Bruce Miles' AFL and Rumors

No doubt many of you have been here already; I only wanted to draw attention to this comment from Bruce in the comments section:
"Certainly Hendry's bosses, John McDonough and Crane Kenney included, had a big hand in overpaying Soriano. They saw the empty seats in '06 and figured the organization had to do something big. If it were up to Hendry alone, I'd bet they could have had Soriano for "only" six years."

about 1 month ago DGU 78 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

With all due respect to Bruce...

… the Angels had offered Soriano seven years. In order to get him, they had to beat the Angels’ offer, so they extended it to eight years.

We look back on deals like this one and Kosuke Fukudome’s with hindsight and say, “Why did they do that?” — not remembering that in order to get these highly desired free agents, the Cubs did have to outbid others (the White Sox and Padres both offered MORE than the Cubs did; Fukudome wanted to play for the Cubs).

There have been times (Marquis, Miles, Bradley) that Jim Hendry bid against himself for players. Soriano isn’t one of those cases.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 14, 2009 8:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Source?

I’ve never heard of the Angels offering a contract close to what the Cubs offered, especially in terms of dollars. Can you cite anything credible that says the Cubs had to offer as much as they did to beat the Angels?

The Fukudome deal is one where hindsight is unfair, but there were plenty of people at the time screaming that the Cubs overpaid for Soriano.

by Holtzmaniac on Oct 14, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember the Angels rumor

however, just that the rumor was out there doesn’t mean the Cubs had to offer the 8th year, as the example of Fukudome shows.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here are a few links.

Phillies might put out six-year offer to Soriano

That’s the only one I can find. I do remember the Angels offering seven years only because there is some California law that prevents deals longer than that for people in certain businesses. Just can’t find the link right now.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 14, 2009 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are mistaken

We had the same discussion earlier this year and came to the same conclusion. Noone offered anything close to the years the Cubs offered. That article talks about 4-5 years, the 6 year mention seems more like speculation than anything.

I don’t know who’s fault is it for the the 8 years, or if it’s a shared fault, but Soriano is a typical Hendry guy and he has made some other head-strachers through his tenure as GM…

by Luis on Oct 14, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said...

… I recall the Angels making a 7-year offer. Can’t find a cite for it, but I do recall that at the time.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 14, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This was the best I could find

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/sports-article/espn-angels-offer-14-million-to-soriano/336839

Suggests 6 years @ 14 million a year, however, this source is dubious, at best, and I couldn’t find the article despite multiple searches of ESPN.com

Life is parallel to hell but I must maintain

by dr stabbingworth on Oct 14, 2009 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

On 2nd thought

DId a search of the Angels SB Nation site:

http://www.halosheaven.com/2006/11/14/2343/1190

Life is parallel to hell but I must maintain

by dr stabbingworth on Oct 14, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the research

I thought there was no reliable source for the claim that the Cubs had to go so extreme to beat the Angels offer and that seems to confirm it.

Much more important than the fact that the Angels only offered six years is that it was for so much less per year than the Cubs offered. 8 years for $136,000,000 was indefensible then and it is indefensible now.

by Holtzmaniac on Oct 14, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd caution that these rumor reports

are always vague and inexact.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This just crossed my mind.....

Do agents sometimes go to newspapers or other websites with false claims (like saying their client was offered a contract or more than they were, in reality) to up the player’s eventual contract with a team?

"It's hard to win 97 games, it's hard to win the division. Our attitude is if you get in every year, you get in most of the time, sooner or later you are going to knock that door down." -- Jim Hendry

by EJThunder on Oct 14, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm

confused as to why Al thinks Fukudome is overpaid. The guy was worth his contract last year due to his great glove and was a 2.4 WAR player this year in CF. That’s really good.

by CalCalender on Oct 14, 2009 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From a business standpoint

Was a good signing too!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 14, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say Fukudome was overpaid.

Where did you see that?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 15, 2009 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

here

We look back on deals like this one and Kosuke Fukudome’s with hindsight and say, "Why did they do that?" — not remembering that in order to get these highly desired free agents, the Cubs did have to outbid others

by CalCalender on Oct 15, 2009 7:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You completely misinterpret my comment.

I wasn’t saying he was “overpaid”, just saying that in order to get him, the Cubs had to outbid other teams, which is true.

