jersey cubs fan

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.

I think you'd be surprised, guys. Let's use the contract Troy Tulowitzki got -- 6/$31M, with a $15M option on a 7th year -- after finishing second in ROY voting. That contract calls for $5.5M in year 4, $8.5M in year 5, and $10M in year 6. Now let's look at the ROY vote-getters from the year 2002. If these players had been signed to the same deal that Tulowitzki got, they'd have been paid $8.5M last year, and $10M this year. 1 Eric Hinske TOR 2 Rodrigo Lopez BAL 3 Jorge Julio BAL 4 Bobby Kielty MIN 4 John Lackey ANA 6 Josh Phelps TOR 7 Kevin Mench TEX 8 Mark Ellis OAK 8 Tony Fiore MIN 8 Dustan Mohr MIN 8 Carlos Pena TOT 1 Jason Jennings COL 2 Brad Wilkerson MON 3 Austin Kearns CIN 4 Kazuhisa Ishii LAD 5 Damian Moss ATL 6 Ryan Jensen SFG 7 Josh Fogg PIT 7 Mark Prior CHC 9 Alex Sanchez MIL 9 Jason Simontacchi STL 9 Dennis Stark COL There's not a single name on that list that you would've wanted for $8.5M last year, or $10M this year. Now the 2003 list. Here you're asking if you'd want the guy for $8.5M this year, and $10M next year: 1 Angel Berroa KCR 2 Hideki Matsui NYY 3 Rocco Baldelli TBD 4 Jody Gerut CLE 5 Mark Teixeira TEX 1 Dontrelle Willis FLA 2 Scott Podsednik MIL 3 Brandon Webb ARI 4 Marlon Byrd PHI 5 Miguel Cabrera FLA 5 Brad Lidge HOU 7 Jeriome Robertson HOU 8 Jose Reyes NYM 8 Ty Wigginton NYM You've got some hits and some misses, but more misses than hits. How many of these guys would you want for $5.5M this year, $8.5M next year, and $10M in 2010? 1 Bobby Crosby OAK 2 Shingo Takatsu CHW 3 Daniel Cabrera BAL 4 Zack Greinke KCR 5 Alexis Rios TOR 6 David DeJesus KCR 7 Ross Gload CHW 8 John Buck KCR 8 David Bush TOR 8 Nate Robertson DET 1 Jason Bay PIT 2 Khalil Greene SDP 3 Akinori Otsuka SDP 4 Aaron Miles COL 5 Matt Holliday COL 6 Kazuo Matsui NYM 6 Terrmel Sledge MON ... only maybe 2 or 3. These contracts *are* risky. They represent the chance to save a little if the player continues to play great, or cost a fortune if they head south. Basing this on rookie of the year votes is completely nonsensical.

He's dying for a LH bat to break up the righties and force the opposing manager to make bullpen decisions, yet he puts the two LH bat back to back?

Says you. So you're cool with gay jokes?

But the situations are very different because Patterson was injured and Lofton was still pretty good. Corey also had 1000+ major league PA compared to the non-chance given to Pie this year before being sent down.

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending. There's a risk management element in addition to the fiscal responsibility element. The risk management element points to not offering the extension. There's risk on both ends. Let him go year-to-year and you are a likely to wind up paying a hell of a lot more than if you locked him up early.

I like that Jason Marquis's endorsement is the primary source of support for Jim Edmonds.

amen

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending.

Your description "impatient, free swinging, and streaky" fits most power hitters. Your description "way overpaid" fits 98% of major leaguers. What? Most power hitters are patient, only a handful are free swingers, and very few of them come close to the streakiness of Soriano. Soriano's overpaidness blows away 98% of all other overpaidness.

He's a catcher, and he doesn't have a long track record of success. I wouldn't look to give him a 6 or 7 year deal, but after this season, I'd strongly consider signing him through arbitration if at all possible.

