TheDude

Because, as I stated, he's not the one being patient. The other party in the negotiation is the one being patient.

Soriano is coming off a career year, not surprisingly also a contract year. His numbers from 2002-2005 were .275/.329/.519/.848. If he regresses back to that level he'll be a lousy bargain at $18M per year. Bear in mind he'll be 31 next January, so he could easily regress to below his 2002-2005 level. I want Soriano on the team at CF or 2B but not for $18M and a 5 year committment. His numbers have been discussed many times in previous threads. Being an optomistic person anyway, I tend to view the Cubs reported interest in Soriano, and his splits according to that interest. Soriano was not a good run producer in the 3rd or 5th spot of the lineup at any point in his career, with over 500 ABs at each. His production as a leadoff hitter is stellar and that's where the Cubs reported interest lies. If he puts up numbers equal to (or even slightly less than) his leadoff splits for his career (not just last year), then he will be worth the contract. [edit - leadoff splits career: .291/.340/.544/.884]

Ramirez holds the cards, not Hendry. Ramirez dictates the pace of the negotiation, not Hendry. The stalling is primarily on Ramirez not Hendry. Nothing in your response speaks to what I wrote. I don't think Hendry is stalling. I think Hendry was stupid for allowing it to get to this point. "He's had every day since the season ended to resolve this. No progress has been reported." That is you putting the lack of progress of Hendry. That is what I responded to, and it is directly relevant.

I agree with you there. But we must also respect that these are incredibly slim parameters, and only two or three players per generation ever really fit the bill. I think it's very hard to be tough on any GM for not getting the right big ticket guy when they only come along once every few years. If I were a GM, I'd probably still pull the trigger on Soriano because of his athleticism. If you are going to gamble 'on the wrong side of 30', you do it with a guy whose athleticism might carry the age appropriately.

Ramirez holds the cards, not Hendry. Ramirez dictates the pace of the negotiation, not Hendry. The stalling is primarily on Ramirez not Hendry.

Here's the problem with this discussion. The Cubs organization will get criticized for not pulling the trigger on any high-end, top FAs year after year. and yet, when the pricetage actually gets announced, the majority of fans back-peddle, and start the the 'not-at-that-price' line. It can't be both ways. Either you admire the fiscal responsibility of the front office and try to win with all-stars (not quite superstars), kids, and average veterans, or you get on them for never paying the price it takes. Soriano's pricetage will cripple a lot organizations (there's always that stat regarding % of payroll on one talent and lack of WS rings), but I don't see the Cubs as one of them, assuming the reported 10-15 increase is real.

How else does an organization demonstrate to a player they want to win? The organization hires a manager with a WS ring and publicly states they want to win and they will go after players that can help them win. I don't see how this 'wasn't the smartest thing'. By action not words. They can talk all they want but I want action and blabbing that they'll spend mega bucks this off season isn't the route I would have gone when I'm nogotiating with a guy that will be a free agent soon. Yeah, it's fine to hire good people and state they are out there to win but weren't they suppose to be doing that all along? I just think it cost them an extra 1 to 3 million a year with Ramirez but that's my opinion. Exactly how can the team provide 'action' at this stage of the offseason (or earlier), when it would be tampering or outside accepted practice? Aramis likely made up his mind to opt out a long time ago. I don't see how any action taken by the Cubs management the last 3 months can be viewed as impacting his decision, although I think it was their intent to make an impression on him. Aramis is like any other talented athlete in the modern era, he want to get paid his market value.

That was my point.

How else does an organization demonstrate to a player they want to win? The organization hires a manager with a WS ring and publicly states they want to win and they will go after players that can help them win. I don't see how this 'wasn't the smartest thing'.

Bruce, I understand what you are saying. However, at the same time I can't help but wonder why? If Aramis wants to stay in Chicago If Hendry wants Aramis to stay in Chicago Then, shouldn't they have worked out the parameters of a contract before this? I mean, holy crist, he's only been the most productive Cub player for the last three years (combined). What is the problem? He's 28, he's arguably one the best players at his position in MLB, and he's publically stated he wants to be in Chicago. I can't help but panic. I bolded the part I question. Aramis may have stated such as a matter of public face. I have to believe the bulk of this issue falls on his shoulders, and not the organization.

Actually I think it means the Cubs 'exclusive window' just closed, for the most part.

I wish he could lend some insight as to why there doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency on the part of the Cubs. Why is it automatically Hendry? How do you know it isn't Ramirez keeping talks down?

Wow. Not me. I'll Schmidt and Kuroda every time.

Why would Suppan get 5 or 6 million more per year? They're both pretty average pitchers. I'm not speaking for Goony, but I'm willing to bet anticipated GM post-season rose-colored glasses has to do with it. [edit - guess I was too late in my response :)]

The problem I have is your criticizing the Cubs (implied by the 'we' in your statement) when this is an MLB discussion. Numerous teams pay 7-8 million for average starting pitching because that is the market value. If you re-read my post, you'll note I never advocated the Cubs specifically target these guys. My intent was to show the criticism being applied to the Cubs should very well apply everywhere, because all teams do this, including the heavily lauded GMs around the league. Beane in Oakland signed Loaiza. Schuerholz in Atlanta traded for Hampton - note that Colorado and Florida do not pay out on 2007-2008 for Hampton...the Braves are paying 29.5 million for those two years. Epstein in Boston signed Clement. Etc., and so forth. What you have advocated here is more or less in line with the formula I suggested, so I guess you are agreeing with me. -I said 2 top-end starters (here you put Schmidt and Z). -I said one average market value pitcher (here I put Prior, since we don't know what to expect for his expected 5+ million, or your suggestion of Matsukaza, who projects around 6-8 million with an unknown MLB production). -I said two cheap solutions from the farm (Hill and whomever replaces the injured Prior). While I would prefer to gamble on Matsukaza much the same as you, I think there is an earnest observation that Matsukaza could well equal the production of your average 7 million veteran starter, like Lilly. And settling on Lilly if you don't get Matsukaza isn't that great of difference IMO.

