Why You Should Turn Sports Radio Off

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2005 9:55 AM CST in News Comment 66 comments

First of all, because they're breathlessly trying to make scoops for themselves, spouting off nonsense which masquerades as news or reality.

I like to think that the discussion on BCB is not only more civil, but more intelligent and more educational than the drivel that often spouts out of the airwaves on the Score or ESPN 1000.

Example: yesterday's bleatings about the alleged Prior/Patterson/Hill for Tejada/Bedard deal that was "on the table".

Whose table that was, wasn't stated. As correctly stated in today's Daily Herald, no such deal has been proposed or discussed (and my sources confirm this). Not that I wouldn't make it if it were.

The reason I mention this article is that it goes on to note several high-profile deals involving pitchers traded for hitters, and why they went wrong.

Of the deals mentioned, none of them are really comparable to the proposed trade of Mark Prior. Let's take them one by one, in chronological order:

April 21, 1966: The Cubs got Fergie Jenkins, along with Adolfo Phillips and John Herrnstein, from Philadelphia for Larry Jackson and Bob Buhl. Jenkins went on to make the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the Cubs, which included six straight seasons of 20-plus wins.

The Cubs did their homework here. Buhl was about done, and I have no idea what the Phillies were thinking, except that after their collapse of 1964, and failure to progress the following year, they must have felt some "pressure" to win now, and thought that a veteran presence would help. It didn't, although Jackson did produce three fine seasons for them before retiring.

I hesitate to mention this, but you also have to realize the context of the time. Jenkins and Phillips were black, and there were still many racists in baseball in 1966 -- and Dick Allen was a Phillie at the time, and had already been involved in controversy.

Dec. 10, 1971: The New York Mets traded 24-year-old Nolan Ryan to California for shortstop Jim Fregosi. Ryan pitched 22 more seasons, struck out more batters than anyone else in baseball history, and threw 7 no-hitters.

This was a poor deal only in retrospect. At the time, Ryan was viewed as a nicer Kyle Farnsworth. Fregosi was a 29-year-old six-time All-Star who was one year removed from a season only a little bit short of Miguel Tejada's 2005 (Fregosi 1970: age 28, 22 HR, 82 RBI, .278/.353/.459. Tejada 2005: age 29, 26 HR, 98 RBI, .304/.349/.515). He'd been hurt part of '71 and never recovered.

June 15, 1977: The New York Mets traded Tom Seaver to the Cincinnati Reds for Pat Zachry, Steve Henderson, Doug Flynn and Dan Norman. Seaver won 75 games for the Reds over the next 6 seasons.

This is disingenuous. Seaver was dealt because the Mets determined they could not afford him. And while the players acquired turned out to be not much, again, that is only in hindsight. Zachry was the reigning NL Rookie of the Year, and Henderson was a top hitting prospect who went .297/.372/.480 in 350 AB for the Mets. He never again did better.

Jan. 10, 1991: The Orioles get slugger Glenn Davis for outfielder Steve Finley and pitchers Pete Harnisch and Curt Schilling. Schilling eventually won World Series titles with the Arizona Diamondbacks and Boston Red Sox.

This is just silly. Fourteen years later, this deal looks stupid. But again, in 1991 Davis was one of the most feared sluggers in baseball; at the age of 29 he had 176 career HR, and though he wasn't a great 1B, it was felt he'd have a long career as a DH in Baltimore. Schilling was a headcase who had great talent but one career win, and had consistently pissed off his coaches, managers and teammates with his attitude.

Nov. 19, 1993: The Los Angeles Dodgers traded rookie Pedro Martinez to Montreal straight up for Delino DeShields after Martinez went 10-5 in his rookie season. Martinez won the Cy Young for the Expos in 1997 before being traded again, this time to Boston, for Carl Pavano and Tony Armas Jr. He won 2 Cy Youngs with the Red Sox and is now with the Mets.