I believe he's guaranteed about $4.5m. The highest paid kicker angle is not overplayed. Just because the cap is going up doesn't mean you have to overpay a kicker who can't kick for a lick from distance. The Bears put a tremendous about of effort into special teams. They have a highly compensated long snapper and more than most teams emphasize coverage units and returns. Gould is the weak link on kickoffs, and they have no faith in him from anything beyond 45. He was fine as an undrafted free agent, but it's a joke to make him the highest paid before he was even a free agent. A lot of this is unprovable conjecture. Can you provide evidence that the Bears emphasize special teams more than other teams or that this is the reason why the kicking game has been excellent rather than Gould himself? Gould is not the mediocre kicker you're making him out to be. You're over weighting the need to be able to kick LONG field goals above the effectiveness of making reasonable attempts at a high clip (which Gould is among the very best in the NFL at). And Gould has been just fine on kickoffs. He's not consistently booming it out of the back of the end zone but our coverage units have been able to make up for it. If he's a weak link it hasn't manifested itself negatively. Throwing around words like "a joke" just reeks of off season histrionics that should be reserved for the fact that we have two dreadful options at quarterback. Gould had a high percentage in 2006. He did not kick a high percentage in 2005 or 2007. Your last point is moronic. I didn't say he's a joke as a kicker. I didn't say his ability was a joke. I said it's a joke to make him the highest paid kicker a year before he even hits free agency.

The only optimistic thing is Pie gets to play instead of ride the bench, but it's not as if he had to ride the bench. The rational move was to actually play him in the majors.

I don't believe in destiny. I meant destined in a talent and opportunity (which this hinders to some extent, yes, but at 23 this isn't really a worry) sense. Listen, I'm not really trying to defend the move all that much, I just think a lot of people are wearing their Edmonds hating hat when judging this move. We are currently getting slightly more than nothing production wise from cf and a few more weeks of that is worth the chance that Edmonds has something left, in my opinion. I guess it might be a stretch to assume Edmonds won't get longer than that if he struggles, but I really trust Lou's knee-jerk, reactionary managerial style to provide the correct result in this case. A) I don't believe players are destined for the majors, teams have to develop talented players and give them an opportunity to play there. When you screw around with a guy in his pre-prime and pre-arbitration years, you lose developmental time as well as cost effective time, which can lead to decisions like cutting ties with a guy prematurely. Look no further than Matt Murton for a guy that was clearly capable of producing in the majors but whose prime has been wasted by the Cubs in part due to their something left in the tank nonsense like Cliff Floyd. B) We are getting nothing out of CF because Lou is playing a guy who can't hit RHP against RHP. Yet, the Cubs are still scoring runs and winning games. They can live with getting nothing out of CF for a while because so many others are producing, that is the perfect time to let a kid work in the majors. C) Lou's knee jerk reactions occur with young guys and those who fail to make a good first impression. If Edmonds happens to run into one in a crucial spot early, he's going to get a much longer rope to hang himself with than is appropriate.

I don't believe in destiny.

He's also an idiot who said Reed Johnson should start everyday and leadoff despite loads of proof that Reed Johnson would fail miserably as an everyday player.

I don't care that he's an obnoxious former Cardinal. I care that he's a bad baseball player and they are once again going with washed up proven veterans instead of seeing if a kid can work his way through his struggles.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this has been an ongoing issue all year, and he's been expected to sit-out of things. Once Briggs was done this went on the front-burner, and Angelo has hinted that he's not about to bend in the least. I'm somewhat neutral. Urlacher is under contract, but he's also a special case. Guys are asked to renegotiate for the team all the time, they can be cut at any time. And it's somewhat standard practice to give raises to players who are outperforming their contract. I believe Urlacher has been outperforming what has turned out to be a very team friendly contract. If he plays this year without a new deal, he will have a very good argument to make a stink next offseason. I think they can give in to him a little this year, but actually wind up saving a little in the longterm.