jersey cubs fan

Financially, maybe, with the Japanese market. But he's way down the list of MLB stars right now and he's just going to keep going down. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that contract for such a player. Ichiro isn't going to maintain his contract/career year numbers he has right now. He's most likely going to settle into the very unspecial numbers he put up the past couple years. Nice, good piece of the puzzle, but completely unspecial. Horrible baseball contract.

according to soapy's stats jacque jones is just as good as murton Not really. Murton has the edge in the most important category, OBP, and he's got the edge in location along career path. Neither is great. But Murton is better and can get even better.

Numbers wise, I think he'd be a help (although not a tremendous one), but his ego driven insistence that he's a starter makes me believe it's not worth it.

I would guess 5/125 on the low end, 6/180 on the high end. I don't see him going 7/8 years.

No he would not have appealed it. He dropped it because he wouldn't really miss a start with the way the schedule was set up. He started on the 4th. His team played on the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. He could have been around for game 1 after the break, with 2 days of rest following what is likely to be no more than 1 inning in the ASG. Now he'll go on the 14th. It's pretty much the thing that would happen with any starting pitcher getting a 5 game suspension. His next start gets pushed back a day, ASG or not.

stupid complaint

But usually where there's smoke, there's fire, right? I'm just shocked that I can't find a link anywhere, even if it's just speculation. It's been speculated all year that he would opt out. I'm sure the discussion you were hearing is just them assuming he will, which makes sense. Right now he's guaranteed 3/81. I'd speculate he could get 5/125 without even trying. I'm betting his contentious relationship with all things Yankee will mean he's gone. If the Yanks don't make a run this month, they should probably trade him. If they do, then I could see him signing an extension with his new team, that would presumably keep Texas on the hook for their portion of his current deal, roughly $27m. Then, his new team could throw 3/60-75 on the back end, and Alex would have 6/141-156 guaranteed, after this year, but his team would only be paying 6/114-129, with Texas maintaining its share. In other words, ARod's best option for himself is probably to get traded (motive for rumors) and sign an extension with a new team, since Texas would then still be picking up part of the bill.

Is this more of a case of promoting to fill a spot rather than promoting to reward progress? Hart is a year older and has considerably more pro experience, 329 IP to 144 going into 2007. He's significantly bigger as well, which could mean he's more ready for the bump. And as craig pointed out, he has significantly outperformed since April. I wouldn't see much point in promoting Holliman to AAA, given his limited pro experience so far, and less than dominant performance (based on K data). As the younger, smaller, less experienced and less effective of the two, I'd have to agree with keeping him in AA for now. How did the Cubs acquire Kevin Hart?

I'm not sure how one could say there was no malice and it definitely doesn't look playful. The guy had a look of disgust on his face when he threw that. The ump in question looks like #77, which would be Jim Reynolds. Does he have a history with Barrett? Certainly he's been behind the plate in a Barrett game at some point.

Prime years are 26-29. I don't see how it's arbitrary to say a player who is 31 is past his prime. Soriano has an OPS+ of 126 right now, below what he had at 26, 27 and 30. This all started when somebody mistakenly claimed the Cubs future looks bright because their 3 best hitters are in the middle of their prime, when in fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. The Cubs, as is usually their M.O., have failed to take advantage of the prime of their best players (Ramirez, Lee) or acquired players after their best days were behind them.

That's a really bizarre and arbitrary definition of peak. For crying out loud, a lot of players still produce as well as ever in their early 30's (even 31.5 :shock: ). If they are, then I would say they are still at the "peak" region of their career. What is so damn bizarre about that? Obviously each player is different then another. So to make the statement "a player over 29 years old is past his prime" is too broad of a generalization. Some are, some aren't. I think i'll just go bang my head against the wall now. Bang harder. To say a guy must be in his peak if he is top 5 in his league in AVG or HR is absurd. You don't understand the concept of peak. To be past your prime does not mean you stink. It means you aren't as good as you were at your best. ARod is the only guy you listed who is outperforming what he has done at younger ages. Soriano is off the pace he set last year and will probably remain there throughout his time with the Cubs. He's past his prime.

Or maybe he "feels" younger because so many people were used to his former stated age before that 3 year offseason. As far as Soriano aging gracefully due to his athleticism, the contrast to that theory would be that since his game relies so heavily on his athleticism (as opposed to somebody like Bonds' whose game is completely different), the inevitable wearing down of a 30-something player could accelerate that decline.

That's a really bizarre and arbitrary definition of peak.

And they've proven they can't pick retreads either. If the Cubs get Billy Beane, John Schuerholz or Mark Shapiro, great, but I don't see a large pool of available GMs who are screaming "I am the man that will get the job done in Chicago!" What the Cubs have proven is that doing it the old fashioned way isn't going to bring a championship. They don't need a baseball lifer or a former GM. They need a person who can be a competent GM that won't ignore the problem areas that need to be fixed, rookie or no rookie.

