UBlink

For what it's worth, I've noticed that Cedeno is playing shortstop (exclusively so far) in Venezuela winter ball, even though the speculation on this board has been that he would be working at 2nd base, anticipating a Furcal signing. Could having him play shortstop indicate that the Cubs are wanting to increase his trade value more than prepare him to play 2nd?

Yeah, but people here get criticized for saying the same things that person in the article is saying. Sometimes Hendry can do no wrong in the eyes of some. The only way to say something on this board without getting criticized is to not say anything at all. There are at least as many members that feel Hendry can do no right as there are who think he can do no wrong

I think a little context is relevent. From everything I have read, it is the years on the contract (and thus bottom line total value), and not the per year value of the contract that scares Hendry. At Giles age of 35, I think Hendry is very comfortable paying Giles top dollar for a 2-3 year contract (total value 30 million or so). I think he is very uncomfortable adding a 4th year or beyond (total value high 30s or low 40s). I believe someone had posted the idea of a front-loaded contract for Giles, which, if Giles is open to it, is not a bad idea. If you're planning on paying him $10 million a year, and you're comfortable giving him only three years at this time, how about something like this: 2006: $11.5 million 2007: $10 million 2008: $8.5 million 2009: Team OR Mutual option for $9 million If Giles is interested in playing for a winner, you can sell the idea to him like this: The Cubs know how much they have to spend in 2006. They don't know how much they'll have available in 2008. This keeps them in a position to have a little extra money available then in case they need to add another piece to the puzzle to help maintain a winning team. The option for 2009 should be a team or mutual option. If Giles is still somewhat productive and the market on outfielders is thin after 2008, then the Cubs can pick up that option. It's less than the annual average of the contract, but more than the final year of the deal. It's also more than he made this season. If he wants more money, throw in some bonus incentives for 2007 and 2008. There's no need to front-load the cash in the contract. What the Cubs need to do is front-load the expensing of the contract. Professional sports must be the only business left in America that operates on cash accounting. If we are stuck with cash accounting, then pay Giles $8.5 in year one, but also put $3 in a bank account and charge $11.5 to the 2006 budget. Then in 2008, take the money out of the bank, add it to $8.5 from the 2008 budget, and pay him his $11.5 in 2008. As long as the whole contract is guaranteed, you can expense the money over the course of the contract any way you like. Adding in interest costs and time value of money complicates the calculations slightly, but that's how it works. In the real world you don't set up a bank account, it's just part of your capital budget, but nobody measures the profitability of their business on a cash basis. If the Cubs had expensed more of Maddux's contract in years 1 and 2 so that he only hit the budget this year for $5 million, nobody would be complaining about his contract.

Cuse, this isn't directed at you, but your comment inspired it. Why is it that the Cards hiding their cards is a savvy strategy, but when Hendry does not flat out announce he's going after our desired acquisitions he's an idiot without a plan?

I would rather have the right players in the wrong order than vice versa.

Also, there's a link to Live Audio on the Tigres home page if somebody wants to practice their Spanish - Adam and Ronny should be playing tonight 7:30 Venezuela time. Link

He played last night (1-5 with a robbed base) and 5 games the previous week, all at shortstop. Oh, and they played the Caribes and Adam Greenberg went 0-4. This link is to the schedule for the Tigres, the links on the page take you to play by play and box score for that game: Los Tigres By the way, here's his picture on the team's home page: http://www.tigresdearagua.net/modules/JuegoOnline/images/jugadores/desconocido.jpg

And don't forget my new favorite OBPA.

I think it's Hendry's position that we'll know when we need to know.

I doubt the Rangers would be interested in 5 years after their recent experience with Chan Ho Park.

I think this thread has gotten esoteric enough to weed out the riff raff. So now we're going to see who has studied under the most Nobel prize winners (once or twice removed)?

Forget about having Philly eat any contract - we have money. Having them eat some of the contract just means we have to give up more in talent that we don't have to spare.

I think I've heard similar comments about Ty Cobb.

Maybe we can try to measure chemistry. Prior to next season, let those who can subjectively recognize team chemistry rank or give a score for all the teams. Then, after the season, we can analyze W-L records using all the "tangible" evidence (prior years' OBP, ERA, OPS, history of injury, whatever) that was available before the season without the chemistry score and then see if adding chemistry improves the analysis. It would be better if we had something we could measure (again, prior to the season) that correlates with chemistry, but I'll be happy to settle for the expert judgement of those intuitive enough to recognize it, as long as they do it before the season. But we can't come along after the season and say, wow, that team succeeded above what the tangible measures would have predicted - they must have had good chemistry.

How do you measure good parents then? Kid's SAT scores? I'll take the other side on that one. First you have to define "good parents". And while you are at it, also give us a definition of "good team chemistry". I will go as far as to say it is very difficult to measure what hasn't been defined.

All of those variables are generally available (directly or historically) to the base runner in deciding whether to risk being thrown out attempting to steal a base. How he uses that information is measured by his success rate. so now you say his stats are not an indication of his ability to steal but of when to steal? The ability to steal includes both the physical attributes of the runner, and the mental attributes of knowing how to use the physical attributes. There are and have been lots of players with great speed who are not successful base stealers, and there are other players with moderate speed who can steal successfully. But unless you have a theory that a certain player is more likely to be caught stealing when that stolen base is not critical to the game (and the only theories I can think of go the other way), the overall success rate is probably a good ceiling of the probablity for success in a crucial situation. And in crucial situations, the downside in getting caught is usually greater than the upside in success.

If chemistry can't be measured, how do we know which team has the best chemistry, or even which of two teams has better chemistry? by critical observation. :D Can't just disregard something cause it cannot be measure it w/ some math formula. The argument was that, by definition, it cannot be measured. That's different from saying measurement is difficult.

All of those variables are generally available (directly or historically) to the base runner in deciding whether to risk being thrown out attempting to steal a base. How he uses that information is measured by his success rate.

If chemistry can't be measured, how do we know which team has the best chemistry, or even which of two teams has better chemistry?

I think most of the critics have taken the next step in emulating the Sox and asked the question, what part of the Sox strategy was responsible for their success? And for many of us, that analysis indicates that their offensive moves were not very successful, and that their success resulted primarily from improvements in pitching and defense. Therefore, it does not make sense to emulate their offensive strategy.

.290, .360, .480 He won't embarass himself. The boy can hit, and power won't be a problem. He'll hit .275 off righties. Edit: just looked at these stats Link and decided I underestimated. He had 8 HR in 313 AB at AA, and 7 HR in 140 AB with the Cubs. I had heard the story that HR's are easier in the bigs, and I think I believe it. Try .305, .365, .525

I'll have what he's having.

I don't know - HBP is down 33%

Gratuitous JK Ryu reference. [-X

My wife asked me to wait long enough for her to take out a larger life insurance policy on me. Mercenary, Vance, just mercenary !! :wink: Don't let her do it - always better to be worth more alive than dead.