davearm2

How could one accurately say they KNOW they are not? But yet you are saying just that. All I know is the pressure on the Cubs is a) different, and b) probably greater than that faced by a "typical" team/player. You don't know either of those things. Sorry to break everyone's hearts, but most players couldn't care less about the history of the Cubs and what winning a title would mean to Cubs fans. To the extent that the players are reminded of it by the media, and having to answer questions about it, then yes it can and probably does add to their stress or pressure or whatever. If nothing else it's a distraction.

How could one accurately say they KNOW they are not? But yet you are saying just that. All I know is the pressure on the Cubs is a) different, and b) probably greater than that faced by a "typical" team/player. How that does or doesn't impact play is impossible to know. Common sense dictates otherwise. Baseball players on playoff teams are under enormous pressure regardless of what team they're on. It's ridiculous to think that in the split second a player has to deal with the play at hand is more likely to fail because they're playing for the Cubs and are inexplicably going to be overloaded by the pressure of playing for them more so than playing for any other team. But it's reasonable to think that in the split second a player has to deal with the play at hand is more likely to fail because they're playing in October and are inexplicably going to be overloaded by the pressure of playing then more so than playing in June? Basically you're dismissing the notion that pressure of any kind influences on-field play. You could be right but it's the minority opinion. If, on the other hand, one believes pressure can impact play, then it stands to reason that the Cubs players are impacted more than a typical player because of the 100+ year thing.

How could one accurately say they KNOW they are not? But yet you are saying just that. All I know is the pressure on the Cubs is a) different, and b) probably greater than that faced by a "typical" team/player. How that does or doesn't impact play is impossible to know.

Playing for the Yankees brings another unique set of pressures. This is so esoteric and unquantifiable that the best we can say is that players on these teams have more on their plate than your typical Diamondback or Tiger or Marlin player would be dealing with. Whether it can be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back is purely speculative.

Nobody "characterized their situation as no different than any other team." The discussion is over whether people honestly believe that players on the Cubs face what apparently amounts to crippling pressure in playoff situations simply because they play for the Cubs (as if that is the overriding factor over how the teams match up, how the team was constructed, who is injured, who is hot, etc., etc.). The pressure of being a Cub is different than the pressure facing guys on other teams because of the 100+ year thing. That would be in addition to what you're describing as "standard" postseason pressures faced by all players/teams.

There's no question that the 100+ year thing creates a different dynamic than any other team in baseball faces. The situation is unique to the Cubs now that Boston has ended their "curse". Whether that adds additional pressure on the players is open for debate, but to characterize their situation as no different than any other team is just wrong.

I never understand sentiments like this at all. If someone is convinced they'll never win another WS, then why be a fan of them? What's the point? Then it just becomes being a "fan" of misery, and I don't get that at all. I suspect a lot of folks went out to Wrigley Field and cheered for the Cubs long before they really even cared if the team won or lost. In this case then, they aren't fans. Either that, or they're like 5 years old, which is what I was angling for. Point being lots of kids grew up with the Cubs/Wrigley, before they had much clue what the World Series was, much less when the Cubs last won it or when (if) they might win it again.

This was the point. Seems many here think he isn't worth the proverbial bag of balls in a trade.

I never understand sentiments like this at all. If someone is convinced they'll never win another WS, then why be a fan of them? What's the point? Then it just becomes being a "fan" of misery, and I don't get that at all. Oftentimes a person will become a fan of the team that plays in their hometown. Or a fan of the team their parents root for. Or a fan of the team their favorite player is on. Or a fan of their university's team(s). None of those factors have anything to do with one's assessment of championship odds. I suspect a lot of folks went out to Wrigley Field and cheered for the Cubs long before they really even cared if the team won or lost.

Seriously. The folks that think Theriot's worthless seem to be unaware of just how many awful SS are getting regular ABs around MLB. The league's littered with the likes of Everett, Lugo, Izturis, Brendan Ryan, Betancourt, O Cabrera, Cliff Pennington, etc etc. Theriot would be an upgrade on several teams.

Kind of silly to talk about a "trio of outfielders" that doesn't include Colvin, since Colvin's got the highest OPS of them all.

Think it through for a minute. Does a guy throw a no-hitter because he's terrific with nobody onbase, or because he's pitching great? Does a guy get rocked because he's awful with runners on, or because he's pitching lousy? The good slash stats with nobody on are probably more effect than cause. This is the part I like to think about. He does relatively well then somebody manages to get on base. Then he does worse. And I'm saying, that is not necessarily the way to think about it. Which conclusion makes more intuitive sense: Guys are on base because Wells is pitching poorly. Wells is pitching poorly because guys are on base. What you are saying is reasonable and was worth looking into, but what TT posted seems to say different. If this was the case, I would expect most pitchers would have splits similar to Wells but they don't Wells' career splits look very much like the other guys': .687 vs. .721. We're probably just dealing with small sample size issues here, rather than any conclusive evidence about Wells.

Think it through for a minute. Does a guy throw a no-hitter because he's terrific with nobody onbase, or because he's pitching great? Does a guy get rocked because he's awful with runners on, or because he's pitching lousy? The good slash stats with nobody on are probably more effect than cause. This is the part I like to think about. He does relatively well then somebody manages to get on base. Then he does worse. And I'm saying, that is not necessarily the way to think about it. Which conclusion makes more intuitive sense: Guys are on base because Wells is pitching poorly. Wells is pitching poorly because guys are on base.