The reason that age is listed as prime years is because players' most productive seasons generally coincide with those ages. Players tend to improve up until around 26 or so, they peak sometime in the 26-29 range, plateau in the 29-30/31 area and decline starting in their early to mid 30's. Soriano, at 31.5 years, is likely to be a guy whose numbers have seen their heights and will begin to pull back. Of the names you listed, DLee put up his best numbers at age 29, he's far off that pace now and likely will never return to that pace. Jeter's best year was at age 25, he's fluctuated quite a bit since then, but he's probably not going to be returning to his best numbers. Vladdy's best year was at age 26, he's flirted with those numbers since then, and he is again this year, but again, we're probably not going to see him best those numbers. Hunter has been very inconsistent from year to year. He's on pace to have a career year, but he's no guarantee to maintain those numbers. Alex Rodriguez is the best player in baseball. His best years were between 24 and 29, with the two best seasons coinciding with each of those ages. He's on pace to eclipse those numbers this year, but there's a lot of time to play. Soriano doesn't compare with ARod if you want to talk about guys capable of sustaining greatness. When somebody talks about the Cubs best players being in the prime of their careers, they are really reaching. Soriano is past his prime years. He may pull out a career year sometime in the next few years. But by and large, you can count on his age 31-35 seasons to be a step off what he did from 25-30. He's not in his prime. This isn't just made up nonsense by people who want to pick on the Cubs. Players are at their best in the mid to late 20's, while pitchers are a couple years later. Truly great teams, like the late 90's Yankees, with great players like Williams, Jeter, Posada, Tino, Knoblauch, have studs in their 20's and can sustain winning over a long time. If your best players are in their 30's already, you better win now, because contrary to what the original post insinuated, the Cubs best days are not ahead of them, not with Ramirez already at 29 and Lee and Soriano in their 30's. They will need an influx of great younger players if they want that window to stay open.

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning). Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary. I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before.

Soriano is not in the "prime" of his career unless he's going to be playing as long as Minni Minoso or Julio Franco. He's 31 and will be 32 next January. 31 is past prime? news to me. Other players past their prime: A-Rod(32 this month) Vlad(31) Jeter(33) DLee(31) Tori Hunter(31) Not to mention players like sheffield and griffey who aren't in their prime, but when healthy can contribute very late in their careers. 31 may be in the later part of their prime but surely not out of it. It's past prime. It does not mean end of career. It means past their prime, which typically occurs from around 26-28/29 in hitters.

Sad............but true. I'd rather DLee took this whole time off & get some rest. He just looks tired to me lately; or at least his weak flyballs & grounders make that appear to be the case. He will get his rest during the suspension.

It's good because it means they are in it. Whether or not they are in the race, Hendry is still going to be the GM and still likely to do the wrong thing. So I'd rather the Cubs be contender and Hendry screw up than have them not be contenders and have Hendry screw up.

What's with the black and white nonsense? "No man can produce at all as a hitter unless..." is a loaded statement meant to engender sympathy to your side of the discussion. It's not about "no man". It's not about full-time, etc. It's about Matt Murton barely playing at all this year. He was the 5th start much of the year. He began as the starter, but the first sign of trouble sent him to the back of the line. Jacque Jones got a much longer leash. The fact of the matter is Murton is still in the learning curve part of his career. Jones and Floyd have shown all they can do and don't require much in terms of times to get right. Murton was on a short leash from the start and he knew it. Realistically he probably figured the Cubs were not all that interested in his career path once Soriano came on board, and especially not after Floyd was signed. Murton got less and less playing time as the days went on, while guys who weren't doing any better were getting more. He obviously struggled, but the fact is you have to give guys, especially young guys still learning at the major league level, time to work through struggles. Murton never got that. He stumbled, but was not allowed a chance to get back on his feet.

The homerun in question was a dink job by Andruw that barely made it around the foul pole.

I'm just happy there's reason to think about trades that might help the Cubs win their division.

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that. Apparently. In April and May, Murton had over 100 AB's. So if he'd kept getting the April/May playing time he did receive, he'd have ended up with well over 300 at-bats on the season. A guy who's getting 300-360 AB, in my book that's quite a bit of playing time. And that's plenty to maintain a good stroke, if you've got a good stroke going. If you think it's crazy to consider a 300-350 AB pace to be "quite a bit" of playing time", how many AB's would you think a guy needs before it's not crazy to consider it "quite a bit of playing time"? A), It's absurd to judge his playing time based on the theoretical proration of what may have happened if he was up all year. B) 300 at bats is not a lot. 500+ is a good amount.

That's a good idea to start another thread on another series of trade what-if's, I'm sure it wouldn't have fit somewhere in the other 7 trade threads you've initiated on the first page of the forum. :roll: kinda the purpose of the forum, though, isn't it? I think the entire forum should be one very long thread simply listing actual transactions that have taken place, with no follow-up commentary, analysis or criticism. Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that.