Conky

I've long suspected that this was the case. I don't subscribe to overblown "chemistry" theories, but I do think Theo and Jed inherited a situation with Z that had become untenable. Theo may not buy into it either, but it the players really do, and they feel really strongly about it, then it becomes an issue. And as it became clear the team wasn't likely to compete in 2012, there was no reason not to trade him. I think it's also likely Miami was the only team that was going to be willing to take him on, largely because of Ozzie. Plagiarizing my article on NSBB's home page, are you? Plagiarism and intellectual property. Interesting concepts. Original thought? Let's try to quash that or copy it. Sound familiar boys? The "old guard" here has a ways to go imho. No offense to you. Rob. Just an observation. I can't figure out exactly what you're hinting at, but the fact you specifically said "no offense to you, Rob" makes me think I should probably be offended. Not at all.

I've long suspected that this was the case. I don't subscribe to overblown "chemistry" theories, but I do think Theo and Jed inherited a situation with Z that had become untenable. Theo may not buy into it either, but it the players really do, and they feel really strongly about it, then it becomes an issue. And as it became clear the team wasn't likely to compete in 2012, there was no reason not to trade him. I think it's also likely Miami was the only team that was going to be willing to take him on, largely because of Ozzie. Plagiarizing my article on NSBB's home page, are you? Plagiarism and intellectual property. Interesting concepts. Original thought? Let's try to quash that or copy it. Sound familiar boys? The "old guard" here has a ways to go imho. No offense to you, Rob. Just an observation.

you tell 'em dave! Can Theo moonlight as Bears GM?

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical. You are arguing semantics. Here's the thing. Positional players are generally worth more to baseball teams than designated hitters because they can do more stuff (play the field). Fielder and Boras are not, at this juncture, looking to settle for DH type money if they can get a team to pay for Fielder as an every day 1B. No one is saying inexplicably that he will not or can not be signed as a DH. You infer that. I do not imply it. My point is that this is not how he is being currently marketed and not how they want him to be seen or signed. He will potentially make more money for more years if signed now as a positional player. Boras is working to get his client the most money and the best deal he can. That is his job. Fielder is on record as saying that he would "consider a move to DH" (the unwritten part being only if he is forced to do so). The reason he does not want to do this is because of the drop in price of a top tier 1B to that of a DH. Fielder may very well end up signing somewhere as a DH. If that is the case, it will be because no one offered him the type of money they thought Fielder could command going into the off-season. Simply stated, we're not there yet and it would mean he then is getting paid far less than what he is asking for today. Wow. Exactly my reaction. Apparently you need things explained in detail. Duly noted.

That is the whole problem. The process is completely arbitrary. The other problem is who does the voting, as has been discussed widely many times. Hopefully something can be done to incorporate stats and other comparative tools in years to come. As it stands, there are people that probably belong in that are not, and others that are in that shouldn't be. To me, the HOF should be about the best players of all time, not X number of 3B every so many years, or other indiscriminate metrics. It is a fun discussion, though because people have such wildly varying opinions on who are the best players and worthy of enshrinement. We've all been doing this since we were kids. I doubt it ends any time soon.

mickey mantle wasn't the best CF of his era, should he not have been considered for the hall of fame? There are a lot of people that do not belong in the HOF. Mantle is not one of them. the point is that not being "the best of his era" is a really foolish thing to count against a player. The point is that the HOF is way too inclusive as is. The post was sarcastic in nature and half joking, hence the "money back" comment at the beginning. In all seriousness, the selection process is certainly very arbitrary and not based on any set criteria. That being said, the knock on Santo for many years was that he was not the best of his era. Hence the comment about Trammell in a Santo thread. Raines/ Bagwell/ Trammell may all get in one day, and were all great players (as I said), but they don't strike me as true HOF types. Just my opinion.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical. You are arguing semantics. Here's the thing. Positional players are generally worth more to baseball teams than designated hitters because they can do more stuff (play the field). Fielder and Boras are not, at this juncture, looking to settle for DH type money if they can get a team to pay for Fielder as an every day 1B. No one is saying inexplicably that he will not or can not be signed as a DH. You infer that. I do not imply it. My point is that this is not how he is being currently marketed and not how they want him to be seen or signed. He will potentially make more money for more years if signed now as a positional player. Boras is working to get his client the most money and the best deal he can. That is his job. Fielder is on record as saying that he would "consider a move to DH" (the unwritten part being only if he is forced to do so). The reason he does not want to do this is because of the drop in price of a top tier 1B to that of a DH. Fielder may very well end up signing somewhere as a DH. If that is the case, it will be because no one offered him the type of money they thought Fielder could command going into the off-season. Simply stated, we're not there yet and it would mean he then is getting paid far less than what he is asking for today.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get.

