Bull

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/6154.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=LCwAE1TFB2scz.nmPVAI3w-- You think Soriano is worth 18 million a year? I don't think you'll find many people here who believe Soriano is worth $18 million a year, especially as he gets older. IMHO, nobody is worth $18 million. obviously, nobody should be. but if someone will pay it its "worth" it. that's the point.

the key flaw in their system is it judges worth based only on FA salary. many teams can pull up guys like Kubel or Scott to be competent enough with 800+ OPS where you don't need to waste $10m on Free Agents for slightly improved production. but the FA market had been (until this year) obviously tremendously flawed, where guys like Jose Guillen can make 8 figures annually, and a team that doesn't feel they have an player in-house who can adequately play the position gets desperate enough to give out stupid contract like Jose received. that's what Bradley is being compared to. i think it's fair to say that compared to other recent FA signings we got a pretty reasonable deal. it's really the only aspect of the offseason i'm happy about. http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/6154.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=LCwAE1TFB2scz.nmPVAI3w-- I don't know that anything really changed this year...at least not permanently. The market wasn't "flawed" it was a market. If people pay x for a service, then that service is worth x. If they no longer do then the market has changed, maybe even corrected itself. Maybe you're saying it was due for a correction, but a correction implies that a change was due and should therefore last. I think this year was a result of a) larger than normal supply, and b) the fear of what the economy will do to ticket and merch sales this year. (I think the "bad economy" is a self fulfilling prophecy - but that's another story) Bottom line - we've seen a temporary market correction before and in two years guys like Jose Guillen will be making 8 figures again.

Things that could go wrong: Zambrano injured Lilly's 204 and 207 innings over the last two years catch up to him Harden never pitches in 2009 Dempsters 2008 was a fluke No one steps up and takes the 5th spot Bullpen sucks hard wear and tear of winterball too much for Marmol Aramis in and out of line-up all year Lee continues his downward slide Soriano is gimpy all year Bradley misses half the season Miles has a great spring -- and a rotten summer Fukudome doesn't figure it out Soto has a sophomore slump (we thought it wouldn't happen to Hill) Middle infield realizes they're no good Bench performs up to expectations. This has the potential to be very, very bad. But with a few break and good health, it could be very good.

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year? Not at all! Those backloaded contracts ARE the competitive team this year. A certain level of backloading of contracts is fine. and contract 7,8,9 million in consecutive years is just natural inflation, and or the expectation of increased ability/production in the player. I know Hendry has backloaded more than this (eg Marquis) but its not like he's heavily backloading or deferring ala the D-backs.

To be fair, it was .5 RA last season, iirc. He's not going to hit every year like he did last year. true. but point still stands. It should be figured in when calculating his value. If anyone here thought his hitting was MORE valuable than his pitching, they'd be suggesting him for RF. Noone has done that. Noone is saying his hitting is more valuable.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200806020.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO200808150.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN200808210.shtml Three games in which Zambrano's offense contributed to a run, and the Cubs won by one. Wait, in the first game you posted he puts the Cubs behind by three because of his lack of self control, and in the second game he puts the Cubs in a 5-1 hole because of his pitching. I'd still rather have Z the good pitcher over Z the hitter. Is it your belief that Z's good hitting is detracting from his pitching? So now Zambrano's hitting doesn't count if he pitches poorly, cause he's supposed to be a good pitcher, and his hitting obviously doesn't count if he pitches well cause who cares, they were gonna win anyway? No. It's my belief that Z had an extraordinary year with the bat and it would be more comforting to know he could control games more with his arm than having to depend on his bat. Is that so odd? I'll take an order of both please. That's the point. I'd rather have his pitching than his hitting, sure. His pitching makes him very good. His hit adds a little value (according to meph -.5 RA, right). So with both he's not just very good. He's very, very good. Make sense?

