dew1679666265

Where did you hear that? per Rotoworld: Wow, can't blame the Titans for not matching that, though. I don't know that I'd pay Albert $15-16 million a year and I really wouldn't give him more than 3-4 years. As much as I love Haynesworth, if this is the deal he's getting he can move on. The Redskins will hate that contract in about 3-4 years, though, I suspect. Depends on the signing bonus. True. That's still a whole heck of a lot for Albert. He's an awesome player (best DT in the game, probably), but he's had some commitment issues (that he's probably over, but I'm not certain) and is 28. I wouldn't go more than 4 years, $12 million a year, probably.

Where did you hear that? per Rotoworld: Wow, can't blame the Titans for not matching that, though. I don't know that I'd pay Albert $15-16 million a year and I really wouldn't give him more than 3-4 years. As much as I love Haynesworth, if this is the deal he's getting he can move on. The Redskins will hate that contract in about 3-4 years, though, I suspect.

Where did you hear that?

But you still have the at bats missed by Aramis, Soriano and Bradley when/if they get injured. That will be quite a few ABs - especially for Bradley. Had we still had DeRosa, those ABs would have gone to him. Now, they'll be mixed around among Miles, Hoff and Gathright. That's why the DeRosa trade hurt so much.

why? why should the cubs have kept the 34 year old mark derosa? look, i like mark quite a bit. but we have to remember that he's just mark derosa. and he's 34 coming off of a career year. it's awfully unlikely that he repeats last year. i think people are getting carried away here. admittedly in about half the at bats, sure, but mike fontenot was better than derosa last year. he's also younger and much cheaper. it's really not that hard to see why the cubs traded dero. i'm thankful that they did when his value was at an all time high, which isn't exactly hendry's normal m.o. Much like the others have said, we didn't get very good value for DeRo's career year and I feel he would have been more valuable to the team staying here than turning into three fairly high potential relievers. I don't think it's crazy to believe DeRo can OPS higher than .800 this year (perhaps into the .820 area). That's much better than we can hope for from his replacements (possibly save for the couple hundred ABs Fontenot will cover).

I think he'll drop, but his talent will keep him in the top 10. He's awesome. Actually, I always felt he was overrated by being mentioned as a top 5 pick. I think he's one of the top tackles in the class - talent wise. I don't really have a problem with him projected in the top 5. Like Truffle's saying, that attitude could really hurt him, though. He could still go at the top if he has a good pro day and smoothes things over with a team at the top (only takes convincing one team). However if he doesn't help anything at his pro day then I could see Oher going ahead of him and SMith going in the middle of round 1. That's a possibility - and it'd be a steal if he gets his attitude right. Pretty big if though. This is a true point.

Agreed. Basically, the appearance is that Hendry gambled with the house and the odds were totally in the houses favor. He should have stuck with a game that worked more in his favor. I have no doubt that he could have peddled DeRosa anytime before the start of the season, and probably gotten a better return if he did manage to get Peavy. There really was no reason to trade him when he did. The only reason he should have dealt him is if Towers had already signed off on a deal for Peavy. Then, Hendry could have said that as soon as DeRosa is off the books, we can announce the deal. Exactly. Had the rumors that came out been true about DeRo's worth (Phils' top prospect, for example), I could have understood dealing him before the Peavy deal was insured. It appears his true worth was closer to the deal with the Indians, and while some of those kids are interesting, it's not a deal you have to make. He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