Problem is no American League teams really need him and he doesn't see himself as a DH. Boras will drag this out indefinitely, or until Prince says enough is enough, show me the money. Cubs are in the driver's seat here. I like having a GM/ Pres that is not over-matched by Boras. Prince already stated he would DH when he first started talking about leaving the Brewers. I like the front office too. Yes, he paid lip service to the DH question at the All-Star game, but only that he was "open to listening" I think was the quote. No way was he going to immediately eliminate half the potential market by saying no to DH. Fast-forward to the money and years he is looking for and he has all but eliminated himself as a DH candidate at this point. Why do you say that? Is there a team out there looking to sign a DH for 8-10 years or 25M per? My point is he is looking for a positional player type deal, not a DH friendly contract.

http://oi42.tinypic.com/f0z3oj.jpg

Problem is no American League teams really need him and he doesn't see himself as a DH. Boras will drag this out indefinitely, or until Prince says enough is enough, show me the money. Cubs are in the driver's seat here. I like having a GM/ Pres that is not over-matched by Boras. Prince already stated he would DH when he first started talking about leaving the Brewers. I like the front office too. Yes, he paid lip service to the DH question at the All-Star game, but only that he was "open to listening" I think was the quote. No way was he going to immediately eliminate half the potential market by saying no to DH. Fast-forward to the money and years he is looking for and he has all but eliminated himself as a DH candidate at this point.

mickey mantle wasn't the best CF of his era, should he not have been considered for the hall of fame? There are a lot of people that do not belong in the HOF. Mantle is not one of them.

Trammell has the greatest disconnect between his vote totals and where he should be. Without looking too much into it, I'd say Raines or Bagwell. If Tim Raines or Jeff Bagwell are HOF I want a refund. Alan Trammell was a great SS but was not even the best of his era. Glad Ronny is in. Really sucks that they found a way the year he died. Not surprising, though. I have predicted this for a long time. People suck. Nothing new.

I actually think it makes some sense for the Padres. They buy low on a guy (Castro having fallen off enough that he wasn't a key prospect for them anymore), hope he has a big year, and spins him off at the trade deadline. I think it's the type of gamble they can afford to make with their 2nd tier prospects. Sox are getting pretty bashed on this trade, but in general, I think they did alright considering the dynamic - an injury-prone player, 1 year from free agency, not good defensively, and quite streaky. In return, they get a decent system arm in Pedro Hernandez, a guy with borderline back of the rotation potential, and they get a lottery ticket in Simon Castro. Castro's fastball is still there, and his slider still flashes on occasion. Let's just be honest. Quentin never lived up to expectations and is injury prone. He's also not great in the field. 130 games is his max and he's done it once off the top of my head. He is not a "good hitter" as someone posted earlier. He has had 2 decent years. Sox got what they could for him. Thankfully the Cubs got Hoyer, not Byrnes. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/story/2011-12-31/carlos-quentin-white-sox-to-padres/52305960/1

Problem is no American League teams really need him and he doesn't see himself as a DH. Boras will drag this out indefinitely, or until Prince says enough is enough, show me the money. Cubs are in the driver's seat here. I like having a GM/ Pres that is not over-matched by Boras.

Not possible. The Henny Penny's have already announced that the roster is set and the team sucks through 2013. Nothing to see here. You're one of my favorite new posters. Haha! Thanks, Rob. 8-[

Not possible. The Henny Penny's have already announced that the roster is set and the team sucks through 2013. Nothing to see here.

lol Jose Ceda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ceda

Yeah he had one good year in 2008 and a pretty decent year this past. 4.6 WAR in 2008 and 3.2 WAR in 2011. The rest of his career he's been pretty average to below average. Heard Kevin Goldstein on the score earlier talking about the deal. He was less than impressed with the 'spects coming back to the Sox. Funny thing was the fan reactions as news was breaking. They were calling for Kenny William's head. Score guys are ripping on him for the "win now" approach, trashing the big league team, the farm, and having nothing to show for it. Sounds familiar.

why not, two high end prospects for a guy that would slot in as the #2 in that rotation and be an ace of many others while still being under team control for 2 years? why are we undervaluing garza? people are overthinking this compensation for garza, he's going to bring a lot, a lot. Exactly. He either brings back what you want or you don't move him. It's just that simple.

