17 Seconds

that looks really real

Aurilia is a righty Where did I say he wasn't? I never said he fits the "lefty" bill...... ISAID he fits in with Hendry/Lou's equally big obsession of being "versatile".

huh? I think Bradley's a much stronger player then JJ. I think he's saying he is fearing what would happen if Bradley got off to a slow start and people started booing him

I'm fully expecting the "Theriot shouldn't have the most AB's on the team" comment, but what is wrong with a .387 OBP guy (85 runs) leading off? Could be worse. There's always something to complain about, I'd save it for something more worthwhile than Theriot. I doubt Theriot has a .387 OBP next season.If he did has a .387 OBP it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have him at the top of the order, but I don't like how you completely discredit the most obvious answer as to why people might not want him there, and then ask people what's wrong with having him there. People constantly use that argument because it's a pretty good one. You can't just take it away because you think people say it too much.

just his speculation.

The definition of a freaky situation, or a freaky injury? You're not understanding that I'm talking aobut 2 different things. I'm talking about a freaky injury, so my definition of that would be "an INJURY that occurs when you would otherwise not expect one to occur." In this definition, the "when" refers to "when" his leg gets twisted, not "when" Bud Black pulled him down. Please tell me you understand the difference. If Bud Black did something that caused Bradley's leg to be subjected to something that could ONLY happen in that situation, you'd have a point. If he grabbed Bradley by the leg and started spinning him in the air by it, yes, that would be a freak injury because that would never ever happen to Bradley in any other situation. That's not what happened. Watch the video. He got a little tangled up and caught his leg funny. This could easily happen during any baseball related activity. I can't spell it out any easier to explain that a common injury caused by a common mistake is not freaky just because of how it happened, especially in the context of this conversation. You're simply not considering the context of this conversation. The conversation was never about how weird it was that he got injured like that. The context was us discussing how injury prone he was. The fact that his leg got twisted up while Black was holding him back is irrelevant to what we're discussing. IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION, all that matters is that his leg got twisted up, which could have happened a number of different ways. So yeah, I'll give you the "freak accident" part, but it is not a "freak injury", which is essentially what David was saying since we were basically discussing whether or not that should be counted against him and his always getting injured. Tell me what the difference between these 2 situations is -An injury prone baseball player slips, twists his leg, and tears his ACL while trying to catch his dog in his backyard -The same injury prone baseball player slips in the EXACT same manner (obviously this is impossible, but it's just hypothetical) while running the bases and tears his ACL Since they are both the exact same injury, one can't be considered a "freaky injury" while the other isn't. So what is the difference? The situation. One is a freaky situation, the other is not. One does not make him more injury prone than the other, and one does not make him less injury prone that the other. It's simply the same cause and injury in a different situation. The point, for the 5837th time, is that Bradley twisting his leg like that could have EASILY happened while playing baseball, and that is what's relevant since we're discussing his fragile body and how easily he gets hurt. I supposed now you'll give me the "don't reason with unreasonable people" quote to make yourself feel like you're right and that I'm being unreasonable. Really you're just not understanding what the whole point of this conversation is. Yes he got unlucky that the situation presented itself, and yes it was a freak "accident", but an athlete twisting his leg in not freaky. It just happened during a freak scenario. This. is. relevant. because. we're. discussing. Bradley. being. injury. prone. and. not. discussing. his tendencies. to. get. into. freaky. siutations. Goind by the definitions I've now explained to you, it was a freak accident/situation. It was not a freak injury. By now you must understand the difference, and you must understand which one is relevant to this entire thread. Either way, you're right. This needs to stop because it's pointless and it's gone way too far already. I just think (hope) by now that you understand what I am arguing and that I'm talking in a seemingly completely different context than you.

