davearm2

Are you kidding me? Attempting to decipher what you just said about these guys being human beings rather than robots, all I can conclude is that Bradley must have peed in their Cheerios, slept with their daughters, raped their mothers and pillaged the rest of their families. Come on, dude. Every one of these guys has been the scapegoat at one point or another. Whether we want to really point blame is really a moot point. Who really cares. The horrible season that was 2009 is over now. Sit down, hash out what went wrong on the field and off, figure out a way to fix the problems and resolve them before the opening pitch in 2010. As far as major league baseball being a tense and stressful atmosphere, it should only be that way when focusing on your own abilities being better than the guy who wants to replace you, not what anyone else on the team is or isn't doing. Bradley made some mistakes. So did Hendry. So did Piniella. So did everyone else on the team at one point or another. Some mistakes were worse than others, but it's time to just forgive and forget. Out of curiosity, how much is Bradley running his mouth right now? It seems awful quiet right now. Maybe he's already going to counseling and going door to door with his teammates with the possibility that the Cubs won't find a new home for him. Even if they do, I'm sure Bradley recognizes he has to make some changes if he wants to extend his million dollar career beyond his current contract. No one died. No one went to jail. This is not a situation where there really is only one solution. Trading him for pennies on the dollar is an even bigger mistake than any mistakes that were made in the 2009 season, and that includes signing Bradley in the first place. If they can't get equal talent in return for what they are giving up in terms of production and money, then spend part of the money they were going to send to some other team and use it in counseling to get everyone back on the same page. I'm quite certain if the Cubs came out and won 10-15 games in a row to start the season, the stress levels will magically reduce to controllable levels. I'd almost bet that if the Cubs won 120 games last year, that Bradley wouldn't have been the target of all the abuse that he received, either. So, let's put more of the blame where it really belongs, and that's on the GM who allowed this team to be as bad as they were in 2009. Hey I'm not trying to make anyone a scapegoat. I'm simply arguing against the notion that Bradley's presence in the clubhouse doesn't have any impact on the rest of the team. I'll be the first to admit that don't know what the magnitude of the impact is, but I feel safe in saying that it's non-zero.

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support. just because it's hard to quantify, doesn't mean there is no support. in THT Live one of the guys estimated that mlb team values chemistry at about 2 wins, IIRC. He based this on a very small sample of players that get waived or go unsigned are usually at 2 WAR. That's just what I remember from an article written in August or September. This is really it, right here. There are those that take the position that anything that can't be quantified must not matter. If there isn't a stat for it, then it should be dismissed and ignored. Then there are those that believe that many things that matter cannot be boiled down to a tidy statistic and easily translated to marginal wins. And neither side can prove they're right, for the very reason that the debate exists in the first place -- because none of it can be measured and given a finite value. So all we're left with is intuition and common sense. And obviously that doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion, either.

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again? There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous. Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players. It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company. He never said to ignore stats. What he said was, to act like stats are the only thing that matters is silly. And he's exactly right. On some level intangible factors like Bradley's personality and clubhouse influence have to enter the equation. You seem to agree with this, but many here apparently do not. He implied it very strongly. He said the better OPS doesn't determine the winner and implied that what fans care about stats matters. Fans are stupid. Fans more concerned with appearances than stats are stupid. Bradley's attitude didn't force Soriano to suck or Ramirez to get injured, and that is why the team struggled. It wasn't chemistry or personality or any such nonsense. There is no argument. The Cubs lost last year because their stats stunks, and their stats stunk mostly because Soriano sucked and Ramirez missed too much time. Scapegoating Bradley's attitude is just ignorant. None of us can boil down the impact of Bradley's attitude on the Cubs' won-loss record to a number. What's ignorant is to assume that impact is zero. These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again? There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous. Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players. It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company. He never said to ignore stats. What he said was, to act like stats are the only thing that matters is silly. And he's exactly right. On some level intangible factors like Bradley's personality and clubhouse influence have to enter the equation. You seem to agree with this, but many here apparently do not.