This. ^^

Who can we count on in 2013? Assuming Garza, Byrd, and Marmol are traded at some point, we will have Castro, Dejesus, Soto (possibly), Shark, Cashner, Russell (possibly) and T. Wood. 1B - ?, 2B - Barney (adequate), SS- Castro, 3B - Stewart (?), OF - Soriano, Dejesus, Jackson (?), Sczur (?), Sappelt (?), C- Soto/Castillo/Clevenger, Rotation - Wood, Wells (possibly), McNutt (?), prospect from Garza trade (?), FA/Prospect (?), Bullpen- Russell (possibly), Shark, Cashner, and then a lot of prospects (????????). I'm not punting on 2013, but it sure looks like the FO is. Apparently your crystal ball sees further into the future than mine. Mine hasn't even made it to January yet. Reading between the lines, at least he's telling us that there's nothing to worry about with the end of the Mayan calander approaching, so there's that.

Hello? Its Dale's brother! Yeesh. It cracks me up that all of these "people in the know" predict when a trade is going to happen. Quite a few pages ago somebody who knew somebody claimed it was going down on Tuesday. Everybody knows the Cubs are shopping Garza and 3-4 teams are seriously interested, so saying a trade is going to happen soon isn't really going to far out on a limb. Agreed. The Hoyer/Epstein front office is also very tight lipped, much more so than the Hendry crew. The fact that anyone thinks they can predict if/when something happens is laughable. I'm a little surprised that we even know they are shopping Garza. Small leaks can be used any number of ways. Can gauge fan or league reaction, or more importantly create buzz and apply pressure on your negotiating partners. Nothing new there. That's negotiating 101. However, when Brett posted the other day that last offers were being taken, it sounds fairly accurate to me, given that multiple teams are included in negotiations. At some point you would think Theo or whoever is running the process says enough posturing, give us your best offer. Of course no one knows exactly what day something gets done. No one ever said that. That said, the idea that negotiations are hitting the home stretch is pretty easy to believe using common sense alone. Looks like there are people here that default to complaining instead of adding to the discussion at hand, regardless of topic.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops. I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll. While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer. At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me. What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here? My comment was pointed towards enthusiasm to drop payroll as the quotes I copied suggested. I understand the hyperbole/sarcasm in what they said, but I only meant to point out as others have that a big market team such as the Cubs have the resources to build at both the MLB roster and farm system. I have utmost confidence in this front office and support their moves. If they deem they need to trade for the future since the present is a no win situation then I support that. Personally, I was hoping for signing international guys like the Cubans and free agents such as Pujols or Fielder. And in fact, the window is not closed on that front. I will admit, I threw Saltwell out there as a lackey without thought to any specific moves. I don't post often, but I did weigh in on Madlock's trade in another thread. He was traded because he demanded more money and then they signed Murcer to more money than Madlock asked for (precursor to the Maddux situation later under Himes). But it also happened in times of poor attendance and getting Murcer was as much a way to potentially increase draw. Year Attendance Record 1970 1,642,705 84-78 1971 1,653,007 83-79 1972 1,299,163 85-70 1973 1,351,705 77-84 1974 1,015,378 66-96 Madlock 1975 1,034,819 75-87 Madlock 1976 1,026,217 75-87 Madlock 1977 1,439,834 81-81 Murcer 1978 1,525,311 79-83 Murcer 1979 1,648,587 80-82 So, no there is no correlation to this move and the current front office's moves. But, perhaps it does point out that attendance is not a given. And being a big market team is dependent on revenue. Cutting payroll for the sake of future flexibility alone may not yield the results if revenues drop. No worries, TOO. Couple things: Nice to see you back away from vilifying the current brain-trust. They deserve a shot, I think. The other thing that stands out to me is your fixation on attendance. I have seen this from other respected posters here. How is it that a fanboy type Forbes 400 family and Ivy League educated underlings running your team is not enough? 2 months brings us here? Wow. Does anyone think they might consider the effects their actions during this off-season have on revenue? I'm guessing maybe. The Madlock thing is a different issue. Way off base there as well. Sending Madlock away was only outdone by trading Palmeiro and allowing Maddux to walk. There were no contract issues with Madlock. He had just won 2 consecutive batting titles and was in line for MVP. He went on to a pretty "decent" career elsewhere. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/madlobi01.shtml Past decisions/ failures aside, it was time to blow this thing up and start over. I trust the people doing it. The end result is going to be cataclysmic I think.

7/25? No. Thanks. He's not opting out of that. Are you Scott Boras? lol