I think Levine said we should hear something this week

But that's the thing. The situation was absolutely freaky, but the actual trauma his le was put through, was not. That's what the point is. We're talking about him as a player and if this specific injury should be attributed to his fragile body. The actual scenario that made the injury possible is not what really matters. What matters is what actually caused the injury. Bud Black holding him back made the injury happen, but what actually CAUSED it was slightly twisting his leg. Can we agree that the way he twisted his leg could EASILY happen doing a number of normal baseball related activities? If we can, then I don't think you can call it a freak injury. A freak situation yes, but not a freak injury. It's all semantics at this point, but I think in the context of this discussion, what's relevant is the fact that he tore his ACL by twisting his leg, not that he tore his ACL while twisting his leg while his manager was holding him back from an umpire. One last time- the situation which allowed the injury to happen was freaky. The actualy trauma that occured to his leg and caused the injury was NOT freaky. That, to me, is what is relevant in the context of this dicussion. In any case I don't see how you can call my argument "unreasonable". I've already admitted that the situation was a freak situation, but the actual twist of his leg, which is what directly caused the injury, was not. I really think it's very clear. If this thread was about "weird injuries", then maybe you could call it a freak injury. But we're talking about a specific person and how fragile his body is. IN THAT CONTEXT, the relevant thing is that he tore his ACL while twisting leg. Not the weird activity that he was doing. What makes this possible is the fact that the twisting of his leg could have easily happened when doing something normal that he does every day. It's not like his leg was put through something unique that could have only happened in that situation. It just happened to happen in that weird situation.

I really can't stand how Hendry's obsession of getting "left handed, versatile, and athletic" is completely running this offseason. It doesn't matter how versatile of athletic a player is if he sucks. Miles can hit from the left. Sweet. Too bad he sucks while doing it. Aurilia is versatile. Awesome. Too bad he sucks while doing it. I'd much rather have players who are actually, you know, good.

I love how you don't have time to respond to me when you can no longer defend your weak arguments because you "have a fie and kid", yet you constantly take shots at me and reply to my other posts. awesome and yeah, you're right. a professional baseball player stepping awkwardly on his leg is just freaky. i mean, what are the chances of something like that happening? just.. weird. I thought we agreed that professional baseball players step awkwardly their legs fairly frequently. The occurrence is not unusual. In fact its commonness is precisely what makes it freaky when it results in a torn ACL. You'd have to be a fool not to realize that torn ACLs are very rare in baseball. So when one happens, the reasonable conclusion to draw is it was a freak thing, and not evidence that the player involved is weak or fragile or what have you. When it happens as part of a series of injuries, it's intentionally obtuse to ignore the probability that the player is fragile. Which is what I've been saying When a player who constantly gets injured twists his leg and, shockingly......gets injured..... I don't see how you can possibly call that a freak injury, even if it is a new injury he hasn't suffered before. Again, by that logic, every time he suffers an injury for the first, it's a "freak" injury. No, it's more like another piece in a pattern.

But you're right, I'd believe Levine over Olney too if the situation presented itself

I already told you that Soriano wuld probably have value if the Cubs ate part of his contract. We're been over this. When you said "every player has value" it was in the context of the dicsussion, which was that Soriano's contract eliminates trade value. You said he has trade value I said he doesn't because of his contract You said "every player has trade value" It's pretty clear that in the context of the conversation, that was meant to mean every player has trade value despite his contract situation. If that's not what you meant, then that point is not at all relevant to this conversation, since I've already said the reason he doesn't have value is his contract.