I don't think anyone could have predicted that Martinez would do all of that for other teams. Yes, he was a good-looking young pitcher, but it seemed reasonable to deal a 21-year-old pitcher for a 24-year-old second baseman who had had three solid seasons as a major league hitter. This one didn't work out for the Dodgers.

Feb. 18, 1999: The Toronto Blue Jays traded Roger Clemens to the New York Yankees for David Wells, Graeme Lloyd and Homer Bush. Clemens has won 108 games and 2 Cy Youngs over the last seven seasons for the Yankees and the Houston Astros.

Disingenuous again. The Blue Jays couldn't afford Clemens after two stellar seasons there. Bush was viewed as a good 2B prospect, though he failed, and Wells did have two good years for the Blue Jays.

So as you can see, some of the reasons these pitcher-for-hitter deals didn't work out can be seen only in hindsight. Looking at them solely from the knowledge had at the time, they looked like sure things.

What about this trade? Would you do it? There was a team that had a 24-year-old outfielder who'd had over 1000 career at-bats. He had great potential, but never hit for the power that the club had hoped for, and struck out a ton, and had regressed badly in the last year and a half.

That team got an offer for this outfielder: a 27-year-old starting pitcher coming off a season in which he'd won 18 games and finished in the top ten in league ERA. He'd been consistently solid, had a previous 20-win season, oh, and the offering club also was willing to throw in a respected veteran relief pitcher and a 24-year-old outfield backup, and all they wanted apart from the outfielder was a couple of castoff relievers.

You'd make that deal, right? That pitcher sounds like gold, right? Sounds like you're getting Barry Zito for Corey Patterson, right?

I'm describing the Brock-for-Broglio deal, of course.

What I'm trying to say here is that it doesn't always work the way you think it will at the time, and trading a "sure thing" pitcher for a "take a chance" hitter isn't always what you're going to get.

And getting Miguel Tejada isn't "taking a chance". It's getting a former MVP who's a perennial All-Star. Would it be better to get him without giving up Mark Prior?

Sure it would. And maybe Jim Hendry can engineer such a deal. But sometimes you have to be bold.

0 recs | Comment 66 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That's More Like It....

I'm glad it isn't "on the table". I'm all for getting Tejada, but not if it means losing Prior and not getting a replacement back. Re-posting tomas21's idea again of a three way trade where we don't lose pitchers would just make me more annoying.

Let's hope Hendry's recent low profile means he's working on something that will please everybody, or at least most people.

Within the past week here, there was an article in the Long Beach Press Telegram about how sports talk radio is admittedly going after the 18-34 demographic, one that the programmers feel don't appreciate hard news but instead want to be entertained and inflamed. What has always struck me funny about targeting this demographic is that the age group with the REAL disposable income, 35 on up, is rendered irrelevant. We're left to populate Cub blogs and use our cash to buy Bleed Cubbie Blue paraphenalia instead. Okay by me.

by BeerCub on Dec 28, 2005 10:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

OK by me too!

n/t

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2005 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What's interesting

The irony is that I am a 24-year-old sports nut (and a poor student to boot) who hates all sports radio and wouldn't listen to the Score or WMVP if they were the last radio stations left in town, but my father is 53, has all sorts of disposable income, and loves listening to sports radio in Dallas. And he's not even that much of a sports fan.

I just hate being marketed to. People my age are not as dumb as marketers, demographers, and sociologists make us out to be.

by gauchodirk on Dec 28, 2005 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

The programmers assume most 18-34 year olds are empty headed tabloid freaks. Maybe because they are.

by BeerCub on Dec 28, 2005 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoops

By "they" I meant the programmers.

by BeerCub on Dec 28, 2005 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Voice of Reason

Al, you're the voice of reason. Thanks for keeping a great website great. I'm ready to go into the season with what we have. I think another outfielder would be a good option, someone to platoon with Jones. A pitching project like Miller would be a good add also. Save the money, save our prospects. Make a trade in July that puts us over the top. I trust Hendry to do that and I trust there will be a lot of teams out of it by then we can deal with. I think we are at least ten games better than last year and we can be in the wild card hunt very late. The July trade will let us know what exactly we need and we can get what we need then. Who knows what we need until we see what Prior, Wood, Rusch, Williams, Jones, Pierre, etc. can provide. I takes time, you're right Al, to see if a trade is positive or negative. Let's wait until we know exactly where we need the help and then go for it. With a little luck, we may only need small pieces to the puzzle, not a big one like is being rumored about.

