XZero771679666304

No. But 25 is already in the middle of prime. Middle? That's still the start is it not, and just at the start. I'm a "24-27" prime guy, so if you want to call it "beginning of the middle" or "middle of the beginning" or whatever. It doesn't matter. Who else is in the 24-27 camp? I've heard 27 often referenced as a likely peak point (more often 27-29), but not the end of prime. I think you'd be well in the minority if that's what you think.

Surprised to see the Cubs offering to pay only $10 million of the $36 million owed to Soriano, if this report is true. I thought we'd be offering to pay a heck of lot more than that. I'm pretty sure it was all but $10MM.

Puzzling is one way to characterize it. [expletive] infuriating is another. Last year's squad was a team just begging to be turned loose, but Weber repressed the strengths of his roster with his ridiculous system.

I wasn't and wouldn't argue their respective values now, with Garza down a year of team control and coming off injury. But Garza last year (in a similar position to Shields this year), I think their values would have been comparable. We don't know how Garza would have finished the season (and it's worth mentioning that Shields stank out loud in the first half last year, so with a solid second half Garza might have matched his totals), but given the way things played out and Garza's contract status, I'm not sure we could get much for him at this point. Even if Garza sets the world on fire in the first half, I think a return for him would pale in comparison to what could have been fetched last offseason. Given all that, I think this trade came about because of a unique confluence of Friedman's acumen and Moore's desperation (and apparent incompetence), so I don't think such a return would have been available last offseason or would be in the future.

I don't know. The only explanation for this %$#rape of a trade I can think of is that Moore bought into the meathead view of Shields as a "clutch" pitcher who finishes games, and was starstruck by his 2011 season and overlooked the rest of his career. Garza is at least as good, but I'm not sure that popular perception reflects that. At this time yesterday I'd have said popular perception doesn't matter to executives, but now I'm not so sure, at least in the case of one Dayton Moore. Shields is much better than Garza. Whether he is an ace is questionable at best, but he's on a different level from Garza. He's good, but not the type of good you pay what the Royals paid for. Garza and Shields are very comparable pitchers. They've posted similar numbers (k/9, bb/9, hr/9, FIP, xFIP, ERA) throughout their careers. The only thing you can point to is the glut of CG Shields accrued in 2011. He most certainly is not "on a different level". Shields is better than Garza in all of those categories, except preventing homeruns. Barely. I can accept that Shields is a better asset, but he's not on a different level. And I can't wrap my head around Shields bringing back what he did, so I can't imagine Garza bringing a similar return, either.

I don't know. The only explanation for this %$#rape of a trade I can think of is that Moore bought into the meathead view of Shields as a "clutch" pitcher who finishes games, and was starstruck by his 2011 season and overlooked the rest of his career. Garza is at least as good, but I'm not sure that popular perception reflects that. At this time yesterday I'd have said popular perception doesn't matter to executives, but now I'm not so sure, at least in the case of one Dayton Moore. Shields is much better than Garza. Whether he is an ace is questionable at best, but he's on a different level from Garza. He's good, but not the type of good you pay what the Royals paid for. Garza and Shields are very comparable pitchers. They've posted similar numbers (k/9, bb/9, hr/9, FIP, xFIP, ERA) throughout their careers. The only thing you can point to is the glut of CG Shields accrued in 2011. He most certainly is not "on a different level". Shields has been consistently better than Garza, and is a pretty clear cut better asset than Garza. But I do agree that King overstated things with the "on a different level" comment. That I can agree with, especially when you factor in health. Their actual performance has been pretty similar. But Garza sure looked a lot more attractive at this time a year ago, when knowing what the plan was, he should have been traded.

I don't know. The only explanation for this %$#rape of a trade I can think of is that Moore bought into the meathead view of Shields as a "clutch" pitcher who finishes games, and was starstruck by his 2011 season and overlooked the rest of his career. Garza is at least as good, but I'm not sure that popular perception reflects that. At this time yesterday I'd have said popular perception doesn't matter to executives, but now I'm not so sure, at least in the case of one Dayton Moore. Shields is much better than Garza. Whether he is an ace is questionable at best, but he's on a different level from Garza. He's good, but not the type of good you pay what the Royals paid for. Garza and Shields are very comparable pitchers. They've posted similar numbers (k/9, bb/9, hr/9, FIP, xFIP, ERA) throughout their careers. The only thing you can point to is the glut of CG Shields accrued in 2011. He most certainly is not "on a different level".

Only if Garza was a little cheaper, had an awesome 2012, and had an extra year of control. And if Wood was coming off an 11 K/9 season in the pen. Shields finished the year up strong, but he was a bit schizo for my taste in 2012. I'd take him, but not for anywhere near the price the Royals paid. But the extra year of control is big. I've maintained that if the Cubs were going to trade Garza, the time was last offseason, not the 2012 deadline. He was coming off his best season and still had a full second year of control. I think that if Theo and Jed intended to deal him for maximum return, they really screwed the pooch, and the injury just compounded it.