If you believe that there is no point in time between now and the end of their contracts that you believe you could get prospects/players of value for them, then you're right. But if you believe that they could raise their value in a way that will make them attractive enough to other teams that the other teams are willing to give prospects/players for them, then you're selling low. Basically, do you think this past offseason that the Cubs could have gotten a good deal for Aramis or Z? If so and now you're advocating waiving them for nothing, then you're advocating selling very low for them. The only relevant consideration in the sell high/low discussion is what a player's value will be going forward. What it was in the past is irrelevant. If a guy's value is half of what it was a year ago, it's still a "sell high" opportunity if next year it will be even lower.

Think it through for a minute. Does a guy throw a no-hitter because he's terrific with nobody onbase, or because he's pitching great? Does a guy get rocked because he's awful with runners on, or because he's pitching lousy? The good slash stats with nobody on are probably more effect than cause.

Kosuke couldn't get a 2/26 deal right now? Or Z get a 2/36 deal? I'd bet both would get similar deals to those. And I'd just about guarantee Ramirez would have gotten a 2/30 deal before this season and if he can rebound in the second half of this year and first half of next year, there's no question whatsoever he'd get a 1/14.6 deal. None of those three are vastly overpaid. Kosuke has been very productive for two seasons and started this year well. Z and Ramirez have struggled this year, but both have very recently been very good to great and can very realistically get the trade value back that they had as recently as this past offseason. I don't see the logic in just dumping players who could net us some decent to very good prospects. I think you're underestimating how deeply the recession has impacted salaries. How many guys got multi-year deals worth more than $10m/year last offseason? Not very many. Bay, Lackey, Holliday. Anyone else?

Haha, I love how Lou says "notice how when Wells gets into trouble hes pitching from the stretch". Well Lou, its hard to get into trouble while pitching from the windup when nobody is on base...... He jut means that Wells has pitched much worse with runners on than nobody on. Nobody on: .256/.304/.375 Runners on: .353/.389/.496 Kind of a chicken and egg thing going on there, no? If a guy's pitching well, his slash stats will be good and consequently there won't be many guys on base. The slash stats aren't good because nobody's on base though.

I'm pretty sure guys with no-trade protection in their contracts can block waiver claims also. (The whole point is to give the player control over where he gets to play.) Not that these guys necessarily would, but they could. I can see them blocking trades that happen as a result of waiver claims, but the claims themselves if the team just wants to let them go? I wouldn't think they would have the power to block that. They do. If, say, Kansas City claimed Fukudome, and Fukudome didn't want to go play in KC (and KC was one of the teams on his NTC), then he wouldn't be going to KC.

Trading Kosuke and getting nothing would be awful, same with Z. Both have been very good to great very recently (this year for Fukudome) and neither have awful contracts. There's really no comparison of Kosuke and Rios' contract either. Rios is paid $1 million less than Kosuke per year, but is guaranteed through 2014, while Kosuke's contract is up next year (three years earlier). In the same way, Z is overpaid, but his contract is guaranteed only through 2012 – two years less than Rios. That difference cannot be overstated. In the part of what you said that I quoted, we would save quite a bit of money, but we would also lose out on the chance to get value for very valuable pieces. There almost certainly is a market for Kosuke and Z, there will be for Aramis assuming he rebounds and there could be for Soriano if he continues to hit. Getting nothing for Kosuke and Z and selling Aramis at the lowest point he'll ever be at are extremely short-sighted at best. Awful is a very subjective term, but none of the guys being discussed would get their same contracts as free agents now.

I'm pretty sure guys with no-trade protection in their contracts can block waiver claims also. (The whole point is to give the player control over where he gets to play.) Not that these guys necessarily would, but they could.

I'd say he is relative to what free agents have been getting the last few offseasons. Would he get a $13M/yr deal if he was a FA right now?

I agree that teams aren't paying as much for a guy like him anymore, but there will be takers. 2 teams that immediately come to mind that would embrace Kosuke's are the Red Sox and the A's. The A's have been known to make a move or two that cost money when they know they have a legitimate shot. Their .641 OPS and .297 OBP out of the lead off spot could be a temptation given the fact that they are only 4 games out of 1st right now. It might be a month or so, but they could be looking for someone just like FUKU. Another team is the Red Sox. They have the financial flexibility to take on additional payroll and they have a need to fill out their lineup. They have been decent out of the leadoff spot, but they want someone to get on more frequently than their leadoff hitters are now. Also, they are thin on production (combined .690 OPS out of CF & LF in 2010) and health in the corner outfield spots. The Sox would embrace his approach, protect him mightily in the lineup, and he would be a marketing tool for them in the northeast. The Cubs have worked well with both teams in the past, and if the Cubs continue their slide, I would expect both of those teams to be legitimate candidates for Fuku's services. Do you think either of those teams would take on all of Fukudome's remaining contract and also give up a decent prospect or two?

He has a career .775 OPS, but his OPS has improved each of the last 3 years and is sitting at .823 right now. He's not an offensive force by any means, but his .367 career OBP plus very good right field defense ought to garner a pretty decent level of interest. Oh teams will be interested in his production. They just wouldn't be lining up to pay him $13M for it. It would be interesting to see if Fukudome would pass through waivers unclaimed.

Fukudome's contract would be a pretty big hindrance IMO. Guys like him don't get $13M a year anymore. The Cubs would probably have to include a bunch of cash just to get a mildly interesting prospect or two.

Interesting SI article on this topic featuring the Rangers and Nolan Ryan/Mike Maddux. Gist of it is, they're essentially throwing out pitch counts and pushing their pitchers harder, expecting pitch and inning workloads similar to Ryan's days. Some choice blurbs: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169750/index.htm