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney. I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this. Did you not read the whole e-mail? He says it's hard to believe that Levine would have info over "Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city." While I agree that I don't think Levine has any info here, if Levine came out with a report that no one else had, or Olney came out with a report that no one else had, I'd believe Levine every time over guys like Olney. Just because Levine isn't a "big time" ESPN guy doesn't mean he can't have info. When is the last time that Churchill ever got a scoop over any of the above mentioned? When did He or I ever say he did? He hears thing from a friend (who has been discussed here before) who is really reliable. Now, whether or not the friend is telling him exatly what is really going on is another story, but the definitely he gets stuff from re: The Cubs is definitely above any of those guys. He only gets bits and pieces though. By the way, he told me about a pretty big trade a few hours prior to when it broke anywhere else. Anyways I don't really seeing the point in your post. What are you trying to say? Churchill never claimed to be a reporter and never claimed to break anything. He tells me stuff because I ask. I don't really get your comment. It's like you don't like what he told me, so you're trying to find ways to discredit him when he hasn't really been credited with anything in the first place. Your quoting him like he is an authority. Levine > Chruchill any day of the week. We get it already, you don't believe Levine. Nobody will really know until things settle down, but to quote Chruchill, we might as well quote Banedon. Huh? Please explain how I quoted him as an authority. I even said right in the post that it's just another example of why I don't buy into Levine. If you can show me where I said "Churchill said this so it's pretty much a lock", then I'll admit I was "quoting him like an authority". Again, you're just mad because he said something you didn't like so you're trying to deiscredit him when I only casually mention what he says in the first place.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. And its impossible that his value changed due to inflation or the fact that he is improving his career numbers? To say he has no trade value is about as stupid as it gets. No, saying that 6/106 for a 33 year old player whose legs are breaking down is a contract is "as stupid as it gets". It's like you're under the impression that Soriano is likely to perform this way for the next 6 years. If he was 28 years old, okay, maybe. He's 33. Depending on who you listen to, a player's statistical prime is like 25-29 or likr 27-32. Either way, Sorianop is statistically out of his prime and you should expect to see some decline in performance around now. Obviously we don't know for sure when that happens, but it's a GMs job to try and anticipate that. I'll say it again, a 33 year old Soriano with legs that are breaking down is not worth 6/106, and that means he has no trade value. Its pointless to try to argue with someone that believes they know every thing. You refuse to argue with facts or anything other than hyperbole. Also, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are more intelligent to truly thin that Soriano has zero trade value. Every player always has some trade value. Hyperbole? Please show me whewre I used hyperbole? I'd say the vast majority of people on this board would agree that Soriano has no trade value right now due to his contract. That's just obvious. So Barry Zito has some ttrade value right now? A team would trade players AND agree to take on that whole contract? That's what you just said. Soriano only has trade value if a big chunk of his contract is eaten or if we're taking back a different bloated contract, like the Marquis trade. Zito = Soriano in what world? Zito completely imploded after signing his big contract. Soriano has actually improved on his career numbers. Of course Zito is not worth much, but I would bet that there is some team that would be more than happy to take Zito if SF would agree to eat a big portion of his contract. There are not LF's that put up .876 OPS growing on vines. Annnddd now you're changing your story. I never said anything about Soriano. You said, and I quote That has nothing to do with Soriano. Please explain to me how Zito, with his contract, has trade value.

Do you honestly believe that? That there's no player in the entire league (or even theoretically possible?) to have a player with a contract so bad no one would take him for free? How do you get "free" out of my post? By "free" he means not having to give up players. You said every player has trade value, meaning every player deserves talent in return.... not "free".

Teixeira is not 33, and Soriano is not Ramirez. At the very least, please stop the "stupid" and "ignorant" crap in every post, you are embarassing yourself badly enough as it is. You are exactly right about what they are willing to pay. Two years ago, nobody was willing to pay what the Cubs were willing to pay. The only thing that has changed is that Soriano is two years past his likely prime and the economy is collapsing, so there's utterly no reason to think anybody would be willing to pay that again. :-)) Talk about embarrassing. How about you actually start using facts instead of making "ignorant" statements. Of course the Cubs were willing to pay more, they signed him. Next thing you know, you'll be claiming that grass is green and that the sky is blue. It still doesn't change the fact that to date Soriano has earned his contract and last year exceeded his career numbers. Sure GM's are supposed to anticipate that players might regress, but in the case of DeRosa, he actually improved significantly after he was 32. And only a dumb GM would hope the the slight chance and not expect the much bigger chance. Couple that with the fact that Soriano's legs are breaking down, and it's pretty obvious what to do. And for the second time, nobody is debating what Soriano has done in his 2 years. I don't think anybody was worried about the first few years of the contract hwne he signed it. What poeple were and still are worried about is the second half.