In some cases, Jim Hendry has bid against himself. Not with Fukudome.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 15, 2009 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh

ok. my bad.

by CalCalender on Oct 15, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

on the overbid thing as well. I really am curious as to who the other team bidding for Aaron Miles was.

by CalCalender on Oct 15, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's a case where Hendry bid against himself.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 15, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My sarcasm detector is broken so I'm not sure if you're serious or not...

…but assuming you are, I’ve got two words for you: Scott Boras.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 14, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nor sarcasm.....

…and as soon as you mentioned Boras my question was answered.

"It's hard to win 97 games, it's hard to win the division. Our attitude is if you get in every year, you get in most of the time, sooner or later you are going to knock that door down." -- Jim Hendry

by EJThunder on Oct 15, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't remember Angels rumor either

Are we mixing it up with the Aramis rumors at the end of 2006?

by ak123 on Oct 14, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been wondering this for a while ...

Why do we defend bad contracts, like Soriano’s, because other teams were willing to pay nearly as much the Cubs paid? The other teams were smart NOT to pay as much as the Cubs did — just like the Cubs were smart not to overpay for Mike Hampton several years ago.

I understand that the logic is slightly different with Kosuke — who could have made more with other teams. In that situation, the Cubs’ decision making is more defensible, though I don’t think all criticism should be dismissed as unfair.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes a contract is defensible

if it is worth it in the short-term, even if it will hurt in the long-term.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd agree that there's a jury's-still-out aspect to all of this

But if Soriano doesn’t significantly improve upon his 2009 numbers for the next FIVE seasons, I don’t think you can defend the contract because he was good in 2007 and 2008.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a certain sense

I’d argue that it’s inapporpriate to judge a contract in hindsight. You can only judge the decision to offer the contract with the information that was had at the time.

As an example from a different perspective, Magglio Ordonez’ contract has looked a lot better in hindsight than it looked at the time.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you shouldn't judge contracts in hindsight ...

except ones that work out — like Ordonez’?

And you can absolutely judge contracts in hindsight. A contract is a decision like any other. Whether we have all the information to make a judgment YET is debatable when it comes to some current contracts on the Cubs.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I was trying to say,

is that there’s little value to judging the decision making process based on how things turned out. Of course, we can all tell just how much to pay every player if we’re working ten years from when the contract was given out.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For some reason, this didn't post my last sentence.

Which was that you can judge a contract, but not so much the decision making process that led to the contract.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

Without getting political, that’s like saying there’s no value in questioning (or judging) why the U.S. believed there were WMDs in Iraq in 2002-03. The reason you judge/question is to learn from mistakes.

Note that I’m not giving my opinion of the Iraq war. I’m evaluating the WMD judgment.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we can use the war analogy without getting political, because the very idea of preemption is part of the debate.

However, there’s no moral question involved in outbidding another team. So, let’s try and re-baseball-center the question.

You’re the GM of the Cubs. All predictive analysis at your disposal suggests that you and the Cardinals are both 88 win teams as you stand. You both have room to upgrade at SS, and there’s a 5 win player with pristine health reports available as a free agent. The next best player you could put at SS is a 1 win player with several question marks. So, this SS could make all the difference. Two separate sources come to you and say the Cards are going to offer 5 years 60 M and Player X really wants to play in St. Louis. So, you’re faced with the possibility that if you don’t win the negotiations outright, the Cubs could just miss the playoffs. You have the money now, although you’re not sure what your budget will be later and things could get tight. Still, isn’t the right decision here to beat the Cards’ offer by $ or by years?

So, you make the offer and sign Player X. At the press conference, he tells you it was always his dream to play for the Cubs and he would never have signed with the Cards. What’s more, you find out the Cards were bluffing; they had no money to spend. Then, Player X gets plunked in his first game and suffers a concussion which keeps him from ever playing again.

Looking back, the contract was a “mistake” right? But what is there to learn here? Ok, you’ve learned that your “trusted sources” weren’t trustworthy, but if you had the same situation come up again with different trusted sources, shouldn’t you make the same decision? Or would you cede the division to the Cards?

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

As has been said many times before...

