davearm2

I'm thinking a good comp here is Linebrink '07. He was the hot BP arm last July, and was dealt for Will Inman and two other minor leaguers. The Brewers let him walk and took the picks (#s 35 and 54).

Phew, for a second there I thought that was kilometers, and I was really worried. :wink:

Whichever teams make it to October will each have around a 25% chance.

Haha, especially at the Hoffpauir part. I'm sure the Royals are just dying to unload a premium trading piece for a 28 year old career minor leaguer with a sub .800 career minor league OPS. Those other guys don't have much value either, unless they are throw in guys around a centerpiece. I was thinking of Marshall/Gallagher plus 2 of Hoffpauer, Cedeno, Murton, and Patterson. If that's not enough, add a 3rd player from the group. Just forget it. These days guys with Greinke's profile are being dealt for the likes of Delmon Young and Josh Hamilton. That's what is meant by "very good, cheap, young MLB-ready hitter," not the collection of benchwarmers you've assembled. The only guy we've got that fits the description is Geo Soto. I wouldn't make that trade, but it's certainly the right ballpark.

:roll: The Cubs probably get the next-most attention from ESPN etc. after NYY and BOS, especially when they're playing well. For our fans to complain about being under-covered is ridiculous. Of course the larger point is, ESPN's coverage reflects the fact that NYY and BOS have by far the largest fanbases, followed by the Cubs.

I'm not convinced the Brewers even want Rickie longterm. His defense remains costly and his hitting is so streaky. As that team sorts through who amongst their young core group to keep and who to let go, I think Weeks is at or near the top of the let go list.

I'm all in favor of the idea, but that seems way high for a 2-month rental. Gallagher alone would be debateable.

Matt LaPorta should be first in that line.

Doubts? Everyone had doubts! Yet, when I check out other sites, I don't see anything close to resembling the same overreaction for other underperforming prospects from that draft. It's been less than a year. It's ludicrous to label this guy a bust. It's ludicrous to rip on the guy non-stop without giving him a chance. People here need to take a step back and stop going nuts over this guy. Just speaking for myself here, my pessimism is rooted in decades worth of Cub high-round HS draftees failing... and more often than not failing miserably. Simply looking at the history suggests that Vitters was something of a longshot from the day he was drafted. So considering the background here, IMO it's easy to see why folks might be quick to jump ship. Now whether that's fair or not is another topic. FWIW, I would've preferred Wieters to any of the HS guys, if only because the bust factor just seems so much smaller.

Never said the Giants wouldn't consider trading him but Rios was an all-star in 2007 and the Giants wouldn't bite. Why would the Giants trade (as previously proposed) one of their stud pitcher whose contract they control for six years for two minor leaguers (Pie and Murton), an overpriced bum (Marquis) and a significant downgrade (Marshall)? I don't recall suggesting that they would. The point is, the poster who earlier characterized the notion that Lincecum might be available as "comical" is just flat out wrong. If Lincecum was indeed untouchable, then the discussions with the Blue Jays wouldn't have lasted 60 seconds, and the media would never have gotten wind of any of this.

Tentative or not, they weren't saying no. Sabean fully acknowledged the Lincecum-Rios talks in the mlb.com article linked above.

you could do the same in wrigley and it could go into the well instead of basket Not even close to the same thing. What you just mentioned is due to the shape of the park. Minutemaid is due to an arbitrary line drawn on the wall. There's no reason for it to be drawn where it is. Derwood is right. Back in the Enron days, the boundary in left-center was at the top of the bullpen fence, not all the way up at the balcony, and the vertical yellow line you're complaining about didn't exist. So the arbitrary line was a necessary element of reducing the Ten Run Field-ness of the place. Personally I like the park's uniqueness.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity. Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well. The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category. That's ridiculous. How would it have been a dumb decision for the Cubs to take Hamilton? Because they would have been playing 24-on-25 for as long as Hamilton was on the roster. Folks think Lou didn't give Pie a fair chance... just imagine the non-chance a guy with 50 ABs of .687 OPS in lo-A ball would've received. Look just see the situation for what it was -- the Cubs weren't built for rolling the dice on longshot reclamation projects in hopes of a longterm payoff, they were built to win right away.

If you're playing blackjack and hit on an 18, and draw a 3 for 21, that doesn't make it a smart decision. It was an extremely poor decision that happened to work out splendidly despite your stupidity. Smart decisions sometimes turn out badly, and bad decisions sometimes turn out well. The Cubs taking, and keeping, Hamilton, would've been in the latter category.

Build around him with what, though? That club is pretty barren at both the ML and MiL levels. Dealing Lincecum represents one of their only opportunities to infuse some talent at several places. I'm not necessarily saying they absolutely should do that, but standing pat figures to get them nowhere.

Or you could look at it as the Cubs are huge idiots for not drafting a guy that was the consensus #1 pick a few years back and one of the top 15 HS hitting prospects in the history of the game. Taking a longshot flyer on a guy like Hamilton was completely incompatible with all of the other win-now moves the Cubs made last fall (hiring Piniella, signing Soriano Lilly DeRosa etc.). There was no way they could try and contend while committing a roster spot to a complete unknown. I don't understand why people can't get that and just move on. The Reds took the chance because they were in a position where they could afford to, and they hit the jackpot. Nice for them. There are things that can be done to get around keeping a guy on your 25-man roster though. If the Cubs picked him and liked him well enough, they coulda traded something to Tampa in order to keep his rights. This happened when the As (I believe) took Eric Hinske and traded Scott Chiasson to the Cubs for Miguel Cairo in order to allow Hinske to go to the A's minor leagues. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but before ever dealing with Tampa, Hamilton would've had to pass through waivers first. Any other team could've claimed him off of waivers and assumed the Rule 5 conditions. Seems obvious that the Reds would've put in a claim... and probably several teams would've, after the spring he had. If you want to build a case for what the Cubs should've/could've done, it's that they could've taken the guy in the Rule 5, played him through the spring to build value, and then traded him before opening day. Sort of day-trading in a ballplayer.