Do you honestly believe that? That there's no player in the entire league (or even theoretically possible?) to have a player with a contract so bad no one would take him for free? I don't even know why we're going this far. The orginial argument was whether or not the Red Sox would take him for "free". Now somehow he's twisting into other teams, which wasn't even what we were talking about,. There is absolutely 100% no doubt in my mind that the Red Sox would NOT offer Soriano 6/106 right now. None. Not only is he the type of offensive player they avoid, but he's the type of contract and situation they avoid as well. So not only does he not fit into the way they build an offense, he also doesn't fit into the way they run their organization. If we were talking about some other organization, I could potentially seeing it POSSIBLY happen, just because I've seen how many stupid contracts are given out these days. The Red Sox and Theo Epstein? No.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. And its impossible that his value changed due to inflation or the fact that he is improving his career numbers? To say he has no trade value is about as stupid as it gets. No, saying that 6/106 for a 33 year old player whose legs are breaking down is a contract is "as stupid as it gets". It's like you're under the impression that Soriano is likely to perform this way for the next 6 years. If he was 28 years old, okay, maybe. He's 33. Depending on who you listen to, a player's statistical prime is like 25-29 or likr 27-32. Either way, Sorianop is statistically out of his prime and you should expect to see some decline in performance around now. Obviously we don't know for sure when that happens, but it's a GMs job to try and anticipate that. I'll say it again, a 33 year old Soriano with legs that are breaking down is not worth 6/106, and that means he has no trade value. Its pointless to try to argue with someone that believes they know every thing. You refuse to argue with facts or anything other than hyperbole. Also, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are more intelligent to truly thin that Soriano has zero trade value. Every player always has some trade value. Hyperbole? Please show me whewre I used hyperbole? I'd say the vast majority of people on this board would agree that Soriano has no trade value right now due to his contract. That's just obvious. So Barry Zito has some ttrade value right now? A team would trade players AND agree to take on that whole contract? That's what you just said. Soriano only has trade value if a big chunk of his contract is eaten or if we're taking back a different bloated contract, like the Marquis trade.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. And its impossible that his value changed due to inflation or the fact that he is improving his career numbers? To say he has no trade value is about as stupid as it gets. Wait, inflation? Have you seen what's been going on this offseason? Have you not heard about the economy? Adam Dunn is probably only going to get like 2-3 years. I haven't Burrell's name once. Manny is coming off yet another monster season and barely anybody wants to pay him. Outside of what the Yankees are doing, contracts are down, not up. K-Rod just got 3/37 when a year ago Cordero got 5/50. Tex just got a ridiculous contract, or are you not up to date on those things? And as far as Manny goes, we don't have any idea what Manny will get. To claim that nobody wants him is once again an ignorant statement. Its not a matter if anybody wants him, its a matter of how much they are willing to pay. And I'm not great at math, but isn't 3/37MM more per year than 5/50??? 50 million is more than 37 million

