Jehrico

perhaps with the bad economy people have decided to cut obscenely-overpriced athletic wear out of their lives. Make that "overpriced, low-quality, wear-once" athletic wear out of their lives. I bought a couple of underarmour golf polos and tees this year. All of them look like crap now. Heaven forbid you wash them with anything else. The Adidas shirts made from a similar material that I got at the same time for less money still look like new, even though I've worn them twice as much and washed them twice as much. Screw underarmour.

Geo has proven he doesn't even have to speak to communicate.

I would have liked to have had him back as a backup for that price.

Not people...just me. I think that lowly of Kevin Gregg. I think it was the worst move we've made this offseason. Closer experience/success doesn't mean squat. Want proof? Look at the last "closer" we acquired from FL. Alfonseca sucked for us after leaving Florida. Dolphin Stadium, other than 2007 which was a fluke, has always been a pitchers park. Gregg is 30, so it's probably not reasonable to expect any kind of improvement going forward, as he should now be on the downside of his peak. Kind of like Alfonseca when we got him. He very well may prove me wrong, (I hope so), but I'd be more than happy to see him offloaded in some sort of Peavy deal since the Pad's need a closer. It might be wishful thinking, but if we had to swallow 2 mil to help SD get a closer out of that deal, I wouldn't be upset in the least about it.

I'll be surprised if Gregg performs well enough to justify paying more than 2 mil for. Hope he proves me wrong. As far as being an upgrade over Howry...If you're talking the 2008 Howry, you're not setting the bar very high...

Good. Keep declining to do that. Just once I'd love to see the Cubs do the smart thing and have Gregg close while Marmol stays in his more valuable role. Also glad Marshall will start. Hope Samardzija earns his way in there too. I'd like to say good too on the Marmol part...but I'm sure he's doing it for the wrong reasons so I won't share the sentiment. Once Gregg sucks (and he will, IMO), and Marmol dominates again, that arrangement will change.

Whatever the package is, we need to include Gregg too. Addition by Subtraction, if nothing else. No way they are moving Gregg to the Padres. San Diego wouldn't want to take on the salary and Lou and Hendry seem to think he will be a valuable member of the pen replacing some of Wood's production. If anyone else is likely to be added to the above list I would think it would be Cedeno. I don't see Hill of much interest to the Padres. Maybe Olson, Vitters, Hart, Stevens, Cedeno and Wuertz? I thought that right after we picked him up that the Padres were reported as being interested in him as a candidate to replace Hoffman since they don't have a closer now... He'll, I'd pick up $2 mil to get rid of him in a Peavy deal if that's the bottom line. Then they'd have a what, $3 mil closer?

Whatever the package is, we need to include Gregg too. Addition by Subtraction, if nothing else.

Sign me up for the "Incredible deal for Philly" group.

maybe, but isn't that exactly how Steinbrenner built up the Yankees? okay sure, they're not a small market team, but he bought a crappy organization for nearly nothing and poured tons of his own resources into it. they're in by far the largest media market in the country and they had more championships than any other organization in professional sports when he bought them. also he was wildly unpopular during the '80s; yankee fans regarded him as a liar and an an embarrassment to the organization, and they gave a standing ovation at yankee stadium when it came out that he had been banned from baseball "for life." which only goes to show how dumb the fans were. just because he wasn't popular doesn't mean he wasn't good. he single-handedly made the Yankees what they are now and built up all of the related media companies, etc. to fund his team. Now all the other owners (who have been either unwilling to invest in the team at a loss for a few years to build their franchise or have lacked the business acumen to do so) are acting all butt hurt about it. I don't feel sorry for them in the least. The reason the Pirates, Royals, etc. have been bad is only partially due to funds; low (self-imposed) payroll is no excuse for the Pirates trading for Matt Morris or giving Kendall and Wilson ludicrous deals. Lets be fair here...He made a great decision to buy the yankees at an extremely discounted price when they had some good young pieces and had better days ahead. They went on a run from 76-81 and were pretty good. Then he started running the team into the ground in the 80s, and he started acting like an idiot firing managers every other day and what not. There was a pretty good stretch where he was the main culprit as to why the Yankees were so up and down and out of the playoffs for over a decade. He deserves the criticism there. He also deserves recognition for learning from his mistakes, and realizing that if he puts a winner on the field, he'll make money, regardless of the cost. He wasn't always a good owner, but he learned, and more importantly, he learned what the potential revenue stream is for the NY market if you put a winner out there. With Steinbrenner you have to take the good with the bad. Luckily for the Yankees fans, the bad is mostly in the past.