I don't know if the Braves are that far off from their roots. Since they didn't resign him, I'm a bit bewildered by the Texeira trade, but other than that they're playing Matt Diaz, Jeff Francoeur, Yunel Escobar, Kelly Johnson, Gregor Blanco, Martin Prado, Jair Jurrjens (though they traded for him), Jo-Jo Reyes, Jorge Campillo, Charlie Morton, Chuck James, etc. Schafer is only 21, playing in AA and putting up an .849 OPS and a .254 EqA. I'd be afraid to bring him up for fear of rushing him. Brandon Jones has been playing some in the majors, but wasn't very good last year. I could understand wanting him to play more as he's 24 now, but he hasn't shown a lot of power and that's what their outfield is lacking. Francouer and Johnson have experience, so they aren't being thrown into the fire. But of those other names, Blanco and Prado are on the bench. The Braves MO would have been to trade Johnson and let Prado play. Three of Reyes, Campillo, Morton, or James will be in the bullpen or AAA if you assume Lowe, Jurrjens, Vazquez, Glavine are 1-4. Then you have the Japanese guy who could start pushing all 4 out. Though Schaffer is young, the Braves have gone with a younger players with less experience in the past. Granted guys like Andruw and Chipper were absolute can't misses, but AJ had 50 ABs over A ball and was 19 in a pennant race when called up. The Braves traded value for Vasquez. They were rumored to trade tons of young talent for Peavy, a good idea, but not their MO. They were even rumored to be close to giving up Escobar for Jermaine Dye. They would have had enough veteran leadership with a team with Chipper, Hudson, either Lowe or Vasquez, and Norton. Their best chance of competing with the Mets and Phils was hoping some of the young guys blow up ala Tampa. They took away the chance for a lot of those guys. I see where you're coming from now. I think some of the issues they're facing this year is some of their prospects not panning out - James for instance - and the need to contend. When they brought all those youngsters up in the early 90s, they were terrible and were rebuilding. They were a very good team already before taking chances on guys like Andruw, Dye, etc. There was talent around those guys already and that was the Braves philosophy - get an established winner together and then bring up young pieces a little at a time. It's tougher now than it was in the early 90s to go heavily youth because the only way the Braves fans will get behind the team is if they're contending. I think that's the strategy they're taking. That said, it is a bit risky. They'll need some resurgent years (Anderson, Kotsay, Vazquez) and some good health (Lowe, Chipper) to have a chance to fight with the Phils and Mets. I don't know if all that will come together, but going all youth would drive away that fickle fan base.

Yeah, it's definitely a horrible way to conduct business. If he pulls it off, he's a magician. Fontenot must be productive this year. With injury concerns in RF (major), 3B (moderate) and LF (minor) - and a terrible bench - and probably no better than above average production at short, we need consistently good production from second, I think. That said, I still think we're one of the better teams in the NL (if not perhaps the best). But I'm thinking playoffs right now.

The Cubs payroll right now is right around $137 million. That $140 million given by sources seems pretty accurate right now. And if it was, I see no way we couldn't afford DeRo. Exactly. However, if the Cubs traded for Peavy, then salary would have needed to be moved to afford his contract. And DeRosa's would have brought it back to about 140m again. And I could have lived with that (and even been pretty happy). Right now, though, we're a worse team because of dumping DeRo.

By my estimation (going off CubFanPhilly's numbers in the Tracking the Payroll thread) the DeRo/Hoff/Hill trio is around $5.95 million. The Miles/Gath/Bako trio is around $3.725 million. So roughly a $2.2 million difference.

You may be right that he was setting up for a Peavy deal, but I don't like going ahead with the trade of DeRo (with a less than stellar offer on the table) before the Peavy deal is a sure thing.

The Cubs payroll right now is right around $137 million. That $140 million given by sources seems pretty accurate right now. And if it was, I see no way we couldn't afford DeRo.

I think he'll drop, but his talent will keep him in the top 10. He's awesome. Actually, I always felt he was overrated by being mentioned as a top 5 pick. I think he's one of the top tackles in the class - talent wise. I don't really have a problem with him projected in the top 5. Like Truffle's saying, that attitude could really hurt him, though. He could still go at the top if he has a good pro day and smoothes things over with a team at the top (only takes convincing one team). However if he doesn't help anything at his pro day then I could see Oher going ahead of him and SMith going in the middle of round 1. That's a possibility - and it'd be a steal if he gets his attitude right.