…if the Cubs two playoff runs with Soriano on the roster (thus far) had paid off with a World Series championship, none of us would be complaining about his contract right now – even in light of his down ’09.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 14, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe ...

but that didn’t happen.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Long way to go

However I am wondering if Abreu stays in California. He signed a one year deal, unfortunately I believe he has found a home and Arte Moreno wants him back. Wishful thinking at least for me, I would love him in Chicago.
Hendry needs to have some patience this winter. Secondbase is a need and I believe Lopez, Baker, Planco can be had at a reasonable price.
Looking forward to the AFL, I get a kick out of it.

by Grockcubs on Oct 14, 2009 8:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

See my frontpage post for a link to yesterday's AFL game.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 14, 2009 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There were many Cubs fans if not nearly all.....

Who would have thrown the bank at Carlos Beltran too, myself included. That deal hasn’t been that great either!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 14, 2009 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd take Beltran in a second

and if he’s on the trade block this winter then that needs to be explored. He should have gotten Soriano’s deal from the Cubs a year earlier.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 14, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To expand

Beltran WAR since joining the Mets 1.9 (awful), 7.0, 4.9, 6.7, 2.9 (in 82 games)

That would be the best player on the Cubs right away

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 14, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if I remember right

that was more MacPhail stopping it than Hendry. I really wanted Beltran too.

by rlpete on Oct 14, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course it was McFail

That pretty much sums up his regime

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 14, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think McPhail stopping Hendry on Beltran

is part of why the whole Cubs organization wouldn’t be stopped for Soriano.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly.

In previous years, the Cubs always seemed to sign FA’s like [insert top star available that year] instead of the [insert top star available that year]. In 2007 there were two top guys – Soriano and Carlos Lee. The Cubs were not going to be denied.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 14, 2009 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As usual, Bruce's blog is well worth reading.

Check out the comments, too – he weighs in on a number of the trades we’ve been discussing in various threads here.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 14, 2009 11:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You're a busy little commenting bee, aren't you?

All kidding aside, YES! Do go read the blog and the comments.

I wish Bruce would comment here again. He’s missed.

by chilango2 on Oct 14, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Things are ridiculously slow at work today.

Plus, I just had a flu shot and I’m feelin’ a little woozy.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 14, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you can't go home to sleep it off,

make sure you have plenty of juice, orange preferably.

by chilango2 on Oct 14, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks - excellent advice!

To clarify, though, I don’t have the flu – I just got the preventative flu shot.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 14, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was disappointed to read that he feels the Cubs are totally satisfied with Theriot.

And then you read someone on there arguing Theriot is our best #2 hitter. sigh

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, if true, that is disappointing...

…as Hendry should be keeping his mind open to an upgrade at that position. I think Theriot has continued to overachieve defensively, but I’m certainly not satisfied with how he performed at the plate this season.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 14, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

200% Agree!!!!!

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 15, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The other questionable thing there -

Maybe I misread it, but it seemed like Bruce said the Rays would give B.J. Upton for Guzman and Marmol but the Cubs wouldn’t do it. I cannot believe it. If the Rays would do that, the Cubs shouldn’t think twice.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I do that deal yesterday

Guzman is an injury risk until the day he retires and Marmol can be replaced if we are getting Upton back.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Oct 14, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That may have been the impression Bruce got.

Sometimes I think many teams overvalue closers to the point where, once they’ve settled on one, they don’t want to give him up – even if there would be a net gain to doing so. Like the hassle of finding another closer would outweigh the benefits of getting a better player at another position.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 14, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A closer, at best, gives you 80 IP, not all of which are important innings

Meanwhile an everyday position player helps you for 1500 innings.

Besides that, Upton is a better player than Marmol.

Besides that, there are less questions about ongoing value for Upton v. Marmol.

I hope Bruce Miles just has the wrong impression.

Let’s put this another way. I would trade a just-entering-arbitration Joe Nathan for B.J. Upton, and Carlos Marmol is not only not Joe Nathan, his control is so shaky that he might go bust at any time. Carlos might be a great closer, but he’s by no means a proven closer.

I really hope Bruce Miles has the wrong impression.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 14, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You had me until the Joe Nathan bit...

How many other closers comparable to Nathan (or better) are there in the majors? Now, how many CFers are there comparable to BJ Upton (or better)? I’m pretty sure the latter outnumber the former so what are you basing your argument on?

btw, not sure how you calculate the “important innings / innings” ratio but wouldn’t you agree that a significant portion of those 1500 innings are not important as well?