You not understanding the point is not the same as there not being a point. Better than the folks assuming the imminent collapse of the Cubs' lineup, apparently. It's funny - throughout your posts you show decent knowledge and make some decent points - but you're willfully obtuse when arguing. You seem to insist upon either focusing on a single facet of someone's overall point or you take things in a totally different direction in order to stake some sort of ground you can defend. Does being an older lineup necessarily mean it is going to be bad? No - as you point out the Yankees fielded a very good team with an older lineup in place. Is it generally a problem that you are locked into longer term contracts with players who have already left their prime years? Yes, generally that's the case. Players who are exiting their prime or who have already exited their prime can generally be expected to perform worse in subsequent years. What's the point of making broad generalizations, when this particular group of core players is not demonstrating signs of following the general expectation? Lee had one of his best years last year. Fukudome was better in 09 than 08. Ramirez, showing no signs of slowing down, and his injury pattern dates well back to his 20s. And Soriano, his problems go well beyond getting older (IMO of course). So the Cubs are bound to to have some turnover in their core lineup going forward a few years. Big deal. The same can be said of almost every team.

You not understanding the point is not the same as there not being a point. Better than the folks assuming the imminent collapse of the Cubs' lineup, apparently.

Oh brother. I didn't compare the talent of the Yankees to the Cubs. I used the Yankees to debunk the premise that an "aging" lineup is inherently a problem. This isn't difficult to follow. It's easy to follow. You compared the Cubs to the Yankees. An aging lineup is a problem. it's always a problem. But when you're the Yankees and you have an aging lineup that has more talent than most young teams and you can supplement that lineup with the best player available every year it's not as big a problem. It's monumentally stupid to compare the Yankees to any team. I'm embarrased for you. Nowhere did I compare the Cubs to the Yankees. The Yankees disprove the generalization that an aging lineup is a problem. You're making the same mistake as the other guy by perpetuating that flawed thinking.

Oh brother. I didn't compare the talent of the Yankees to the Cubs. I used the Yankees to debunk the premise that an "aging" lineup is inherently a problem. This isn't difficult to follow.

What an incredibly stupid post. Yeah, when a mediocre lineup is aging it is a problem. When you are loaded with Hall of Famers and keep acquiring new young studs it's not so much of a problem. But seriously, that was a really stupid post. A mediocre lineup is a problem. A lineup full of thirtysomethings is not inherently a problem. Take away the "aging" part of the Cubs lineup, and mediocre becomes awful real fast.

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd. Seems to me that if you want to take issue with Seidman's stance on Byrd, then you have to at least address the home/road split issue. My point is that all 3 players have some negatives and the Cubs have to factor in the cost and the negatives for each to determine the best fit for the team. All things being equal, I think we all agree that we would rank them Granderson, Cameron, and then Byrd, but all things aren't equal. An issue that hasn't really been discussed is that I think there will be a lot more interest in Granderson and Cameron, which will drive up their price. All I'm pointing out is that the slash stats you pointed out above are misleading. Byrd's home park is a hitter's haven, and Granderson's is a hitter's graveyard. Of course the fact that Byrd gets a boost from hitting in Arlington is what formed the basis for Seidman's conclusion. Here is what the two guys have done in road games 2007-2009: Byrd: .281/.328/.414/.742 (684 AB) (Home OPS of .897) Granderson: .289/.361/.535/.896 (912 AB) (Home OPS of .802) Now we can debate whether a .742 OPS is 4th OF caliber or not, but you can't very well argue that Byrd is a reasonable comp for Granderson.

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd. Seems to me that if you want to take issue with Seidman's stance on Byrd, then you have to at least address the home/road split issue.

The offense sucked. The offense has sucked for much of the past decade. They had one outlier year in 2008, but other than that this Cubs organization has been horrible at fielding an effective lineup. Their core is quite old, and they have no stud hitting prospects either. It looks like they might be able to get decent production from shortstop in a couple years, but none of the other posiiton prospects are standouts. They need offensive help, and it's not just a matter of getting guys back healthy and performing as their normal self. Alfonso Soriano is going to be 34 years old, he's been injured every year as a Cub and wasn't all that good to begin with. Lee is 34, he's had 2 standout seasons in his career and other than that he's been an okay 1B most of the time and his contract is up this year. Aramis turns 32 next year and he can opt out. He's a really nice bat, but a significant step below the elite hitters. The middle infielders are crap, and the rest of the outfield is in doubt. Fukudome is okay, but he's also turning 33, and his best value is if he's playing CF in comparison to ofther CF, but he's probably going to RF, and who knows who they get to replace Bradley. The offense should not be as bad as last year, but it could still be no better than average, with their best players all approaching their mid 30's. They could fall hard the next couple years. Yep an aging lineup is a huge problem. Just look at what's become of the Yankees. If only the Cubs could replace Fukudome with Hermida, Ramirez with Gordon, and Lee with Conor Jackson, the Cubs would be set for years with guys entering their primes.

