Backtobanks

Definitely not going to happen, he's the cubs version of kirk hinrich. Management likes him too much and wont deal him. Even if Starlin bats .500 in spring training and makes the big league club, the cubs would then shift theriot to 2nd. I dont like theriot either and i think his range and noodle arm costs us on defense but i dont see the cubs trading him away. You're right. The next problem is that while other teams may like him, what would they be willing to give up for him.

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless. What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]). And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last. Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top. Small payroll teams that win an average or above number of games games ARE more efficient, though, so what is your point? In a system such as baseball free agency, each additional dollar you spend buys you a smaller incremental improvement. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest driver is the non-linear pay increases received at the top of the talent pyramid. If you have the worst third baseman in MLB history on your roster, he will make the minimum salary. If you improve your third baseman up to standard replacement level...you pay $0 incremental money because that guy will still make the minimum salary. You can most likely find some cheap guy to man the position at somewhere around halfway between replacement and average for very little above minimum salary. But...if you want to find a guy who will reliably give you league average performance, you're going to start to pay several million a year. And it starts to go up radically from there. Aramis is going to cost you a lot of money. If you want ARod-level performance...you have to pay ARod type money. There's an optimal point in there somewhere to get marginal performance per marginal dollar invested, which probably falls just below league average salary. Which is why the only way to beat the system and win championships as a small market team is to grow your own players from within and pay non-free agent wages. The discussion seemed to be that the Cubs overspend wildly for the number of wins they have produced especially against other large payroll teams. If someone is happy with a 65-win team that has a payroll of under $20 million because they're cost efficient, so be it. That's why I thought Davearm 2 had the right statistics. As I posted earlier, anyone can find statistics to prove or disprove just about anything.

If I was the Braves, I'd ask for Swisher instead.

I doubt it's Z. If it were, Bruce would be all over it. From MLBTR: Yankees Closing In On Javier Vazquez By Howard Megdal [December 22 at 8:34am CST] 8:34am: The Yankees are closing in on a deal for Vazquez, according to Jon Heyman of SI.com (via Twitter). Heyman says the Yankees will acquire Vazquez and Boone Logan for Melky Cabrera, Mike Dunn and a prospect.

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless. What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]). And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last. Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

Basically, the GM's job is to put together the best team "on paper". Not only does he have three postseason appearances, but a few seasons when he had the "best" team on paper. Posters get upset about using the "injury excuse" when discussing Hendry, but there are times like 2009 when the number of injuries were extraordinary and not just "to be expected".

1 New York Yankees $2.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 7 playoff app 2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M, 2 WS app, 2 Championship, 6 playoff app 3 New York Mets $1.5M, 0 WS app, last app 2000 (L), last WS Champ 1986, 1 playoff app 4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M, 1 WS app, 1 Championship, 6 playoff app 5 Los Angeles Dodgers$1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1988 (W), 4 playoff app 6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1945, (L), last WS Champ 1908, 3 playoff app 7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app N/A, entered MLB 1977, 0 playoff app 8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M, 0 WS app, last app 1999, 4 playoff app 9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 3 playoff app 10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 4 playoff app Keyword is efficiency. Thing is, this isn't about 'being in line with other big payroll teams,' it's about winning the world series. As far as that goes, over the last 7 years we are in the bottom half with 4 other teams who have not appeared. Rhetoric about the playoffs being a crap shoot and that the most important thing is to appear leaves the Cubs tied for 7th with Philadephia with 3, ahead of the dismal Mets, who have a truly awful front office that doesn't understand team building (though they still made a WS appearance this decade), and a Mariners team who is turning a corner after letting Blavaski go. So, really, the only teams of these ten that I'd consider the Cubs to be ahead of, during this stretch, would be the Mariners and Mets. To take this a step further, I would have to believe that the Cubs currently are only ahead of the Mets, and really aren't better than by much, if at all, as Seattle has really started to take a great approach towards market inefficiencies under their new GM, fielding arguably the greatest defending team of all time (certainly the best defense since Fangraphs began keeping UZR ratings at least), to which point there is a good read here. Like any statistic, dollars per win paints a very narrow view of the whole. 2008 and 2003 were very well constructed teams, and i'd even say that 2004 should have been a great squad. But even then Hendry made himself look foolish by bullheadedly keeping Baker as manager when it had become clear that Dusty was at least partly responsible for murdering our young arms, was a poor game manager, and let the clubhouse go wild. Furthermore, Hendry has never had any visible foresight, or long term goal. He leaps ideologically year to year, either apathetic towards or ignorant of future costs. No reasonable person here is going to say that Hendry is the worst general manager in all of baseball. But most reasonable people would agree that he wastes resources to whimsically, seemingly assuming that the bottom of the well is always deeper. God forbid he was on a small market team, because then you'd see his executive flaws magnified even more. If the key is to win the WS, then people like Epstein were idiots this year because they didn't win the WS. I'm not defending Hendry, but it is interesting that posters throw around statistics like it's the gospel until the statistics disprove their point and then we need to re-analyze the statistics to show that those statistics are inaccurate.

