CUBZ99

Does Lilly = No Schmidt??

Myth. How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does. Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not. 4.50 is alot better than your making it out to be. This is the same statement that was been thrown around when Glendon Rusch was signed to his extention. If last year proved anything, it was that young players don't necessarily translate into an improvement. In fact, the Rusch of 2005 was quite a bit better than any of the 2006 rookie starters. (Its too bad the Rusch of 2006 was horrible.) Another example was Niefi Perez last year. He was widely considered the worst hitter in all of baseball, it turned out that Ronnie Cedeno may be throwing his hat in the competition.

Why would Schmidt's agent leak the news of the Cubs offer, if Schmidt was serious about wanting to come to the Cubs? Would seem that a leak of this sort would work better to boost an offer by another team, that Schmidt would really want to go to.

This is getting hilarious. :lol:

It's Bruce Miles, and all the other sites got their information from the San Fransisco Chronicle. They probably got their info from Schmidt's agent, which Bruce said was probably a false rumor that the agent thought up. I doubt that SI.com and ESPN would have it as such big news if there was only a blurb about it in the San Francisco Chronicle. Rotoworld, yes, but not SI or ESPN. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/11/28/schmidt.cubs/index.html Thats from the main baseball page from a reporter over at SI.com Yea I wasn't aware Bruce Miles' word was absolute truth these days. I never said it was. Tell you what, guys, I'm done with this thread. We'll sort it all out after Schmidt either signs or doesn't sign with the Cubs. I gave you my best information as I have it as of this moment. Have fun. Thanks Bruce. You are one of the many reasons I love NSBB.

There is no way that this can be correct. From Mlbtraderumors.com

For a guy like Peavy, nobody is untouchable. Aren't there some serious concerns about Peavy's health? I would be shocked if the Cubs dealt Gallagher. I would also be pretty disappointed because, I am really looking forward to going to Iowa and seeing him pitch next year.

Are these the same Cubs?? $15MM for Schmidt, another $6-9MM for Lugo.

Agreed. A guy in my office said Michael Kay had Lou on his radio show for a half hour Friday. He was talking about getting a young bench. Floyd doesn't seem to fit that bill. But, if he was a bench guy, I'd live with it. He also said they have an offer out to Gary Mathews to play CF. GMj scares me. His 2006 was worthy of a $10 million deal, but his career screams 4th outfielder. He's just so inconsistent. He's been abysmal in some years, but has had some good years as well, only in hitters parks. I agree but Mathews would just cost money while another CF may cost players. If the Cubs have the cash let them spend it and keep their players old and young and then trade the players to aquire the guy they want. IMO, it leaves the resources free and open. Yes, if cash is limited then you do the player trade. I'd rather spend on FA than trade myself. But, Mathews is a guy capable of completely crapping the bed next year. I've heard he might get $10 million. To me, if Drew is getting $14 then you've got to take him over a $10m GMj. Every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, and four times on first Saturdays of the month. I think I'd prefer 100 games of Drew at 15 million than 162 for GMJ at 7 million. I think I would prefer choice C. You would be crazy to pay a guy $15MM for 100 games. If you looked at Drew's last 100 game season you would see he only hit 15 HR and had 42 RBI. Unless you have unlimited resources, that is a waste of money. But I take J.D. Drew for 150+ games at $15MM, over GMJ at $7MM every time.

For #2, the Honorable Bruce Miles said with some certainty that he would be playing RF. Are they committed to J. Jones in CF or is that just smoke and mirrors? Sorry if this has been discussed. Heh, considering the thread size I'm sure it has. I am going out on a limb that Hendry finds another checkbook and signs Drew as well... :lol: :lol: Would be great, but I'm still in amazement that he spent the money to get Soriano, so I'm afraid to get too optimistic.

For #2, the Honorable Bruce Miles said with some certainty that he would be playing RF. Are they committed to J. Jones in CF or is that just smoke and mirrors? Sorry if this has been discussed. Heh, considering the thread size I'm sure it has. I posted this before, but Kaplan said on SportsCentral last week that Hendry loved Murton, but he was almost certain that Jones would not be with the team in Spring Training.

uh somewhere in this thread theres a point i made where 122 games of JD Drew is a heck of a lot better than 162 games of Soriano in CF. Unfortunately, you failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Last year 162 games of Soriano was >>> than J.D. Drew. I think we need to stop assuming that age automatically equals decline in production. Soriano is only 30 years old. It is possible that he can continue his better numbers over the next few years. Hahahaha...that's a completely ridiculous claim if you've read the whole thread. KC has provided a ton of facts to back up his case. There's still room to disagree with his case and provide facts to counter it, but he has provided a lot of factual information to back his opinion. To claim otherwise is to disrespect the work he has done here and lower your own credibility. Sorry, I'm trying to keep up with the whole thread. Look no further than last year when they both played the whole season and I would take Soriano's numbers over Drew's any day of the week. Screw the arguement, I will take them both and never compare them to each other again. Preach it. I agree, I would love to have them both.