Very stupid article. He's basically running the scenario as if MLB suddenly implemented it full effect with no phased plan. If they did this, they'd either set a date so far into the future to let current contracts unscrew themselves, or they'd have alot of exemptions for current contracts. It'd be a phased deal. That argument above it totally bunk and ignorant. He's making some bold assumptions that just aren't valid about how payroll floors and ceilings and caps would be implemented/calculated. It's also bogus to just throw out make believe situations like this as well. You can "What if the Yanks and Mets each made $20 trillion more with their new stadiums, while all of the other teams lost half of their revenue?" He's also forgetting that there are more small market owners in the vote than large market owners, they'll be protected in the final agreement, I'd guarantee it. They're the majority, they're the ones that are hurt by the unfairness of the current system, they'll take care of themselves. Lastly, this ending piece of garbage is priceless: Baseball isn't continuing to prosper. Baseball once upon a time was "America's Pasttime." The NFL and NBA only dreamed of ever passing MLB in popularity. I don't know what planet the author of the article lives on, but the NFL and NBA have been taking big chunks out of baseballs popularity, especially in the urban environments. I've never seen a single stat that says otherwise, so why the author is willing to spew such garbage is beyond me. Maybe he's only referring to the short term...everyone's been making money, so why fix it? Didn't baseball almost have to contract a couple of teams because they weren't making money not too long ago? Hasn't the average income of the small market team been on a slow decline for some time now? Just because they're profiting now doesn't mean there aren't negative trends that need to be addressed that indicate everyone might not be making money if they don't turn the ship around in the future. Lastly, the last line about "everyone has a chance to win it all..." would someone hit him on the head and ask him to see how often a team goes from worst to the playoffs in MLB, then compare that to how often it happens in the NBA or the NFL? Can someone have him check the percentage of playoff slots over the last 10 years for each league for small and big markets? His entire argument is based exclusively on the short term, and he's made no attempt whatsoever to actually, you know, check any numbers to see how MLB really has been doing compared to their competitors (NBA and NFL). And his little "doomsday" scenario also assumes the ownership would be dumb enough to suddenly agree to such a radical change overnight without any logical plan for long-term implementation. No way the Royals would help pick up the tab on part of the Yankee's payroll that is over the cap like he suggests. Just stupid. How in the hell does this guy write for Baseball Prospectus?

That's a great post. All the more reason SD should trade him cheaply to us now while they can.

Well, the whole point is that we wouldn't want a ton of ABs for Gathright. Thats not his value, his value is on the bases and playing defense. Johnson Gathright Hoff Cedeno Font Backup Catcher If thats the case then we'd have to go with an 11 man pitching staff. I said earlier that that shouldn't be a problem, but looking at our BP, I think it might be unless we make some trades. So, assuming Marshall isn't moved to the rotation, Shark goes to the Iowa rotation, and we didn't want to lose anyone (besides Hill), we'd have to have a 7 man pen. But, I have a feeling Wuertz (~$1.2M) or Gaudin ($2M) might be traded. Marmol Gregg Wuertz Cotts Gaudin Marshall--1 option Guzman--No options Stay in the minors Samardzija--2 options Ascanio--1 option Hart--2 options Wells--3 options Hill --No options Petrick--2 options Pignatiello--2 options Between Lou's quotes about the pitching staff and the way the entire league has gone, I can't see the Cubs bucking the trend and going with an 11 man pitching staff. Gathright has to take Hoffpauir's spot to make the squad, and with the fact that we already have at least 2 capable players that could move to the OF in the late innings (Johnson off the bench or DeRosa shifting to RF and Fontenot coming off the bench) I have a hard time seeing how Hoffpauir isn't the better option. I understand the double switching/leading off the next inning argument, but I would say that Fontenot would be the guy to be most often coming into the game in that particular situation. If the Cubs signed Adam Dunn for RF (adding a left-handed slugger that also is more likely to need a defensive replacement) then it makes more sense to choose Gathright over Hoffpauir. I don't see that same appeal if a player like Bradley is signed though. It still doesn't change the fact that Pie will be traded at some point (unless they suddenly decide to go with him as a starter, which would be a shock) but I don't think it would be wise for the Cubs to only have 2 legitimate bats on the entire bench (Fontenot and Johnson). Agreed on most points, except the Bradley vs Dunn part. If we sign Bradley, given his injury history, I want him used as a PR or something like that no more than Dunn.

