Bruce Levine's Hot Stove Update

by TheBeerBaron on Nov 14, 2006 11:40 AM CST Comment 116 comments

I'm at home right now listening to ESPN 1000 (yes, yes...I know most of your feelings regarding Chicago Sports Talk Radio--but,) and Levine was asked certain questions about what he thinks that the CUBS will do in the off-season...

According to Levine....

-The CUBS are high on the possible suitor's list for Ray Durham

-Could trade for Jake Westbrook for middle relief

-Are serious contenders for Alfonso Soriano

-Probably will not sign Ted Lilly, but are going to really pursue Gil Meche and Vincente Padilla

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 116 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I like Westbrook a lot.

That'd be a really nice acquisition.

by Al on Nov 14, 2006 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Rebuttal

Bruce Levine makes a fortune teller look clairevoyant. He is NEVER right on anything.

Jake Westbrook? Sure, who wouldn't want him. But HOW are we going to get him? It will take more than just a Bob Howry or Scott Eyre.
Ray Durham? I've speculated about Durham before. Under Hendry's misguided strategy of rebuilding on the fly, Durham makes gobs of sense. Plus, he does add a desperately needed left-handed bat and is a good # 2 hole hitter.
Gil Meche? Yes, yes and thousand times yes.
Vincete Padilla? No, no a thousand times no. The persistent rumors have been for a few years that his arm is hanging on by a thread and could go at any minute.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 11:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Hey, remember...don't shoot the

messenger....I have said for over a year now that Levine is off of his rocker......but it's a topic for conversation....on a slow Tuesday.

That being said, for as much as I don't want Padilla.....I fully expect him to be signed by the CUBS.....especially since Kinzer gave Hendry a hometown discount with Aramis.

STEVE STONE!

by TheBeerBaron on Nov 14, 2006 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vincente Padilla

are is strapped on with duct tape. No, no, no, no, no, no on the idea of him becoming a member of the Cubs !!!!!!!!!

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

completely different from that workhorse gil meche.

don't get the fascination with meche. never pitched 200 innings. never had an ERA under 4. his whip the last 3 years 1.45, 1.57, 1.43. you don't have to have strong grasp of stats to know that is not a whip you pay premium money for.

and the fact that bluemike is advocating should give us all pause before we get on board with that idea.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Nov 14, 2006 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Boy

if you guys thought Todd Walker was a butcher at 2B, wait 'till you got a load of Ray Durham. He makes Soriano look like a Gold Glover.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Getting Durham

would be a dicey proposition. He's and older FA coming off a career year, and is injury prone. That has all the makings of a bad contract.

If it happens and he stays healthy, he's an excellent #2 hitter, as was mentioned. Then let Izturis and Theriot battle for SS.

by davidalanu on Nov 14, 2006 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cesar Izturis IS the shortstop

The Ryan Theriot Fan Club can keep on insisting that he is in the mix for a starter's role and quite capable of playing shortstop, but they are a jillions times wrong on both accounts. Barring a trade for Miguel Tejada or somebody of that magnitude, Izturis shall enter Lou Piniella's spring training as the incumbent shortstop.

It's just like this whole Matt Murton thing with some of you. If Alfonso Soriano is acquired, then you can say sayonara to Matt Murton's presence on the roster or his regular playing time.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

that is too bad

"Its not like we need 10-12 players to contend"

by ksucubbie on Nov 14, 2006 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

I absolutely disagree with your view on Murton. If the Cubs pay a ton of money for Soriano, they absolutely NEED a few league minimum types to offset those costs. All the talk has Soriano in CF for the Cubs, so why not have an OF of Murton, Soriano, Jones? The average salary for that group isn't all that bad really.