Your example isn't "remotely competitive". I don't care how much Mauer loves MN, leaving $130 million on the table would be insane.

Obviously I don't know any more than what I posted (about being the entire deal), but you make it sound like getting both Burrell and Castillo is a good thing.

From MLBTR: Four Team Salary Dump Trade Fell Through By Mike Axisa [December 21 at 4:07pm CST] Well here's an interesting deal that never came to be. According to ESPN's Jayson Stark, a four-team trade involving Milton Bradley, Pat Burrell, Luis Castillo, and Gary Matthews Jr. fell apart at the winter meetings for an undisclosed reason. According to a source, the deal would have sent Bradley to the Rays, Burrell and Castillo to the Cubs, and Matthews Jr. to the Mets. Burrell would have then been spun off elsewhere. No word on what the Halos would have received, though getting rid of Sarge Jr. and presumably at least part of his contract would have been a win.

LOL yes, just before back-to-back division winning seasons. He has built teams that can win 83-85 games for most of his tenure on the plus side. i guess we should just hope the rest of the division sucks forever instead of getting rid of a moron who's running this team into the ground at a quick pace. This offseason has been horrible thus far. Let's also not forget that Hendry has had one of the highest payrolls in the NL and usually can only muster ~85 wins with it. That to me is more damning. When you have one of the highest payrolls in the NL, I fully expect an above average team. The fact of the matter is, Hendry just happened to be GM when the Trib finally decided they wanted to spend money on the team. When you have that kind of payroll, its hard not to put a wining team together. Hendry just happened to be GM when the Trib decided to spend more money on the team, he lucked into DLee, he just happened to be around when the Pirates dumped ARam, he lucked into Nomar and Harden, etc. I know all about the Hendry hate around here, but some of you refuse to give him credit for anything he did that turned out right.

good lord, who would take him? If Silva can at least look mediocre till the deadline and the Cubs would eat $10 million over the 2 years, it might be a possibility that some team might want him at a salary of $3-$4 million per year pitcher.

He might have owed up to it when being asked by the media. But he sure as heck didn't like it was all his fault. Basically when Milton was unhappy, he made everybody around him unhappy. Ryan Theriot was next to his locker and thats basically what he said. This still doesn't make any sense, and it makes evern less sense with every story that tries to spin it like everyone else was on the same page except for Milton. If everyone else in the clubhouse gets along, who cares if one guy is in a bad mood? Is everyone else that weak and fragile emotionally and mentally that one guy sulking or being a jerk means everyone else can't get along? If that was the case then shouldn't that place be a wreck every year due to Zambrano alone? Maybe Milton Bradley just didn't want to talk to Ryan-[expletive]'-Theriot. It's probably annoying as crap to listen to some hick, Ed Hardy-wearing dwarf acting like he's the isht. I don't care how much talent somebody has; there's a limit to how much crap people are willing to put up with. This has nothing to do with baseball, it's a universal truth. Whether you're in an MLB clubhouse, an office building, or on an internet messageboard, if you refuse to follow the basic guidelines of human interaction, you'll be removed from the group. Sure. But it is up to the managers and directors to make sure the troublesome employeee is removed from the group in a manner that is in the company's best interests. I am the sole network engineer at my job. The only guy that knows anything about our servers, our intricate email system and our network hardware and software. On top of all that-I am currently in the middle of a software migration project.Say I go in to work on Monday and tell my boss to F off, and then proceed to curse out the company staff that already doesn't like me. Is it in my company's best interest to fire me on the spot with no other network support available? No. It is up to my boss to CYA, work out the problem with me and eventually devise a plan to get me out of there without disrupting the company operations. Hendry needed to handle the situation with Bradley the way this boss would have handled it. What Hendry did and how he handled this was not in his company's best interests. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Milton Bradley is not indispensible because he's the only guy with a specific skill set. He's a reasonably talented playe, with serious mental health issues in media-driven entertainment business who told media, fans, teammates, coaches, manager, and front office to "F off". He not only can be replaced, he will be replaced.

I think your rant is pretty inaccurate. There's no doubt that this Bradley fiasco was a mistake from day 1, but the Cubs will be contending for the NL Central next year and for the forseeable future. Actually, injuries pretty much killed their chances of competing this year. With Soto, Soriano, ARam, Zambrano, and Dempster injured for long periods and Harden and Marmol having bad years, you can't expect too much. Within the next 2 years you've got Castro, Vitters, Cashner, Gaub, etc. coming to the ML level along with the biggest payroll in the NL Central. If you compare out starting lineup, rotation, and bullpen with the other NL Central teams, you will see that the Cubs are still the best team on paper. We're all frustrated, but we don't need all of the doom-and-gloom.

