17 Seconds

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from? The excerpt shows nothing like that. I've seen similar things in other articles as well. I also saw a quote from Wood where he was like "I would have considered a one year deal" instead of "I would have accepted a one year deal" I'm not following how he's full of it because his agent never raised the possibility. His agent's job was to get him the maximum contract possible. It would have been stupid for him to offer a 1 year possibility before he could even shop Kerry around to check out the market for him. So he says he'd "have done anything to stay with the Cubs" and that he "would have accepted a one year deal", but he didn't think to tell the Cubs that? Okay. I guess he meant "I'd have done anything....accept tell the Cubs I'd have taken a one year deal. They have to figure it out on their own." If he was telling the truth, then he'll accept arbitration. Pretty simple. Probably, but I said about a month ago, there's a certain insult to accepting arbitration from a team that told you you're not wanted anymore. They said they can't afford him, not that they don't want him. Him and Hendry are good friends Semantics. They can't afford him because they want to spend their money on other people. They don't want him at the price he'll command. That's fine, but if he doesn't want to accept arbitration (which I wouldn't expect him to) then he shouldn't say that's he'd do "anything" to stay with the Cubs. I have no problem with Wood chasing the money.... everybody does. I just wish he wouldn't act like he would have stayed for one year when I don't think that's true.

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from? The excerpt shows nothing like that. I've seen similar things in other articles as well. I also saw a quote from Wood where he was like "I would have considered a one year deal" instead of "I would have accepted a one year deal" I'm not following how he's full of it because his agent never raised the possibility. His agent's job was to get him the maximum contract possible. It would have been stupid for him to offer a 1 year possibility before he could even shop Kerry around to check out the market for him. So he says he'd "have done anything to stay with the Cubs" and that he "would have accepted a one year deal", but he didn't think to tell the Cubs that? Okay. I guess he meant "I'd have done anything....accept tell the Cubs I'd have taken a one year deal. They have to figure it out on their own." If he was telling the truth, then he'll accept arbitration. Pretty simple. Probably, but I said about a month ago, there's a certain insult to accepting arbitration from a team that told you you're not wanted anymore. They said they can't afford him, not that they don't want him. Him and Hendry are good friends

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297233&page=38 hah

Dude, don't even try to compare Scott to Griffey and Garrett Anderson. He is significantly better than them and much more than just a "minor" upgrade, even if those guys don't decline more.

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from? The excerpt shows nothing like that. I've seen similar things in other articles as well. I also saw a quote from Wood where he was like "I would have considered a one year deal" instead of "I would have accepted a one year deal" I'm not following how he's full of it because his agent never raised the possibility. His agent's job was to get him the maximum contract possible. It would have been stupid for him to offer a 1 year possibility before he could even shop Kerry around to check out the market for him. So he says he'd "have done anything to stay with the Cubs" and that he "would have accepted a one year deal", but he didn't think to tell the Cubs that? Okay. I guess he meant "I'd have done anything....accept tell the Cubs I'd have taken a one year deal. They have to figure it out on their own." If he was telling the truth, then he'll accept arbitration. Pretty simple.

I think at this point, Hendry is going to do whatever it takes (well at least, I hope so). For the RF thing, would we be content with Luke Scott? He's cheap, but put up some alright numbers last year. He's the left-handed bat we're looking for. I don't know...we'll see what Jimbo can do. I would personally not like to see Luke Scott in a Cubs uniform. I don't know who else we could get, but Scott played LF last year with a poor AVG and OBP. He also was worse during Day games and on the Road. I see him, at best, as a platoon partner with Mark DeRosa in right, which makes Fontenot a starter versus LHP's. Luke Scott is also 30 years old with "lukewarm" numbers over his career. I would rather see Hoffpauir platoon there if we can't afford someone better. And I realize his defense in right will be bad. .257/.336/.472/.807 ^^^^^^^ Those are Scott's numbers in 2008 and while they are not great numbers, but they are certainly serviceable numbers and they are definately better then "poor average and OBP." I'm not saying he's great, but for his cost (less then a $1 million dollars) I would say they could be a decent under the radar move for the Cubs. Well to be fair, that's definitely a poor average (which doesn't really matter) and a poor OBP. I think he's a bit better than that though. He was pretty streaky last year. Those were his worse numbers since his rookie yr in 2005 and he still posted an OPS+ over 100. He K:BB remain virtual the same but his power went up from 10-18-23 in three yrs. .266/.353/.497/.850 is his career numbers, and he is only 30 yrs old, so it's reasonable to think he can put up a couple more yrs of that said line. Considering his salary is still under $1 mill, I'd say he is worth taking a flier on. Did you quote the wrong person? I pretty much already said everything you just did. I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that you you can't deny that guy's claim that his average/OBP were bad last year, which you did.