I also think that the addition of a Soriano increases the likelihood of keeping Theriot at 2B

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano

If the Cubs dish out $90 million plus for Soriano, you can bet the ranch he will play left field. There is no team on the planet who is going to pay this type of money and then move the guy to a brand new position in center. Look, I semi-like Murton too. But people are kidding themselves if they think the acquisition of Soriano doesn't impact Murton. It will, directly. And not in a good way.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

CF

According to every report about the Cubs oranizational meetings, Soriano is target #1 and they see him as a CF. That may be posturing, however, if Soriano is signed, I could see him in CF this year with Murton remaining in LF and Jacque Jones in RF. Once Felix Pie is ready to come up, he could go to CF or RF with Jacque Jones being dealt and Soriano moving to RF.

Just a possibility and, IMO, it will depend on what else the Cubs do (Dave Roberts, etc...). I am a bit leary of signing Soriano to a deal that will run through his 38th birthday.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 14, 2006 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree to disagree

I am not sure if you are skeptical of the logic that would have the Cubs move Soriano to CF or skeptical of the reports that they want to try.

I haven't watched him play OF enough to know whether he could transition to CF, so I can't add much to that debate.

I do however believe that the CUBS believe that he can make the switch. That would mean that if they acquire him, they would NOT also acquire/retain Sarge Jr, D. Roberts, Pierre, etc. In which case they would be pretty well committed to the OF I mentioned above.

Frankly, if they needed to diverge from that (due to a soriano trainwreck as a CF),my guess is that they would try Jones in CF. I don't expect that, but the other option would be going with a backup OF such as Pagan in CF and benching Murton.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wishful thinking on your part

A veteran star that joins a team for a $90 million payday doesn't move to a brand new position to accomodate a Matt Bloody Murton. You can wish this all you want, but it will never in a million years be acceptable to Soriano, Soriano's agent, or the Cub hierarchy themselves.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh now I see

you doubt whether Soriano would be willing to move to CF.

My guess is that he actually would. CF is a more prestigous position, so I bet he would make the switch in a heart beat. Soriano seems like someone driven largely by pride (or ego), and if he puts up his #s as a CF he instantly becomes a more elite player than the same #s as a LF.

you may be right, we will have to see.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

let's just get him first...

...and then figure out where to put him.

Right now I'm highly dubious about our chances of even landing him right now.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Except...

This needs to come up in the conversation b/w Hendry and Soriano. If he isn't willing to move to CF that may change the calculus on how much he is worth.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't

just add $80-100M to your payroll for a bat and then figure out where you are going to play him later. That would be nuts.

This ain't the American League.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

A guy signed to a $90 million deal might be inclined to move because of the presence of a Derek Jeter type at his position, but he sure in the hell ain't going to move to accomodate a non-descript minimum wage red head named Matt Murton !!! For crying out loud, some of you really need to scrape the horsecrap off your rose colored glasses !!!

Soriano will have interest in coming to the Cubs under ONE SCENARIO. And that scenario will be his ass playing out in left field.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You mean the Left Field that he adamantly

refused to play until Frank Robinson, er, gave him a little perspective? Sometimes you seem to get horsecrap stuck on your keyboard, or something.

Soriano might play center field if he thought he could do it without hurting his future value (next contract, that is), and if it is discussed prior to him coming to the team.

I hope he signs with Philly. Wait, I don't wish bad things on Philly. Maybe St. Louis. I am pretty confident that Soriano will be a turd and a malcontent once he signs that huge contract. He seems to play exceptionally well in contract years.

"My uncle says you've got a screw loose." -- "Your uncle molests collies."

by jcub on Nov 14, 2006 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Remember:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000884.html

"My uncle says you've got a screw loose." -- "Your uncle molests collies."

by jcub on Nov 14, 2006 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

next contract?

jeepers, by that time he'll be ready to retire and/or not care where they stick him. as of now is value is greater in LF only because he's played there, but there's no reason he couldn't switch to CF if given the opportunity. after a contract is signed this year he really wouldn't care. his new team would, but what difference would it make to him? maybe a little but not much.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Nov 14, 2006 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. Next contract

Soriano has proved everywhere he has been (except maybe NYY, since he was very young) that his primary concern is how to make as much money, now and in the future, as possible. I think he has "character issues."

