Warren Brusstar

This is my hope. I generally believe spring training numbers are meaningless, but this late in the spring there's absolutely no reason to believe that Gaudin will suddenly be able to get people out in regular season games. He's been absolutely terrible. Having said that, he's the best long-term bet of anyone competing for a spot, so it would be just fine with me if they DLed for whatever minor tweak is causing him to pitch like horse manure.

Yeah. Poor guy. How can one reasonably expect to live any sort of comfortably on a lousy $10 million a year? I wonder if he can qualify for welfare on that sort of pay. Juan Pierre is making like 10 million a year, isn't he? I can understand him not wanting to play for that annual salary. I'm not saying that it isn't a lot of money, just that it makes a lot more sense for him to turn it down knowing that info. Is zero dollars for zero years more palatable? Back to the basic question. With little to no interest from the rest of baseball, what terms are Boras and Manny expecting, market value? I don't hate him for turning down the deal and trying to get a better one. I find it comical that his camp thinks it has some kind of leverage. No matter how much he helps the Dodgers, they're not going to guarantee him anything more than what he turned down. Considering that they keep running back to him with new offers, why do you think they're suddenly finished doing that?

abuck told me it was all Larry Rothschild's fault, so I don't believe that.

Murton would kill for the career that Bellhorn.

When he sucks in Baltimore, will abuck continue to blame Larry Rothschild?

Is that even possible? Considering that (a) the Yankees made themselves significantly, significantly better; and (b) there are a legion of quality free agents twiddling their thumbs at the end of January, the answer is yes. For now.

Just because Alfonseca sucked, doesn't mean Gregg will. Gregg Home/Away splits also show that Dolphin Stadium had very little effect in his results. Also keep in mind Gregg was pretty good out of the pen for the Angels in 06, his overall era was just higher due to him starting 3 games. He had a 3.45 era in 62.2 IP while striking out 62 and walking 19. Over the last three seasons out of the pen, he has a 3.47 era, striking out 206 with teams hitting just 227 against him in 215 IP. I expect Gregg to have simliar numbers for the Cubs next year. Plus if Gregg isn't pitching in the 8th or 9th who will be then? Vizcaino? Gaudin? Guzman might be a good option if you can count on him staying healthy? Samardzija maybe, but then he can't start and thats big role for such a raw pitcher IMO. Lou wouldn't do this, but I wouldn't have a terrible problem with Wuertz as the closer and Marmol in the eighth inning/fireman role. I don't have a terrible problem with Gregg - I just wonder if Ceda didn't have more value than a decent ML reliever. Maybe not, but that's my only real problem with that move. Wuertz is just too inconsistent from season to season to count on in that role. It's not just Lou, remember Dusty had him sent to the minors in 2006 for simliar reasons. Wuertz just goes into terrible slumps were he can't throw a strike or get anybody out. Of course he can also be very good for weeks at a time. But it's hard to trust a reliever that inconsistent in a major role in the pen. In 07, Wuertz avoid those terrible slumps for the most part and had a Kevin Gregg like year. Personally I see Gregg as a harder to hit verison of Dempster. He will walk people like Dempster did, but teams only hitting in the low 200s off him. It will keep his era down as a reliever, unlike Dempster who teams hit 240-260 off him mixed with all the walks. Kevin Gregg, ERAs by year: 4.21 5.04 4.14 3.54 3.41 Michael Wuertz, ERAs by year: 3.81 2.66 3.48 3.63 Who is inconsistent?

Trading DeRosa was more about making room for Aaron Miles than saving money. Hendry's absurd infatuation with left handedness over actual production is what motivated him on that move. That's a pretty ridiculous suggestion. There's no way the Cubs traded away Derosa because they wanted Aaron Miles that badly. The Cubs saved money from trading Derosa, and didn't use it all on Miles. They clearly did it to free money for a starting pitcher. They saved $2m. That will barely help in the search of a pitcher. The primary motivation was getting more lefthanded, which they accomplished by replacing DeRosa with Miles. Bradley replaces Edmonds, they aren't getting more LH that way. The #1 goal of Hendry this offseason has been to get more LH, and the only way they've done that is by replacing DeRosa with Miles. You are naive if you think my statement is ridiculous. 3.3 million, and even if DeRosa was traded to get more LH that would be because they have confidence in Fontenot, not Miles. It sounds like Miles is going to get most of his starts when he is batting from the right side. Exactly. Miles was brought in to replace Derosa's versatility (which frankly is just as stupid). Miles isn't making the team more lefthanded. Starting Fontenot everyday is. Your statement insinuates that the team prefers to have Miles over Derosa, and that's most definitely not the case. The question is whether they prefer to have Miles or Fontenot play against RHP. I suspect it's the former, and that's going to make my head explode.