I've only seen him play a couple times so I just have to go off the numbers and what I've read. If he were any better he would have gotten a starting job at some point in 8 years. Drafting a QB this year in the first-round just isn't a great fit when they all look like projects. The rest of the team is ready to win and has about a 3-year window with their defense, o-line and skill position players in their prime. Apparently they're thinking they can stumble upon the next Kurt Warner or something. I still think Tarvaris can be alright but they have to just trust him and give him some freedom. He's shown in flashes that he has the skills. Crumbling in the playoff game probably sealed his fate though. I've seen Sage fairly often and I've never been particularly impressed. My impression of him is he's an ok backup, but shouldn't really be a starter for any extended period of time. The Texans really had problems when Matt Schaub went down and Rosenfels replaced him. And to me, Rosenfels is as much of a project as the QBs in the draft plus he's 30 years old. I'm not a big Chris Simms fan, but I'd probably take him over Rosenfels - especially considering Simms wouldn't cost a pick.

Minny apparently has been hot after Rosenfels (according to this article) since last year. My question is, why? He had a 66.7 completion % last year, but threw just 6 TDs and 10 INTs. And that was with Andre Johnson at WR. He's a nice backup, but giving up a fourth rounder makes me think they want him to start. They'll want him to start. They wanted him last year to compete with Tarvaris but the Texans wanted a 2nd round pick. I don't know. He's not good but I don't know if there are any better options for us. He's had decent numbers in stretches as a starter in Houston. I guess he'll be able to dink and dunk and complete a ton of passes. From the bits I saw of him with the Texans, he's not the brightest QB out there. I'm not that sure he's significantly better than Jackson. I'd probably prefer to hope that Mark Sanchez or Josh Freeman fell to me than to use a fourth round pick to get a 30-year-old Rosenfels.

I think he'll drop, but his talent will keep him in the top 10. He's awesome. Actually, I always felt he was overrated by being mentioned as a top 5 pick. I think he's one of the top tackles in the class - talent wise. I don't really have a problem with him projected in the top 5. Like Truffle's saying, that attitude could really hurt him, though.

Yeah, the most perplexing trade they've made has been a horde of youth for a season of Teixeira. And most of their FA signings have been bench guys (Greg Norton) or guys who aren't blocking prospects at the moment (Mark Kotsay, Garrett Anderson). It may be time to bring Jones up, but that's debatable. I don't see why Shafer should be up now.

Where have I ever said DeRosa would make a wonderful backup? DeRosa should be the starter at second base and then shift over to fill in for injuries. During those times that he was shifted over, Fontenot would get lots of ABs. And I realize Hendry wanted to get more left handed, but my argument is you don't go from Mark DeRosa starting and Mike Fontenot filling in to Mike Fontenot starting and Aaron Miles platooning and being the best bat off the bench. That is an overall downgrade even if we did get more left handed. The money we saved from the DeRosa contract after we signed Miles was only about $3 million or so (as Tiger has said). We're still around $3 million below what the salary limit is supposed to be. If you don't sign Miles and you keep DeRosa and everything else this offseason happens exactly the same, you're right at the salary target. Why did we have to trade DeRosa in order to sign Bradley?

I think he'll drop, but his talent will keep him in the top 10. He's awesome.

I don't know if the Braves are that far off from their roots. Since they didn't resign him, I'm a bit bewildered by the Texeira trade, but other than that they're playing Matt Diaz, Jeff Francoeur, Yunel Escobar, Kelly Johnson, Gregor Blanco, Martin Prado, Jair Jurrjens (though they traded for him), Jo-Jo Reyes, Jorge Campillo, Charlie Morton, Chuck James, etc. Schafer is only 21, playing in AA and putting up an .849 OPS and a .254 EqA. I'd be afraid to bring him up for fear of rushing him. Brandon Jones has been playing some in the majors, but wasn't very good last year. I could understand wanting him to play more as he's 24 now, but he hasn't shown a lot of power and that's what their outfield is lacking.

This is . . . . interesting news. Minny apparently has been hot after Rosenfels (according to this article) since last year. My question is, why? He had a 66.7 completion % last year, but threw just 6 TDs and 10 INTs. And that was with Andre Johnson at WR. He's a nice backup, but giving up a fourth rounder makes me think they want him to start.

