SCCubbieFAN

I don't think they were married, but still.... http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/12/17/brian-giles-allegedly-beat-his-pregnant-girlfriend-caused-misca/ Thanks for the link Banedon.

You say this as if it would be really easy. You can't just get rid of guaranteed contracts. Peavy is the guy who costs the most and could most easily be traded without needing to eat money. He might decide to take his lumps, but he doesn't sound like the type of guy who would be happy losing millions. I'm not saying it would be easy to do, but it would probably be as easy to do as accepting a low-end return for Jake Peavy. It all depends on what the magic dollar number is. And how close to it dumping Greene's contract got them. Towers has been pretty brazen here. Asking for the moon from the Cubs and grandstanding at the winter meetings was pretty much "all cards on the table". He's made it pretty clear that if he's giving up Jake Peavy he's getting a ton in return. So to a guy like that it might be easier to eat $3 million and deal Giles if that gets him under budget. Especially should Giles find San Diego not as welcoming post wife-beating and all. And wifebeater or no, business is business. Some team will be interested in Giles output at $6 million with no future commitment. The Padres are going nowhere in 2009 no matter what. Whether they have their biggest asset or not. Peavy knows this and he's locked in long term. Towers likely has the power to do whatever he wants, including keeping Jake Peavy and seeing what's out there when starting pitchers inevitably start dropping like flies when the season starts. I'm not arguing it's sound logic, just stating the likely realistic case. I'm late to this party. When did B. Giles lay some smackdown on the Mrs.?

Our local paper today says the Indians are discussing internally the results of Woods' physical and that the contract is not finalized yet. anyone else heard anything like this?

I asked the same question in the Ibenez to Philly thread. Burrell slugged 33hrs in 08 and is only 32, but it looks like he made over $14mil in 08 so he could be looking for quite a bit of coin. But I would think his D can't be any worse than Dunn nor Bradley.

I have not seen any talk about Pat the Bat this offseason. Can he play RF? he had a great 08 and is only 32.

Aren't those #s pretty close to the #s DeRo put up this year?

would any of you approve DeRo for Hermidia straight up, or should the Cubs get more than just Hermidia for DeRo?

Getting Hermida would make my offseason w/Scott being a close second. Cubs have good trade history w/Florida but a trade w/the O's is much harder for obvious reasons.

Is this deal done? Our local paper is reporting it is.

Yeah I should have read the whole article before I posted it I just realized where your name comes from. Awesome show!

Anyone think that since Wood (allegedly) came out and said he would take a 1 yr deal to stay w/the Cubs that the Cubs may still offer another 1 yr incentive laden deal like the one he just finished and that is why they didn't offer arbi and possibly be stuck with a much higher arbi award contract in the $9-$11mil range?

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument. Jer: I recall posts in other NSBB threads over the years suggesting that the players asso/union has some level of influence when it comes to contracts, the argument being that it is not good for ALL players for one to accept a deal that is substantially lower than another being offered. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm only saying I've never heard of a player accepting a one year deal for $8 mil over a deal for 3-4 years at $6, 7, or $8 mil per year as has been suggested in this thread. Can you provide an example of a player that did something like that? Randy Wolf signed a 1 year, 8 million dollar deal with the Dodgers a couple of years back (with a team option for a 2nd year) when there were multiple teams offering him 3/22-24 in that crazy starting pitching offseason. There are others, but they are decently rare. good example. thanks.

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument. Jer: I recall posts in other NSBB threads over the years suggesting that the players asso/union has some level of influence when it comes to contracts, the argument being that it is not good for ALL players for one to accept a deal that is substantially lower than another being offered. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm only saying I've never heard of a player accepting a one year deal for $8 mil over a deal for 3-4 years at $6, 7, or $8 mil per year as has been suggested in this thread. Can you provide an example of a player that did something like that?

I hope Wood comes back too, but no matter what you say about Wood (loves Chicago, money isn't everything, etc.) he would have to be crazy to take the Cubs 1-year deal and leave $16 million on the table (in your example). I'm sure he knows his medical history better than any of us and he should take the most guaranteed money he can find in case his medical problems reappear. I don't see why that is being described as having to be crazy. He's already financially set for life. He can do whatever the heck he wants. And he could end up making a heck of a lot more than $24m over 3 years if he takes a 1 year deal and signs longterm after next season. It's a risk, but it's not a horrible risk or a crazy decision. But won't the players asso be up in arms about Wood accepting a 1 yr arby deal over a 3 yr much more lucrative deal? No. And the union has absolutely no influence in the matter. I don't understand why people think the players association will come into play in this. Players give hometown discounts to stay where they want all of the time, it's not uncommon. Hell, how many times did Edmonds and other Cardinals allow their deals to be restructured to help the team bring other guys in? I'd like to see Z or Lee or someone like that step up and do what the Cards had some guys do several years ago for the team. But giving a "hometown discount" to stay with your current club or restructuring your contract is quite different from a player accepting a 1 yr deal for 8 mil over a 3 yr deal for 7-8 mil a year. When a player restructures his contract he typically gets the same amount of $$ or more in exchange for it being paid over a longer period of time. Hometown discounts don't typically equate to several million dollars being left on the table as has been suggested in this thread.