There have been a few sources say the Cubs got him wanting him to bat leadoff. Also, his stats seem to show he's more comfortable and performs better batting leadoff. Didn't Bruce say he'd be leading off? All I remember Bruce saying today is that he'll be playing RF, which is different than what we'd been hearing, so maybe his spot in the order will change too....But Bruce might have said that. Yes, Bruce said he would lead off.

uh somewhere in this thread theres a point i made where 122 games of JD Drew is a heck of a lot better than 162 games of Soriano in CF. Unfortunately, you failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Last year 162 games of Soriano was >>> than J.D. Drew. I think we need to stop assuming that age automatically equals decline in production. Soriano is only 30 years old. It is possible that he can continue his better numbers over the next few years. Hahahaha...that's a completely ridiculous claim if you've read the whole thread. KC has provided a ton of facts to back up his case. There's still room to disagree with his case and provide facts to counter it, but he has provided a lot of factual information to back his opinion. To claim otherwise is to disrespect the work he has done here and lower your own credibility. Sorry, I'm trying to keep up with the whole thread. Look no further than last year when they both played the whole season and I would take Soriano's numbers over Drew's any day of the week. Looking no further than one year is gonna screw you over mor often than not. 2 of the last 4 years Drew has played 100 or less games. 2003 Drew 100 games 15 HR 42 RBI .886 OPS Soriano 38HR 91 RBI .863 OPS 2005 Drew 15 HR 36 RBI .932 OPS Soriano 36 HR 104 RBI .821 OPS Cleary more games with Soriano is much more productive than less games with Drew.

uh somewhere in this thread theres a point i made where 122 games of JD Drew is a heck of a lot better than 162 games of Soriano in CF. Unfortunately, you failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Last year 162 games of Soriano was >>> than J.D. Drew. I think we need to stop assuming that age automatically equals decline in production. Soriano is only 30 years old. It is possible that he can continue his better numbers over the next few years. Hahahaha...that's a completely ridiculous claim if you've read the whole thread. KC has provided a ton of facts to back up his case. There's still room to disagree with his case and provide facts to counter it, but he has provided a lot of factual information to back his opinion. To claim otherwise is to disrespect the work he has done here and lower your own credibility. Sorry, I'm trying to keep up with the whole thread. Look no further than last year when they both played the whole season and I would take Soriano's numbers over Drew's any day of the week.

Do you know of the top of your head what the longest NSBB thread is/was?

uh somewhere in this thread theres a point i made where 122 games of JD Drew is a heck of a lot better than 162 games of Soriano in CF. Unfortunately, you failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Last year 162 games of Soriano was >>> than J.D. Drew. I think we need to stop assuming that age automatically equals decline in production. Soriano is only 30 years old. It is possible that he can continue his better numbers over the next few years.

Can we please stop with the 8 years until we actually find out the terms of the contract? If the contract is 6/90MM with two team or vesting option, that would be a big difference from a straight up guaranteed 8/136MM contract.

Yes, you would think that the Cubs just signed Neifi to a 5/200MM contract.

I'm just wondering what the infatuation with Crisp is? He doesn't hit for average, doesn't get on base all that often, has a low SLG%, and doesn't seem like he'd be all that beneficial to the team. I'd rather sign Roberts and trade Izturis and Eyre for a SP instead. Yeah, his .740ish OPS is pretty depressing. but he does have a novelty name.

does anyone realize that would trash Pie's development completely? did anyone contemplate that maybe this strong push for Soriano was due to Drew's demands shooting up considerably the past few days? Or possibly that Hendry doesn't think Drew would want to come to Chicago?

Now thats just ridiculous. I realize you like Drew, but lets try dealing in reality.

They both played 2b?

And you are? What if he repeats his 2005 and 2004 numbers? Wouldnt it be better to sign a guy who has great numbers in 2006, 2005, and 2004, like Drew? Especially since he will be cheaper and sign to a shorter contract? That paragraph right there sums up our point (as well as KC's marginal EqA analysis). Or his 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2006 #'s? I LIKE drew. However, I LIKE Soriano. I LIKE that the promise that John Mcdunnough made is coming true. It's TIME to win for the Fans, that was John's MO. On drew, you have to take into account he will miss atleast 40 games. So then you have to average his #'s out with whoever is replacing him for those 40 games. I really just don't see the point some of you are arguing. Ok I do see the point. I just don't know why such a big deal is being made about picking apart #'s and being so negative about Soriano. I see Soriano as a sign for CHANGE in the Cubs orginazation. Why not stop picking apart soriano's #'s and instead talk about what this means for the Cubs? Just this summer. . . Our manager was terrible, our coaching staff couldn't teach a stick to hit, our owners would never pay for a winner, and they would never sell the Cubs to someone who WOULD. Now we are at. . . Our manager is great, our coaching staff is great, our owner wants to give us a winner, and the Cubs might even be sold. There's no reason for negativity now, Cubs fans. This is a happy time to be a Cubs fan. . Why do you have to take into acount that Drew will miss at least 40 games? Again, for the past 3 years he has disproved the thought that he is a fragile player. What does he have to do to overcome that stigma? Why do you not take into account that Drew might not want to play for the Cubs? Is there something that we are all missing in regard with J.D. Drew's desire to play for the Cubs?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him. Of course, because Lord knows some people around here would rather walk on a bed of hot nails than give Hendry any credit. Hendry got lucky. Big time. All he had to do was throw in some more cash, probably as little as $1 million a year, and Ramirez doesn't wait until Sunday to sign. Yet he decided to take a huge gamble. It was not a good strategy. Lucky? So now every good thing Hendry does is only because of luck? It was a good strategy and it paid off in spades for him. The level of constant complaining on this topic is mind boggling. The Cubs just went out and signed arguably the top free agent offensive player available and all some of you can do is make flimsy arguments as to why he should have went in another direction. If Hendry fails to sign Soriano....and Drew, Lugo, and CLee all sign with other teams, every member of this board mercilessly piles upon Hendry and claims he can't sign the "big" FA. Out of the 4 players listed there are only TWO that have even expressed an interest in playing for the North Side, Soriano and CLee. Lugo has been rumored to want to play for the Mets and what makes anyone on the board think that Drew would choose the Cubs over the Red Sox? FYI not every free agent wants to come to Wrigley Field.