If I thought that there was some chance that Podsednik could be a competant defensive player. I I thought that last year wasnt a fluke and Podsednik wouldnt spend more 80% of the season on the DL. If I thought that wed get 2005 Scott Podsednik, maybe. But this is a broken down player. He cant even almost play center field anymore. He could barely manage left field last year. All of the sudden, Marlon Byrd is starting to look like an amazing option. As far as Im concerned, If Hendry signs Podsednik, he should be fire before the ink dries. Sam Fuld is a much better fielder than Podsednik, les of an injury risk, and can probably put up comparable, if not better offensive stats.I can undertand not giving your own guys a chance when you have a better option, or more importantly the money for that option, but we dont, so theres no reason for this money to burn a hole in Hendrys pocket. Spending 6 mil on the same guy you have for league minimum is inexcuseable. If nothing else, work with Fuld and Colvin, and if it doesnt work, make a summer trade. At this point, I cant fathom how there could possibly be any Hendry supporters left out there. Maybe its time for Ricketts to stop celebrating his purchase and pay attention to the team and the guy whose destroying it. Hint: It aint and never was Milton Bradley. I agree about Posednick, but let's not kid ourselves about Fuld/Colvin. Working with Fuld/Colvin will put us so far behind at the deadline, there won't be a need for a trade.

I agree with all of the negativity in the last 60+ pages and the Mariners got the more productive player in this trade, but the Mariners better hope Milton produces better than a BA of .257 with 12 HRs and 40 RBIs or the one newspaper and the less-passionate fans will be all over him too. The won't be upset because the traded the "great" Carlos Silva for him, but the team is shelling out $27 million for him and they are expected to be contenders next year.

From Foxsports: The Cubs will receive a total of $9 million from Seattle, according to a major-league source -- $3 million in the first year and $6 million spread out of over the two years. Bradley is owed $22 million over the next two seasons, while Silva is owed $25 million over the same time period.

If you love the DH, why don't we just have an offensive team that bats and a defensive team that plays the field. That way you get to watch Andres Blanco play regularly on defense without batting.

I don't know why we're kidding ourselves, Ellsbury will remain a member of the Red Sox or go to the Padres in a deal for Gonzalez.

I don't understand how you could like the way it is now. Two leagues playing by different rules and yet competing for the same title. DH screws up all of the pitching statistics for the AL.

