frostwyrm

If we're getting an RH platoon partner for Pie the guy should at least have enough power to be a useful pinch hitter, since he'll obviously start most games on the bench. Slap-hitting Willits is only a good PH option with bases empty and an LHP on the mound. That's too limited.

What use would Willits be except as the short end of a CF platoon and pinch runner? He has no power whatsoever, so his usefulness as a PH is very limited, and we no longer need a defensive sub for the OF. Willits seems a pretty poor use of a roster spot. He'd be a better fit for a team that has some defensive liabilities in the OF like Adam Dunn.

Cintron sucks but I have confidence that Lou will keep him a short leash. If we still had Dusty managing I'd be a lot more worried.

I'm hoping for Scott Hatteberg and Craig Wilson to be hot in April. That would bury Joey Votto at least until the break.

Almost all of Major League Baseball thought for years that the home run was a "fad" and hitting a bunch of them was basically unsportsmanlike. Almost all of Major League Baseball still thinks the save is an awesome stat. I can trump that. The Cy Young is mostly hinged on a pitcher's W-L record. Pitcher's W-L is one of the dumbest stats ever created in any sport.

Almost all of Major League Baseball thought for years that the home run was a "fad" and hitting a bunch of them was basically unsportsmanlike. Almost all of Major League Baseball still thinks the save is an awesome stat.

Jay Bruce for Juan Pierre!

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person. I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point? Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.) And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't? I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine. Wow. Either you really like cockfighting or you really hate the meat industry. I can't tell which. I really hate the meat industry. Fair enough. I don't like it either.

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person. I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point? Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.) And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't? I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine. Wow. Either you really like cockfighting or you really hate the meat industry. I can't tell which.

I don't see anything outrageous about Couch's column. I pretty much agree with all of it, and I don't mind admitting that my opinion of Aramis Ramirez as a person has dropped quite a bit because of this business.

Blech on Gary Matthews Jr. Looking to 2009 and beyond Matthews can't be projected as anything more than a 4th outfielder for a contender. To make him a logical trade the Angels would have to send enough cash to get his salary down to a bench player's level. I think the Angels are stuck with him. He's their new Darin Erstad.

Dusty on the #2 spot in the lineup: You can forget about Votto or Keppinger batting 2nd. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060221&content_id=1317995&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Freel will have the edge over Hopper because Freel can steal bases, which Dusty must have, and Dusty tends to make out lineups based on position. CF will be the leadoff spot and designated basestealer's position.

I thought Hamilton was expendable due to a glut at CF. Now they're looking at getting another one. I can only guess Dusty demanded another basestealer, preferrably a veteran.

42 ounces, actually (still heavy as god knows). But, do you really think pitchers in the 20's and 30's threw that much slower? When I was playing in high school, the average pitcher we faced was throwing in the low to mid 80's and the good ones could get it into the 90's. These are 16-17 year olds with no real conditioning and no real training. So, a 2008 teenager >>>>>>> 1925 grown man that is a professional athlete? The well-known Ruth bat that hit the first Yankee stadium homer was 46 ounces. It was auctioned for $1.26 million back in 2004. I don't know if Ruth used a lighter bat at other times.

I actually agree with CroMag about Ruth, to some degree. Ruth used a huge 46 oz. bat. There's no human alive who could use a 46 oz. bat against today's pitchers.

Still no word on whether the Tigers are bringing Neifi back.

Brian Sabean might be the only person on Earth who didn't believe the Giants needed at least one rebuilding season.

Guerra does have the ceiling to be a #1 if he ever got that curveball. I can't believe the Twins didn't get Fernando Martinez out of this trade at least. Awful, it sounded like the Red Sox were offering more a few months ago in those rumored trades. How would Veal, Gallagher, Pie, and Ceda compare to that package? Just for the sake of speculation. I know it wasn't likely the Cubs could afford to pay him, given the situation. The Mets will have to extend Santana at something close to full market value. If you look at all the young talent they traded plus the money involved it amounts to a huge price tag. The Cubs couldn't have afforded it. Frankly, I think a Pie, Marmol, Veal, Marshall deal trumps that one. And although its a ton of our young talent, I'd do it (although I have to say I'm not a fan of Pie and Marshall, iffy on Veal, and Marmol would be trading high/hes a reliever). But yeah, paying him would probably be an issue (but at least we have Sori!!!). Although if you traded Dempster, Marquis, and Lee you could easily cover his salary. Yeah, we'd have to dump some payroll. If we did Pie/Marmol/Veal/Marshall plus 7/140 we'd end up with almost no trade bait and no financial flexibility. Other than Lee and Lilly, it would be hard to move most of our people. Aram won't waive his no-trade clause and Dempster and Marquis aren't worth anything. Z and Soriano aren't going anywhere.

Guerra does have the ceiling to be a #1 if he ever got that curveball. I can't believe the Twins didn't get Fernando Martinez out of this trade at least. Awful, it sounded like the Red Sox were offering more a few months ago in those rumored trades. How would Veal, Gallagher, Pie, and Ceda compare to that package? Just for the sake of speculation. I know it wasn't likely the Cubs could afford to pay him, given the situation. The Mets will have to extend Santana at something close to full market value. If you look at all the young talent they traded plus the money involved it amounts to a huge price tag. The Cubs couldn't have afforded it.

