davearm2

Athletes and cars is a truly fascinating dynamic. So much disposable cash. So much questionable taste.

SC's been more like incredible in the field. Three game-saving putouts at the plate, all spectacular. Then FLA gives away a run with a double-error.

Your right he doesn't "quit" on a ball 20 feet from a wall, he just slows down to a slow trot on anything hit toward a wall so he doesn't get there to crash into the wall and plays it after it hits the ground or the wall. Sure, why not? You are confused about why an OF would want to try hard to catch a batted ball on the fly?

There's the potential risk that the interim GM makes short-sighted moves in an effort to impress his bosses with a meaningless W/L record. It may not make a difference to the Ricketts, but it might and that may be enough for an interim to buy instead of sell at the deadline. Why would the bosses be impressed by a meaningless W/L record? Seems to me that taking a 15-under club and making them deadline buyers would be a great way to ensure you *don't* get the job fulltime. I mean seriously, have at least a little faith that the Ricketts can see what's what here.

Two reasons: 1: It's not Bush specifically, but most any guy trying to win his job is going to try to impress his boss by performing as well as he possibly can. The best performance a GM can have? Wins. By trading minor leaguers for marginal upgrades, the team gets better right now and, thus, the team wins more games. The Ricketts certainly could step in and stop lopsided trades, however.... 2: The Ricketts don't appear to be real "hands-on" owners. From the looks of things, they'll put baseball guys in place and let them do their thing. Would they step in and nix a deal Bush was putting together or let him do his thing and trust the baseball guy? I'd like to think a Brett Jackson for Aubrey Huff deal would be nix right from the start, but what about a deal sending intriguing guys like Junior Lake, Dallas Beeler, etc. for guys having career years they won't repeat? Would the Ricketts jump in and nix other deals that are just as bad, but not as obvious? You seriously think the Ricketts would judge an interim GM on his W-L record in August and September? Goodness let's hope they're not quite that clueless.

On some level I am worried that he'll try something desperate to save his butt. This argument has been made numerous times over the last few months and yet no one can point to Hendry actually ever having done anything "desperate to save his butt" when his "job has been on the line" in the past. The guy has gone through three owners with much speculation about his butt needing saving. And, no, Zell giving him $300 million of the new owner's money to spend does not count as Hendry doing something desperate but, rather, Hendry following orders. I'm equally fascinated by the folks who are convinced that if Hendry is fired and Randy Bush is installed as interim GM, *he* will do a bunch of stupid things because he's "desperate to save his butt". As if the Ricketts would be totally hoodwinked if a bunch of great prospects were dealt for Aubrey Huff and Arthur Rhodes, and the Cubs finished on a 21-19 tear.

WSR: I applaud your valiant effort to sell the many MLB GMs that frequent NSBB on the underrated greatness of RJ. Pure brilliance. He's obviously the Cody Ross of 2011, and any contender would be smart to snap him up regardless of the price. The rest of you guys: way to [expletive] it all up.

Hehe given the context (100+ years of futility), 2016 would be plenty fast.

MLB teams use search firms to find GMs? When did this start?

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position? Along with what TT said, there's the issue of certainty with Hendry. Sure he might start feeling the pressure now if something's changed with the Ricketts, but it's pretty much a sure thing an interim GM would make rash desperation moves. There's nothing to gain and a near certainty of quite a bit of loss if Hendry is fired midseason. There's just no point to it. oh i completely agree with that. He should have been gone at least a month and a half ago if they were planning on firing him. The thing is though after you let him have the wheel all season and make important future decisions such as who to trade for what; there is little point of getting rid of him next season. unfortunately I think this is where we are headed. Of course its just speculation but my gut says that because he is here now he will be here to start next season in some capacity. Doesn't that suggest that the only window to fire a GM is during the season? We obviously know that isn't true.

Seems an odd ultimatum for Riggleman to issue. Rizzo wouldn't have unilateral authority to say "OK Jim, we'll pick up your option" would he?

Holy strawman, Batman!

Doesn't Ramirez have a buyout ($2M) if the mutual option isn't picked up by the Cubs? The Cubs will pay the $2M instead of bringing him back for $16M. The $16M option becomes guaranteed unless he gets traded. So, the Cubs simply will not trade him unless they can negotiate a deal where they're only on the hook for less than the remainder of this season plus $2M or get significant player value back that justifies the additional expenditure. I don't see either scenario as being likely. I think Ramirez is on the Cubs for the remainder of the season and then becomes a free agent. I think your assessment is correct, however if Ramirez is traded then next season's salary is some other team's problem.

In general I'd agree with you, but I'd tend to exclude relief pitchers from that equation. Especially one that seems like a TJS waiting to happen (Marmol). Personally I think that his value is extremely high right now. If I could turn Marmol into two very good prospects at the deadline I'd do it. The Cubs never seem to trade guys at their peek though. The Cubs never seem to trade guys you really wish you had back, either.

He hit 0.098 in May. What was his injury? He only has 3 xbh since May 1. Apparently he went to Camp Colvin too

In general I'd agree with you, but I'd tend to exclude relief pitchers from that equation. Especially one that seems like a TJS waiting to happen (Marmol).

