dew1679666265

How much money did they make when they were putting up those numbers? Womack was very well paid then and was often a 4-6m player when he put those numbers up. Cintron made 1.9m in 2007, after his 06 season. When the Cubs got these players they were scrubs, they were either hitting very poorly at the time, or coming off a bad season or two. So those are very bad examples, and even prove my point more. When you both Womack and Cintron having good or simliar years, they were making Miles money. Miles is coming off two solid back to back seasons for a bench player. In 2003, Cintron's best year, he was being paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's never made more than $1.9 million. In 2004, the year I cited for Womack, he was making $300,000. That was his best season in the majors. First of all Miles has had OBP of 377, 368 and 378 the last three seasons. So Miles has improved against LH pitching since earlier in his career. Second, I find it hard to believe that Alex Cintron is gonna sign a minor league deal after having a ok 08. He will only get a one year deal and probably only 1-1.5m due to his awful 07 season, but I don't see him signing a minor league deal. I seriously can't believe were still on this topic though. I think I have shown enough information to show that 2-2.5m is the going rate for players like Miles, like it or not. Here's a list of simliar or worse players to Miles and what they made last year. Alex Cora- made 2m in 08(signed a 2y-4m deal after 06) David Eckstein- made 4.5m in 08 Cesar Izturis- 2.8m in 08(signed a 2y 6m plus deal this offseason) John McDonald- 1.9m in 08 Mark Loretta-2.7m in 08 Jamey Carroll-2.1m in 08 Craig Counsell-2.8m in 08 Ryan Freel -3m in 08 I know some of those guys are getting paid for defense, but there all worse hitters then Miles or have been worse hitters in recent years. So factor that in with Felipe Lopez, Nick Punto, Ramon Vazquez and what Jerry Hairston probably still will get. I think the going rate for the Aaron Miles type of bench player is close to 2m. If I'm going to have bad baseball players coming off the bench for me, then I want cheap, bad players coming off the bench for me. If that means bringing kids up from the minors - fine. I'm actually not that angry about the money Miles is getting. I'm more confused that if we're that cash strapped, why we don't get a little worse production for a lot less cost (Cedeno) instead of paying a very valuable $2.5 million to a very mediocre player. That $2.5 million could have not gone to Miles and instead been put together with the $10 million we're paying Bradley and come really close to signing Dunn. That would have been a better move.

I actually like this Fox broadcasting crew. Kenny Albert and Daryl Johnston work together pretty well, I think. Am I crazy?

I have to disagree with the cheerleader thing. They're pretty hot. Though, the Utah cheerleaders are surprisingly attractive.

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B. Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production. Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done. The Marlins already made it clear that an offer for Hermida would have to blow them away, and MacPhail reportedy loves Scott, and we've already learned how fun it is to deal with him, especially over a player he loves. While I do like Bradley, I wouldnt have minded going after DeJesus from KC, they were trying to pawn off Teahen on us, and he wouldnt be an upgrade over anyone. He'd have been much better than Aaron Miles. :D Honestly, I'd have preferred to blow the Marlins away for Hermida than trade DeRosa for decent prospects (at best) and sign a humongous injury risk. Scott would be at the bottom of the list of what I'd like to see Hendry do, with trading DeRosa and acquiring Dunn likely at the top. The DeRosa/Dunn moves or the Hermida trade should be the direction Hendry went. Instead, he went the worst way he could have.

If it was all about money, we should have pursued a cheaper left handed option - such as Jeremy Hermida or Luke Scott. Then we don't downgrade at 2B. Or, we could have gone the free agent route, traded DeRosa and signed Adam Dunn. Then we don't have to worry about 70-some odd games from Hoff/Reed/Gathright when Bradley's hurt and we get very similar (if not slightly better) production. Trading DeRosa and then signing Bradley might be the worst thing Hendry could have done.

Mutual hatred of Bama among SEC fans, probably. :good: Figured. :D

One of South Carolina's QBs are named Smelley. and they all stink. :hello: That was terrible. But true. :D

One of South Carolina's QBs are named Smelley.

Mutual hatred of Bama among SEC fans, probably.

Does he bat left handed? :evil: :-)) Sorry, had to ask.

Does he bat left handed?