I hope Wood comes back too, but no matter what you say about Wood (loves Chicago, money isn't everything, etc.) he would have to be crazy to take the Cubs 1-year deal and leave $16 million on the table (in your example). I'm sure he knows his medical history better than any of us and he should take the most guaranteed money he can find in case his medical problems reappear. I don't see why that is being described as having to be crazy. He's already financially set for life. He can do whatever the heck he wants. And he could end up making a heck of a lot more than $24m over 3 years if he takes a 1 year deal and signs longterm after next season. It's a risk, but it's not a horrible risk or a crazy decision. But won't the players asso be up in arms about Wood accepting a 1 yr arby deal over a 3 yr much more lucrative deal?

has a deal centering around DLee for Peavy been brought up anywhere in this thread? If DLee is going to waive his NTC it will most likely be for a west coast team as has been previously mentioned several times.

So all those cylinders un-clicked right after they demolished the Cubs? Like I said, "IMO"; and "the right time" being the 1st round of the playoffs. By the time the Dodgers got to the Phillies in the 2nd round, the Phillies had gained their own momentum. I think you're completely overestimating the role momentum has in baseball, but that's just me. If you can't quantify it, it doesn't exist I assume you're being sarcastic, so I'll respond. I'm not saying momentum doesn't exist in baseball, but I don't think it has that big of an impact due to the pace of a game. In football or basketball for instance, it's so fast-paced that a few big plays in a row can get you (and the crowd) going for an entire drive, quarter, game, whatever. I don't have that same feeling with baseball. A big catch or a big strikeout can definitely carry over, but I don't feel that momentum in baseball carries over from game to game all that much. My comment was based on what I had heard about the Dodgers since Manny came over and the team's level of play over the month of Sept. The stats are as follows: Since July 1, all three had similar records: the Cubs were 47-30 , Phils 47-31, and LA 45-34. During Sept. the Phils and LA both went 17-8 and the Cubs just 12-12. During Sept:Dodgers .293, .380, .454, .843 Cubs .287, .350, .446, .796 Phils .263, .329, .483, .812

So all those cylinders un-clicked right after they demolished the Cubs? Like I said, "IMO"; and "the right time" being the 1st round of the playoffs. By the time the Dodgers got to the Phillies in the 2nd round, the Phillies had gained their own momentum.

IMO they were under pressure, but they also ran into a Dodger team that had played very good ball over the month of Sept and seemed to be clicking on all cylinders at the right time.

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year. O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post? Don't forget, the Angels almost got swept too in the first round, and they were considered the best team in the AL hands down for most of the year.

I'm still surprised the Cubs didn't get him after he cleared waivers

I can only pray it doesn't. A lot these are players are streches to repeat there years, Zambrano and Harden are huge health risks. A team with this high of a payroll and we get two no shows in the playoffs two years in a row, Heads should be rolling. I suggest you take a look at Joe Sheehan's article at Baseball Prospectus. The respected Sheehan says the Cubs and their fans should not lose sight of the fact that they had the best team in the NL and that nothing needs to be torn down. Joe further states that the Cubs became a victim of matchups in the NLDS. That happens in baseball. Heads should be rolling? Whose? You have a large number of players with long-term contracts and several of those with no-trade clauses. Zambrano may indeed be a health risk but he signed a multiyear contract extension for $91.5 million. This team needs some fixing. It doesn't need an overhaul. Bruce, while I agree w/you that over the ENTIRE season the Cubs were the best team in the NL and gave us some very exciting moments during this past summer, what really matters is who is the better team or rather which team is playing better baseball at the end of the season. I would have to hand that to the Dodgers. They had a terrific September, and the acquision of Manny really jumpstarted their offense. The Cubs managed some nice late in the year acquisions too but with Fukudome tanking the way he did, they really missed the boat by failing to get a decent impact replacement for RF.

Just goes to show you what a crap shoot a best of 5 series is, and no matter how well a team did in the regular season, if another team gets hot at this time of year, anything can happen. :roll:

How about a change being made where the team with the best record gets to choose who they play in the first round. discuss....

I saw a game last August from Rooftops On Sheffield, the venue at 3627 N. Sheffield, and had a great time. Well worth the cost which ended up being $150/person that included all the beer and food you could shove in your pie hole for most of the game. We had a group of 15 people for my brother's 50th birthday, and there were other groups/parties there at the same time. Y. Noah and Bob Avelini were also there. My 8 yr old daughter had quite a time with Noah. Good experience even tho the Cubs lost and it was hotter than you know what.