Baseball-Reference.com's three-year park factors (unless a specific ballpark hasn't been around that long). A park factor above 100 means hitter friendly and a park factor below 100 means pitcher friendly. Let's start at the top … Boston Red Sox – 108 Colorado Rockies – 107 Arizona Diamondbacks – 107 Chicago Cubs – 106 Chicago White Sox – 105 Fenway Park has narrowly overtaken Coors Field as baseball's most hitter-friendly venue, which is remarkable for a place that actually reduces home runs. Thanks to the Green Monster in left field, homers have been harder to come by in Boston while run scoring has increased overall due to dramatically boosting doubles. In other words, when it comes to the Green Monster it's difficult to hit a ball over it and relatively easy to hit a ball into it. Coors Field remains a great place to hit, but over the past three seasons has merely been a very good hitter's ballpark rather than an absurd hitter's paradise. During its first two seasons of existence Planet Coors had park factors of 128 and 129, and from 1995-2000 the average number was 125. However, since then that number has steadily come back down to earth: 117, 110, 119, 110, 107, 109, 105. For whatever reason the offense boosting in Arizona has been sort of overlooked, but whether it's called Bank One Ballpark or Chase Field the Diamondbacks have always played in a place that significantly increases run scoring. All of which makes Brandon Webb's six straight seasons with an ERA under 3.60 even more amazing. Both ballparks in Chicago pump up scoring, and U.S. Cellular Field is particularly great for homers. Cincinnati Reds – 104 Philadelphia Phillies – 103 Baltimore Orioles – 103 Tampa Bay Rays – 103 Cleveland Indians – 103 Los Angeles Angels – 103 For the most part Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati and Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia have been hitter-friendly in the 102-105 range since opening in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Camden Yards has had a hitter-friendly reputation since opening in 1992, but in reality it was very hitter-friendly right away, slightly pitcher-friendly for a decade beginning in the late-90s, and has trended back toward hitter-friendly recently. Detroit Tigers – 102 San Francisco Giants – 102 Texas Rangers – 101 Washington Nationals – 101 Los Angeles Dodgers – 100 Milwaukee Brewers – 100 This group of slightly above-average hitter's ballparks is interesting, because Comerica Park, AT&T Park, and Dodger Stadium all have reputations for being pitcher-friendly while Rangers Ballpark has a reputation for being among baseball's most hitter-friendly venues. Also, note that Nationals Park is a 101 based on just one year of data, because it opened last season. For years Comerica Park was exceptionally friendly to pitchers, but that changed along with a shift in the left field dimensions and Detroit has slightly increased run scoring in three straight seasons. Similarly, AT&T Park (and various other names) was initially very pitcher-friendly—which makes Barry Bonds' exploits even more incredible—but has pumped up offense slightly in five of the past six seasons. Dodger Stadium earned its reputation as a pitcher's ballpark by decreasing offense for nearly 50 years, but has quietly trended toward hitter-friendly over the past few seasons. What's interesting about the change is that Dodger Stadium remains very tough on hitters when it comes to singles, doubles, and triples, but has enhanced homers. In other words, still tough on batting averages, not so tough on power. Rangers Ballpark has gone through the same sort of gradual change as Coors Field, but on a lesser scale. It has been above 100 in all but two of the past 14 seasons, but whereas the park factor was 110, 110, and 112 from 2002-2004 it has been just 103, 103, 97, and 103 over the past four seasons. Texas is still a good place to hit, particularly for power, but it's no longer the best hitter's ballpark in the American League. Houston Astros – 99 Toronto Blue Jays – 99 Florida Marlins – 99 Atlanta Braves – 99 St. Louis Cardinals – 99 The big surprise in this group is Minute Maid Park in Houston, which most people would probably peg as one of the league's most hitter-friendly thanks to the short porch in left field. That was true for a long time, as the ballpark boosted offensive significantly for its first handful of years whether it was named Enron Field or Minute Maid Park, but over the past five seasons the average park factor has been exactly 100. Kansas City Royals – 97 Seattle Mariners – 96 Pittsburgh Pirates – 95 Minnesota Twins – 93 Oakland A's – 93 San Diego Padres – 89 The only real surprise in this group of highly pitcher-friendly ballparks is the Metrodome, but the old "Homerdome" nickname stopped being accurate a while ago. The Metrodome had a park factor of 100 or above in all but five seasons from 1982-2005, typically ranking in the 102-106 range. However, it has been below 100 in each of the past three seasons, including 92 in 2007 and 94 last year. Perhaps the change in carpet is to blame. With a spacious outfield and miles of foul territory Oakland's ballpark has been a great place for pitchers for basically its entire 40-year run. That's bad news for Matt Holliday, who leaves Coors Field and the NL for the most pitcher-friendly home in the AL. He's not going to suddenly turn into Juan Pierre, but Holliday is highly unlikely to put up MVP-caliber raw numbers with the A's and could easily see his OPS drop 150 points.

Knowing Boston, they'd probably ask for something more than just Bradley. Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Stevens/Atkins for Lowell + Hermida (No cash exchanged) Boston can trade Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez and use an OF of Bradley, Cameron, and Drew with Gonalez, Pedroia, Scutaro, and Youkilis in the IF with Martinez @ C. This would also help the Red Sox avoid the luxury tax (from MLBTR): WEEI's Alex Speier says Boston's payroll is at an all-time franchise high and projects to be just under the $170MM luxury tax threshold. Once they get over $170MM there is a 22.5% penalty. Is the Lowell trade to Texas offiicially dead in the water?? Don't know, but it hasn't happened yet.

In the Bradley Trade Thread, I suggested: Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Stevens/Atkins for Lowell + Hermida (No cash exchanged) Boston can trade Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez and use an OF of Bradley, Cameron, and Drew with Gonalez, Pedroia, Scutaro, and Youkilis in the IF with Martinez @ C. As you stated Ellsbury is one of the frontliners the Padres would want in exchange for Gonzalez. I'd be happy with getting Hermida and Lowell while dumping Bradley.

Knowing Boston, they'd probably ask for something more than just Bradley. Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Stevens/Atkins for Lowell + Hermida (No cash exchanged) Boston can trade Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez and use an OF of Bradley, Cameron, and Drew with Gonalez, Pedroia, Scutaro, and Youkilis in the IF with Martinez @ C. This would also help the Red Sox avoid the luxury tax (from MLBTR): WEEI's Alex Speier says Boston's payroll is at an all-time franchise high and projects to be just under the $170MM luxury tax threshold. Once they get over $170MM there is a 22.5% penalty.

From MLBTR: WEEI's Alex Speier says the Red Sox told Jeremy Hermida they'd trade him if they re-signed Jason Bay. Speier wonders if the Cameron signing will prompt a Hermida deal How about a deal of Hermida + Lowell for Bradley + $5-$6 million.