Splendid Splinter

So why isn't Daric Barton signed by the Cubs yet? Away: .254/.367/.399 in 217 G (737 ABs)... hit 20 out of 26 career HRs away Maybe moving from AL West to NL Central would help boost his SLG a little bit... He's also a 2nd half player... .274/.385/.445 (1st half... .236/.345/.328)

This times 10000. Considering the posting should be lower than Dice-K, it'll be like 12-14M/yr for Darvish + 30-40M posting fee (guessing here)... Where do I sign? Although I'm hoping it'll be even cheaper than that overall. Anything under 100M (contract+posting) will be a steal IMO. The only problem I see is the money upfront for the posting.

LOL I was thinking the same thing. These guys got millions. You think they could afford to buy brand new shoes for something like this or at least get them cleaned up nicely. Then again... CJ's shoes could be the "vintage" look.

If this happened... the appeal will still be upheld. He knowingly let someone give him an injection and he didn't ask or they didn't tell him. He's an idiot IF that's what really happened and he should be banned for 100 games instead. Pleading ignorance like that would be the dumbest/worst thing to do in an appeal like this. Basically... this would be the Barry Bonds route. Sure it would work in a federal court where the other side has to prove it. But with the MLB, they don't have to prove anything. The players has to prove it. This could happened to him and whoever gave him the shot told him it was something else, but that still doesn't matter. He was honest and didn't know it had steroid in it instead in that situation, but he still let the guy inject him. Here is a paragraph from the article, "Even if a player can establish he did not knowingly take a banned substance, he must show he was not in any way negligent to appeal successfully. For example, taking a dietary supplement that contains an unlabeled performance-enhancing drug would not be sufficient grounds for appeal, but if he were to show that he ingested something that was either tampered with or no player reasonably could have assumed to have been contaminated, the appeal might succeed." Basically, in your situation, Braun would have to been sleeping, napping, passed out, knocked out, etc.. and a guy inject him with a shot of steroid. Then Braun would have to find proof that this happened to him. Like I said before... it's gonna have to be an extreme situation in order for MLB to overturn their appeal. There's a possibility and if Braun can prove it, good for him, but I'm not holding my breath on this one. Either way, Braun is screwed and his rep is "ruined".

I mean he could telling the truth that he didn't knowingly took a banned substance and it will won't matter to MLB. The appeal will still be upheld. It's gonna have to be a situation like that Mexican team. It was a tainted food or drink and that "Braun" went out, investigated, and found proof that it was tainted and he had no way of knowing or assumed that it was tainted. Yeah it's a possibility, but I would give it less than 1% though.

Obviously I am holding out the smallest hope ever. Maybe you should read the next 3 paragraphs after those 2... That's why basically nobody have ever successfully won their appeal in MLB. It's going to be really freakin' hard to have proof if something was tampered with or "reasonably" assumed something was contaminated. The only one I know that won their appeal was that Mexican team I believe? They won because they ate tainted beef or something crazy like that.

We're the Cardinals going to break even or lose money if they offered $3.4 mil more? Or do the owners just not want to cut further into their profit margins? It's not that it's $3.4M more IMO. Pujols was offered $22M/yr from Cards and $25.4M/yr from Angels. Pujols wasn't making that much. Heck not even close. Pujols made $16M last year. Cards offered $6M more every year on top on what he made last year so for them to match the Angels... they would pay $9.4M more every year than they were used to paying Pujols. $9.4M is a big difference than $3.4M to a payroll like the Cards and add to the fact that Pujols would take up like 20-25% of it. That's why I believe Cards offered the best contract they could without killing them. I think they "probably" could've matched Angels offer, but the GM would've had to be creative in the future and also hoping that a couple of their prospects would be impact players to keep the payroll down and help Pujols out. That won't happen with the Angels. With their new TV deal, they should have a high payroll the entire time. Plus Wells will be gone after 3 years, Hunter and Abreu after this year, Haren and Ervin Santana could be gone next year as well. Angels also got Bourjos/Trout/Trumbo/Walden as good cheap young players and some interesting pieces in the minors.

Why you think Erlin is a touch overhyped? He hasn't been a top 100 prospect yet (although he could be this offseason when they come out with the new one) and haven't heard anyone saying that he's an ace caliber pitcher or even a great #2. I've seen the guy pitched and I wish he was in the Cubs minor leagues. Honestly I like him more than Martin Perez (Perez just reminds me of Marmol- his stuff is so good that it's hard to keep it in the zone if hitters aren't swinging) although Erlin doesn't have the stuff, but his control is off the chart. I think he got a very high floor and will be a productive pitcher for a long time. Anyway the reason I said Erlin/Wieland is that it would've been more pieces that Rangers could throw in on a deal. I agree that Diamondbacks got the legit centerpieces to do a deal for Garza. Profar is the only one from the Rangers that I would put on the same level as Skaggs/Parker. I want Cubs to offer like Garza/Marshall/Byrd for Justin Upton and see if they would bite. Heck you can replace B Jax with Byrd if that's what it takes. As for Feldman, seriously, why would Cubs ask for him in the deal?