I don't know. The only explanation for this %$#rape of a trade I can think of is that Moore bought into the meathead view of Shields as a "clutch" pitcher who finishes games, and was starstruck by his 2011 season and overlooked the rest of his career. Garza is at least as good, but I'm not sure that popular perception reflects that. At this time yesterday I'd have said popular perception doesn't matter to executives, but now I'm not so sure, at least in the case of one Dayton Moore.

When you're a GM with an open checkbook and a weak division, it's pretty easy to wing it. Job description for 2013: win in 2013. Job description for 2014: worry about in in 2014. ??? SCS just wanted to serve his daily reminder that he has absolutely no [expletive] idea what he's taking about.

Well, that was a pleasant surprise to find on my DVR. I think Gonzaga might have won if they'd have pounded it into the post (where the Illini were badly overmatched), but Illinois did a great defensive job denying as well. And there aren't many teams who will have an answer for the Illini's athleticism. One thing I noticed was that Paul made concerted effort to repeatedly take the ball to the basket rather than hang on the perimeter. Even though he didn't get there half the time, he drew fouls. That was the most encouraging thing I saw. Obviously, Brandon Paul isn't going to go off for 30+ every game, but I don't think he'll have to. One thing that was lost in last season's debacle is that there is actually quite a bit of talent on the roster. You have Richardson, I think Bertrand is developing into a guy who can take a game over for stretches off the bench, Abrams is a capable PG and Henry can be rotated in without losing much. Egwu is a mess, but McLaurin is a solid, workman-like contributor in the post. Griffey can even be a factor on some nights. I think they keys to this season being different than the last for the Illini will be Paul being consistently good instead of hit or miss, and Groce's system, which actually takes advantage of all the athleticism on the roster rather than constraining it in that joke of an offense Weber ran. It's just too bad Leonard is gone now. I see a 10-8 to 12-6 conference record for the Illini. The B1G is really, really good.

Iowa is not terrible. Not NCAA good, but they're far from terrible. abuck is just doing his thing. Not sure why you'd say they're not NCAA good. They might not be but it's far from a sure thing. They went 8-10 in the Big Ten last year. This year 9-9 has a decent shot at getting them in, 10-8 and they're in. The Big Ten is better but they're better too. If I had to predict Iowa's conference record, I'd say 8-10 again, +/- 1. I think 10-8 would be a best case.

That's debatable. He doesn't hit for average, he doesn't take many walks, he's a butcher in the field (and we wouldn't be able to hide his mobility issues at 1B) and while he hits for some power, he doesn't hit for a ton of it. Vogelbach has the same body issues, but no one is going to put him in the OF, he hits for average and commands the zone and will likely provide his value to the team via trade.

Is it his half a win in almost 150 games last year that intrigues you? I'm guessing it's the 25 HRs and history of playing 3b. And despite that he was, like, really bad. Even if that's true, that still would make him a major upgrade over what we have now at 3b. I'm not saying we must have him, but I think there's a little more to it than glancing as his fWAR and calling it a day. The fact that the Sox have had to bring in 3B twice in the last year probably tells us all we need to know about Viciedo's ability to man the position.

Holy [expletive] why? I have a hard time believing that, it makes so little sense.

Pretty much. Or Stewart reprises. I'm much more curious how they plan to fill an entire outfield. I'd actually much prefer Stewart. Valbuena was league average. I'm not sure we can count on Stewart for that (although, I suppose we can't really count on Valbuena for that, but he did nothing out of the ordinary and much of his value was defensive). If it's between Valbuena and Stewart, I'd just as soon give Stewart a shot now that his wrist is repaired (even knowing how wrist injuries sap power), because his upside is still intriguing. Plus Stewart is a pretty good defender as well.

I'm not sure Lucchino isn't still meddling, either.

I haven't seen one positive opinion on this signing. Probably because it's not very good Well yeah, it sucks, but usually there's at least a couple people who have some positive spin on a bad signing.

I haven't seen one positive opinion on this signing.

That sounds like desperation. Is that a bad thing? He had to make pretty major changes to be anything more useful than a decent 4th OF. I'm comfortable with the risk of screwing that up. It's not a bad thing that he's trying. It's a bad thing that it got to this point. Our sure fire, high-floor, AAA CFer turned is turning to hail mary shots to save his career less than a year later. It'd be really nice if it works, because our medium-term OF picture is hideous. Who said he was high floor? His contact issues always marked him as a potential bust candidate, at least in my book.

The Upton/Lee rumor has been pretty thoroughly repudiated.

Rosenthal just said 3/37.5

I don't know about anyone else, but my perception of Pagan is still colored by his time with the Cubs. I have to keep reminding myself that he turned out to be a good player. I don't think it's a horrible deal, but I wouldn't hand out that contract to him. I actually always kind of liked him and wished he'd have been given more of a shot while he was on the team. I probably wouldn't have given him 4/40, but if the Cubs had signed him to a 2-3 year deal I would have felt pretty good about it.

If you have doubts, go read the reaction on Astros message boards. Basically, he does everything Bob did well, but better. I've listened to him quite a bit over the years in EI, and he really is that good, imo.