I thought my position was pretty clear :? . No, not a chance. As I mentioned a few times, a top-end MLB ready starter. There are only a handful in baseball and the Cubs have only one - Hill. I wouldn't make the deal, because the Cubs need pitching as much as hitting, even though I absolutely love Crawford. What team is going to trade a top-end MLB ready starter for a slightly above average, about to make a mint in arbitration and not all that far from FA outfielder? I can't think of a team that would do it. Therefore, the nicest package of major league ready prospects would likely get the job done if they truly want to fix their crowded outfield situation. They need pitching desperately. I don't think you're reading the situation accurately. Crawford is under contract until the end of 2008 guarenteed (2 years), at 4 million in 2007 and 5.25 million in 2008. 2009 and 2010 are club options for 8.25 million and 10 million. Any team that trades fro Crawford this offseason has him for 2-4, at the club's discretion. At 4 million for 2007, his production for dollar value is astounding. To be quite honest, the fact that Tamp is even shopping him blows my mind. I stand by my assessment that Crawford will command a top (or the top within an organization) pitching prospect.

I thought my position was pretty clear :? . No, not a chance. As I mentioned a few times, a top-end MLB ready starter. There are only a handful in baseball and the Cubs have only one - Hill. I wouldn't make the deal, because the Cubs need pitching as much as hitting, even though I absolutely love Crawford.

The odds of Suppan being a value-buy this offseason is practically zero since he's channeling the ghost of Bob Gibson's career. He might end up banking 8-10 million due to his "playoff experience" and "clutchness"... and that's for a league average, innings-eater sort of pitcher. Not a good use of money. The market is what it is for a #3 starter. An average pitcher in the current market that stays relatively healthy makes 7-8 million a year, usually on a 3-year contract. Suppan might get a bit more due to the 'playoff experience'. I'm not sure if it is a poor use of money since you're not going to find much cheaper production from a veteran anyway. Teams are probably better off running two high-priced top-end starters, one average veteran, and two cheap kids from the farm. Suppan and Lilly fit the role of that #3 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy cheaper than 7 million at that role.

I agree. To deal that much talent to get Pierre w/o some sort of guarantee that he'll resign is risky at best. Middle of 2006 and I was wishing that Nolasco was still wearing Cubbie blue with all the injuries and poor performance of the starting staff. I think both of these observations are irrelevant to the Crawford deal discussion. None of the prospects that went Florida for Pierre would have been enough of a centerpiece for Crawford. The Devil Rays should command a very, very good pitcher in return for Crawford. A Kazmir level prospect. As well as Nolasco pitched last year, I very much doubt he couldn't have been a good start for a Crawford deal. With the benefit of hind-sight, sure. But that's not how it works. If Nolasco isn't traded to Florida, he gets only a fraction of the MLB experience. Maybe he folds under Dusty Baker's management, or gets hurt like all the rest of them. It's difficult to say what could have been, but certainly Nolasco had more opportunities in Florida to mature than he would have in Chicago. Crawford should command an MLB elite pitching prospect, and it's not likely Nolasco is the prospect if still with the Cubs organization.

I think the word you're looking for is 'sarcasm'.

I agree. To deal that much talent to get Pierre w/o some sort of guarantee that he'll resign is risky at best. Middle of 2006 and I was wishing that Nolasco was still wearing Cubbie blue with all the injuries and poor performance of the starting staff. I think both of these observations are irrelevant to the Crawford deal discussion. None of the prospects that went Florida for Pierre would have been enough of a centerpiece for Crawford. The Devil Rays should command a very, very good pitcher in return for Crawford. A Kazmir level prospect.

No one has done that but you. There are always outlliers in any data set. However, the evidence is completely and overwhealmingly conclusive that high pitches per inning and innings pitched are related to future arm problems. And perhaps more damning, future inefecitveness. Your insistnace that things be "proven" conclusive is both irrational and foolish. It's like the cigerrette companies stating that somking doesn't cause cancer. So because I ask for more than arbitrary evidence, I am now stating a case absolutely? I'm done conversing with you.

Um, no, sorry. The one with the theory is the one that needs to support the theory.

Studies to define correlary are not peformed by picking names out of a control pool that support your theory. Sorry, it doesn't fly. What are you talking about? Forget it, you have no idea what you are talking about. Here is something for you to chew on http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=148 I'm not dismissing studies into pitcher abuse. What I'm saying is nothing has been shown definitively beyond speculative analysis. The first aticle you cite names Colon at the poster boy for injury based on pitcher abuse. He pitched 8 consecutive years over 3200 pitches without injury (beyond nagging). 2006 was his first real significant injury year, with a torn rotator cuff. Are the two defintively related? No, this hasn't been shown. Whose to say the injury isn't related to a serious lack of physical conditioning? Is there reason to be suspicious and cautious, just in case? Yes, absolutely. This is reasonable to a point. It's worth considering and taking precaution with young pitchers. I take issue with absolute certainly and fervor by which this is preached however. It hasn't been shown definitively, because of the difficulty of organizing and displaying the data. Pitch count limits are abitrary, and the founders/promoters of it know it is arbitrary. I don't subscribe to the idea that Zambrano is automatically going to be injured at some point. I agree with pulling him in the 110 PC range, because that seems to be his personal limit for effectiveness. But you can't come in to the conversation stating the case absolutely, because it is simply isn't true.

Studies to define correlary are not peformed by picking names out of a control pool that support your theory. Sorry, it doesn't fly.