"My uncle says you've got a screw loose." -- "Your uncle molests collies."

by jcub on Nov 14, 2006 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the point is..

if he gets 6 years this time, he'll be 37 when it expires. He was only miffed about playing the outfield with the Nats because it was widely believed that his value as a free agent would be greatly reduced compared to playing 2nd base. It's no longer an issue.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Nov 14, 2006 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand that point, and think that

he is greedy. That is my point. If he thinks he is more likely to blow out a knee or break a nail playing CF, he'll refuse. Do you think MLB players like him really consider their career over at 37 y.o.? Especially one that is such a physical specimen as Soriano?

"My uncle says you've got a screw loose." -- "Your uncle molests collies."

by jcub on Nov 14, 2006 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

Yes you do sign a Soriano and then figure out depending on what else happens in the offseason, whether or not to stick him in LF, CF, RF, or <shudder>, second base.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Boy, I'm glad you aren't the GM.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sigh

Soriano can play LF. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that he can play RF as well. CF perhaps is a bit iffy, though Cub officials think he can do it. We all know what he does at second but considering his offense, if it remains at the level he played at in Washington, it would outweigh the butchering he would do at that position.

Considering that Murton and Jones might be trade bait, and the chimerical, but still extant possibility that we could land another OF via trade, I'm not so keen on saying Soriano for one position only and that's the end of the story and I don't think I'm out of my mind for mentioning this.

It's not as though I'm saying, SORIANO FOR CATCHER! I'm just thinking he can be placed at 2B, LF, CF, or even RF (my GOD!) depending on who else we pick up via free agency or trade.

And you know, I defended you on a couple of occasions when you were being disputatious(i.e. a DICK) with others, and now I must take it all back.

Just because I happen to see fluidity with where Soriano can play doesn't mean you need to break out the condescension.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You can't even

stay on topic. My post was not about whether Soriano can play a position other than LF, it was about your statement that a GM should sign a player first and worry about where he is going to play after.

Maybe you were over-stating to make a point, I don't know. But, on the face of it, the comment is ludicrous.

Why not just say that isn't really what you meant and be done with it? If position doesn't matter, why shouldn't Hendry pursue FA 3rd basemen and 1st basemen? Why not just sign everybody you can and then put the names in a hat at the start of the season and whatever positon comes up, that's where you play?

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

My bet is that Soriano is signed by the Cubs as a CF. But, that will be very clear during the negotiations. Folks may disagree whether this is a good idea or whether the Cubs would be forcing a square peg into a round hole, but that is my bet.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

CF would be a stretch for Soriano. He was OK as a LF last year, but tended to take poor routes to balls hit over his head and that can be a problem in LF, but it would be deadly in CF.

But, it is possible the Cubs may well want to try them there. My only point is that this is not a trivial matter and you can rest assured that it will be discussed to death, both internally and with Soriano, before any signing takes place. It likely will have a major impact on his decision whether to sign or not.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agree 100%

n/t

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

CF is actually easier in some ways.

Yes, CF is harder on a player physically with a great deal of running on almost every play. But the actual catching of fly balls is actually a little easier. Balls tend to hook and slice more the closer you get to the corners. Soriano has the speed and arm strenght needed to play CF at the same level he played in Left. He wouldn't be great, but honestly those tools make up for a whole lot in CF.

The issue to me is, should he be our target? Personally, I'd love to see what it would take to get Vernon Wells. He's a better all round player.

by Rotodaddy on Nov 14, 2006 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would think that by age 50

...you would know how to treat people.

This is a blog, not the floor of the US Senate.

And I stayed on topic, I never said a GM should sign a PLAYER and then find a position, simply that you sign SORIANO and then find him a position because he has versatility in that he is a pretty awful fielder just about everywhere.