Not sure what the logic would be behind spending on a closer, but not on guys that pitch in higher-leverage situations in the 7th and 8th.

That's a really weird post. considering you are comparing him with guys who either already make more than $20m a year, or pre-free agency guys who are going to get huge contracts themselves. How do you propose the Cubs go about acquring these countless other options? There aren't countless options. There's a finite numbers of true impact bats, and the Cubs don't have them and they won't have access to them. I mean I can see not wanting to trade the farm for a guy, but you are acting as though the Cubs have the opportunity to acquire any number of similar players for far less, when they really won't. Maybe one or two will actually hit free agency, but then you're competing with deeper pocketed teams. There are impact bats available every year in free agency, and you can get just about any of them by offering the sort of contract Cabrera's got. This year you've got Holliday and Bay. Obviously those guys don't require any prospects, just a draft pick.

I haven't heard anything about it lately, but wasn't weight/conditioning a big red flag with this guy awhile back, around the time the Marlins were shopping him?

You don't need to empty the farm for a guy with that kind of contract.

Joking about what? Now I'm not trying to knock the progress Huntington's made, but going dumpster-diving for relievers to plug into the 25-man doesn't exactly bolster his case for GM immortality like some here make it seem. When the Pirates most optimistic goal for this season is to go 500, it's a very smart strategy. So then you agree with me: I suppose that works if your expectations are at Pirate levels.

One could easily make the case that in overall production, Jenks > Fox. But on a production-per-dollar basis, they're pretty close in value. Interest in guys that can play a role while making league minimum is roughly on par with interest in sub-elite closers that make $6M a year. Is Jenks that much different than Kevin Gregg last year? Ummm.... yes. Jenks wasn't spectacular last year, but he definitely outperformed Gregg Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, does Jenks' profile now look different than Gregg's did last offseason when he was traded. I wasn't meaning to compare their 2009 seasons. Gregg 2007: 74 G, 32 SV, 4 BS, 3.89 FIP, 1.23 WHIP Gregg 2008: 72 G, 29 SV, 9 BS, 3.80 FIP, 1.28 WHIP Jenks 2008: 57 G, 30 SV, 4 BS, 3.41 FIP, 1.10 WHIP Jenks 2009: 52 G, 29 SV, 6 BS, 4.47 FIP, 1.28 WHIP

One could easily make the case that in overall production, Jenks > Fox. But on a production-per-dollar basis, they're pretty close in value. Interest in guys that can play a role while making league minimum is roughly on par with interest in sub-elite closers that make $6M a year. Is Jenks that much different than Kevin Gregg last year?

Joking about what? Now I'm not trying to knock the progress Huntington's made, but going dumpster-diving for relievers to plug into the 25-man doesn't exactly bolster his case for GM immortality like some here make it seem.

Or Bradley for Jenks.

I'd say this Huntington love-fest is getting a little out of hand. The guy just said he's planning on populating his bullpen with guys nobody else wants, or thinks is worth a major league contract. I suppose that works if your expectations are at Pirate levels.

I'd almost rather have Halladay for one year than for one year, plus another 6-7 @ $100M+ (ballpark).

I'm pretty darn sure that isn't enough to get Roy Halladay. That isn't enough to get Roy Halladay's spikes. A package about like that got Johan Santana, FWIW. A light-hitting defensive whiz CF (Carlos Gomez) plus three pitching prospects that came with mixed reviews, IIRC.

No one that wouldn't cost you a small fortune for. This Cubs team isn't in a position to trade a lot of their farm talent for someone like Granderson. I would just sign Cameron and hope you get a major league player that is serviceable for Bradley. This team probably isn't going to be in a position to win it this coming year anyway, so why continue the endless cycle of emptying the farm for guys who aren't good enough to turn the team around. Yes, because the majors are just littered with former Cub prospects that went onto stellar careers after Hendry traded them. The endless cycle is of emptying the farm of the AAAA talent.