by mrcubsfan on Dec 28, 2005 10:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

i think

the cubs biggest problems of last year would not be corrected by adding tejada.

in my opinion, the two biggest problems last year were an ineffective bullpen and a lack of production/OBP out of the 1/2 spot in the order.

having a full year of dempster as the closer, plus adding howry/eyre (and maybe wood?) should make for a huge upgrade of the bullpen.

Adding Pierre, plus putting anybody but Neifi in the two-hole adds an immeasurable upgrade to the top of the order.

The second two biggest problems I think were pretty close in importance. Those being a lack of health/effectiveness/depth out of the rotation, and poor batting with RISP. I kind of think this is a "robbing peter to pay paul" scenario, where the gain from adding a clutch hitter like Tejada is matched by the loss of another starting pitcher who could be very effective.

Further, I'm not sure that all of the Cubs failures with RISP can be traced to personnel. The Cubs were at the bottom of the league in sacrifices and BA with RISP, yet near the top of the league in HR with RISP. What that tells me is there is a philosophical problem with the Cubs, not a personnel problem. Bringing in Tejada won't do much if we have a man on third with one out in a tie game and Bakers telling him to put the ball on Waveland.

This is not to say Tejada wouldn't help. But I'm not sure he helps more than he hurts, given his price, especially in the long run.

by tomas21 on Dec 28, 2005 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

pitching

I think the Cubs are one shy in quality starting pitching already. trading Prior for Tejada feels risky considering the question marks surrounding all starters except Zambrano. I am hopeful we can add another bat at a cost less than Prior or Z. How that is done is up to JH.

by MOE on Dec 28, 2005 10:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Davis for Schilling et. al

I've lived in the DC area for 25 years - when the Davis for Schilling/Finley/Harnisch trade happened, everybody in the media jumped up and down about how great the trade was. Tom Boswell of the Washington Post said it was the trade that put the Orioles in the World Series. These things can only be viewed in hindsight. That being said, get Tejada!

"Don't worry, Joey. We'll go next year. They're in the World Series all the time" ---My grandfather to my sick father, October 10, 1945

by flyingdonut on Dec 28, 2005 11:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Your Gradnfather's Comment...

On the bottom of your post gave me chills. It's hard to believe there was a time when the Cubs were actually contenders year in, year out. Wow!!!

by Blue Monster on Dec 28, 2005 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can we forget

about the Jones platoon idea? It's not going to happen. He is the everyday rightfielder, right or wrong. I know he doesn't hit lefties so on those days he'll bat lower in the lineup. You don't pay a guy 16 million for 3 years to platoon.

by SonnyJ9 on Dec 28, 2005 11:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

no, we can't!

First off, its too good of an idea to forget about until something rules it out completely, such as the signing of all good platoon partners, or the acquisition of one that Dusty says he plans on platooning with Murton.

Are you sure $5 million per year is too much for the left-handed side of a platoon? Look at the this offseason's free agent signings, and you'll see that the market has gone up for everything this offsesaon. Its reasonable to believe this is the case for platoon players as well. Furthermore, we would be paying significantly less for the other side of the platoon, which would be playing less often. I can't see us paying more than the $2.2 millin Byrnes made last year if we signed him, and if we really wanted to splurge we could go get Craig Wilson, who is making $3 million next year. Spending a maximum of $8 million a year on RF, when we're getting excellent production out of the position, isn't unreasonable. Actually, it would be a very efficient expenditure of funds.