Note I said HIM in my original post. HIM MEANT SORIANO. Not RANDOM FREE AGENT.

YOU misread the POST. "HIM" MEANT SORIANO.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't matter

if it is Soriano or Ray Durham or whoever.

You don't spend that kind money for a player unless you have a REAL GOOD idea where he fits into your lineup and what position he will play.

That is an awfully simple concept...I can't imagine why you have such a hard time grasping it.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't imagine why you have such...

...a hard time discussing topics without resorting to immature potshots and making it personal.

Would it have been so hard to just disagree? Ask for clarification? Has life been so bad for you that you have to take out your anger on someone who clearly does not deserve it? What is the point of all your smarmy comments? What did I ever do to you?

The point I was making, above all else, was that if the Cubs are hellbent on bringing in Soriano (a player I really am not that enamoured with getting due to the long-term risk), and if there is some issue currently with what position he would play exactly (depending on the fate of Murton and Jones), then that shouldn't stop the Cubs. Bring in Soriano, who has the ability to at least approximate multiple positions, and then see where he fits depending on how the rest of the offseason shakes out with what we are looking at getting.

Perhaps we get incredibly lucky and make a trade for Vernon Wells. Sometimes situations like these develop after you already sign somebody with a certain position in mind. With Soriano, unlike other players, he can be moved to another position, which means that if a Vernon Wells trade were to take shape, we could go through with it and not say, ah hell, but we already signed Soriano for CF.

With any other player, I would wholeheartedly agree with your point. You don't sign Ryan Howard and David Ortiz and then say, ah hell, we'll figure it out later. But that wasn't what I was saying. My point was, with Soriano, you have positional flexibility that you would not have with many others, and therefore just get him in the fold if he is what the Cubs want, because with his bat, he is a superior choice just about anywhere in the field.

If you continue to disagree with that, that is your choice and I'm fine with that. I won't stoop to the same classless smarmy crap that you do just because I happen to disagree.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 1:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Suggestion

If it gets you so upset when you are called out for making silly statements, why not refrain from making them in the first place?

Sorry if that is classless and swarmy to you, but it is meant sincerely.

I really don't understand why you have getting yourself so worked up. Have you taken your meds today?

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're just

a grade A asshole aren't you?

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

At least

I can post here without resorting to profanity. You know, there are young people who read this blog.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's nice to know you have standards jazzman...

...could have fooled the rest of us.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ah

a juvenile one too, nice.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Only someone

like you would equate the use of profanity with maturity. How's the 5th grade going for you?

Why not do everyone on here a favor and refrain from responding to my posts? I assure you I will do the same for you...not that you contribute much of anything worth responding to.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

5th grade?

You're on a roll Biff!

Why I would've bet good money you were going to say 3rd, maybe even 2nd grade. But once again, you surpassed all expectations with 5th.

You are just full of surprises.

Here's the thing though, the deterioration of this entire conversation could have been avoided completely if you had simply responded like so: (you ready? It might be tough to understand completely at first but considering your recent display of dazzling rejoinders and delightfully playful wit, I have far more confidence in you than I did previously (however, I would advise you to close your other browsers, the ones where you're looking at women in various states of undress, a.k.a boobies, and give me your full attention, I promise you Jessica Juggenstein will be there after I'm finished)

"I disagree, Progs. I think the Cubs should definitely have a position in mind when they sign Soriano."

That's it. No condescension. No smarmy comments. Just disagreement, plain and simple.

If you had done that, all of this would have been avoided and you wouldn't be what my esteemed colleague rightly said when he captured the essence of you as a person in three words.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Finally

in your last couple of paragraphs you have written something worthy of a real response.

Thank you for your capsule lesson in blog ettiquette. I respect your suggestion, however, I stand by original response and after re-reading it, I think it is appropriate.

Furthermore, I feel that your reaction to same is over the top.

Agian, I do appreciate your suggestion and I will take it into account in the future.

