jersey cubs fan

This completely misses the point. The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency. Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee. Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years. Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here. Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him. Except the incentive of paying less in the long run.

If you were at the game, would you want them to leave him in? I'd probably join in the festivities of cheering/booing accordingly.

You can't criticize fans for wanting the guy to finish it. They aren't generally aware of the pitch count, and it's fun to see a complete game.

It's kind of ok because he's an older pitcher who will be a free agent this year and probably get a huge contract. If they insist on treating guys like this I'd rather it be somebody like Dempster than a 22-year old.

The relavency of the homegrown free agent is they are younger and less financial established than most veterans about to hit the market. Not to mention they are also more likely to be in their prime, rather than past their prime. These guys are dying to hit their first big contract. Waiting 4 years before your first non-minimum wage salary gets you antsy. Ramirez was already making millions before he came to the Cubs (it's the only reason the Cubs were able to get him in the first place). There was little to no incentive for him to negotiate away upside earning potential for security. All these guys signing early deals are giving away a little upside for the lifetime security of an otherwise huge contract (but not nearly as huge as it could be if they waited).

Dempster, 69 pitches through 6, Maddux couldn't get through 5 with 62. Impressive game so far.

If the only other option was that he had to sit everyday in Chicago, you'd have a point. But that was not the situation. He didn't have to sit in Chicago. The right choice was to play him. The wrong one was to bench him for Reed Johnson. Making another mistake to cover up that mistake is just plain stupid. But that has NOTHING to do with Edmonds, which is what they were arguing about. I think even Sulley would agree that the number 1 option would be Pie in the majors playing everyday. However, that doesn't appear to be an option at this point. It is and it was an option. OMG. Are you serious? Have you watched RJ get start after start the past month and a half and Lix get 5 ABs per week? Seriously...come on. And that was somehow forced upon the Cubs by the league?

I hate outs on the basepaths.

If the only other option was that he had to sit everyday in Chicago, you'd have a point. But that was not the situation. He didn't have to sit in Chicago. The right choice was to play him. The wrong one was to bench him for Reed Johnson. Making another mistake to cover up that mistake is just plain stupid. but then the edmonds signing is moot. pie wasn't going to play anyway so the edmonds signing isn't risking "screwing him up even more". Sulley, I would just stop now. These people can't see through their hatred for Edmonds. He's so gay and wears makeup and dives at balls unnecessarily LOLOL. You have no clue what you are talking about.

If the only other option was that he had to sit everyday in Chicago, you'd have a point. But that was not the situation. He didn't have to sit in Chicago. The right choice was to play him. The wrong one was to bench him for Reed Johnson. Making another mistake to cover up that mistake is just plain stupid. But that has NOTHING to do with Edmonds, which is what they were arguing about. I think even Sulley would agree that the number 1 option would be Pie in the majors playing everyday. However, that doesn't appear to be an option at this point. It is and it was an option.

If the only other option was that he had to sit everyday in Chicago, you'd have a point. But that was not the situation. He didn't have to sit in Chicago. The right choice was to play him. The wrong one was to bench him for Reed Johnson. Making another mistake to cover up that mistake is just plain stupid. but then the edmonds signing is moot. pie wasn't going to play anyway so the edmonds signing isn't risking "screwing him up even more". It is not moot. The fact that you've been dying to get him on the Cubs for 2 years must be clouding your ability to reason.

Ramirez doubled up Maddux's pitch count, to 8.

If the only other option was that he had to sit everyday in Chicago, you'd have a point. But that was not the situation. He didn't have to sit in Chicago. The right choice was to play him. The wrong one was to bench him for Reed Johnson. Making another mistake to cover up that mistake is just plain stupid.

Are you really this daft? I don't mean hate in the sense that I want him dead. I didn't need that everything needed to be said so freaking literally in order for people to understand something. But what do you mean by hate if not the literal definition? I can understand "hating" Jim Edmonds the Cardinal from earlier this decade. I don't understand how that carries over to now.

The first Animal House reference was ok...the second one was dumb, and was simply an attempt to tie it back to that movie again in any way possible. I didn't even like the first reference. If Angelo was in anyway acting like everything was fine and dandy with Grossman, sure. But he's on a one year contract. He was nearly let go. He was demoted. They looked at QBs and didn't see anything of value in the draft (a perfectly reasonable analysis). There were no decent veteran replacements. He's not saying all is well. He's saying, our QB position is up in the air.

No it can be worse. I don't get why people don't see the real downside risk. Just because the Cubs can get rid of him if he's bad, it doesn't mean they will get rid of him if he's bad. The Cubs have weird ways of determining whether or not a guy is good or bad anyway.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents. I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them? The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it. The point is you save money, allowed you to spend more money elsewhere.

what happened?

With all due respect to Bruce, I think even he would agree that people are allowed to have differing opinions about things. Now obviously he's more in the know, and might have some sort of knowledge about why Pie was never given a shot, or why Edmonds was better than his numbers in SD, but even then, this isn't a communist board where everyone is supposed to think alike. no, i beg to differ. it is a communist board because we're all supposed to be meatballs and hate edmonds or get flamed. Why does it make somebody a meatball to dislike bad baseball players on the Cubs?

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents.

For me, it's not a defense of Hendry. It's a moderate view that doesn't cry about Pie's career being forever ruined at age 22. I prefer to see Pie, not Edmonds, and I disagree with the move. But I also recognize that the situation is of little significance overall, Individually it's of little significant, but it represents what they've been about in the past and what they will likely continue to be about in the future - the conventional wisdom that proven veterans are better than unproven kids. It also represents how horribly short-sighted they are, how little of a chance they are willing to give kids a chance to work through struggles, how much they demand immediate impact when that's unrealistic, etc.

Signing him through arbitration would be the worst option of all. You've got him controlled through arbitration already. The only thing you'd gain is cost certainty. As I've illustrated, that's a game in which you can win a little, or lose a lot. Buying a few free agent years is the most reasonable motivation for these early extensions, and that shouldn't be a major concern for a team like the Cubs, who have a track record of keeping their guys anyway. This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

So not 6 or 7, but 5? Yes, I'd strongly consider it. 5 is less than 6 or 7, and would put him in his late 20's with 6 full seasons of catching duty, and all the wear and tear that suggests.

Vikings?

Actually, I don't think you have any idea why I don't like him. And I hate lots of people I don't know and I'm guessing you do too, so I'd be careful casting that particular stone. There are many Cardinals I didn't like b/c they were Cardinals, were good against the Cubs, yet terrible at baseball, generally (I'm looking at you Mr. Vina). There were and are some Cardinals that I actually like watching (Wainwright comes to mind). There are some that I loathe - and Edmonds is at the front of that group. (btw - there are a lot of athletes that I hate that have never been affiliated with a rival of one of my favorite teams, the fact that he was a Cardinal just added to it) Part of it is his HR stare, part of it is the completely unnecessary diving (and the media's and fan's hype of his defense that comes with it). Whatever it is, I didn't like him before he went to the Cards and I really don't like him now. The fact that my favorite team in all of sport signed him when he's a washed up has been and that resulted in what I believe was a stupid move (sending Pie down) makes it worse. It may not be rational to hate or extremely dislike a baseball player (or anyone you don't know), but not everything people do is 100% rational. I'd guess that this even applies to you at times. obviously you can hate who you want to hate. My problem is this takes away from the rational and logical argument against the trade. Most of what I've read has focused on his relationship with the fans rather than the completely ridiculous usage of Johnson/Pie early, and now the indefensible acquisition of a bad baseball player.