I see why you are having such a tough time grasping this. YOU are the one that's NUTS! It is BOSTON that is desperate, not the Cubs! The Cubs would be dealing from a position of strength, and regardless wouldn't be putting Soto or any regular, other than Soriano, in such a package. Most teams wouldn't be willing to give up such an offensive threat, and that makes a deal for Soriano even more attractive. Remember, I didn't say this was GOING to happen, only that it might. But if the Red Sox were indeed willing to see Beltran as a real offensive threat, how much more valuable would Soriano be to them? Are you Alfonso Soriano's mom or something? No, the old timers on this board know who I am, but for your info, I am someone that reads a lot of "lines", and because of my pedigree in the game, I know what needs to be done, and how to get it done. I am also able to read between those "lines", and keep my ears open. Although my contacts in the game are diminishing due to age and health issues, I still have a few of those, too. I'd love to believe you have a clue what you're talking about. Most people here would love to believe Soriano has positive trade value. But most people here live in reality, where it's clear that Soriano's contract was atrocious even when they thought he could stay healthy and play center field. Now that we know he can't do either of those things, the Cubs are stuck paying a superstar salary to a pretty good but declining player who is already more trouble than he's worth. You're talking two different things: Whether I have "clue" or not, and whether Soriano has any trade value. The answer to the latter is YES, how much will be settled like most barters, by what you get in return, WHEN that bartering is finished, not before! We'll see if Boston can get what they are looking for without coming after Soriano. Is that possible? Sure! Not likely, but sure! To the first, I'll debate any portion of the game you or anyone else would care to debate, but I'd hate to embarrass anyone, that's not my thing...but sometimes I have to come close just to get the attention of some of these dolts! You're really not understanding. If Hendry called Theo Epstein and said "You can have Soriano, all you have to do is take on his entire contract", Epstein would say no. Soriano is not even close to being their type of player, and even if he was, they wouldn't want that awful contract. If Boston was really as desperate as you say they are, they would have caved and given Teixeira that extra 15 million or whatever it was. Now you are sounding as ridiculous as you claim that BroLight sounds. Epstien would gladly take Soriano and his contract if he didn't have to give up anything. Its not like the Red Sox are hurting for money and its not like Soriano hasn't earned his contract to this point. It's not aobut earning his contract to this point. It's about whether or not he'll earn the rrest of his contract. You know that perfectly well, and it's the reason why people think the contract is awful. He's basiaclly be making 18 million until he's 39. Not good. I reallllly don't think he'd take Soriano back with that contract. I'm like 99% positive. I mean, think about it signing him as a free agent right now. We all know how Boston builds offenses. When was the last time they spent good money on a non OBP/walk guy? Plus there's his age and the fact that his legs look like they're breaking down. We all know how good the Red Sox usually are with not keeping guys too long and getting locked into many bad contracts. I mean, other than the draft pick they'd hypothetically lose, it's basically like they'd be signing a free agent. You think if Soriano was a free agent right now the Red Sox would give him a 6/106 contract? Forget the fact that he's 33 and showing signs of breaking down physically.... he's just not at all their type of player. They've been successful by avoiding those types of players and fully embracing sabermetrics (I mean, come on, they employ Bill james). So no, I don't see how you can call what I said ridiculous. To me it's ridiculous to think they'd give Soriano 6/106 now. To me that's about as likely as them trying to bring Manny back. Soriano would have been one of the top producing Red Sox last year. I know its popular to dump on Hendry for every move, but you should really try to argue facts instead of hyperbole. An .876 OPS isn't something that teams come by everyday. And yes, if Soriano was a Free Agent some team would pay him at least 6/106MM in the current market. Somebody might, because teams give bad contracts all the time. The Red Sox owuldn't. It's like you're not aware of how the Red Sox do business and build teams. Soriano is NOT their type of player. They owuld NOT give that type of contract to a player like Soriano. That is not trashing Soriano, that's understanding who the Red Sox are and how they build offenses. Might somebody else give Soriano 6/106 right now? Sure I could see that. Just like I could see them giving other bad cotnracts. We're dicsussing the Red Sox right now, and the Red Sox don't. Really every post I read by you seems to you're afraid to accept anything bad about anybody or anything Cubs related. When Soriano is making 18 million a year for a .800 OPS for the last 3 years of his contract, don't complain.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. And its impossible that his value changed due to inflation or the fact that he is improving his career numbers? To say he has no trade value is about as stupid as it gets. Wait, inflation? Have you seen what's been going on this offseason? Have you not heard about the economy? Adam Dunn is probably only going to get like 2-3 years. I haven't Burrell's name once. Manny is coming off yet another monster season and barely anybody wants to pay him. Outside of what the Yankees are doing, contracts are down, not up. K-Rod just got 3/37 when a year ago Cordero got 5/50. Tex just got a ridiculous contract, or are you not up to date on those things? And as far as Manny goes, we don't have any idea what Manny will get. To claim that nobody wants him is once again an ignorant statement. Its not a matter if anybody wants him, its a matter of how much they are willing to pay. I like how you specifically ignore how I said "outside of the Yankees". I mean, don't even try to act like you don't know the Yankees are playing a different game. They're opening a new stadium, have a ton of contracts from last year off the books, are coming off a season where they failed to make the playoffs, and THEY'RE THE YANKEES. Umm, isn't that what we're discussing? You're really making weak arguments that make no sense right now. Of course teams want him, I'm pretty sure that's a given. I'm sure every team wants every good player. We're discussing what teams are willing to pay for players. Everything that's been written this offseason has basically said there has been little interest in Manny. Anyways, Manny was just an example. OUTSIDE OF THE YANKEES, contracts are all down right now. This is being talked about everywhere. The economy is affecting contracts big time right now. Almost everybody is getting less than what they thought they'd be able to get, and you're talking about "inflation". Right. Really this is a dumb argumnet, because if you don't understand how a bad contract like Soriano's kills trade value, then you're not worth talking to. Have you not seen what Marquis' contract has done to his trade value? Obviously I'm not saying he'd a good player, but he's leagure average. A league average starter has value right now, but we're being forced to eat a million of his salary AND take back a crappy reliever making 3.5 million. Why? Because he has a bad contract. Just like Soriano.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. And its impossible that his value changed due to inflation or the fact that he is improving his career numbers? To say he has no trade value is about as stupid as it gets. No, saying that 6/106 for a 33 year old player whose legs are breaking down is a contract is "as stupid as it gets". It's like you're under the impression that Soriano is likely to perform this way for the next 6 years. If he was 28 years old, okay, maybe. He's 33. Depending on who you listen to, a player's statistical prime is like 25-29 or likr 27-32. Either way, Sorianop is statistically out of his prime and you should expect to see some decline in performance around now. Obviously we don't know for sure when that happens, but it's a GMs job to try and anticipate that. I'll say it again, a 33 year old Soriano with legs that are breaking down is not worth 6/106, and that means he has no trade value.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. And its impossible that his value changed due to inflation or the fact that he is improving his career numbers? To say he has no trade value is about as stupid as it gets. Wait, inflation? Have you seen what's been going on this offseason? Have you not heard about the economy? Adam Dunn is probably only going to get like 2-3 years. I haven't Burrell's name once. Manny is coming off yet another monster season and barely anybody wants to pay him. Outside of what the Yankees are doing, contracts are down, not up. K-Rod just got 3/37 when a year ago Cordero got 5/50.