And being called profane names by you and your "esteemed colleague" really means nothing to me, other than to confirm that I am wasting my time with either of you.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seeing as we have never fought before...

...at least to my recollection, I find the way things have gone today to be surprising and unfortunate.

And for the record: I am not out of the realm of possibility when I say there is a good bet you have been wrong before jazz, just as I have been wrong many times and will be many times in the future. We're all still learning the game of baseball, you are, I am, and that should be kept in mind when making posts.

I hate to break it to you but you and I are far from authorities on the subject of baseball.

It could be that you are exactly right, and that we should NEVER sign a player with the idea of moving that player around the diamond (despite when they have the exhaustively aforementioned versatility), but should lock them into one position and one position only upon signing them.

However, I just happen to believe that Soriano is an exception to the rule, and that signing a Soriano means we can make other moves we might not be able to make if we signed a particular free agent who is only capable of playing one position and one position only. And so therefore,
I do not believe my original point was so outlandish and ridiculous as to merit you bringing the hammer down.

I believe it is a valid point. You disagree. No big deal. But there's no need for condescension and deliberately trying to make the other person feel like an idiot. That is more the MO of a juvenile than a couple of naughty words.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just for the record

I never promoted myself as an authority on baseball.

And furthermore, it was not my intention to try and make you feel like an idiot or anything like that. I personally feel you likely made a knee jerk post without really thinking about what you were saying, and I am okay with that. Happens all the time.

I seem to rub people the wrong way on here when I do a "reality check" post, like pointing out that the Cubs really won't be able to trade Barrett and Marshall for Wells and Molina or that Paul LoDuca really is one of the best catchers in baseball.

Whatever you do or don't think of my baseball acumen, those types of remarks are factual and can be supported.

Yes, it does frustrate me when people take positions and then resort to name calling instead of reasonable debate. But, I guess that is the nature of the internet in general and blogs in particular.

C'est la Vie.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I still have considerable doubts as to whether...

...or not we understand each other concerning what my original post meant. It could very well be I didn't explain myself as well as I thought I did. But who the hell cares anymore? I don't. My anger is done. I don't hold grudges, and I dislike fighting with anyone on this board, even Mike63. It would be better to bury the hatchet and just agree to disagree.

Soriano for CF for LF, (not 2B anymore as that appears to be DeRosa's spot), whatever. Don't care anymore.

So, in the immortal words of Butch Coolidge, "we cool?"

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

agreed. Grudges serve no purpose and I don't believe in them either. It's only a game!

If only some of the other bashers on here could wise up to that concept.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

meds?

Is that the best you got?

For all your unsurpassable wisdom and wit gleaned through your fifty adventurous years of life, here I am, obviously defenseless, making ridiculous statements, and the best you can come up with is m-m-meds?

What, did you already use "make like a tree and get out of here" today Biff? What's next, you gonna call me Big Nose?

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Careful

he may say something about your name!

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

eh, he can do what he wants...

...I've already tried to appeal to whatever good nature he has, but apparently that part of him is on sabbatical currently, if it hasn't decided to jump ship altogether.

He must be trying to utilize his newfound skills after graduating with distinction from the Mike63 College of Discourse.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hey jazman

fuck off. simple enough?

"Its not like we need 10-12 players to contend"

by ksucubbie on Nov 14, 2006 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You college guys

and your frat boy antics are really something. You take an otherwise enjoyable baseball blog and put it right in the gutter. I have a son in college and I thank God he doesn't waste his time cursing and spewing nasty remarks on the internet. If you have so much spare time, why don't you do something productive with it?

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Objection

generalization.

No?

Well then I vehemately object

by cubsfan2883 on Nov 14, 2006 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I confess

that my exposure to college age people in recent years has been minimal.

And, I hope that what I see on here is not indicative. I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Objection sustained.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

i'm not in college, and i also think you're an asshole. i'm a doctor, but, for the record, alldoctors don

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Nov 14, 2006 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

post

got cut off. sorry, that was important stuff. but you get the idea.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Nov 14, 2006 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Really

A Proctologist, I presume?

I guess that makes you the expert. FWIW, I feel much the same way about you, but I don't feel the need to repeat it ad nauseum on a baseball blog.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Enough, you guys

n/t

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Nov 14, 2006 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right now followed by right now in the same...

...sentence.

I'm still half-asleep.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Just like he and his agent embraced the move to LF last year.

After all, a corner outfield spot is more prestigous than 2B.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Serious?

How do you figure that a LF is more prestigous than a 2B? Do you really think Ryno is a HF if he put those #s up as a LF?

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am just using your logic

If CF is more prestigous than LF, then it would follow that LF is more prestigous than 2B.

I think the whole argument is nonsense and my post was dripping with sarcasm.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What's your point?

Why in the heck would that follow my argument? LF is behind only 1B as the least prestigous position on the diamond if you consider the kind of #s that Soriano posts.

You can say the argument is nonsense, but obviously Soriano cared enough about what position he would play to make a stink in spring training.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

he cared enough to make a stink, because he was being asked to play a position that he had never played before, and he didn't want to look foolish (his comments at the time made that clear). It certainly had nothing to do with what position was more "prestigous", which is a lame concept to begin with.

BTW, I checked, and there are more LFs in the HOF than there are 2B, not that that means anything.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

2 parts

I don't disagree, part of Soriano's researvation focused on "looking silly" but it was pretty clear that he also figured that a slugging 2B is more valuable than a slugging LF, not sure how you can argue with that.

The fact that there are more LF in teh Hall than 2B is irrelevant. Look at the offensive #s for those players and I'll guarantee that the LFers have MUCH better offensive #s. Thus, if one puts up the same stats, he is more valuable as a 2B (or some other "skill" position including CF) than as a LF.

Obviously this is not taking defensive skills into account, but I don't see how you can argue that all offensive production is equal regardless of position!

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

it is the word "prestigous" that I get stuck on.

If your point is (as it seems to be) that defense and other skills are more critically important with a middle infielder, then I agree.

If you are saying the having a Jeter or a Rodriguez as a middle infielder makes him even more valuable, when they can put up big offensive numbers while making all the plays in the middle infield...I agree with that, too.

But, the making all the plays part gets sticky. Soriano obviously had a concern about making the plays in LF. I have no idea how he would feel about CF, but I would be concerned if I were the Cubs.

It doesn't help if a guy drives in 100 runs if he gives 30 of them back on defense.

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Certainly

Of course all of this is predicated on whether the Cubs and their scouts believe that he can play CF. Like I said from the outset, I have absolutely no idea. Do I hope/wish he could? you bet! but that ain't gonna do much for anyone.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i doubt he cares

what position he plays anymore. he cared before, as he and his agent thought that the offense he puts up would be more valuable coming from a second baseman than a left fielder. now that he surpassed everyone's expectations offensively, his numbers of the past year put him among the top offensive left-fielders as well. so his contract will be one of the largest in baseball regardless of what position he plays.
add to that center field is another position where you don't traditionally expect a ton of offense, much like second base. so it would be an asset to him to be able to play a position like cf. it makes him more valuable, and that's all he cares about.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Nov 14, 2006 6:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

While I do agree....

...that it's not terribly likely that he'll want to make the switch to ANOTHER new position, my guess is that you don't really KNOW one way or another.

Really, have you ASKED Soriano if he would be willing to play center?

Or, read anything that definitively says that he wouldn't?

Or are you just clairivoyant?

Honestly, your blanket statements that, "SORIANO WILL NOT SWITCH POSITIONS" are as wrong-headed as those saying that, "SORIANO WILL PLAY WHEREVER THE CUBS TELL HIM TO".

