Jehrico

Agreed, but is BA as good for the minors today as it was in '03 or '04? They're still good, but I'm not as impressed as I used to be.

Tony Larussa is much more high-profile than . . . literally forgot his name. Point made :) For better or worse fame is a factor in public reaction. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but my initial comment considered the likely overreaction that never materialized. I thought people were going to call for him to be fired over it, which I don't think is prudent. He should be punished through both the courts and MLB. I just don't think he should lose his job if it is a first time offense, as was reported earlier. That shouldn't be interpreted as any form of leniency however.

Am I the only one who thinks BA has gone down in quality of analysis and reporting the last year or two? I thought they were much better a few years ago than what I've seen lately.

Inexcusable, but not enough to justify taring and feathering him.

Costs aren't the issue in ticket prices - it's demand. For the most part, a team is going to set ticket prices to maximize revenue. From an economic standpoint, the marginal cost of an additional fan is essentially zero - having one more fan through the gate doesn't have any related cost. To a certain extent a team might think investing $X million more in the team payroll will increase paid attendance by $Y million, but for the most part revenue and costs are independent. Now a cap might impact the division of that revenue between rich greedy players and rich greedy owners, but unless it reduced the demand for tickets I don't see it having an impact on ticket prices. If you want to have low ticket prices pick a sport with low demand like soccer, rugby, women's basketball or lacrosse. Yes, no, and no. Yes, demand is certainly part of the equation. Professional baseball, however, is a closed market with no competition There's MLB, and there's nothing else. The anti-trust exemption that MLB has been given by MLB carries certain implied responsibilities, so no, prices aren't (supposed to be) solely a function of supply and demand in this case. The owners are able to get away with some of the outrageous prices today without anyone in congress questioning them because of the ridiculously high operating costs that they would argue is necessary to "field a competitive team." If you could implement a salary cap and curb salary growth, it would take away their chief excuse sooner or later for maintaining the current growth rate of ticket prices. The only excuse they would have left is supply and demand, which they're not supposed to use due to their anti-trust exemption. And lastly, no, I have no plans on picking a lower demand sport like women's basketball or lacrosse. :)

Why not? What's the difference between quoting an educated, rabid fan off of a message board over any other schmuck with a publisher? A source is a source. I've seen just as much garbage in books nowadays as you can pull off of the net. Neither is more credible than the other, IMHO.

I'll give you a reason why there should be a salary cap... Ticket prices. If implementing a cap could curb salaries and reduce costs, making it so you can take a family of four to a game, enjoy a couple of dogs and drinks for less than $200, then I'm all for it.

Fixed. You had some extra letters in there.

That's my bet. Mine too. If true, it's just another sign that Dick Pole was really Dusty's pitching coach, and not Rothschild, because he sure didn't listen to him.

Looks like Cotts and Wood right now. Cotts still has 2 option years, I believe, and Wood may be getting primed for a quick DL stint with this triceps strain. I still think one or two relievers get traded before opening day. What could Eyre, Jones, and Pagan bring? Hopefully ARod or Cabrera. I'm still holding out hope for a trade of some of those guys for somebody that can really help the team. Eyre is the expensive reliever I think the Cubs could stand dealing, while Jones is the low OBP OF that could be replaced. I really don't know what they could bring in a deal. Teams are always looking for bullpen help, including Boston and New York. I'd want some payroll relief coming back the other way too :D Seriously, I doubt we'd get anyone who could help us this year for any of our potential trade candidates. I think a couple of B++ prospects is about the best we could hope for.

Looks like Cotts and Wood right now. Cotts still has 2 option years, I believe, and Wood may be getting primed for a quick DL stint with this triceps strain. I still think one or two relievers get traded before opening day. What could Eyre, Jones, and Pagan bring?

Mark me down for two votes, Vance.

You've said this before, and it's simply not true. Davenport adjusts for league difficulty and park effects. Feel free to provide examples. That's the problem with your argument. There's over a hundred guys who were rookies last year. You can find examples on both sides. I'm talking across the board. You really think I can't find some examples of where PECOTA was way wrong on a rookie? And I'm not talking about park effects or league difficulty. The league diffculty you're talking about, I believe, is West to Central, AL to NL. Not AAA to MLB. Take Pie for example. If he does another year in AAA, he's likely to hit the line that was quoted earlier. It's not reasonable to expect him to do as well in MLB as he would do if he did another year in AAA.

