17 Seconds

The better Bruce posted this in the Aurilia thread

How about Pie's numbers ? .275/.323/.434 13 HR 60 RBI and 19 SB Also, Fan Graphs has Bradley's production in '08 being worth $16.9 mil. And yes, of course these numbers are sscewed due to Bradley hitting in a big hitters parking while DHing full-time. He could still reach these numbers, though. I really think we shouldn't put any stock into that fangraphs stat. It seems like all their numbers are extremely inflated. I mean, they had Willie Harris being worth 15.4 mil Last year. Yeah his defense is excellent, but c'mon. Point taken. Just sharing the info. No I know... I'm just sayin

Is hendry pretty much done after Bradley/Marquis? Is another SP after the ownership situation is resolved unrealistic? The Peavy thing, from what I've been told, probably can't happen until the ownership situation is resolved. However, Hendry will try to add a starting pitcher not named Peavy before spring training opens. So are you saying that Peavy is no longer an option, or are you saying that until the ownership situation is resolved, Hendry will try to find someone else for SP? Peavy is not an option for now. The ownership situation will have to be resolved first. Hendry has had no serious talks with SD lately, but he will continue keeping an eye on the situation. Until then, I fully expect the Cubs to obtain another starting pitcher. Any chance you could give us names that are being considered, or at least if they would be acquired through free agency or trades? I'd love to hear that Sheets is at least being considered.

How about Pie's numbers ? .275/.323/.434 13 HR 60 RBI and 19 SB Also, Fan Graphs has Bradley's production in '08 being worth $16.9 mil. And yes, of course these numbers are sscewed due to Bradley hitting in a big hitters parking while DHing full-time. He could still reach these numbers, though. I really think we shouldn't put any stock into that fangraphs stat. It seems like all their numbers are extremely inflated. I mean, they had Willie Harris being worth 15.4 mil Last year. Yeah his defense is excellent, but c'mon.

I give the edge to basketball because of March Madness has opposed to the bowl season. Not just the dumb BCS in general, but the fact that they wait so long to have the bowl games after the regular season ends. I find it incredibly anti-climactic. Plus I don't think there's any sporting event as exciting as March Madness.

Keep in mind that until last year, he had played absically his entire career in big time pitchers' parks, so his home run numbers are kind of skewed Really I see him as being the type of hitter as Aramis was in 2008. I'm not saying he'll be as good, I'm just saying I think that's the type of player he is at his point. Good but not great average, good but not great power, but a really good on base guy. Nothing wrong with that

Is hendry pretty much done after Bradley/Marquis? Is another SP after the ownership situation is resolved unrealistic? The Peavy thing, from what I've been told, probably can't happen until the ownership situation is resolved. However, Hendry will try to add a starting pitcher not named Peavy before spring training opens. Ben Sheets? Having Sheets and Harden on the same team would be like...well, you know. It would be like...awesome. I agree, for the week or so, that be some freak occurance that they both end up healthy at the same time. Freak occurance? It's not like Sheets only pitches 80 innings a year or something. He's only slightly less durable than AJ Burnett. If we had to pay true value for him, then no, I wouldn't do it. But all inidications this offseason are that he's going to come really cheap and will get no more than like 2 guaranteed years, maybe 3. I'd be all over that. Not a lot of risk there.

I'd say at the price is it sounds like Sheets is probably going to come at right now, 130 innings of him would still be worth it.

Is hendry pretty much done after Bradley/Marquis? Is another SP after the ownership situation is resolved unrealistic? The Peavy thing, from what I've been told, probably can't happen until the ownership situation is resolved. However, Hendry will try to add a starting pitcher not named Peavy before spring training opens. I doubt that Lowe will be affordable, especially since hes reportedly seeking 16 mil/year. Is there anyone else left who could be even considered an upgrade over Marquis? Why not just give Marshall the last spot and give Rich Hill a look see as a loogy? Because Rich Hill is still a complete mess? The odds of Hill suddenly figuring it out for 2008 don't seem very good right now. I think the idea of getting another starter is to not only allow Marshall to relieve, but to allow him to be backup for Harden when he goes down, which is basically a lock. I'd say it's about depth more than anything. I don't think we can plan anything around Hill being good in any kind of role next season. If he suddently does find it again, great, but it will be like a bonus.

Is hendry pretty much done after Bradley/Marquis? Is another SP after the ownership situation is resolved unrealistic?

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".