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from? The excerpt shows nothing like that. I've seen similar things in other articles as well. I also saw a quote from Wood where he was like "I would have considered a one year deal" instead of "I would have accepted a one year deal"

I think at this point, Hendry is going to do whatever it takes (well at least, I hope so). For the RF thing, would we be content with Luke Scott? He's cheap, but put up some alright numbers last year. He's the left-handed bat we're looking for. I don't know...we'll see what Jimbo can do. I would personally not like to see Luke Scott in a Cubs uniform. I don't know who else we could get, but Scott played LF last year with a poor AVG and OBP. He also was worse during Day games and on the Road. I see him, at best, as a platoon partner with Mark DeRosa in right, which makes Fontenot a starter versus LHP's. Luke Scott is also 30 years old with "lukewarm" numbers over his career. I would rather see Hoffpauir platoon there if we can't afford someone better. And I realize his defense in right will be bad. .257/.336/.472/.807 ^^^^^^^ Those are Scott's numbers in 2008 and while they are not great numbers, but they are certainly serviceable numbers and they are definately better then "poor average and OBP." I'm not saying he's great, but for his cost (less then a $1 million dollars) I would say they could be a decent under the radar move for the Cubs. Well to be fair, that's definitely a poor average (which doesn't really matter) and a poor OBP. I think he's a bit better than that though. He was pretty streaky last year.

I think at this point, Hendry is going to do whatever it takes (well at least, I hope so). For the RF thing, would we be content with Luke Scott? He's cheap, but put up some alright numbers last year. He's the left-handed bat we're looking for. I don't know...we'll see what Jimbo can do. I would personally not like to see Luke Scott in a Cubs uniform. I don't know who else we could get, but Scott played LF last year with a poor AVG and OBP. He also was worse during Day games and on the Road. I see him, at best, as a platoon partner with Mark DeRosa in right, which makes Fontenot a starter versus LHP's. Luke Scott is also 30 years old with "lukewarm" numbers over his career. I would rather see Hoffpauir platoon there if we can't afford someone better. And I realize his defense in right will be bad. Scott isn't great but he's better than you're making him out to be. His OPS+ for the last 3 season are 165, 119, and 109. His career OPS+ is 119. He's like an .850 OPS guy and that would be better than what we have.

Sounds like Wood was full of isht when he said he'd accept a one year deal.

This is probably the first Bears game I've actually been excited about since the Super Bowl

So you're saying that things are setting up perfectly for Hill? He's saying that it would be better to hang onto him for a while longer just in case... as opposed to just giving him away.

ahhhh well played

Sorry if it's a repost. It's from this... http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story It was posted earlier Go kill somebody, jerk. Wait what? I don't understand what that means. If it's hostile, why? I was just giving you more information. I'm confused

Sorry if it's a repost. It's from this... http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story It was posted earlier

Because Hill has no value. Which is my exactly point. Why give him up if it's just as a throw in? I think it would be better to just hang onto him and see if he can do anything at all in ST. It's pretty unlikely, but there's a shot. I don't see the point in giving him away, which is exactly what we're doing if he has no value like you say.

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived. I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade. I doubt if we could get Scott out of the deal without Hill being included. Marquis is more of a salary dump for us than a positive piece for Baltimore, don't you think? If you don't want Scott, we could probably keep both Hill and Marquis, but why do that? I'm just saying that I get the impression that Hill owuld not be a deal breaker and that we could get the same package with another guy. I could be wrong, I'm just getting that feeling.

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived. I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade.

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

Why do you act like you know for sure? You don't, none of us do. If the Cubs FO feels that Lee is on the way down, like many of us here do, then it wouldn't surprise me at all if they dealt him. Anyways, I think that would be more about dumping salary, rather than including him in a Peavy trade.

Can we just say that A-Rod sucks and Albert Pujols is either average or just below? Can we? Greene season by season OPS+ (leaving out his 64 AB 2003)- 114 95 97 100 64 Career- 95 Theriot (leaving out his 14 AB 2005)- 135 (134 AB) 72 93 Career- 88 Greene had a flukishly bad season last year, but his other 4 full seasons were all better than Theriot's best full season. Greene's career OPS+ is better than Theriot's one good full season. When you take into account the enormous difference in defense, I don't think you can even try to argue that Theriot is better. I also don't like the chances of Theriot coming close to his 2008 production again. He's a slap hitter who relies on a lot of luck.

Thew reason for the Padres trading Peavy is to dump salary, something they are desperately trying to do. Why the hell would they want to take on Marquis'? They want major league talent that is good, cheap, and can be part of their future. They don't want to pay 10 mil for a guy to suck for one year and then leave. They would kind of defeat the purpose of trading Peavy.

Giles refused to waive his NTC to both the Red Sox and Cubs during the 2008 season. You know that this is a job for these guys, right? When guys have made a home in a city for years, it's not as black and white as "play for a contender or play for a loser". There is much more in play. Oh and RBIs are never an important stat. They are a team stat.

Pretty much. I don't see Hoffpauir being good enough to merit playing every day, so the Cubs will have to look for someone in FA. However, there don't appear to be many decent guys out there who will be cheap. Eric Hinske, Sean Casey, and Richie Sexson don't exactly sound like good options. I wonder what it would take to get Nick Johnson. He's a huge injury risk but he's been pretty money when he's on the field. Plus he hits from the left side.

isn't lee a 10/5 player now? Doesn't matter.... he has a NTC. I have a feeling Lee wouldn't mind leaving Chicago if he liked the team he was going to.