He could be the best player in college football (a bit of a stretch). He or Sam Bradford/Matthew Stafford is likely to be the first pick in the draft.

I was starting to wonder about that. Night of silence or something?

Florida also demolished Georgia - who beat Michigan State - and destroyed LSU - who demolished Georgia Tech. Bama wasn't their only "big win".

The guy is a raging douche. The fact that he talks Cubs really doesn't help because he doesn't know Howry.(are we still using that?) The 1st time I met him about a month ago, I thought he isnt so bad. Then I actually had a converstaion with him, oh my he has issues. Nope, it's Veteran's Committee now. :( It's very appropo.

The guy is a raging douche. The fact that he talks Cubs really doesn't help because he doesn't know Howry.(are we still using that?) The 1st time I met him about a month ago, I thought he isnt so bad. Then I actually had a converstaion with him, oh my he has issues. Nope, it's Veteran's Committee now.

Dunn, from what I recall hearing, was looking for no more than $3-4 million more than Bradley. That's a definite issue, but instead of signing Aaron Miles for $2.5 million, use that to up the offer to Dunn. It could have been done. And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley. Would Dunn have accepted a 3 year deal? I thought I heard 5 or 6. That is a long time to commit to someone, especially with all of the money the Cubs have on the books in the future. Dexter's right on here. If he's asking for 5-6 years (which I honestly don't recall hearing), he won't get it. He's barely being pursued as is. Plus, 5 years guaranteed to him is better than 3 years guaranteed to Bradley because we know Dunn will be productive most, if not all, of his contract. We might get a year and a half of production out of 3 years of Bradley.

If Miles could do that consistently, he wouldn't be as much of a problem. But he's failed to do it pretty consistently. He has a .329 career OBP and has been close to .330 all but one year. His splits are also very favorable for a platoon with Fontenot. Vs. LHP his OBP over the last three years jumps to .374. Not a bad option as a PH or to spell other players vs. LHP. Now that I don't disagree with. But there's a word for guys who can play an average but not impressive middle infield and be the right-handed half of a platoon: Fungible. They are a dime a dozen. Unlikely. How many options were out there for the Cubs that put up a .374 OBP vs. LHP over the last three years? Once again, it sounds good when you make fun of Miles, and he is definitely not the type of player that you stake your season on, but he should be a solid platoon partner and he was pretty cheap. Miles' OBP vs LH over his career is .352. Alex Cintron, who will likely get a minor league contract and be paid far less than Miles, has a career OBP vs LH of .343. Cintron also, I believe, plays better defense. Is $2 million dollars and worse defense worth 9 points of career OBP against right handed batters?

Alex Cintron had one season of a 112 OPS+ in 448 at bats - better than anything Miles has ever done. Tony Womack had a season of 91 OPS+ in 553 at bats - eight points worse than Miles' career year and better than any other year Miles has ever had. Damian Jackson had a season of 89 OPS+ in 470 at bats - 10 points worse than Miles' career year and better than any other year Miles has ever had. And in Miles' best year (2007) he had just 379 at bats. He's had two seasons over 400 at bats - a 74 OPS+ and a 76 OPS+. He looks very, very similar to those bad, replacement level (or worse) players. Miles is just some scrub. He's exactly the type of player the guys you listed are - scrubs grabbed off the scrap heap. And if the going rate for his type of player is $2.5 mil a year, I'd rather stick with Cedeno. And I don't really like Cedeno. You would rather have career .298 OBP Cedeno over $2.5MM Miles? Why? DeRosa has proven that a decent hitter that can play several positions can be valuable. The simple reason is that you have a good guess on what type of production you are going to get rather than playing roulette with your season. Can you imagine the Cubs having to count on McGehee's .160OBP or Cedeno's .298. For as much bashing as has been going on over Miles, not every middle infielder in baseball can put up a .330 OBP (as pathetic as it sounds). Like Cubsfan26 pointed out, I would take Miles over a slew of other guys the Cubs picked up in the past, including Cedeno. People need to get over the fact that Miles is never going to be a superstar. That is why he isn't getting paid anywhere near superstar money. Next year he will account for what, approximately 1.5% of the teams payroll? When we're supposedly in a major budget crunch, I definitely would prefer to pay less for a crappy player. Cedeno is not good, Miles is slightly better. And as for knowing what we'll get from Miles - he's put up an OBP of .330 or better once, last year. His next two highest totals were .328 in 07 and .324 in 06. .330 might be the highest we could expect this year. I have no problem with Miles not being a superstar. Theriot is not a superstar and I'm fine with him starting - but it's because he's very cheap. Miles and Theriot are similar players and Miles is getting paid $2 million more dollars than Theriot is. That's why I'm angry we traded DeRo and signed him.

