than now. They currently have 13 guys on their roster making a combined $9.5 mil. Mostly bullpen/bench guys. They also have their top six making roughly $77 mil. Aren't they already paying in a stars/scrubs model? Just without as much performance as they could get for their money?

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ah4PW47PiAi-dDVmNFRzVENYSTF2OXJwVUUyNVJIaFE&output=html Here's COTs numbers for the Cubs.

Ack, had a post then lost it. Long story short, the Cubs have about 64 million coming off the payroll the next 2 years . Considering Prince/Kemp/Reyes are looking at 17-18+ per year, that doesn't really leave you the necessary resources to fill out a rotation that would consist of Garza, Wells, and a pocketful of wishes. ? Am I missing something? Cots shows a payroll of $134 mil this year, $72.6 for 2012 and 28.8 for 2013. Even figuring the number of arbitration eligible guys they have, appears to be six, and the raises they'll get, that's a lot more than $64 mil coming off over the next two years. They could sign Prince and Reyes this year and have plenty of money next year for Kemp and at least one high quality pitcher. And still end up with a lower payroll than they have now.

Ack, had a post then lost it. Long story short, the Cubs have about 64 million coming off the payroll the next 2 years . Considering Prince/Kemp/Reyes are looking at 17-18+ per year, that doesn't really leave you the necessary resources to fill out a rotation that would consist of Garza, Wells, and a pocketful of wishes. ? Am I missing something? Cots shows a payroll of $134 mil this year, $72.6 for 2012 and 28.8 for 2013. Even figuring the number of arbitration eligible guys they have, appears to be six, and the raises they'll get, that's a lot more than $64 mil coming off over the next two years. They could sign Prince and Reyes this year and have plenty of money next year for Kemp and at least one high quality pitcher. And still end up with a lower payroll than they have now.

I'm not real excited facing 5 AL teams as often as the other 10 NL teams as long as the wild card is around. This. I guess that's the best solution if you want 15 in each. I'd rather scrap divisions and interleague and just have 14/16 with top four moving on. Simple. H ere's one based on the NFL's system. move the brewers back NL1 - New York, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia NL2 - Atlanta, Florida, Washington NL3 - Cincinnati, St Louis, Chicago NL4 - Houston, Arizona, Colorado NL5 - San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles AL1 - New York, Detroit, Boston AL2 - Toronto, Tampa, Detroit AL3 - Milwaukee, Cleveland, Chicago AL4 - Texas, Minnesota, Kansas City AL5 - Seattle, Anaheim, Oakland As far as scheduling goes 18 games vs 1 interleague division (3 H, 3 A, 3 Teams) 96 games vs intraleague nondivision (4 H, 4 A, 12 teams) 48 games vs intraleague division (12 H, 12 A, 2 teams) Then have the top division winners and one wild card go to the playoffs, giving you six teams. Have the top two records get a bye, have the third best team host the wild card, fourth and fifth play each other. then do best of 3, best of 5, best of 7, best of 7. Pros - Creates and promotes rivalries (and clustered rivalries) due to directly only competing with two teams (granted the system may never pass w/o splitting up Boston and New York. - Even weak teams always have a chance because they are only competing with two other teams, usually close by. - Still a wild card - One more playoff round for $$$$ Cons - Drastically unbalanced schedule for the 1 wild card spot. - weak teams always have a chance. - One more playoff round - playoff byes - too radically different from current situation Not saying it's the best or even a good solution, it's just one modeled on the NFL's. I I actually like it except for one thing. Instead of 12/12 against each team in the division, do 6/6 and just eliminate the other 24 games. That would let you start the season slightly later and leave room for playoffs to start earlier. Other than that change, I think I like your idea as much as any of the others I've seen, or the current scheduling. I will fully admit to not liking the 162 game schedule, and if they make changes, I'd love it if they shortened the season.

I hear Koyie Hill is a nice guy. He'd have to make Mother Teresa look like Hitler in order to justify his spot on the roster. I think Mother Teresa and Hitler were probably better at baseball than Hill, so I'd rather have either of them. Not to mention Harper.

So he WOULDN'T make the Cubs a lot of money? I'm confused. Your own post was breaking down how even increased ticket revenue of just 200,000 would bring in that much more money. We're talking about even more since the Cubs' attendance is down even further from the 2010 numbers you're using. Though it's all moot since you seem to be hinging this one some kind of idea that if Pujols' salary can't be justified by increased attendance revenue then it's a bust instead of the reality that the Cubs can easily afford even his desired contract. I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you. $30M > $10M. Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true. Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser. I'm still confused. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that increased tickets sales should or need to offset Pujols' salary, or why you're thinking anyone here said that. Besides, aren't you basing this tangent on the idea of the Cubs selling 3.1 million tickets this year? You've said repeatedly that Pujols would make the Cubs a lot of money. How exactly do you figure the guy's going to make the Cubs a lot of money if the added revenue he generates isn't even enough to offset his salary? Doesn't exactly take a CPA to see the flaw in that logic. If they sign Pujols and have a payroll at, or lower than, current levels, he doesn't need to pay for his own salary to make the Cubs money. Any increase he provides will make them money. It appears you're trying to look at it that he needs to cause a $30+ mil increase for the Cubs, that's not true. If they have a payroll of $125 mil and a profit of $5 mil this year, and they sign him for $30 mil per next year which eventually leads to a payroll of $125 mil and his presence creates a profit of $10 mil, he made them $5 mil. All that needs to happen is his presence causes them to make more money next year. As for that entire argument, I actually disagree with it, to a point. I don't think he needs to make them more money. All he needs to do is make them a better team and he's earned his money. If they win the WS next year with him at first, even if they lose money, it's worth it. And, quite frankly, that's all I care about. I understand the Cubs want to make money and that's fine, they should care about that, but as a fan, I want them to win and Albert gives them the best chance to do that. That's why it's worth it to give him $30 mil per year if that's what it takes. If signing him breaks the bank and they can't sign anyone else that's any good which causes them to be a worse team, then no they shouldn't sign him. That, however, isn't reality. Reality says they can give Albert $30+ mil per year and still bring in other, needed, good players.

Isn't he on the roster because of his alleged defensive prowess?

On ESPN.com they had- Pitcher Davis (Mil) in the box score section for the game. Great they can update that sort of thing.

As the only 7'er, I'm thinking Leonard has a good shot at making the team. I'm thinking everyone that's not a guard has a good chance, unless they take 10 guards.

That's not surprising.