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years. If the owner is truly looking it as a business and more about recouping his investment then winning baseball games, there's now way he would ever blow up the current team and rebuild. Are they the most efficient team? Absolutely not, not even close. They are marketing gold though. The PR loss in Chicago by trading the current star players in Chicago would be absolutely immense. Even if the team started winning 95-100 games a year in 5 years, it wouldn't make up for the economic losses they'd suffer in between. The Cubs are selling out, have good merchandise sales, and a good television deal. No owner who just looks at it as a business would ever attempt a total rebuild and potentially mess with that. I do agree with you though that the Cubs going up to 140 million in payroll right now would not be the best for the new owner. New owners don't want to see it go up that high because then they are expected to have to keep it that high. The Cubs could rebuild and still make money while doing it. The 2006 Cubs were absolutely horrible and expensive, but they didn't lose money. I'm sure most fans would sooner pay to watch a developing team win 66 games than watch that putrid overpaid 2006 team win 66 games. Attendance fell throughout the year in 2006 (and the reselling of tickets was a joke by August, you just have to look at the many threads on this board of people who couldn't give their tickets away), and TV ratings fell even faster. The only reason as many people even came as they did is that tickets were sold when many people thought the team still had a shot. It was really the end of the false hope from the 03 teams. If they hadn't made the moves they did in the winter of 06, they would have lost a lot of potential money during that season. And I'm not saying the Cubs wouldn't make money. It seems fairly obvious that no matter what they do they'll make a profit. They make more money by having lots of marketable players and at least the appearances of the chance at the playoffs ever year rather then have 2-3 years where there is no chance at the playoffs and some great teams. It's been shown lately that a .500 Cubs team will sell out every game. A team that before the season was projected to win 70 games? It probably wouldn't. A team full of youngsters? Maybe more television ratings, but not nearly the same merchandise sales. An owner has a right to expect a reasonable profit. We could sign Santana and other expensive players and reduce the Cubs' annual profit to 100 bucks. Technically the Cubs could "afford" to do this, even though the team's entire annual profit would only buy several nights worth of pizza and beer for the owner's family. If you just went $800 million in the hole to purchase the team you might want it to make more than pizza money. I completely agree with you on that, which is why a new owner wouldn't want to rebuild. That's not the best way to make the highest profit, even if it may be in the best long-term interests of the team. Maybe, but the Trib is going to have a hell of a time selling the Cubs if the new owner has to live another 200 years to break even on his investment.

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years. If the owner is truly looking it as a business and more about recouping his investment then winning baseball games, there's now way he would ever blow up the current team and rebuild. Are they the most efficient team? Absolutely not, not even close. They are marketing gold though. The PR loss in Chicago by trading the current star players in Chicago would be absolutely immense. Even if the team started winning 95-100 games a year in 5 years, it wouldn't make up for the economic losses they'd suffer in between. The Cubs are selling out, have good merchandise sales, and a good television deal. No owner who just looks at it as a business would ever attempt a total rebuild and potentially mess with that. I do agree with you though that the Cubs going up to 140 million in payroll right now would not be the best for the new owner. New owners don't want to see it go up that high because then they are expected to have to keep it that high. The Cubs could rebuild and still make money while doing it. The 2006 Cubs were absolutely horrible and expensive, but they didn't lose money. I'm sure most fans would sooner pay to watch a developing team win 66 games than watch that putrid overpaid 2006 team win 66 games. Attendance fell throughout the year in 2006 (and the reselling of tickets was a joke by August, you just have to look at the many threads on this board of people who couldn't give their tickets away), and TV ratings fell even faster. The only reason as many people even came as they did is that tickets were sold when many people thought the team still had a shot. It was really the end of the false hope from the 03 teams. If they hadn't made the moves they did in the winter of 06, they would have lost a lot of potential money during that season. And I'm not saying the Cubs wouldn't make money. It seems fairly obvious that no matter what they do they'll make a profit. They make more money by having lots of marketable players and at least the appearances of the chance at the playoffs ever year rather then have 2-3 years where there is no chance at the playoffs and some great teams. It's been shown lately that a .500 Cubs team will sell out every game. A team that before the season was projected to win 70 games? It probably wouldn't. A team full of youngsters? Maybe more television ratings, but not nearly the same merchandise sales. An owner has a right to expect a reasonable profit. We could sign Santana and other expensive players and reduce the Cubs' annual profit to 100 bucks. Technically the Cubs could "afford" to do this, even though the team's entire annual profit would only buy several nights worth of pizza and beer for the owner's family. If you just went $800 million in the hole to purchase the team you might want it to make more than pizza money.

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years. If the owner is truly looking it as a business and more about recouping his investment then winning baseball games, there's now way he would ever blow up the current team and rebuild. Are they the most efficient team? Absolutely not, not even close. They are marketing gold though. The PR loss in Chicago by trading the current star players in Chicago would be absolutely immense. Even if the team started winning 95-100 games a year in 5 years, it wouldn't make up for the economic losses they'd suffer in between. The Cubs are selling out, have good merchandise sales, and a good television deal. No owner who just looks at it as a business would ever attempt a total rebuild and potentially mess with that. I do agree with you though that the Cubs going up to 140 million in payroll right now would not be the best for the new owner. New owners don't want to see it go up that high because then they are expected to have to keep it that high. The Cubs could rebuild and still make money while doing it. The 2006 Cubs were absolutely horrible and expensive, but they didn't lose money. I'm sure most fans would sooner pay to watch a developing team win 66 games than watch that putrid overpaid 2006 team win 66 games.

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-buck basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years.

Obviously American GMs aren't using Albright's methods, otherwise there's no way Fuku could've been had for anything like 4/48. Prolly would've been 6/80, maybe more.