Dunn, from what I recall hearing, was looking for no more than $3-4 million more than Bradley. That's a definite issue, but instead of signing Aaron Miles for $2.5 million, use that to up the offer to Dunn. It could have been done. And Bradley could be great, but his history shows that it's extremely unlikely that he'll stay healthy. It's nowhere near a safe bet, whereas with Dunn you're pretty much guaranteed 150+ games of similar stats to Bradley.

He's played more than 100 games three times in his career - and one of those he played the vast majority of his games as a DH. The most games he's ever played in one season is 141, then 126 (DH year) and 101. He hasn't played 100 games in the field since 2004, when he played 138 games out there. As a point of reference, Rondell White played six seasons of 100+ games. The most he was a DH in a season was 53 times. Rondell White was a much, much better bet to be healthy than Milton Bradley.

But why did Hendry have to go with an overpaid RF? If he had no other choice and was forced into it, then I could understand. But there were other options. There was Adam Dunn. Still would have necessitated the DeRosa trade, but having as good or better a player in Dunn (compared to Bradley) who can also stay healthy makes that trade look a whole lot better. There was also Jeremy Hermida. Yes, we would have paid a dear price in young talent, but we're trying to win now, we could have kept DeRosa and we'd have a cheap, young budding star in RF instead of a $10 million health risk. If the payroll crunch is that bad and we have to improve in RF (which I think we did) then the cheaper player in terms of money, but more expensive in prospects would seem the most logical choice. There were numerous other options that would not have necessitated forcing a bad deal just to dump DeRosa and Marquis' salaries - and in place add Aaron Miles. Signing Bradley was not the only option and Hendry was not forced into it. If he made up his mind that Bradley was the only player he'd target, then that's not logical and it shows a flaw in him.

I think Utah is a very good team and I never was that enamored with Bama. They were great at what they did, but I never got the impression that they were a team that a Utah-type team couldn't beat. If anything, this is much less surprising to me than Boise was. I picked Bama, but I certainly thought Utah could win. Bama's talent level is not overwhelming, true, but as well coached as they are and as well as they've played I really didn't think Utah would hang with them. And I thought pretty much like you on the Boise game, OU would probably win but weren't really that much better.

Players don't come cheaper at the deadline, they get more expensive because of higher demand. Need will be greater and more teams will be willing to take a chance on players - thus we'll have to pay more. While you may or may not end up paying more, by the time that time rolls around, there may be players available that were not in the offseason, and especially if your going for a rent a player whose about to be a free agent, a team thats all but out of the post season picture may want to unload him for some prospects. But why pass up good options like Adam Dunn and Jeremy Hermida for a hypothetical player that might become available around the trade deadline and might be cheaper than the current options? If there's a chance to improve the team now (which there is) you don't make it worse with the thought that you can improve it later. You make it better now and then further improve if the opportunity is there and you can take advantage of it. :confused: I see what he's saying now. Sorry West Side Rooter, I misread it the first time. I still say trading away DeRosa for iffy prospects and Marquis for crap in order to acquire a player who will only play 85-90 games for you is not an improvement. Thus, there's no reason to make the move unless you feel very confident you can make another move very, very soon (before the season).

Players don't come cheaper at the deadline, they get more expensive because of higher demand. Need will be greater and more teams will be willing to take a chance on players - thus we'll have to pay more. While you may or may not end up paying more, by the time that time rolls around, there may be players available that were not in the offseason, and especially if your going for a rent a player whose about to be a free agent, a team thats all but out of the post season picture may want to unload him for some prospects. But why pass up good options like Adam Dunn and Jeremy Hermida for a hypothetical player that might become available around the trade deadline and might be cheaper than the current options? If there's a chance to improve the team now (which there is) you don't make it worse with the thought that you can improve it later. You make it better now and then further improve if the opportunity is there and you can take advantage of it.