I always like to call him Izturdis.

I don't think the staunchest supporter of this move wants Gathright to be given a chance to start. It's pretty much the last spot on the bench or bust.

How about some wild theorizing? Hendry thinks he'll still get Peavy (and Bradley), and thinks Pie will be in that deal, so he needed Gathright for pinch running, double switches, etc. Time will tell about getting Peavy, but the acquisition of Gathright certainly means Pie is going somewhere in a trade. Is this so? I think (hope) he was brought in as a safety net in the event of a trade, and Hendry thinks that is more likely than not. If a trade doesn't work out and Pie remains here, hopefully they'll pay him his one or two months or whatever and let him go. The option to do that I think prevents it from being a guarantee that Pie is a goner.

Would the Orioles have been any worse off had they just signed your average slick-fielding, no bat AAA SS? Considering how little bat you're already working with with Izturis, and how his defense nowadays is hugely overrated from his early years with the Dodgers, I'm thinking no...

Great quote. And fixed...

No outside the box thinking allowed.

I suppose it's too much to ask that it doesn't guarantee him a spot on the 25 man roster... Not a horrible signing, but it'd be better if they had that flexibility. I imagine he probably would have signed elsewhere if it weren't.

Number one, that's opinion, not fact. Number two, if that were the case, then what's the point of even having a conversation on a message board? He could post front page articles and they'd be gospel. No point in having discussion. Point taken. Perhaps I should have said that Colin knows more than just about anybody else on the board. What I'm getting at is: Prima facie, what Colin is saying here is may strike us as ridiculous. But since Colin is extremely knowledgeable we shouldn't dismiss it outright just because it doesn't fit into our existing frame of what is valuable in a baseball game. For years (and unfortunately in many circles to this day) batting average, RBIs, and pitchers' W-L records were considered to be among the most important statistics with which one could judge the value of a player. Thankfully, OBP, OPS+, WHIP, and more advanced sabermetrics are beginning to take precedence. However, I think most would agree that our understanding of defense, including reliable defensive metrics and grasping the true value of defense, lags far behind our understanding of offense and pitching. So, since Colin is so knowledgeable about these areas, if you disagree with his assertion back it up with some statistics rather than just dismissing it outright. First, I didn't disagree with him at all. Two, I think you're take the concept of an internet message board waaaaay to seriously. It's a bit pompous to declare to the board who the smartest person is and that everyone should respect their opinions.

How much salary flexibility did they have coming into the offseason? I'm guessing well more than enough for Peavy and Furcal.

Maybe they're hoping he's still got a little pixie dust hanging around him... Or maybe MacPhail is still unreasonably fascinated with former Cubs players.

then and you replied The guy was talking about players who the Cubs have rumored to be interested in this offseason and you said that. I just gave you 5 articles that linked the Cubs to Hermida. You're acting like a 12 year old kid. First, those 5 articles you linked DID NOT link the Cubs to Hermida. Only one of them did, and it was an obscure blog link. Second, re the "zero rumors" comment, it is NOT a rumor that Hendry was interested in Hermida. As widely reported as that was, that's probably a fact. Like I mentioned earlier though, there were no rumors that Hendry ever actively looked into Hermida. No offers were made or solicited by either side. When you're talking trade rumors, which is pretty much the whole point of this forum, normally trade rumors involve one team offering another team something for something else. As I explained earlier, but you insist on ignoring, is Hendry wasn't working any other deals while he was working on Peavy, and Floridas demands for Hermida were exposed as unreasonable before the Peavy deal was shelved. His name made an early list and was quickly taken off without being pursued is what it sounds like to me. Interest in a player who fits a need doesn't mean we were ever linked to pursuing him. Also once again, why are you insisting on engaging in a pissing match over this? You're acting incredibly petty. edit...nm...you're right. You win. You're the superior poster. Just drop it already.

Number one, that's opinion, not fact. Number two, if that were the case, then what's the point of even having a conversation on a message board? He could post front page articles and they'd be gospel. No point in having discussion.