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 14, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm arguing that no closer is worth a high-ceiling, young, 5-tool CF who has had success at the ML level.

Really, how many CFs really are comparable to B.J. Upton?

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

are you talking production or potential? Regardless...

In lieu of any guarantee that BJ Upton is going to return to being the 5 tool CF his potential might smack of (otherwise I could just say Felix Pie and be done ☺), here’s a list of CFers I’d feel more comfortable with than BJ Upton in CF for the Cubs:

Ellsbury, Kemp, Justin Upton, Sizemore, Carlos Gonzales, Davis, McCutchen, McLouth, Bourn, Fowler, Borbon.

And you could probably argue for Stubbs, Borbon, Morgan, Granderson, Victorino, and even Beltran and Hunter if you’re not looking too far down the road and/or concerned with $.

Disclaimer: Above list is based on offensive numbers and a cursory awareness of their defensive capabilities. I know naught of UZIs and UZRs but I’d guess that BJ is probably near the top of that group defensive wise. Still, I don’t see anything close to an iron glove in that list.

Upton has had one .300 year and one 20+ HR year – same year btw (2007). His SB numbers are fairly consistent, which makes sense in that speed doesn’t go into slumps.

Now, would BJ be better than any combo of Dome/Reed/Fuld? Most definitely and I’d love to see Hendry trade for him, especially if the cost is along the lines of Marmol and Guzman. Closers/RPs of that level are easily replacable.

But closers at the Nathan level? C’mon… Papelbon, Rivera, Valverde. K-Rod, and Hoffman (if you think he can still do it next year) are the only ones that are proven closers at that level.

Broxton, Bailey, Bell and Soria have the potential but nowhere near the track record yet. Who am I missing?

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 15, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two responses

First, scarcity isn’t so much the issue. Joe Nathan is valuable being the best at what he does. I agree that there aren’t many players like him both in ability and consistency. I’m arguing that what he does isn’t as valuable as what starting position players do. The WAR stat buys into this, giving Nathan just 2 wins (and Upton more than that even in his bad season this year(. Now you may not buy into that since closers get the last out of close wins (or give up walk-off HRs, as we’ve seen). But even Joe Nathan blows saves, averaging 5 over the past three years.

Second, Upton had a bad year with the bat, but before that he had two straight seasons of .380+ OBP. Given that he should at least be a solid leadoff hitter, and could end up a middle of the order hitter (he’s just 25), I can’t put him in the same class as all the other CFs you cite. But, yes, there are other players similar or better than him – now tell me which is available?

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: available

from those I listed, I don’t think any. Before the season, you might have been able to get Davis out of Oak, Fowler from Col, and obviously McClouth from Pgh. But now, maybe Borbon only because Texas might still be a little unorganized with where they’re going with their team. I still don’t think Granderson will go anywhere, unless Detroit gets overwhelmed.

But along those lines, have you seen/heard anything credible that says BJ is available? IIRC this all started from a reader comment in Bruce’s blog. Regardless, assuming TB’s front office shares your views, why would they trade him? Is he surplus, i.e. they’ve got a stud-in-waiting CF being blocked?

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 15, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

quick comment

Fowler probably hasn’t been available for awhile now, including last year. The Rockies have been waiting for him to develop as their CF for a couple years now, particularly after his big 2008 season.

Btw, there have been articles/blurbs suggesting Upton might be moved besides comments in Bruce’s blog. If I get a chance, I’ll look for them.

by toonsterwu on Oct 15, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In general, what I'm hearing is that the Rays

are up to moving one of Crawford or Upton. They have a CF prospect ready to go, as well as Zobrist to place somewhere (maybe IF, maybe OF). I’ve also heard that it will take a lot to pry Upton loose.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

they have a lot of options if they do move Upton

Zobrist can actually play some CF. But the more likely scenario is Desmond Jennings (probably a top 20, if not top 10 prospect, should be excellent defensively and a good offensive player – might not have Upton’s offensive upside of 2 years ago, but should be good) in CF, with Zobrist perhaps moving to RF and Brignac taking over at 2nd. It’s possible that they keep Zobrist at 2nd and go with a tag team in RF again.

by toonsterwu on Oct 15, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I was the Rays, I'd move Crawford

and tell Zobrist to bring all his gloves, giving all of the prospects a chance to win their position having Zobrist bounce back and forth.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

baseball-wise, that's the smart move, but...

pr-wise, the Colonel really is the soul of that franchise. He’s been a model teammate and great in the community, basically the anti-Bradley. Of course, they now have a couple other great guys (Longoria, Zobrist) that could step in and take over in that role, but still – trading Crawford would be a big deal.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Oct 15, 2009 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And that's why they might trade Upton, I guess.