Remember, Soriano said that he'd never play left field, either....

by Santos L Halper on Nov 14, 2006 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well then

I just don't know what to tell ya. You keep on believin' that Matt Murton's status with the Cubs will stay okie dokie if Soriano (or J.D. Drew) comes on board.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

I think if Drew came aboard, it would be as the CF, so Murton's job should be safe.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -Homer J. Simpson

by Whitebacon on Nov 14, 2006 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Looks like Drew

is going to Boston.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You wouldn't happen

to have a source on that, would you?

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -Homer J. Simpson

by Whitebacon on Nov 14, 2006 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees

believe Boston will go hard after Drew.

http://tinyurl.com/y6c5jt

"In addition, the Yanks strongly believe Boston is pushing hard to sign J.D. Drew to bat behind David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez."

by jazzman56 on Nov 14, 2006 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I found it on

SI.com. It's just nice to know exactly when Mike is pulling things out of his ass and when he's saying something legit.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -Homer J. Simpson

by Whitebacon on Nov 14, 2006 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rebuttal

You are a moron.

This is an instance where I "am saying something legit."

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK !!!

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He's not

the one that comes up with claims and doesnt support them.

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Nov 14, 2006 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay Edward R. Murrow

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK !!!

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you know it's true

TRAMMELL!

by Faith plus 1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But I DON'T...

...think that Murton's status with the Cubs will stay "okie dokie". In fact, I think he's probably a fairly big chip in the trade pot for Hendry and I think there's at least a 65% chance that he'll be dealt at some point in the offseason....

Not that I agree with that course of action...it's just what I expect to happen.

We'll see, though.

Really, I was just pointing out that neither you (nor anyone else not named Soriano) has any REAL clue as to whether or not he'd be willing to play center over left (or 2nd).

I apologize for being a bit snarkey with my original post, though...to be honest with you, I think we're on the same side of this discussion.

by Santos L Halper on Nov 14, 2006 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Blue Mike

I'm interested in more about Soriano.

What's his favorite food?

Does he have a favorite color?

How about his spot in the batting order, his preferred clubhouse spread, favorite music, beer?

Look, everyone supporting the idea of Soriano playing CF is speculating just as much as you are that he'd be unwilling to play there. None of us know for certain.

Last year he didn't want to move off 2B, but then grew accustomed to LF and was talking about going into FA as either a LF or a 2B.

We have openings at 2B and CF right now, IF he was to be signed there would be room for him to play at either position.

You're assuming he wouldnt do it, but off of what basis? I don't remember a whole lot of OF's in the past getting upset about moving to different OF spots, the majority of complaints about position (from my recollection) in baseball history has been coming from players that had to switch from OF to IF or vice versa. Or from guys that want to play in the field but are being DHed, i can't remember too many guys throwing a fit about where in the OF they played

with that said, the bottom line is none of us know what he'd want to do and what his demands are so making bold statements about what he's definitely going to do or not do is pointless

i seem to remember a whole lot of people making definitive statements that Aramis was gone.... look how that turned out

we're all speculating here

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 14, 2006 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

whoa there

Throwing out things like logic and acknowledging a lack of omniscience...

thank you!

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

westbrook

would be ok with me

"Its not like we need 10-12 players to contend"

by ksucubbie on Nov 14, 2006 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want everyone to digest the irony

Of Mike's criticizing anyone's predictions.

ROTHSCHILD!

by Perkins on Nov 14, 2006 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

soriano, durham & meche

and call it an offseason..

GET SORIANO!

by CubFaninCA on Nov 14, 2006 12:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I dont' see Soriano in the cards

Right now he's got so many suitors. And more attractive situations than a ballclub coming off a 96 loss season. Under Hendry's misguided belief that this team can win in 2007, Durham is a good consideration.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree again

I would be willing to bet that Soriano winds up a Cub. Hendry was bruised last year by getting outbid for Furcal, and my guess is he doesn't let it happen again.