So if "people get hurt by twisting (their) legs up all the time," then what the heck is the problem here? That proves what happened to Bradley could've happened to any athlete: fragile, normal, durable, or Ripkenesque. The problem is that there is a pattern of injuries with Bradley. This is just one of many. Right. That's an issue. He's clearly fragile. That doesn't mean the knee injury wasn't a freak accident.

The sneeze analogy perfectly illustrates what I've been trying to explain. People sneeze all the darn time, and nothing comes of it. Just like as dextermorgan has explained, professional baseball players step awkwardly on their leg all the darn time, and nothing comes of it. So if throwing your back out sneezing is a freak injury (since you've sneezed countless times with no injury occurring), then by the same logic, tearing your ACL stepping awkwardly is also a freak injury (since you've stepped awkwardly countless times with no injury occurring). Except people almost never get hurt sneezing. That's why it's a freak injury. People get hurt by twisting their legs. You're leaving out that very huge difference. Also, I'd say that there's a pretty big difference between a sneeze and a twisting of your leg. One is a natural thing that the body does by itself. The other is something that your body is put through due to a mistake. Your definition of a freak injury is: something people almost never get hurt doing (reference the bolded statement above). You've told us over and over and over again how baseball players step awkwardly on their leg all the time without getting hurt. Therefore by your own definition of the term, when a baseball player gets hurt stepping awkwardly, it's a freak injury. That's not my definiton at all. I don't know where you're getting that. My definition of a freak injury is: an injury sustained in a freak situation that you can not reasonably expect to occur/happen again. You can reasonably expect that an athlete might eventually twist his leg or step on it funny. You can't reasonably expect a player to get hit with a line drive in the elbow again You could slip and twist your legs (enough to force some kind of injury) mutiple times in a season and it wouldn't really be a surprise. It wouldn't be expected, but it wouldn't be shocking that it happened. If someone broke their elbow by getting hit with a baseball going over 100 MPH twice in the same lifetime, it would be shocking... or a "freak" occurrence. The point isn't that Bradley "twist[ed] his leg" or "step[ped] on it funny." The point is that he did it while doing something that almost never happens, and can't reasonably be expected to happen again. How often is Milton Bradley -- or anyone else -- thrown by their manager out of way of an umpire? That's what is freakish about the injury. If he had hurt knee running down a fly ball, or running the bases, or hitting, it would not have be a freak injury, because players constantly perform those tasks. Under your definition, if Bradley had hurt his knee stepping on ice in the parking lot of a grocery store, that wouldn't be a freak injury because, after all, "you can reasonably expect that an athlete might eventually twist his leg or step on it funny."

We see similar reports every year. I see no reason to assume they will happen before they do happen. The Cubs are worse right now than they were last year. No one contends otherwise (at least in this thread). Thankfully, they're not scheduled to play anyone today. Or tomorrow. Or the next day.

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series. Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious.

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless. Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck. Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded It depends on what you consider to be in trouble. From your previous comment it sounds like you'll be content with another Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs. From that perspective I agree with you, we probably aren't in trouble. I'm expecting more. I'm expecting a WS run from this club. Are you seriously going to suggest that's not now in trouble, without further moves? You're not paying attention to what I wrote. They had the best team in the NL last year and got swept. They had the better team in the LDS in '07 and got swept. There's plainly an element of blind dumb luck/getting hot at the right time to winning in the playoffs. My point is whatever amount the Cubs have given back to the rest of the league is less than the effect that blind dumb luck/getting hot at the right time has on winning a playoff series. So, no, I don't think they are "in trouble" and, no, I'm not content with a Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs.