You’re right I was just approaching it from a baseball perspective; I could easily feel different if I was in TB.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 16, 2009 8:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't ignore, though that Upton put up some

truly ugly numbers this year, and has declined greatly each of the past two seasons. He’s by no means a sure thing at this point.

"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin

by davidalanu on Oct 15, 2009 5:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

B.J. Upton is not in decline.

He’s been injured. He’s still young. He’ll get healthy again.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that deal

I would do in a heartbeat. I know I said I wouldn’t do a Marmol deal for Granderson in a different thread, but Upton has enough upside for me to make that deal in a heartbeat (and yes, that means I prefer Upton to Granderson – you can find clubhouse leaders at other spots if you can get an elite talent like Upton – now based on past history, you’d need a vocal guy willing to perhaps put him to task and get in his face, but that’s another matter).

As for the Rays, it might make some sense for them. They need to cut some costs and they have an elite talent in Desmond Jennings who might be a better CF than Upton, with enough offensive upside. If they shore up the pen back there, watch out.

Personally, as touted as Guzman has been, and as much as we’ve been waiting on him, I thought he was a bit lucky this year as FIP and xFIP indicate, and I’d be fine with moving him provided that the Cubs had a pen plan outside of calling on the kids. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if Parker could replicate similar enough FIP/xFIP numbers to Guzman this past year. I think of Parker a bit like how I thought about Wuertz, although I think Parker has a better fastball while Wuertz had a much better slider (but Parker’s is good enough).

by toonsterwu on Oct 15, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree on Guzman.

I noticed after he was declared done for the season that his BABIP wound up being quite low (.209) and his K numbers nothing to really write home about (only 6.9 K/9). You gotta wonder whether he was the benefactor of much good fortune in ’09.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 15, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i will say something in his defense, though

which is that, if he could iron out the secondary pitches and show more consistency, there is still a lot to like. He did average 94.5 on the fastball this year, showing the arm is still as good as it once was.

But short of it is, if Guzman’s the dealmaker to a big trade, I’d be fine moving him.

by toonsterwu on Oct 15, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with that.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 15, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would, too.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by dat cubfan daver on Oct 16, 2009 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

RE: empty seats in 2006.

Do you think they’ll do something about the empty seats in 2009? Late August and September seemed to have low attendance. Will new ownership react to this?

by chilango2 on Oct 14, 2009 11:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I doubt the reaction will be similar

The state of the Cubs at the end of 2006 was MUCH worse than the state of the Cubs today.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do fans get upset over contracts? Is it because they feel like it hampers their favorite team’s ability to spend more? Or do they have nothing better to do? And should your anger/frustration be at Hendry or Soriano? Or a little of both?

And whats to say that team wouldn’t ‘over-spend’ on the next player/contract?

It’s not like we the fans write the check for that player. And please don’t start w/ the “but we pay their salary when we buy their tickets/merchandise/concessions”. That’s understood.

But I myself am not writing Soriano a check twice a month. You have got to spend money, lots and lots of money, to give yourself just the CHANCE to win. So we got him for 8 years instead of 6 or 7. Big deal.

What’s done is done. You can’t rip up the contract obviously. So the next best thing is sitting around BCB bitching about it? Jeeeeeeeeez.

He’s on the books, just like Bradley. Deal Bradley, eat some of that money and hope Soriano is healthy and produces. What else can you do?

MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT ALREADY. THIS GAME IS ABOUT ADJUSTMENTS.

by MaTheMeatloaf on Oct 14, 2009 1:48 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

fans complain ...

because bad contracts hamper our team’s ability to spend more and improve the team — just as you said.

by elgato on Oct 14, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd.

Complaining that someone got too much money or years thrown at them by a jumpy GM is a bit humorous. Especially when you consider that having some of that money to spend on other players would still mean the money would be spent by the same guy who supposedly made the originally poor decisions. It’s a bit of irony for sure.

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Oct 14, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs