David

No, it wouldn't. And I'd give up Marmol in less than a second if it got us Hanley Ramirez. Not that it would.

lol citing andy from desipio, wtf?

This year's team winning 97 games /= next year's team winning 97 games There are a few areas where you probably can't expect to get the same level of production next season. Plus, it would be nice to add another starting pitcher who strikes guys out, because those guys do tend to be a part of the recipe for playoff success.

I don't think you can read "anticipates a payroll bump" as being in reference to increases that already had to happen contractually. That's like saying "Skilling anticipates cold weather this winter." I mean, they could be saying that in reference to the contract escalations, but it would make that a completely pointless snippet. But I guess you could say it might just mean they want to keep Wood and Dempster around.

What are you defining as the 'problems'? 97 wins? Two consecutive playoff sweeps? There's no way to solve not being hot at the right time. Granted, there are areas of this team that could be improved (areas that may have been exploited in the playoffs), but it's not because we got swept in the playoffs. And had we won in the playoffs, the weak points of the team still would've been the same ones.

Exactly. He made an adjustment to his approach this year and despite the lower power numbers was just about as productive, if not more so, as any of the last few years.

It has nothing to do with the player's value to his specific team.

And to me, VORP doesn't tell me anything about if Roberts had a better yr then DeRo. All it shows me is that the O's needed Roberts more then the Cubs need DeRo. VORP is the bimbo eye candy chick you bring to a party. It looks good on the surface but ultimately they lack any substance to stay with long term. Give me DeRo/Fontenot over Roberts. That's not to say Roberts is a bad player, but his VORP is clearly based on the fact that without Roberts in the lineup, the O's are pretty much a crappy lineup. lol what? do you have any idea what vorp is?

i wouldn't be so sure, i just called Hendry's office and his assistant said he was on the phone you are on fire

hahahahhaahhahahha

If the current group wants to re-sign Dempster at the figure you mentioned, I would see no problem for Hendry in getting that done. We don't know who the group will be yet. I can see somewhat of a splash, but Sabathia, I don't know. And he may want to play on the West Coast. Still a lot to be determined on the ownership front. Thanks for the response. In terms of the CC/Dempster thing, I was just thinking that CC at $~20M seems like a better option than Dempster in the $12-14M range given their ages and the fact that you don't really know what you're getting from Dempster (not to mention the fact that CC is just a much better pitcher without even taking those things into account). To me, giving him a fairly big, long term deal is a major risk. Then again, there are probably questions with CC after the way he was used up this year, so who knows?

Bruce, thanks for stopping by... a couple of questions if you'd be willing to oblige... Have you heard anything with regard to the sale and when that might be resolved? Will there even be a chance of getting some tweaks done to this team or is this thing going to hold us hostage? I know it didn't last year, but they can only spend the future owner's money for so long... Are there rumblings that a new owner might want to make a big splash and green-light a big acquisition, like, say, a CC Sabathia (as opposed to giving Ryan Dempster 12+M a year)?

huh? usually i get your sarcastic quips but I'm not really seeing your point on this one unless he figures out how to OBP better than .310 against lefties his ceiling is probably that of a part-time platoon guy/24th man who puts up decent numbers if he plays sparingly and never ever, ever faces lhp. oh. i agree.

huh? usually i get your sarcastic quips but I'm not really seeing your point on this one

I don't know if you can really consider Fontenot the type of established hitter I was referring to, even though he has had a good amount of productive PAs (i think 600ish) at the big league level. It's hard for me to say if you can really expect that production out of him in the future, even if he only faces RHP.

I think the best way to put it is that strikeouts are useful to look at in terms of development and in terms of attempting to project how good a hitter will be. Obviously, a potential inability to make contact would be a red flag within that context. I'll tend to look at minor league K numbers more than I normally would with big league numbers. On the other hand, if a guy is an established productive hitter at the big league level, the strikeouts mean little to nothing beyond giving you a little information about how that hitter makes the outs he makes. You already know that he's productive and the strikeouts aren't really a negative.

I hate that my favorite sport is so freaking random.

The 2008 Cubs team were my favorites in the short time I've been a fan, and they still are. I will say that I still look at that 03 rotation (minus Estes) very fondly and that's the one aspect of that team that I'm always nostalgic about.

So you lessen the Cubs loss because it's such a crapshoot. If they won, would you say "Well, you really can't tell much by this NLDS victory because the playoffs are such a crapshoot?" It works both ways. But once again the Cubs looked like complete crap when it counted the most. Just like they did in 69. And 84. And 89. And 2003. And 2004. And 2007. And 2008. I think that speaks volumes more than 97 wins does. This franchise is incapable of winning the big games. I think crapping the bed so much throughout their history says a whole lot more than 97 wins does. I wouldn't determine how good the team was at all based on the postseason. If they had won a ring in 03, I wouldn't have suddenly changed my mind and thought that that team was a powerhouse or the best team in baseball. I would've had a hell of a lot of fun in the playoffs, but it wouldn't change my evaluation of how good the team was. And for the millionth time, almost every team, outside of maybe expansion teams from the last 20 years, has had plenty of seasons that they consider choke jobs, too. The Red Sox history was epic before 2004. The Cardinals blew a 3-1 lead in 96. The Dodgers hadn't won a playoff series since Gibson. The Braves and Indians of the 90s. We aren't some special case here despite what all the media hype about 100 years makes you think. Yes, the Cubs lost in ugly fashion in the playoffs. They were still a great team. The best Cubs I've ever had the pleasure of watching and I was happy to have enjoyed this season. The last 3 games don't change that. They may have left a sour taste, but they don't change it.

I just don't understand how people can put so much weight on the playoffs when it is clearly so much of a crapshoot. I hate to bring up an overused example, but are the 06 Cardinals a great team by virtue of winning a ring (despite a 162 game season clearly saying otherwise), or just a team that won games over a short stretch of games at the perfect time to win a championship? Yes, they're fun to watch and it's fun to root for a championship (and that's what we all want), but that 162 game season says a hell of a lot more about teams than a few best of 5/7 series do.

I don't know what the hell the accomplishment stuff is all about, but I'd consider the team approaching 100 wins much better than the 85 win team and, short of actually winning a ring, that (how good the team really was) is all that really matters to me. I will look back at the 2008 Cubs much more fondly than the 03 team. That probably puts me in the minority, too.

I don't know what point you're trying to make because it makes no sense. He literally did his part to get out of it 2-3 times but his defense didn't do their job.

It's bad enough when the idiots make dumb arguments about why teams win, but I can handle those a little better when we win.

Hearing idiots make dumb arguments about why they lost.

Forget it, if we can trade him for Peavy, Billingsley, Webb or some other great pitcher, we should do it. Great point made.