When thinking about this question, you might ask yourself, "how many prospects around baseball would I pay $10M cash (or some other large number) to get into the Cubs' system?" Really that's what it comes down to, given the way you've laid out the options. Soriano + $20M for Prospect A, or Soriano + $30M for Prospects A and B. Prospect B would have to be really good for the second option to be appealing. Better than the Cubs' first-round pick Baez, for instance.

Wait, what? Nobody would sign Dunn for anywhere near what he got RIGHT NOW based on how he's playing RIGHT NOW. But he wasn't signed RIGHT NOW; he was signed in the offseason, and nothing in the available information leading up to them indicated he would be this bad barring major injury. It indicated the exact opposite, in fact, that he would almost certainly be worth his contract. His performance thus far is a left turn that nobody predicted, but it also doesn't make his contract "good" or "bad" yet since he still has 3.5 seasons left on it and we don't know how he'll perform. He very easily could turn it around and end up producing like he used to, in which case it's a good contract. He could also bottom out inexplicably and it turns out to be a bust. We don't know right now, and those are the gambles that GM's take. We can't definitively say that signing Pena was a better option yet because we're in the middle of a predicted series of events that won't demonstrate if the Cubs 1B decisions were smart ones until next season. Sure, Pena could easily outperform Dunn this year, but so what? Then what if Dunn rebounds and is highly productive for three seasons while the Cubs' plans for Fielder or Pujols go bust? No, I don't want Dunn for 4/56 based on how he's playing RIGHT NOW, but based on him only being 31 and his history going into this season I'm confident that he'll end up being very valuable to the Sox as a player and that I'd wish the Cubs had signed him if the Fielder/Pujols options don't pan out. Last offseason you wanted the Cubs to sign Dunn, correct? And now: are you glad they did not? Some folks will answer "yes" to the first question, and some "no". But I would hope everyone would answer "yes" to the second question.

I think you have to wait for his numbers to start looking a lot more impressive, and then think long and hard about what you are going to do at 1B next year. The Cubs were never going to get Pujols, and the likelihood probably went down with the injury. But they need a 1B next year, regardless. If you are just going to get another fringe prospect, there's really no point. I really think folks are missing the possibility that the Cubs may be angling to extend Pena.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn? Part of me does, yes, because I tend to lean towards not letting an impact player pass you by when they fill multiple glaring needs on your team. That said, I can't answer that definitively until after this offseason at the very earliest. Sample size, I know, but his .282 .410 .651 1.061 line at Wrigley in 293 PA is sure pretty to look at. You don't get to wait until after this offseason. You go off of the info and data in front of you today, and make a decision that you'll have to live with for 4 years. That's what I meant when I made that comment about the environment in which GMs operate. I'd have a hard time believing anyone who'd say that, as we sit here today, they'd want Dunn for 4/56. So by extension, that means they'd be glad the Cubs didn't sign him. And by further extension, that would make the folks that didn't want to sign him to begin with right.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn for 4/56?

Don't get hung up on the dollars. That's not really what I'm asking. See my previous post.

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million? Because these are the conditions under which GMs make free agent decisions. Knowing what we know as of this morning, do you think Dunn will be worth his contract? Yes or no. To be honest, probably not. But, the league is full of guys that earned their current contract prior to signing it and not while they are playing under that contract. I mean, has ARod been worth the $250-300 he will have earned? No, but he's been worth a whole lot more than 99% of ballplayers. It's relative. Will Fielder be worth the $20 mil per or so he signs for? Doubtful. But he could very likely be worth more than the previous $20 mil per year player. Same with Dunn. So maybe he doesn't end up worth the money he signed for, was it worth if if he's worth $50 mil over the life of that contract? Besides, you can't look at it as "they earned their money", you have to look at it as "does this guy give me something I can't get some other way?". If the answer is yes, then you decide if giving them X amount is worth it. Fielder might be worth $20 to the Cubs, but only $17 to the Yankees or Red Sox. Even if he doesn't "earn" his money over the next 5-8 years, if he provides the performance the Cubs needed then he was worth the $20 mil per year, even if his hard stats say he didn't "earn" his money. All good points, and I totally get where you're coming from. Really the bottom-line, yes-or-no question I'm asking is: will the White Sox look back three years from now and be happy they made this signing? Or even more relevant to us: will the Cubs look back three years from now and kick themselves for not making this signing?

Is that your prediction?

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million? Because these are the conditions under which GMs make free agent decisions. Wait, what? GM's make their decisions only if they can definitely know if a player is going to be worth all of (or exceed) the contract being offered? You keep refusing to answer a very simple, direct yes-or-no question on the grounds that you can't predict the future. Well guess what. GMs can't predict the future when they're offering free agent contracts, either. I thought that was obvious but you managed to butcher the interpretation anyway. Not that I expected a straightforward answer from you anyway. You can't say "yes, I expect Dunn will turn out to have been worth 4/56" because that'd be kinda foolish knowing what we know now, and you can't say "no, I don't expect Dunn will turn out to have been worth 4/56" because that would prove my point: the folks that were against signing him look like they were right. So just keep on obfuscating and evading with some more "look at it this ways". They're fascinating, even if tangential.