Transmogrified Tiger

Be honest. Taking park factors, defense and careers into account, who would you rather have? Before this year, Greene. Now, Theriot. Really? One year sways your opinion that much? It's a combination of Greene (emphatically) whiffing on opportunities for the breakout he could have(surprisingly, he's 2 months older than Theriot), and Theriot setting a standard for his play(above average OBP, no slugging, steady if only average at best defense because of range/arm limitations).

This is why it's a good move for them, they don't have anything to lose. They're giving up a fungible asset and they have nothing to live up to from last year. On the other hand, the "this is why the Cards win championships" stuff is really overblown. You can make the argument that Greene isn't great defensively(or at the very least not consistently good), and it's a very easy argument that he's a gamble to be an asset with the bat. It could pay off in both aspects, one, or backfire in both and they get no improvement at all. It's a risk worth taking with their current SS situation and what they had to give up for him, but make no mistake it's a gamble nonetheless. TT the problem is that even if the trade did happen, what did the Cards trade to get Greene? The Pads were asking for Olson from the O's at the trade deadline last year. The story doesn't name who the players are. Without knowing who was traded how can any person say that it was a "good move" for them? Maybe after we know who was actually involved in the trade we can make an assessment of the trade, but until we know the players it is a little premature. It would be equivalent to saying the Cubs traded to the Marlins for Gregg and only had to give up 1 relief prospect. Kinda relevant who that relief prospect is, isn't it? To an extent it matters, but as long as it's not the best of the best the Cards have offer in that department(like Perez + McClellan) it doesn't really matter. They'll be giving up something(unproven relief arms without big-time upside) that is not hard to find to take a chance on something that is very hard to find(a strong hitting SS that is anywhere from average to very good with the glove). Furthermore, that SS is going to impact the team much more than that relief prospect(s) will, especially when considering it's likely what the Cards gave up weren't going to spend much time in the MLB pen this year.

Be honest. Taking park factors, defense and careers into account, who would you rather have? Before this year, Greene. Now, Theriot.

This is why it's a good move for them, they don't have anything to lose. They're giving up a fungible asset and they have nothing to live up to from last year. On the other hand, the "this is why the Cards win championships" stuff is really overblown. You can make the argument that Greene isn't great defensively(or at the very least not consistently good), and it's a very easy argument that he's a gamble to be an asset with the bat. It could pay off in both aspects, one, or backfire in both and they get no improvement at all. It's a risk worth taking with their current SS situation and what they had to give up for him, but make no mistake it's a gamble nonetheless.

I stared at the timestamp for about 10 seconds before I actually believed that this happened today.

Neither have left the first page of social since their respective seasons started, except maybe that week's Bears thread on like Thursday or Friday.

Oh for pete's sake... I strongly doubt that Hendry has ended talks with the Padres for Jake Peavy. Surely the New York Daily News would know...

He's put up a FIP under 4.00 in each of the last 4 years. The best FIP of Marquis' career was 4.43 his rookie year in StL. He strikes out significantly more hitters, and walks significantly fewer, while there not being much difference how hard they're hit(including HR). He's definitely much better than Marquis.

Now the Vazquez deal gives me hope that the Cubs can move a similar pitcher with a cheaper contract in Marquis at the Winter Meetings. if by similar you mean they are both pitchers, then yes, they are similar By similar I mean they are both decent innings eating pitchers. The difference is Marquis contract is a yr shorter. Also, Vazquez is much better at pitching.

Pete Carroll: Fashion > Timeouts And I assume "Hillary Clinton" is talking about complaining about the system, like the whole superdelegate ordeal.

I think I'm going to regret asking this, but.. Why?

That's a question I had actually. Would Wood's arbitration be based on how much he made with incentives or just his base salary? I suppose it makes the most sense to include incentives unless the union made that a concession in CBA talks. Hendry must think that either: Wood's injury risk is so great that it's not worth it to potentially pay him 10 mil for a year and forfeit the picks as well. Wood's injury risk is so great that they're better off spending the 10 million elsewhere, and he's a lock to accept arbitration. Wood, injury risk included, is not a good investment as a closer at 10 million, and he's a lock to accept arbitration. I guess those are justifiable thought processes(at least the 2nd and 3rd for sure), but it stings to be expecting those picks and not getting them. It does make me feel better that this doesn't appear to be a Cubs-exclusive phenomenon though.

And a sensationalist hack. That settles it, I'm calling him SHR from now on.

And your post was going so well. That's what I get for playing for style points, I guess. Who cares if it hurt me in the human polls, though. The computers loved me. SSR is a hater.

If we were building a team from scratch and had to choose between Theriot and Renteria as players, it would be a bit of a tough call. Renteria is pretty inconsistent with the bat, but on the high end he's significantly better than what Theriot could hope to be as a hitter. Several metrics show Renteria to be a consistently worse defender, so if you want to go along with that let's say that they aren't too far apart when you consider Renteria can be the .800+ hitter from Atlanta or the sub-.700 OPS wreck he was last year. He's also about 4 years older than Theriot at 33, and therefore his down year last year raises much more alarm, as well as a diminished hope for a stronger defensive year like he had in 2006. So basically it comes down to the likely steadiness of Theriot v. the gamble on the potential with Renteria. You can make an argument for either one and not be wrong. However, when you consider that we already have Theriot, and have him for cheap, and we'd need to pay several million out of the limited funds remaining to improve the team to get Renteria, then it's much more clear that it makes sense just to keep Theriot....unless you were to trade him, but that gets into a whole new ballgame of what's likely or feasible.

Wow. Wood's arm better fall off in Spring Training with whoever signs him.

I've seen OU -15. :confused: It opened at 14.5, and already got pushed to 17.

Mizzou hasn't faced a defense as good as Iowa's all year. You think Iowa's defense is better than Texas'? I don't really think there's much difference between the Alamo and Holiday, and personally I'd rather play a Big 10 team than a Pac 10 team.

There's a huge gap in basketball between C-USA and the Big XII.

According to what? fielding statistics. he's not adam everett good, someone was right about that, but he's in the next level defensively. What statistics?

I was going to suggest using the strength of North teams faced as a tiebreaker, but those are actually tied for all 3 teams in the South as well(Texas would've been ahead had either Mizzou or Colorado hung on to win this weekend). Since you're dying to know, Mizzou's Offensive Coordinator Dave Christensen took the head coaching job at Wyoming. He's staying to coach through the bowl game. Speaking of Bowl Games, Mizzou is locked into theirs now. They win Saturday(lol) and go to the Fiesta, they lose Saturday and go to the Alamo to face either Iowa or Northwestern, according to the Alamo Bowl selection committee.

Gregg Sucks even compared to Howry. And Hendry is not a good GM. http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1793&playerid2=237&playerid3=&position=P&page=3&type=full You are being ridiculous. Gregg is better, much better, than what we got from Howry last year. Yes, Gregg walks too many guys, but he's fine at everything else. Last year Howry didn't walk many guys, and was awful at everything else.

Can we stop with the hyperbole? Hendry is not an awful GM. Muskat getting a date wrong doesn't mean she has no clue about the Cubs' intentions with Wood(doesn't mean she does have a clue either). Gregg is not terrible, and to say he's not an upgrade over 2008 Howry is insane.

7 million is entirely too much to pay for an average defensive shortstop with below average offense, especially a 31 year old with recent injury troubles that you are trading for. We're essentially describing Ronny Cedeno or the dozens of comparable players across different minor league systems. This is why it's insane for the Pirates to have such demands for Wilson in trade. His PMR, Win Shares, and RZR don't change very much at all going back a few years. According to what?