I know it turned out deadly for the Cubs the last two years, last year when Cedeno didn't come close to his PECOTA, and two years ago when DuBois didn't come close to his PECOTA. I don't think PECOTA has ever been very good for rookies. I disagree. Of the prominent rookies from 2005, only Cano and Reed look off to me: Robinson Cano 2005 PECOTA: .255/.298/.389 Real 2005: .297/.320/.458 Willy Taveras 2005 PECOTA: .252/.330/.334 Real 2005: .291/.325/.341 Clint Barmes 2005 PECOTA: .272/.315/.424 Real 2005: .289/.330/.434 Ryan Howard 2005 PECOTA: .259/.341/.508 Real 2005: .288/.356/.567 Jonny Gomes 2005 PECOTA: .265/.366/.491 Real 2005: .282/.372/.534 Garrett Atkins 2005 PECOTA: .287/.354/.461 Real 2005: .287/.347/.426 Dan Johnson 2005 PECOTA: .259/.343/.445 Real 2005: .275/.355/.451 Ryan Langerhans 2005 PECOTA: .265/.357/.456 Real 2005: .267/.348/.426 Russ Adams 2005 PECOTA: .268/.338/.396 Real 2005: .256/.325/.383 Jeremy Reed 2005 PECOTA: .286/.353/.423 Real 2005: .254/.322/.352 Mark Teahen 2005 PECOTA: .251/.322/.375 Real 2005: .246/.309/.376 Nick Swisher 2005 PECOTA: .244/.351/.423 Real 2005: .236/.322/.446 It's easy to back up a statement like that when you can hand pick what guys stats you use to back it up. Those guys aren't prominent just because they are, they are prominent because they did well. PECOTA projects numbers like that for a ton of rookies, only a few do that well. That's why the "prominent" ones stand out and make PECOTA look good. The standard deviation for rooks is considerably higher than veterans across the board. It's not a great, or even good, tool for projecting rookies. That's not to say there are any better tools out there though. I'd be foolish to say Pie is likely to his as well as Jones this year just based on Pecota. I didn't handpick the players. I pulled them off the first blog I could find that listed them. If you'd rather pick a different list of players, feel free. It's not a great or even good tool for projecting rookie performance even though it got most of the performances listed above right? Okay. .304 .333 .464 .254 .315 .427 .249 .319 .438 Those were Jones' 3 years before joining the Cubs. Do you think he's more likely to replicate 2006 or 2003-2005? Let me try to explain this a different way. It projects most rookies to put up numbers that are comparable to what they've done in the minors. Most rookies will not perform nearly as well their first year in the big leagues as they did in the minors. A select few, i.e. the cream of the crop, will perform on par with their minor league numbers. You've just highlighted the cream of the crop to back up your claim. The average deviation for a typical rookie (not the top 5% who don't suffer much of a dropoff after being promoted) is significantly higher than it is for a typical veteran with 3+ years in the league. Just because you can find a few notable cases where PECOTA was close doesn't mean anything. I can predict the Cubs will win every game they play. I'll be right somewhere between 60 and 90 times. It doesn't mean anything.

I know it turned out deadly for the Cubs the last two years, last year when Cedeno didn't come close to his PECOTA, and two years ago when DuBois didn't come close to his PECOTA. I don't think PECOTA has ever been very good for rookies. I disagree. Of the prominent rookies from 2005, only Cano and Reed look off to me: Robinson Cano 2005 PECOTA: .255/.298/.389 Real 2005: .297/.320/.458 Willy Taveras 2005 PECOTA: .252/.330/.334 Real 2005: .291/.325/.341 Clint Barmes 2005 PECOTA: .272/.315/.424 Real 2005: .289/.330/.434 Ryan Howard 2005 PECOTA: .259/.341/.508 Real 2005: .288/.356/.567 Jonny Gomes 2005 PECOTA: .265/.366/.491 Real 2005: .282/.372/.534 Garrett Atkins 2005 PECOTA: .287/.354/.461 Real 2005: .287/.347/.426 Dan Johnson 2005 PECOTA: .259/.343/.445 Real 2005: .275/.355/.451 Ryan Langerhans 2005 PECOTA: .265/.357/.456 Real 2005: .267/.348/.426 Russ Adams 2005 PECOTA: .268/.338/.396 Real 2005: .256/.325/.383 Jeremy Reed 2005 PECOTA: .286/.353/.423 Real 2005: .254/.322/.352 Mark Teahen 2005 PECOTA: .251/.322/.375 Real 2005: .246/.309/.376 Nick Swisher 2005 PECOTA: .244/.351/.423 Real 2005: .236/.322/.446 It's easy to back up a statement like that when you can hand pick what guys stats you use to back it up. Those guys aren't prominent just because they are, they are prominent because they did well. PECOTA projects numbers like that for a ton of rookies, only a few do that well. That's why the "prominent" ones stand out and make PECOTA look good. The standard deviation for rooks is considerably higher than veterans across the board. It's not a great, or even good, tool for projecting rookies. That's not to say there are any better tools out there though. It'd be foolish to say Pie is likely to his as well as Jones this year just based on Pecota.

I know it turned out deadly for the Cubs the last two years, last year when Cedeno didn't come close to his PECOTA, and two years ago when DuBois didn't come close to his PECOTA. I don't think PECOTA has ever been very good for rookies.