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless. Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck. Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded

All I know is, we can talk about proposed trades, "done deals" and "wish lists" all we want, but every move that has actually materialized so far has resulted in a downgrade. At this rate we're going to be downgrading ourselves right out of the playoffs. But we beefed up Boise's lineup, so all's good. Not what I like seeing. If Bradley and Peavy don't both materialize, this team's in trouble. Trouble? I think that's a bit of an overreaction. Even with these numerous downgrades, who in the NL Central is better? The Cubs are still a heavy favorite to win the division. And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason. Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

Scrambled, over easy, sunny side up or Ostrich? You don't read very well.

That's just plain old stupid. How is that serious egg on the face? Samardzija has a no trade clause, we know that. That makes it difficult to trade him, but not impossible. We know that. There's no egg on the face for pointing that out and still seeing a guy traded. Poster A: We should trade Samardzjia, Player B, and Player C Poster B: NTC. He can't be traded. If it turns out that the NTC doesn't limit certain trades -- such as one to the Padres -- Poster B was actively wrong. Thus, egg-in-the-face. That still doesn't justify egg on the face. Couldn't we just all be happy for ourselves if that trade happened? It's childish to look for some avenue to say "I told you so, I told you so" instead of just joining in on the celebration that the Cubs are now a better team with Peavy. And it's presumptious to insist that a player's contract contains a NTC that impedes a trade proposal when you have not read the contract.

That's just plain old stupid. How is that serious egg on the face? Samardzija has a no trade clause, we know that. That makes it difficult to trade him, but not impossible. We know that. There's no egg on the face for pointing that out and still seeing a guy traded. Poster A: We should trade Samardzjia, Player B, and Player C Poster B: NTC. He can't be traded. If it turns out that the NTC doesn't limit certain trades -- such as one to the Padres -- Poster B was actively wrong. Thus, egg-in-the-face. Serious egg in the face sounds a little funny. Its a message board, most people are wrong here more times than not. And when pretty much everyone here would gladly admit to being wrong in a trade to get Peavy. Maybe there's a lesson there, i.e. it's imprudent to shout down trade proposals on the basis of a purported NTC in a contract that you have not read.

That's just plain old stupid. How is that serious egg on the face? Samardzija has a no trade clause, we know that. That makes it difficult to trade him, but not impossible. We know that. There's no egg on the face for pointing that out and still seeing a guy traded. Poster A: We should trade Samardzjia, Player B, and Player C Poster B: NTC. He can't be traded. If it turns out that the NTC doesn't limit certain trades -- such as one to the Padres -- Poster B was actively wrong. Thus, egg-in-the-face.

According to Jeff Passen, the Padres want Samardzjia -- whose NTC is described a source as "limited" http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-peavydeal110608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns If true, that would be some serious egg on the face of every poster who has shouted down the idea of trading Samardzjia the last few years because of his NTC.

every time a ss goes deep in the hole (that's what she said) some announcer calls it a jeter-play it's like like one highlight just made everyone [expletive] I think I recall seeing an article quantifying that Jeter actually is very good going to his right. The problem is that his range to his left is utterly atrocious. That would confirm -- in part -- people's subjective perceptions that he makes a lot of good plays in the hole, while still covering less ground than any other SS in baseball. I wish I could remember where I saw it.

where are these people? All over this board. The man love for Dunn on this board exceeds that for every player in the league whose first name doesn't start with Geo. Or Kent

Dear Baltimore: Please take a Lee, his bad contract, and a steaming pile of crap and give us your three best players. Deal? Your point stands, but did Nick Markakis get run over a car in your scenario? D'oh! I've edited to fix the deal

Dear Baltimore: Please take a Lee, his bad contract, and a steaming pile of crap and give us your three best players. Deal?

LOL. Of course you would do it. The rumor du jour is Cain for Prince Fielder AND J.J. Hardy. If the Cubs offered a declining Lee and Mitch Atkins, the "cash" would have to be $30 million for the Giants not to laugh in Hendry's face.