Then why didn't they give him that contract to begin with? Are you serious? LOL Absolutely. Every team in baseball had a chance to valuate Soriano when he was a free agent. The Cubs presumably valued him more than anyone else, or else someone else would have given him more money. He has no trade value at his current contract. None. Zilch. He seems to be under the impression that just because they wouldn't have to give up players to acquire him (in this hypothetical situation we're discussing) that it means they're getting him for free or something like that. No, they're not. Not even close. They're getting him at the cost of a horrible, horrible contract.... something the Red Sox are usually really good at avoiding. Soriano at 6/106 right now is a bad move.

I see why you are having such a tough time grasping this. YOU are the one that's NUTS! It is BOSTON that is desperate, not the Cubs! The Cubs would be dealing from a position of strength, and regardless wouldn't be putting Soto or any regular, other than Soriano, in such a package. Most teams wouldn't be willing to give up such an offensive threat, and that makes a deal for Soriano even more attractive. Remember, I didn't say this was GOING to happen, only that it might. But if the Red Sox were indeed willing to see Beltran as a real offensive threat, how much more valuable would Soriano be to them? Are you Alfonso Soriano's mom or something? No, the old timers on this board know who I am, but for your info, I am someone that reads a lot of "lines", and because of my pedigree in the game, I know what needs to be done, and how to get it done. I am also able to read between those "lines", and keep my ears open. Although my contacts in the game are diminishing due to age and health issues, I still have a few of those, too. I'd love to believe you have a clue what you're talking about. Most people here would love to believe Soriano has positive trade value. But most people here live in reality, where it's clear that Soriano's contract was atrocious even when they thought he could stay healthy and play center field. Now that we know he can't do either of those things, the Cubs are stuck paying a superstar salary to a pretty good but declining player who is already more trouble than he's worth. You're talking two different things: Whether I have "clue" or not, and whether Soriano has any trade value. The answer to the latter is YES, how much will be settled like most barters, by what you get in return, WHEN that bartering is finished, not before! We'll see if Boston can get what they are looking for without coming after Soriano. Is that possible? Sure! Not likely, but sure! To the first, I'll debate any portion of the game you or anyone else would care to debate, but I'd hate to embarrass anyone, that's not my thing...but sometimes I have to come close just to get the attention of some of these dolts! You're really not understanding. If Hendry called Theo Epstein and said "You can have Soriano, all you have to do is take on his entire contract", Epstein would say no. Soriano is not even close to being their type of player, and even if he was, they wouldn't want that awful contract. If Boston was really as desperate as you say they are, they would have caved and given Teixeira that extra 15 million or whatever it was. Now you are sounding as ridiculous as you claim that BroLight sounds. Epstien would gladly take Soriano and his contract if he didn't have to give up anything. Its not like the Red Sox are hurting for money and its not like Soriano hasn't earned his contract to this point. It's not aobut earning his contract to this point. It's about whether or not he'll earn the rrest of his contract. You know that perfectly well, and it's the reason why people think the contract is awful. He's basiaclly be making 18 million until he's 39. Not good. I reallllly don't think he'd take Soriano back with that contract. I'm like 99% positive. I mean, think about it signing him as a free agent right now. We all know how Boston builds offenses. When was the last time they spent good money on a non OBP/walk guy? Plus there's his age and the fact that his legs look like they're breaking down. We all know how good the Red Sox usually are with not keeping guys too long and getting locked into many bad contracts. I mean, other than the draft pick they'd hypothetically lose, it's basically like they'd be signing a free agent. You think if Soriano was a free agent right now the Red Sox would give him a 6/106 contract? Forget the fact that he's 33 and showing signs of breaking down physically.... he's just not at all their type of player. They've been successful by avoiding those types of players and fully embracing sabermetrics (I mean, come on, they employ Bill james). So no, I don't see how you can call what I said ridiculous. To me it's ridiculous to think they'd give Soriano 6/106 now. To me that's about as likely as them trying to bring Manny back.