TheDude

Does Bourne have any suitors left? I wonder if the Cubs still have interest, as I haven't heard any update for a while.

This. The FO needs to find more Maholm-type deals to get serviceable pitching the first half and then move for talent at the deadline.

K.Law did a write-up on Paniagua's first outting.

Brenly is an excellent compliment to Kasper. All you have to do is watch broadcasts around baseball to realize we have it good with the Cubs broadcast team.

There is a host of baseball analysts worse than Law.

I don't see DeJesus being moved. He has exactly the prototype approach at the plate the organization wants. It's debatable whether any of the younger guys can learn anything from him, so that isn't a reason on its own to keep him. But the FO has no pressing need to trade him since he's both affordable and productive. If these younger kids can learn anything from him it's a bonus, so why trade him just because?

Because in the media world you can't assume your audience is informed. Not all baseball fans have been longtime fans, there are plenty of people newer to the game who don't know this stuff inside-and-out like hardcore fans.

Agreed on the thread titles. +1

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/26/its-thursday-do-you-know-where-your-ryan-dempster-is/ This sounds like when I tell my mates I'll meet them at the bar and then the wife says "really?" and then I don't go.

I'm not mad at Dempster, he is playing by the rules. I'm mad at the owners who allowed the union to negotiate 10/5 rights (and have been for years). Let the most expensive, declining skills assets on the team have all the power in trade negotiations between organizations as a default rule. Wow.

It sure is starting to look like the Cubs will go from projected deadline winners to losers.

Ichiro has 10/5 rights...where is the 24 hour moritorium here? Trying to understand the tweet on Demp.

Agreed, on all levels. Considering the Cubs are apparently asking for a top 50 guy not sure how Segura meets the asking price. It's also not clear how Segura meets the Cubs stated desire for pitching or 3rd base.

Didn't see this one in here yet, from Dave Cameron via ESPN Insider. Pure opinion piece. "Trade No 3: Chicago Cubs starting pitcher Ryan Dempster to Los Angeles Angels for shortstop/second baseman Jean Segura While the Los Angeles Dodgers have been heavily connected to Dempster, it's the other Los Angeles franchise that should swoop in and get him. With Dan Haren still on the DL and Ervin Santana struggling, the Angels need another reliable starter, and Dempster would slide in perfectly as another strikethrower who misses bats. Segura is a middle-infield prospect who was aced out of a future in Anaheim when the team gave contract extensions to Erick Aybar and Howie Kendrick, so his role in the organization is now as a trade chip. He got off to a slow start in Double-A but has heated up as of late and would offer the Cubs a potential Starlin Castro replacement or an offensive upgrade over Darwin Barney."

Respectfully disagree. The more the Cubs eat, the higher the price the Cubs demand on the return. If the Cubs eat 90%, the cost paid by the other organization is in player value, not dollars. You can say 'zero consequence' on the dollars and be correct, but not on the player value given since the cost paid in the trade wasn't in dollars. The other organization risks sending a player of value for a half-season rental since the Cubs will demand a higher price. I'm talking about the years in trade value evaluation. If you want to rephrase as total contract value, that's fair.

They're not going to find that value on the market, but that's not the assumption most organizations are going to make. There's probably a 4 WAR gap between what the Cubs want to sell and what a prospective buyer wants to project in their buy. If you take the half-full approach and assume Soriano is going to be more like '12 in his '13 and '14 seasons, then you're looking at around 8-9 WAR for remainder of the contract from today. If you take the half-empty approach and look at '11 as the more projectable numbers, then you're looking at more like a 4-5 WAR remainder of the contract. GMs can find a FA for 2 years at 4 WAR total value by spending modestly and keeping your prospects. All they need is the half-year rental for minor league filler. This would be easy if Soriano didn't have the 2 extra years. The market is known for expiring veteran contracts (minus Sabean...Wheeler!?!) and we have already seen 3 deals this year with Youk, Lee, Thome. Soriano probably would have been traded already by now without the 2 years. Any organization that isn't bullish on his 'return to form' for age 37 and 38 seasons risks giving up a prospect of value when they don't have to. They could spend just cash on mid-level veteran in the offseason without losing prospects or draft picks thanks to the new CBA and roughly get 1.5 - 2 WAR anyway. The Cubs aren't going to deal Soriano and pay the contract for organizational filler. The point I have been making is the additional 2 years is the primary complication in trading Soriano.

I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion. I agree with your reasoning that teams are probably balking at giving up prospects of any value for Soriano. But I don't see how that has anything to do with 2 years being left on his deal. He has $46 million left on his deal, so let's say the Cubs pay $44 million of that. That leaves the acquiring team on the hook for $1 million each year over those two years. I don't care which team ends up getting him, $1 million per year is a minimal commitment and no team would hesitate to cut him if he doesn't perform. Do you think a team would feel forced to keep him instead of cutting him because they're paying him $1 million a year? He said that, even if we were paying him down to league minimum, they'd shy away from him because of the years. Which makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. The more money the Cubs eat, the better the prospect. An organization can instead keep the prospect and find comparable FA in the offseason if you believe Soriano's '12 is the anomaly, not '11 (which I think many people do). If I'm trading for Soriano and I use the view of 'I can always cut him since the Cubs are paying for him', then I'm not willing to give a prospect of value because I view the trade as a 2-month rental rather than long-term 2.5 year value trade. So I'm only offering prospect value of a rental, which doesn't make sense for the Cubs.

You realize that this makes literally NO sense, right? Is this missing a smiley for sarcasm or something? It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

I never had to work with a hitting coach, so I can't claim to know just how much influence one has. But in Castro's case I have to ask to the question: To what degree is the new hitting coach responsible for Castro's current patience trend? Since Jaramillo was replaced, Castro looks like a different hitter at the plate. And he is walking again (at least at a pace you can accept for Castro). The bottom line numbers may not be any different, but it should improve his long-term numbers.

He's exactly the sort of player an AL team with a lot of pop should desire. Detroit, Boston, NY, Texas, etc. None of those team may be nterested however. He would also do well for Washington who is still trotting out Ankiel in CF.

contract. With us eating 90% of his contract, the contract shouldn't be a problem. It's the years, not the dollars.

The Padres are sellers in a sellers market, selling high on an asset performing well. This is the worst possible time for the Cubs to buy on Headley, as the price will likely not be higher than it is now. It takes an outlandish 3-way scenario where the Cubs shift the overpay to a contending team in the current market to compete. A BackToBanks special: - Cubs send moveable assets to a contender (Dempster, LaHair, etc) - Contender sends prospects to Padres - Padres send Headley to Chicago That's not going to happen. The Cubs are far better off trying to acquire Headley in the offseason when the price comes down.

Is there an industry consensus as it pertains to the various flavors of WAR? Trying to figure out if this a VHF/UHF or HDDVD/Blu-Ray type of proprietary battle going between stats groups where ultimately one will represent WAR, or if this is an accepted set of different stats that could be listed on a player's profile as different categories.

Wesley Snipes? Maybe I'll just call him Blade. He looks nothing like Wesley Snipes and is about 9" taller. Unless you think.....nevermind. He looks a lot like a young Snipes in the face, which was the basis for the comment. There is a 6" height difference. It's absurd for you to insinuate any profiling intent.