I suspect in an honest moment, most Cub fans would admit that by midseason in '06, their expectations were low on the days Maddux pitched. I know mine were. That situation is not going to be any better here in 2008. Especially not with the pitching-friendly months rolling out, and the hitting-friendly months rolling in.

Or you could look at it as the Cubs are huge idiots for not drafting a guy that was the consensus #1 pick a few years back and one of the top 15 HS hitting prospects in the history of the game. Taking a longshot flyer on a guy like Hamilton was completely incompatible with all of the other win-now moves the Cubs made last fall (hiring Piniella, signing Soriano Lilly DeRosa etc.). There was no way they could try and contend while committing a roster spot to a complete unknown. I don't understand why people can't get that and just move on. The Reds took the chance because they were in a position where they could afford to, and they hit the jackpot. Nice for them. A lot of fans still talk about Lou Brock and you honestly think this one will be let go if Hamilton has a really good career? I agree, the Reds out manuvered (sp) the Cubs but the better Hamilton and even the pitcher the Reds got for him, unfortunately, this may be talked about for many years. It should be let go, for the reasons mentioned. The Reds "outmaneuvered" the Cubs by assembling an also-ran caliber roster, instead of a contending-caliber roster? The Reds could afford to take a chance on Hamilton only because their expectations for 2007 were low (and those low expectations were justified when they finished 18 games below .500). Their suckitude created this opportunity. That's not exactly praiseworthy.

Or you could look at it as the Cubs are huge idiots for not drafting a guy that was the consensus #1 pick a few years back and one of the top 15 HS hitting prospects in the history of the game. Taking a longshot flyer on a guy like Hamilton was completely incompatible with all of the other win-now moves the Cubs made last fall (hiring Piniella, signing Soriano Lilly DeRosa etc.). There was no way they could try and contend while committing a roster spot to a complete unknown. I don't understand why people can't get that and just move on. The Reds took the chance because they were in a position where they could afford to, and they hit the jackpot. Nice for them.

Tulo's deal really isn't far off from that: 2nd pre arb: 750K 3rd pre arb: 750K 1st arb: 3.5M 2nd arb: 5.5M 3rd arb: 8.5M 1st FA: 10M 2nd FA: 15M club option (3M buy out) Tulo's deal is miles off from that. I'm guaranteeing something like $14M, depending on the buyout on the option(s), and Tulo's guaranteed more than double that ($31M) If that $8.5M was an option, I'd like it a whole lot better. This I like. A second option year would be even better. $12M may be the minimum. But you're shelling out 50% more than that. There's no bargain there. Are we seeing guys like Lee and Ramirez and Zambrano in their decline years? Anyway, Jehrico's second paragraph above pretty well captures my opinion on this thing. These sorts of deals make sense for some clubs, and for them guaranteeing the money early on represents a necessary risk. The Cubs aren't really one of those clubs. They've got the money to pay up for the guys that prove themselves through their arb years, and historically these guys have wanted to stay. That creates a situation where bearing the risk of injury or underperformance in the pre-arb and arb years isn't really a very good idea, IMO.

What do you think we would have to give up to get him? Would Sean Marshall and Donnie Veal get it done? Or would they want Rich Hill or Sean Gallagher? In a rational world, Burnett would be priced like a 2-month rental. Lower, actually. His contract is such that if he's good this year, he'll opt out and become a FA, but if he's bad (or gets hurt again), he'll stay in his deal and be owed $24M for the next 2 years. Now whether or not Ricciardi and the Jays will view things that way is unknown. They may tout Burnett as the best starter available, and price him accordingly.

I wouldn't be so sure. If the Rox offer the guy all the money they can fathom paying him, and he tells them no thanks, and they're 10 games under in July, and someone approaches them offering a Teixeira sized package, why would they say no? That's a confluence of several circumstances to be sure, but none seems particularly unlikely.

Well as I've said, I'd need to be looking at a smoking good deal. 09: $500K 10: $750K 11: $2M 12: $4M 13: $6M 14 thru whenever: team options in the $8-$13M range That'd be very similar to Longoria's deal, which he received after what? A week in the bigleagues? I'd be fine with offering that to a guy with 600 or whatever bigleague ABs of 900 OPS. I wouldn't expect Soto to accept, but that'd be my comfort zone on this thing.

This is wrong. On pretty much every one of these contracts, save Longoria, if the player merely maintains their current rate the team is getting them at a cheaper rate than they would going year to year. Not very much of one, if any. And not enough for my liking.

I'm pretty sure Lackey was signed to an extension paying him that. You're the one who came up with the # we had to pay all these guys. What I did was pose the question, how many of these other ROY vote-getters would you like to have at the prices Tulowitzki and the Rox agreed to after one season. FWIW, I like the Lackey deal for the Angels. The dollars were modest (3/$17M) and the guy had a nice strong track record at the time it was offered -- 3 seasons of 30+ starts and ~200 IP.