If I were Z and I had an offer on the table that was acceptable, I wouldn't have signed yet either. You know Hendry will make an 11th hour bid just before the regular season starts. Z has the rest of spring to see if Hendry will go up anymore. I'd be surprised if this is signed more than 48 hours before the end of camp. Right now, time is on Zs side, not Hendrys.

Cotts still has options, so he'll most likely be sent down, and it won't be a big deal. Does Aardsma have any options left? I'm not sure, but I'm doubtful. That may have been a big reason Hendry made the deal.

What an unbelievable call! DID I CALL IT OR WHAT!!!! I just had that feeling! Could you pick my numbers for me in next weeks powerball?

Hawk, DJ & Sox marketing man Brooks Boyer Really? They aren't pissing me off as much as I remember from last year. Maybe they're waiting for the regular season. The are playing nice-nice because they want that Cubs cross-over cash. Boyer was promoting a game at the Cell with Sammy Sosa in April... I was thinking the same thing. They have done some nice things in the cell, unfortunately they have the area surrounding the park that fans have to deal with. All the cool stuff inside doesn't do squat if your fans gotta dodge bullets on the way to their car. I'm still waiting for the "Free bullet proof vests to the first 100 guests" promotion. I tell you what, if you want to feel skinny and in-shape go to a Sox game. One look around at the fans and you'll feel better about your health and your life. I think you're only talking about half of the Sox fan base. The other half are the inbred extended family of William Ligue and his son. They're pretty skinny (but then again, so are most crack heads and crack wh***s). Very true. Hard to see the skinny inbred's behind the tubby's. ROFL!

Hawk, DJ & Sox marketing man Brooks Boyer Really? They aren't pissing me off as much as I remember from last year. Maybe they're waiting for the regular season. The are playing nice-nice because they want that Cubs cross-over cash. Boyer was promoting a game at the Cell with Sammy Sosa in April... I was thinking the same thing. They have done some nice things in the cell, unfortunately they have the area surrounding the park that fans have to deal with. All the cool stuff inside doesn't do squat if your fans gotta dodge bullets on the way to their car. I'm still waiting for the "Free bullet proof vests to the first 100 guests" promotion. I tell you what, if you want to feel skinny and in-shape go to a Sox game. One look around at the fans and you'll feel better about your health and your life. I think you're only talking about half of the Sox fan base. The other half are the inbred extended family of William Ligue and his son. They're pretty skinny (but then again, so are most crack heads and crack wh***s).

Hawk, DJ & Sox marketing man Brooks Boyer Really? They aren't pissing me off as much as I remember from last year. Maybe they're waiting for the regular season. The are playing nice-nice because they want that Cubs cross-over cash. Boyer was promoting a game at the Cell with Sammy Sosa in April... I was thinking the same thing. They have done some nice things in the cell, unfortunately they have the area surrounding the park that fans have to deal with. All the cool stuff inside doesn't do squat if your fans gotta dodge bullets on the way to their car. I'm still waiting for the "Free bullet proof vests to the first 100 guests" promotion.

agreed. i put eight grand on this game. :shock: You're Nucking Futz! :shock:

I don't understand how people don't see what the problem is. Throwing games is what I would take issue with. Betting on your own team to win doesn't seem all that evil to me. But, there is no way to know whether he bet for or against them. That's only part of the problem. The other half is how his losses could affect games he doesn't bet on. Even if he never bet against them, he was in with the bookies. You don't have to have the cash to make bets, you can bet on credit. Rose put himself in a situation where he could have found himself in a big hole to the bookies. That could lead to him being influenced to throw a game here and there. As a manager in MLB, he shouldn't have been associating with bookies, period. Nothing good could come out of him getting in debt to those types of people. he's claiming there were no games he didn't bet on. not sure if he said he bet equal amounts every night, though That may be, but the problem is he's putting himself in a situation where he can be influenced. Professionals who affect the outcome on the field shouldn't be keeping company with bookies. Doing so will always invite questions, and will undermine the game. It doesn't matter if the outcome of any of Rose's games were influenced by his gambling or not. You can't afford to make even the slightest of exceptions. As much as we all detest steroids, if there were a gambling problem today, it would be MUCH more damaging to MLB than steroids ever were or ever could be.

I don't understand how people don't see what the problem is. Throwing games is what I would take issue with. Betting on your own team to win doesn't seem all that evil to me. But, there is no way to know whether he bet for or against them. That's only part of the problem. The other half is how his losses could affect games he doesn't bet on. Even if he never bet against them, he was in with the bookies. You don't have to have the cash to make bets, you can bet on credit. Rose put himself in a situation where he could have found himself in a big hole to the bookies. That could lead to him being influenced to throw a game here and there. As a manager in MLB, he shouldn't have been associating with bookies, period. Nothing good could come out of him getting in debt to those types of people.