vance_the_cubs_fan

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

I've been saying to get Soriano for CF for months now, but at 18 million? I'd have to think hard about doing that. It's an extra 3 million more than what I'd like to sign him for, but is it really worth letting him walk and getting a worse CF and other bench players for that 18M? The Cubs need to add another bat. Period. If an extra 3-4 million is going to stop them from signing the best bat on the market, then they're nowhere near as serious about winning at all as they have been saying. The big issue is that it's a dry market. There's really not much there. On top of that, many teams have money to spend. The bad contracts signed in 2000 are now off the books of most teams. Many teams have 30-40 million to spend. With few targets, the bidding will rise because most teams know they won't get but one of these guys anyway. I like the fact that the Cubs seem willing to spend. I fear that it still won't be enough.

This doesn't bode well. It's going to be tough to build this team into a contender with the limited options available. If we lose out to Ramirez, it becomes that much more daunting. Hendry has dug him a hole here. He knows that he doesn't have time for a re-tooling year. If he doesn't get Ramirez signed, I fear what moves he might make. In an ideal setting, it would be re-sign Ramirez or retool for a run in 2008. Hendry doesn't have that option. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ramirez hold out for a 6/90 deal.

Here's the A's list of interviews.

I used to preach fiancial responsibility. Not so much anymore. Give Sori what he wants. We need a bat!!!!

The Rangers will interview Hillman on Tuesday. Link. Hillman apparently is making the tour while he is stateside. He'll also interview with Oakland on Wednesday and San Diego on Thursday.

Mark Derosa. :puker:

I like productive players. Bonds and Alou have at least been that. Weaver on the other hand, has been below league average for nearly his entire career. I like Murton, but Bonds would be immensely more productive than Matt. Bonds OPS + of 156 is much greater than Matt's 103. In fact, Bonds hasn't had one that low since 1986. Alou might be more productive as well. (132 OPS+ in 2006), though he has had a season in 2002 lower than Murton's 2006. But my plan for Moises isn't to replace Matt, but to split AB's fairly evenly between RF and LF, splitting as much time with Jones as he would Murton. On the other hand, would Weaver (76 ERA+) be any more productive than Marshall (83 ERA+) or Marmol (76 ERA+) or Mateo (87 ERA+) or Guzman (63 ERA+)? All are below average pitchers, but two of the four were better than Weaver this year. Weaver hasn't been better than average since 2003. He certainly doesn't warrant consideration for a fifth starter when we have cheaper, more productive in-house candidates. Wade Miller's 101 ERA+ is a better option for fifth starter than Weaver. So, while I might have a predilection for old, players, at least I like productive ones who are more productive than the players they would block as opposed to singing the praises of a player who is below average and less productive than the players he would block. (not too bad for my 25000 post! :D )

No, but it's a sign that he will not sign an extension before hearing other offers. We'll have to outbid the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Angels to keep him.

This is not good.

According to this, Soriano is going to ask for a lot of moola!

Nationals have asked for permission to talk to Jose Oquendo. Link.

Unless Taylor really outdoes Dillon tonight, I should have a victory. Thank-you, Marques Colston! Also, as bad as Leinart was as my starter, he was still better than Delhomme.

With the change in managers, Young is likely staying.

Depends on the cost.

Don't you know? Weaver is a great pitcher! His postseaon shows that! He's better than Verlander or anyone else on the Tigers. He's probably better than Santana on the Twins too!

I don't think I'd enjoy a championship any less with Bonds. In fact, I might even buy a pinstriped jersey with Bonds on the back just to celebrate the occasion.

Yeah and my ex-girlfriends used to give the lines, "It's not you, it's me." People lie.

If that's Hendry's offseason, we'll have a new GM by the end of July.

Bye, Kerry.

Given most of the options talked about so far this offseason, I'd be inclined to agree. But there are certainly a few people that could be available for the right price that I'd rather have patrolling left. Miguel Cabrera Manny Ramirez Adam Dunn Pat Burrell and maybe Barry Bonds would come in #5 on that list. That's more of an economics question than a baseball one. Like it or not, all five of those guys are better ballplayers than Murton right now. Other than Burrell, all of those have high costs in prospects. Bonds only costs dollars and likely would be cheaper than most on that list. You'd really rather have Barry for a couple years than Miggy? Miggy's worth the difference between costs and prospects. At any rate, I have a hard time believing the Reds are looking for too much for Dunn, either. And it might even allow us to unload some of these crappy relief pitcher contracts. No, I'd rather have Miggy, but one still needs to consider the cost. I'd like Dunn too. I think that is well-known as well. I don't think the Reds will give him away though. My point is that Bonds is only going to cost cash in a one-year commitment. Furthermore, if the rumors are correct, he won't cost nearly as much as he should. Bonds for 7-9 million is a bargain given his production. I don't think it should be dismissed. The question is, does he really only cost 7-9 million? I'm under the impression the bad publicity the Cubs could get as a result of signing Bonds might result in such a badly decreased consumer identity that it ends up costing the Cubs a lot of money down the road. I guess what I'm saying is that signing Barry can't be a priority. If he's the last piece that turns this into a competitive team, I'd be all about it... but if we win 65 games next year and he takes the home run record with a Cubs jersey on, the fans will immediately see and think that he was merely a publicity stunt... and a horrible one at that. But if our infield is Barrett, Lee, Durham, ARod, and Aramis... yeah, I'd be all about it. You're right. It may cost more than that. I'd probably set a ceiling around 10 million. If I could get him under that, yes...if more, no.

Given most of the options talked about so far this offseason, I'd be inclined to agree. But there are certainly a few people that could be available for the right price that I'd rather have patrolling left. Miguel Cabrera Manny Ramirez Adam Dunn Pat Burrell and maybe Barry Bonds would come in #5 on that list. That's more of an economics question than a baseball one. Like it or not, all five of those guys are better ballplayers than Murton right now. Other than Burrell, all of those have high costs in prospects. Bonds only costs dollars and likely would be cheaper than most on that list. You'd really rather have Barry for a couple years than Miggy? Miggy's worth the difference between costs and prospects. At any rate, I have a hard time believing the Reds are looking for too much for Dunn, either. And it might even allow us to unload some of these crappy relief pitcher contracts. No, I'd rather have Miggy, but one still needs to consider the cost. I'd like Dunn too. I think that is well-known as well. I don't think the Reds will give him away though. My point is that Bonds is only going to cost cash in a one-year commitment. Furthermore, if the rumors are correct, he won't cost nearly as much as he should. Bonds for 7-9 million is a bargain given his production. I don't think it should be dismissed.

Given most of the options talked about so far this offseason, I'd be inclined to agree. But there are certainly a few people that could be available for the right price that I'd rather have patrolling left. Miguel Cabrera Manny Ramirez Adam Dunn Pat Burrell and maybe Barry Bonds would come in #5 on that list. That's more of an economics question than a baseball one. Like it or not, all five of those guys are better ballplayers than Murton right now. Other than Burrell, all of those have high costs in prospects. Bonds only costs dollars and likely would be cheaper than most on that list.

I've heard two reasons. One is that he was't a Francona-guy. The other is that he wasn't as good in the technical aspects as they wanted.

Every time you show that picture, I want to kill you just a little bit more. Where is Vance's right hand in that picture? I'm injecting Sammy.