jersey cubs fan

It's not the same reason. Hendry can afford Harden, he's just choosing not to as he emphasizes doing stupid things like putting air conditioning in his scooter and paying somebody else to drive his Toyota.

That's probably a bit overstating it. For example, the last 2 world champions have both had left-handed middle relievers who were on multi-year deals for just as much money (it's difficult to find good contract information in one place for teams before that). It doesn't make it right to do, but it's certainly not something that just teams like the Cubs do. Yeah, and the Yankees can afford to do stupid stuff with contracts much moreso than the Cubs. Furthermore, Philly has actually stacked its team with fantastic homegrown offensive players, a terrific cost effective strategy that the Cubs haven't come close to emulating. The Cubs are letting quality players walk because they can't afford them, yet they are still wasting money on these contracts. If Starlin Castro and Josh Vitters were up here kicking ass and making far below their value, you can justify throwing that kind of money around a little better.

You ask why age 33 matters by not age 34, but I ask why the fact that his poor season was due to injury can be so dismissed. He's an old dude who has dealt with health issues for several years. That's just a sign of more to come. You don't increase your ability to stay uninjured in your mid 30's. And while OBP is great, it's not the only thing, and a .350 isn't all that special. Low ks and putting the ball in play don't impress me. He's slower now and he's only going to get slower, he's clumsy fool in the field and that's only going to get worse.

All that and you forgot Mike Remlinger in your exercise. Weird. I thought this was the thread where I actually mentioned Remlinger. I'll copy it over here since the post above was supposed to be a follow up to my Remlinger post. What about Alfonseca's 11 years as a Cub?

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might. A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo? Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so. A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either. Luis Castillo was a consistent performer, not a particularly good one, but fairly consistent. However, he was also in his 20's and early 30's. He's 34 now, and one year removed from a horrible season. And he's under contract for 2 more seasons. The only mid-30's middle infielders I have any interest in are the elite, not the guys who had a nice career in their 20's but have hit stumbling blocks in their early 30's and are already 34. There's a fairly good chance Castillo would become the Milton Bradley of next offseason, as in the guy Hendry needs to figure out how to get rid of, likely resulting in picking up a chunk of his contract or taking back somebody else's problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8370748.stm

revoke their voting rights. I thought it was funny when I saw a little Timmy K breakdown of Greinke winning and he seemed to put a lot of effort into justifying Greinke winning despite such a low win total. Like he was embarrassed because he supported a guy that didn't win 20. and then some local NY news guy went on a little bit about how many fewer complete games this year's winners had than the winners from the 60's. I can't believe that is a story.

What monkey wrote this sentence?

The fact that the GM is a moron. He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary. Money is the excuse. It's not the reason.

Hmm being the No. 2 is completely different than what you said so yes. Playoffs, assuming we make it, would be the big issue and is also the time I wouldn't want any issues. What in the world are you talking about? Guys don't sign as number 2 or number 5 starters, they sign the best contract they can get. As for what he did this year, Pedro threw 44 innings this year and was pretty good. He threw 100 the year before and sucked. Pedro is going to get a contract that reflects whatever team gets him expecting to get an occasional spot starter. He's not going to sign as a number 2, or a number 5.

I see it less that Hendry doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents, and more that he can't afford to have them accept. He'd probably love to have a pick or two, but not at the risk of a major budget strain. The evidence doesn't support your claim at all. He's signed numerous middle relievers in recent years that have cost the team draft picks, and he's refused to offer arbitration to guys who could net the team draft picks. Hendry doesn't care about fiscal restraint, he wastets millions every year. It's pretty ridiculous to claim you're being cautious as the reason why you can't offer arbitration to good players when you routinely sign several bad players to multi milion dolllar multi year contracts, and bid against yourself for everybody you sign.

fangraphs' money charts are nonsense.

They probably will because that is the stupid thing to do. I hate veteran relievers. Worst case of proven veteranness out there.

I would like Peter to me.

Hurray for no more Heilman.

Move them now or now they are reporting? How is it that nobody picked up on this part of the story before?

You've shown me a guy who is marginally better than Marquis, you haven't come close to showing he's good. It seems to me like the obvious solution again is just not making the deal. They need Milton more than they need a better version of Marquis.

They double that win total easily.

This is lunacy. Yeah, it's not that hard to get lucky two years in a row. It happens. But his luckiness didn't even result in all that good of results. You don't lock up middle relievers to longterm contracts because middle relievers are completely replacable and inconsistent. Also, you are saying it's fine to pay what they paid because some other teams would offer less? The only point in guaranteeing a 2nd year to a guy like Grabow is if you get a discount. Otherwise just give him the one year arbitration offer and leave yourself some flexibility. This is going to be another guy they end up paying to play elsewhere at the end of his contract. When Hendry signs these marginal guys to multi-year deals, it never works out.

It means that with the exception of last year(which is much more about Marquis than Millwood), that Millwood has consistently been anywhere from 10 to 30+ runs better than Marquis. He has similar good qualities, but he's much, much better. Except you're talking about what he did in his prime late 20's years while some of Marquis's time includes his young 20's. And as a 35 year old now, Millwood's value at 29 is meaningless. He is not a very good pitcher. He's a pitcher who shows up and generally doesn't get destroyed. The Cubs don't need guys who can show up, they have that, they need guys who can either shut down opponents to compensate for their weak offense, or help them score more runs.

I don't really see what 8 years ago has to do with mid-30's pitchers. Millwood shows up, that's the best compliment you can give him. Same as Marquis. So over the last three years Millwood has 1.1 WAR more than Marquis. What does that mean?

Something is being lost in translation here. Everybody is reporting this is all but done, nobody is reporting they are about to make the necessary follow-up moves to make it fit. You can either be committed over the cap next season up to a certain date, or you can't at all. If this is all but done, and what you say is true, then it can't be true that Bowman might wait to do some trimming.

How much better is Millwodd than Marquis?

Deferring is good. I think he meant backloaded, and while backloading can have its advantages, it can, and in the case of the Cubs, it has, severely handcuff you in the near future.

Unless something changed while I wasn't paying attention, I don't think he ever was. He made it known he'd like to stay as a Cub. I don't see the harm in it, Milwood or not. If Milwood is on, a rotation of Z/Harden/Lilly/Milwood/Demp is a division-winner. Granted, it's not quite Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux/Clement, but it's still pretty damn good. That frees us up to trade Wells or Marshall in a package for a bat. You might not see the harm in it, but according to every single media report, Hendry sees a tremendous amount of harm in it. He gives away draft picks to sign middle relievers and doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents. In Jim's mind he must think they can get the same quality picks just by paying overslot later in the draft. They gave up a good amount for Harden, he performed to expectations and they are just going to let him walk for nothing.