As for Soriano's desire to play here. He won't care about the record from last year. THis is a major market team with money to spend. Teams can and do turn things around. Would Soriano consider the Cubs if he was 38, had 1 or 2 more seasons, and desperately wanted a WS. In that case perhaps not, but that is far from the case.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BTW

blech to Durham.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

depends on the contract...

...anything more than a 2 year deal and I agree wholeheartedly with you.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1-year 3 million

that is what I'd pay Durham. He is old and due for a HUGE drop in production and he blocks the development of a position that we actually have 3 players at AAA or above. I am not saying that he wouldn't be better than any or all of them, just that blocking them for an overpriced SF Geezer seems silly.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Nov 14, 2006 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol.....

Durham made $7M last season.....and he had a career year heading into his free agency. He's going to ask for around 3YR/$28M.

STEVE STONE!

by TheBeerBaron on Nov 14, 2006 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly...

...which means we should stay far far away at that price.

Which means we might as well get used to him being a Cub and soon.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well..again

if you look at the world thru Jim Hendry's distorted view...

Durham addresses a need at 2nd base, at the top of the batting order and in terms of left-handed hitting.

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.....

You'd think he would learn....

I really hope that the Giants re-sign Durham.

STEVE STONE!

by TheBeerBaron on Nov 14, 2006 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants won't..

they have a young 2b by the name of Kevin Frandsen who is 24 and ripped the cover off of the ball at AAA last year.

I expect him to be their starting 2b come opening day

by cubsfan2883 on Nov 14, 2006 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Eeek...

...that's a heckuva lot.

Yeah, stay away from that guy. And Zito. Stay FAR away.

by Santos L Halper on Nov 14, 2006 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You guys crack me up

All the same people who HAD to get rid of Walker now want Durham, who's a worse hitter and arguably more brutal on defense than Walker.

What's the point of that? And DON'T tell me that Walker was a clubhouse cancer. That argument is old and tired.

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Nov 14, 2006 12:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I saw Walker more as clubhouse diabetes...

...than cancer.

PINIELLA!

by theprognosticator on Nov 14, 2006 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I saw him as

clubhouse gonarehea.

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK !!!

by BlueMike on Nov 14, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't want Durham...

... but I'm not sure how you can argue that he's a "worse hitter".

by Al on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No way in hell do I want Durham

I'd rather go after Loretta or trade for someone assuming we're able to get the pitching we need via FA's.

"Incidentally, Colossus was right and I was wrong about Maddux being dealt." -Al Yellon

by colossus on Nov 14, 2006 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually,

I'd like to see Nomar @ 2B.

"Incidentally, Colossus was right and I was wrong about Maddux being dealt." -Al Yellon

by colossus on Nov 14, 2006 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"POP!!!!!!!!!!"

(I fear that's the sound Nomar's groin'll make if he's playing 2nd for ANYONE)

Also, I'm not sure you want his funky "sidearm-esque" throwing motion whipping the ball to DLee from that close.

Although, I wouldn't mind having his bat in the lineup....

by Santos L Halper on Nov 14, 2006 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

can u expound on "worse hitter???"

GET SORIANO!

by CubFaninCA on Nov 14, 2006 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Boston.....

ends up signing Drew......what does that mean for Willy Mo Pena? He's a guy I wouldn't mind picking up for the bench.

RAMIREZ!

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Nov 14, 2006 1:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wily Mo

does Boston even want to trade him? he makes peanuts and is a monster at the plate, though still lacks some discipline.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Nov 14, 2006 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He wouldn't be a starter......

that's for sure. I think they'd be willing to deal him.

RAMIREZ!

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Nov 14, 2006 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I seriously doubt it

They need him in the outfield as insurance for Drew (if they don't get him and since Drew wouldn't play 162 games anyway) or to spot for Manny on his days off, or Papi's days off, or if they trade Coco. Wily Mo could be a regular. They love him.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Nov 14, 2006 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs