davearm2

Without having a much clearer picture of where Sheets is physically, it's awfully hard to know what to make of this. I think we'd all agree that a healthy Sheets would be awesome, but the guy didn't get a single offer last year (IIRC) and sat out the entire season.

This dude seems vaguely like a lefthanded Samardzija -- big fastball, raw, questionable secondary pitches, possible mechanics and/or control issues, limited amateur track record. I guess nobody was speculating about Samardzija being potentially amongst the world's best pitchers, although some experts projected him as a first-round talent.

In fairness, how many of those $1m players are likely to become as good as Chapman currently is? How many of them would have a ceiling comparable to Chapman? which would you take...Chapman at $30M or the top 15 or so dominican signees this year (I'm guessing all those guys together would add up to around a $30M investment)? This is a huge no-brainer for me. First, you spread the injury risk. Second, in a year from now, you could very well believe that a couple of those guys could have the same ceiling as Chapman. To me, if you're going to invest that kind of coin in a single prospect, he'd better be unbelievably, unquestionably the best-est, super-est, can't miss prospect there ever was. I don't see Chapman being in that stratosphere or even remotely close to it. Also to give it some perspective Stephen Strasburg who is one of the most, if not THE most, highly touted can't miss prospect of the last decade or so signed for less than Aroldis Chapman, signing bonus included. I like Chapman but him getting paid more than Strasburg is ridiculous. Strasburg is younger than Chapman, can throw as fast if not faster than Chapman, and has shown that he has more than one great pitch. Chapman is a lefty who can throw 100mph but, from what I've read IIRC, can't spot it consistently and also doesn't have a good 2nd pitch and needs to develop one in the minors. Meanwhile Strasburg could slide right into the #1 slot in Washington's rotation this season. I like Chapman, don't get me wrong, but I'm shocked that so many teams were willing to go so high for him, and that he actually got as much as he got Totally different situations. Had Chapman been selected in the amateur draft, and had his rights controlled by one club, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much as Strasburg.

Good question. I can vaguely remember a Steve [expletive] Eyre though.

I'll leave it to others to determine which side of the attack the post/attack the poster fence you're on there. I can certainly appreciate how carefully you've tried to toe the line without crossing it, at any rate. ;) Explicit namecalling, on the other hand, removes all doubt IMO. Changing the word from contrary to obtuse in his post does nothing to move the statement from one side of the fence to the other. Well considering the words contrary and obtuse have vastly different definitions, I'd say you're wrong about that. I've got no problem if folks imply I tend to cut against the grain. I do have a problem if folks flat out call me stupid. The context in discussion was about your arguments. Not you. And while I wouldn't characterize the construction of your arguments as being stupid, I would sometimes characterize the choice of what to argue about that way. Cut the BS and the backpedaling Tim. You have called me obtuse in the past, and you did it again today. Not my arguments. Me personally. I could prove it in about 10 seconds with a working search function. Now that's not the most offensive term in the world, and I've certainly been called worse, but coming from the board administrator is pretty shameful. You should be working to rid this board of that crap, not piling it on.

I'll leave it to others to determine which side of the attack the post/attack the poster fence you're on there. I can certainly appreciate how carefully you've tried to toe the line without crossing it, at any rate. ;) Explicit namecalling, on the other hand, removes all doubt IMO. Changing the word from contrary to obtuse in his post does nothing to move the statement from one side of the fence to the other. Well considering the words contrary and obtuse have vastly different definitions, I'd say you're wrong about that. I've got no problem if folks imply I tend to cut against the grain. I do have a problem if folks flat out call me stupid.

I thought we had settled in on "obtuse". :D So the guy in charge of the board isn't disciplining personal attacks, but perpetuating them. Nice. if what I said constitutes a personal "attack" on you, then I'm afraid you really need to grow some thicker skin. I'll leave it to others to determine which side of the attack the post/attack the poster fence you're on there. I can certainly appreciate how carefully you've tried to toe the line without crossing it, at any rate. ;) Explicit namecalling, on the other hand, removes all doubt IMO.

No, your arguments are obtuse and contrarian. Consistently. Saying someone is being willfully obtuse is not the same as saying they are obtuse. In fact, to consistently adapt to every argument to find the most contrary position indicates that you are not obtuse. I'll cop to contrarian. IMO this board needs a devil's advocate to keep the vocal know-it-all faction in check. I'm happy to provide that service for the good of the community. :D) As you suggest, the term obtuse is consistently being misapplied, and it's obvious (to me anyway) that the important distinction you illustrate is completely lost on most of the folks using it.

I thought we had settled in on "obtuse". :D So the guy in charge of the board isn't disciplining personal attacks, but perpetuating them. Nice. We're talking about your arguments and the fact that you haven't ever seemed to come across an opinion on the board you agree with. Oh please. You called me obtuse... again. That's an obvious personal attack. At least have the balls to own it.

I thought we had settled in on "obtuse". :D So the guy in charge of the board isn't disciplining personal attacks, but perpetuating them. Nice.

He's been about a 1-win player. That's pretty darn worthless. Perhaps there's a reason he's been traded three times in under 18 months? Because at least three different teams were interested in acquiring him during that timespan? The Braves got him because they were punting on their 2008 season and were losing their 1B in the trade (Teixeira). The Red Sox got him to be a bench player.

nobody is saying it's a great move or even that kotchman is good. he's just a lot better than bill hall. hall is worthless. it's just a solid trade Only in your world is there a meaningful distinction between a "very slick move" and a "great move". It's garbage for garbage. Hardly worth a second thought, let alone a bunch of gushing. i'm not even the one who said very slick move, but whatever. No you're the one that said "nobody is saying it's a great move." Try and keep up.

nobody is saying it's a great move or even that kotchman is good. he's just a lot better than bill hall. hall is worthless. it's just a solid trade Only in your world is there a meaningful distinction between a "very slick move" and a "great move". It's garbage for garbage. Hardly worth a second thought, let alone a bunch of gushing. Due to his defensive prowess, Kotchman doesn't actually have to hit all that well to have value. That's not to imply one should write off his bat entirely however, as he's shown sparks in the past, was a very highly touted prospect and is entering his age 27 season. He's a great sleeper candidate who is still fairly cheap and has a couple years of club control left. Bill Hall was below replacement level last year and is getting paid 8.4 mil this season. Even if Kotchman is just a minor little something with a bit of promise, he fills a gaping hole at 1B and Jack Z acquired him for less than nothing. You can characterize it as "gushing" and slam the trade calling it "garbage for garbage" if you want, but it's becoming fairly obvious you're not even trying to think about whether or not your argument has merit before succumbing to your insatiable desire to be contrary. You say contrarian. I say grounded in reality.

He's been about a 1-win player. That's pretty darn worthless. Perhaps there's a reason he's been traded three times in under 18 months?

So paying $9M for 1 year is smarter than paying $4.9M for 2 years. Fascinating. wtf are you actively try to be obtuse with every post you make now? i mean, seriously. assuming you're a rational person, there's no way you can make a post like that and not understand how pointless/irrelevent it is in regards to the post i made before it. but to answer your question, yeah. paying 9 mil to an above average player is better than giving 2/5 to a crappy player. (not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with my original point.... which was all about contract length and risks). Hey you're the one that drew the comparison to Aaron Miles. I just pointed out the unintended hilarity in your "logic": <$5M spread over two years is apparently a bigger risk than $9M spread over one. Just stop and let that resonate for a moment, and maybe you'll crack up too.

nobody is saying it's a great move or even that kotchman is good. he's just a lot better than bill hall. hall is worthless. it's just a solid trade Only in your world is there a meaningful distinction between a "very slick move" and a "great move". It's garbage for garbage. Hardly worth a second thought, let alone a bunch of gushing.

So paying $9M for 1 year is smarter than paying $4.9M for 2 years. Fascinating.

I don't know. 9 mil for a 270/25 HR hitter coming off an awful year? Yeah he plays good defense --but 9 mil for him? I guess the best move is that it's only a 1 year deal and the 5 mil option is chump change to a team like the Red Sox. Well...yeah. They added a good #7 hitter who can play excellent defense for a drop in the bucket. If this had been the Pirates or Royals it'd be an awful deal. $9M is not a drop in the bucket in today's MLB, even for Boston.

Say what you will about Billy Hall, but let's not get too carried away here. Kotchman is a guy that hits like a SS from a position where offense is the premium. Micah Hoffpaiur and Jake Fox types can play a passable 1B and match Kotchman's slash stats.

Seriously... those guys have 2 starters at like 5 different positions. Beltre + Lowell Scutaro + Lowrie Youkilis + Kotchman Martinez + Varitek 4 OFs (Drew Ellsbury Cameron Hermida) Not to mention, Ortiz tying up the DH slot just about every day.

Looking at his peripherals, it would appear his good years were the aberration. If he was fully healthy, he projects as a roughly league average starter. Guys can get away with a low k/9 rate, but when their hr/fb rate goes bad, things go south in a hurry.

Well, Byrd's first season. 100% of Byrd's salary in 2010, and ~70% of his 2011 salary.

This is a fairly straightforward point being made by Splendid Splinter. Whereas at first the Cubs traded Bradley for Silva and cash, now we can view it as Bradley for Silva and Byrd, since the Cubs spent the cash on Byrd.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if either Sheets or Bedard end up signing with the Cubs. Seems like the kind of move Hendry might have under his hat at this point. Getting a better second baseman would surprise me though. I think they feel they're set to go with Baker and Fontenot.

Well said. However valuable Zambrano is as a pitcher, that's fully realized (if not moreso) in his salary. If there's a team that fits the description "has a lot of money and needs a pitcher to contend" better than the Cubs minus Zambrano would, I haven't seen it.