Hopefully Feldman wasn't the centerpiece of that deal. If Feldman is a sticking point and not a throw-in, I'm not sure I want any part of a Garza deal now. Haha... I'm trying to figure out why the Cubs would "ask/want" Scott Feldman in the first place as part of the package. He got 1 year deal left at 6.5 M then an option year for 9.25 M (600K buyout). He doesn't fit in with what Theo/Hoyer want to do.

Not sure if this article been on here yet.... http://espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/story/_/id/7329188/chicago-cubs-talked-matt-garza-texas-rangers-source-says But I know the last part of the article hasn't been on here... Hopefully Feldman wasn't the centerpiece of that deal.

Yeah I was gonna say... Who is their best hitting prospect? AJ Pollock? I wouldn't mind a package of either Parker/Skaggs, Pollock, and whoever for Garza then flip B Jax in a package for 3B help or whatever if you want to go that route. Although B Jax and Pollock in the OF 2 years from now would be interesting.

I think Rangers would be great system to go after if you want the "quantity over quality" although the quality is still good to very good unless the centerpiece is Profar or Holland like you said. If they still had Erlin and Wieland (traded for Mike Adams), I think a deal would be done IMO. Who would you want beside one of Skaggs/Parker from Arizona in a package for Garza? *did see a ton of Texas League games this year as Northwest Arkansas Naturals stadium is only like 5 minutes away from here so I got to see the Rangers AA team several times so I'm familiar with a few of these prospects*

Don't forget that Soriano was 30 (31 Jan that offseason) and Werth was 31 1/2 when they sign their FA contract. Fielder is 27 (won't be 28 until next May). 2 guys were toward the end of their prime years while Fielder is just going into it. So he got 3-4 more years to get to the same age as them when they were FAs. My guess is that Fielder will put another 5 fWAR or 2 by that time.

Lets say somehow Fielder goes to Seattle.... Theo better call to see what the asking price for Smoak is. Just to see if he's worth going after. Not sure if Smoak can play LF at Safeco.

Why would the posting fee matter to him? It's not like he gets any of that money. Unless you meant by contract instead of posting fee.

Why not get Stewart and let him play 3B and see if it works out? Or just have Stewart/Baker platoon at 3B? A Stewart/Baker platoon would probably be pretty good IMO that would cost like 4 mil or so... Don't forget defensively would be upgrade over A Ram which would help out Castro some.

Chin-Feng Chen?

I'd trade Marmol for anything remotely good, so yes. Maybe the Angels sign Pujols/Fielder and we can send Marmol there for Morales. I'd like to know if morales can walk without the assistance of crutches before making that deal. I rather trade Marmol for Bourjos instead of Morales if we're trading with the Angels. Mainly cuz I want NOTHING to do with Morales.

I thought Darvish could leave next year as well without going through the posting process.

Someone finally mentioned the injuries that Vitters seem to get every single year and it usually happen during one of his hot streaks. Also... does anybody know what the average age for a MLB rookie? Just curious, but I wanna guess that it's around 24 yrs old... Vitters still has a couple more years left before he hits that age. Heck even 24 is still young for a MLB player. This is the same reason why Castro should be playing at SS for the next several years instead of trying to move him off to 2B/3B. They're both still young enough to improve their game.

Here's what I would do with Fielder... I would offer him a 6 year deal with 2 option years (maybe team 1st year team option then 2nd year player option) on top of that so it can be 8 years. I would also put in a opt out clause in like 4th or 5th (or even both) if Fielder wants out early and get another big deal (like CC this offseason). I think that would interests Fielder and Boras more in that it gives them options with the contract. The only problem I'm having is how much per year on average to offer Fielder. I can see anywhere from 17-25 mil/yr. Is this possible or just wishful thinking here by me?

HEY MAN! Ethier didn't commit a single error this year! That says something (about his range)! Weird thing is... I think he was like 5th in NL RF in UZR this year. He had something like 5.3 UZR. UZR can be weird/fluky at times. Ethier past 3 years were like -7.2/-13.5/-16.5 before this year of 5.3 or whatever it is exactly.

Mike Trout

I found a great article on this, actually, although it illustrates only gross ticket revenues. http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3081:mlb-average-postseason-revenue-over-the-last-decade&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39 Using their math, the Cards' gross ticket revenue estimate for 2011 postseason was $3.5M (NLDS) + $6.6M (NLCS) + $14M (WS) = roughly $24M. Not included are: game-day expenses ancillary game-day revenues (parking, merchandise, concessions etc) indirect revenues that accrue the following season (new or increased sponsorships, added season ticket sales, etc). Naturally all of those things are going to be sketchy to estimate, but you've got $24M in the pot right off the bat. Just for kicks... lets say total extra revenue from the postseason ended up at $24M. Realistically, how much of that 24M do you think they'll put towards Pujols? Half? 75%? Don't forget it'll be divided up by however many years the contract is unless this money is just strictly signing bonus that's paid upfront... I mean yeah I can see them throw a few more millions on top of what they offered, but it's more like 1M/yr more or like 10M (max IMO) added to the signing bonus that's upfront. Still the overall AAV of the deal isn't going up that much to where Pujols is going to accept it right then and there. Plus I know ownership are paying extra on the stadium so the loan can be done quicker and I can see them throwing part of the postseason revenue into that as well and gonna pocket some of that revenue for themselves too.

Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!