Pie - imo - they waited until he was too far up the ladder to try and shorten his swing. Cory - ditto, with the added complication of being rushed Choi - could have been great, but never really recovered from his hand/wrist injury Hill - hurt his back and was never the same Prior - hard to say he didn't reach his potential. Just a damn shame that he got abused like that in his first full season Montanez - didn't have the talent to start with; bad scouting job here Cedeno - I'm not sure that this isn't what his talent level really is; needs a full-time job in mlb to find out Corey - forgotten his name so soon? - biggest problem was a torn ACL in the middle of a breakout season.

I understand that but he hires people to run it he doesn't run it for him. Yes a GM overseas it, and makes most of the final decisions. But most of the time you listen to the minor league scouts, experts that you hired and what they want to do. It's not humanily possible for one person to run a major league team, and everything that goes on with that and put together a great farm. Alot of the time you're only as good as the people you have working under you. So far Hendry has done a poor job hiring people to run the farm for him. He brought in Tim Wilkins, and things appear a little better, but not as good as it should be yet. That's kind of the definition of management. Its his job to make sure they do their job, or find someone who can. That said, I don't think scouting is the problem, (I kind of like the toolsy philosophy) but rather, player development. If you scout and draft tools, then your player development better be great.

Has Lou ever stuck to a very strict platoon (or even a strict platoon at all)? I really don't remember. And it's a sign of a bad move when you make one and end up hoping that - at best - you can match your production from last year. It's kind of inevitable for a team with 97-wins, a lot of top-notch seasons and a ton of backloaded contracts. I didn't expect the overall team to be as good this year as last, but the second base move in particular is still frustrating. DeRosa's likely production is probably the best we can hope for from the Fontenot/Miles platoon. Had we kept DeRo, we'd have a chance, at least, that he'd replicate last year. yes and no. Fontenot/Miles likely won't match DeRosa version 2008, but DeRosa 2009 won't match it either.

WHO CARES?? well since that's what he probably meant by "balanced", I'd say its pretty relevant. Well...that's my contribution to this pathetic, threadless excuse for a thread.

A gross oversimplification, but the point stands.

i clicked this expecting a link to this LOL thread at cubs.com instead i opened a new email to Lol@cubs.com. Me too why to an email? me too. Its because it has an @ in the middle of it. Your browser thought it was an address and created a link.

This can't be done. I've tried. :rotfl: beautiful Meph.

I'd give him 2 years 10mil with a mutual option for the third....the guy is extremely reliable, is a proven winner, and would work nicely with his sinker in Wrigley. My second option would be Sheets for 7mil for one year. Kind of like the Penny deal Gotta love those proven winners. Having Edmonds on the team guaranteed a WS win last year. That said, I'd love to have Lowe.

http://www.auburnfootball.com/GIFS/yeahthat.gif laryngitis?

If Gammons thinks its on...its off.

So you're saying its your fault Roast? Somehow I always suspected this. [-X pretty sure its CTs fault

Mark me down as one who thought it as overspending at the time, but a necessary overspending to get the kind of player who could help them turn the corner. I think. I still feel that way. No way this team builds to what it is over the last two years without Sori. Overpending? Yes. Worth it to the Cubs? Every penny.

Meaningless.

Actually, I'm guessing he meant transpires. True that. Interesting that it most likely regresses.

so you're saying you don't like the deal?

I like him in the leadoff spot. Not because I believe in some mythical leadoff position, but he has historically performed well there. Is it mental? Maybe. But still you keep the primadonna happy.

Would he? I doubt it. I don't think the union gets involved in pressuring players to sign with one team over another. If I were a player and they were trying to pressure me into signing with a team I didn't really want to sign with because they offered a little more than someone else regardless of my own family and personal concerns, I'd take great offense to that. That would be incredibly inappropriate on the part of the union. Thats what unions are all about.

You all know who you are. i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?" That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both. I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide. I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back? In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM. Its happened the other way too. Eric Hinske anyone?

You all know who you are. Siscooooooooo