Defensive linemen and linebackers had their day in the sun at the combine today. Michigan's Terrance Taylor had the most bench reps - 37. Texas' Roy Miller had 36 and Hawai'i's David Veikune benched 35 times. Wake's linebackers were fast. Aaron Curry is at the top of the list with a 4.56 and Stanley Arnoux is behind him with a 4.61. Both play for Wake. Here's the link.

If it was their obsession to "get more left handed" that forced DeRo out of town, then the obsession with getting more left handed was bad Yeah, I believe that is at the crux for this discussion. Was it so important to get a LH bat for the middle of the order like they seemed hell bent on doing, and adding another LH bat in the lineup at the expense of DeRo. For that to be answered, we'll have to wait and see. I'm all for lineup balance when feasible, but not adding less productive players for the sake of getting more lefty. I'm not positive that Fontenot is automatically categorized as "less productive" than DeRo. Less experienced, less of a certainty, sure. DeRo was not going to sit on the bench if they decided to give Font a chance so we can forget debating about why they didn't keep him incase of injury. Round and round we go. One of my biggest issues with this trade was that I was afraid it was made to "get more left handed." As I said, you don't add in a less productive player just because he's left handed. Let's put it this way: If Hendry had decided to go with the best players he could as opposed to filling spots with lefties, our lineup would have DeRosa getting the majority of ABs at second, some at third, a few in left and quite a few in right. For the ABs DeRosa didn't get at second, Fontenot would have filled in. He also would have been our first batter off the bench. But, since Hendry decided to prefer the side of the plate a player hit from as opposed to their talent level, we will have Fontenot getting the a large number of ABs at second and Aaron Miles getting the ABs (most likely) against lefties. When Aramis, Soriano or Bradley go down, we will fill that spot with Miles' ABs. Aaron Miles or Micah Hoffpauir are now our best bats off the bench. How is scenario 2 better than scenario 1?

Why not debate .03 differences in Win Shares? There hasn't been much to get excited about this offseason. :D My ultimate problem with the move is that I tie it closely to the DeRo trade that I thought (and still think) was so bad. Miles' spot on the bench used to be DeRo's (and Fontenot) and that downgrade bugs me. It's not a killer though, so hopefully something good will come of it. Instead of saying Miles' spot on the bench used to be DeRosa's, try saying that Miles' spot on the bench used to be Cedeno's. DeRosa was a starter, not a sub. Fontenot took DeRosa's job and the cash saved helped pay for Bradley. Finally, I still think the DeRosa trade will end up landing us Peavy. Fontenot is the starter, but any injuries to Bradley and Aramis (and perhaps even Soriano) would have been filled with DeRosa. Now they'll be filled with Miles on the infield and Gathright/Hoff in the outfield. I'm ok with Hoff filling some of that OF time, but I'm not with Miles filling the IF time. Fontenot was going to get a bunch of ABs with or without DeRo. And I really don't think the Peavy deal is happening, but I'll have a different outlook on the offseason if it does. Again, though, it appears very unlikely. hey dew, How many teams have guys sitting on the bench making $5.5 mil just incase of injury? I'm not sure there are many teams that can afford that. The Cubs might be one, but apparently, because of the moves made, they don't appear to be one either. You're right, Fontenot is the starter. He was the only other option to include another LH bat in the lineup. It's more because of DeRos $5.5 salary that he became the odd man out. I'm sure they'd love to have DeRo and another near all-star on the bench but I'm not sure if it was practical. And the merry go round keeps spinning. :D If it was their obsession to "get more left handed" that forced DeRo out of town, then the obsession with getting more left handed was bad. You don't take the chance that you will have an inferior player starting (which is possible with Fontenot) and a vastly inferior player on the bench just so you can get another left bat in the lineup. I'm all for lineup balance when feasible, but not adding less productive players for the sake of getting more lefty. And even if Fontenot produces as well as DeRosa, Miles' addition to the bench made this team worse than the duo of DeRosa/Fontenot. The only options should not have been to either trade DeRosa or put him on the bench.