Now, whether you want to question whether Dusty/Hendry are willing to platoon Jones, that's a different matter. But to rule it out based solely on the moderate size of Jones's contract i think is inconsistent with the current market value of players.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by shawndgoldman on Dec 28, 2005 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Unwilling to

>>Now, whether you want to question whether Dusty/Hendry are willing to platoon Jones, that's a different matter.<<

That's more to my point, I don't believe the Cubs are willing to platoon him, not that it isn't the right thing to do.

by SonnyJ9 on Dec 28, 2005 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But I don't WANT to forget the platoon idea...

if it means the Cubs will WIN MORE BASEBALL GAMES!!! That's the object, isn't it?!? If winning means platooning Murton and Jones, then DO IT!!! The Cubs signed Jones and are paying him a lot of money. However, Jones contract is not a pact with the devil that reads Jones must play every day! Jones can from sit when the Cubs are facing a left-handed pitcher. Numbers don't lie. When the Cubs are facing the Mark Mulders and the Andy Pettittes of the world, I want Murton in there and Jones on the bench. It's that simple. Give yourself the BEST CHANCE TO WIN. If that means Murton starts over Jones on some days, so be it! I still say we need another corner outfielder and make Jones and Murton a platoon situation.

One day, the dream will come true.

by brianp88 on Dec 28, 2005 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

...better to get him without giving up Mark Prior?

In my mind, the most reasonable scenario to obtain Tejada without giving up Prior is the one laid out by The Cub Reporter's Arizona Phil. This is how the trade would work, in 2 steps:

The Cubs would trade Matt Murton, Rich Hill, Michael Wuertz, and a prospect such as Brandon Sing for Barry Zito and Jay Payton.
The Cubs would then trade Barry Zito, Felix Pie, Jay Payton and Ronny Cedeno for Miguel Tejada and Jay Gibbons.

In this scenario, the Cubs give up Murton, Hill, Wuertz, Sing, Cedeno, and Pie and get Tejada and Gibbons in return.

In most Prior for Tejada scenarios that the O's seem likely to accept, the deal is something like:

Cubs trade Prior, Cedeno, Pie, and Hill for Tejada and Bedard.

So in order to analyze whether you'd rather do the deal with Prior in it or without Prior in it, you have to ask youreself the following question:

Would you rather have Prior and Gibbons, or Murton, Sing, Wuertz, and Bedard?

Of course, the names in that question depend on what it actually takes to get Zito and Payton, and also on the perceived difference between Zito and Prior in the O's mind. But if those proposed trades would go through, its a good way to compare the two scenarios under which we could obtain Tejada.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by shawndgoldman on Dec 28, 2005 11:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Jay Gibbons... yeck

I like this scenario a lot better than giving up Prior, but Jay Gibbons is a definite downgrade from Matt Murton.

Jay Gibbons: BA .277 OBP .317

That's an abysmal OBP for someone with a .277 average. Check Neifi's numbers, they are very similar.

Yes, we'd get Tejada, but he's 30 years old. I'd rather just hold onto what we got and not give up on Cedeno, Murton, and Pie. I think at least one of these guys is going to become something very special very soon.

by nickler on Dec 28, 2005 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I say

we just hold onto Jay Payton and Barry Zito.

Gives us a heck of a lot better chance of winning this year!

Forget Baltimore and Tejada. They stink and deserve to stink. Keep Zito and Payton and we'll rock!!

by nickler on Dec 28, 2005 7:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Prior trade

There's certainly a fair chance that if this deal were proposed it would come back to haunt the Cubs. But I asked a bunch of Cardinals fans and they all hope the Cubs stand pat. Most think Prior is highly unlikely to stay healthy.

This deal, I feel, was the jolt the Cubs needed. But it would have had to include Bedard, and I just don't think there is any way the O's would do that - even for Zambrano.

So now the Cubs mess includes a pitcher in Prior who has to feel less loyalty than before. This team as it stands will have to have A LOT go right to win 90 games. And I think Hendry is pretty much done, except for desperately trying to sign Lee, Zambrano, Prior, Pierre? to expensive deals - meaning there won't be much help coming for 2007 either.

by cubz1963 on Dec 28, 2005 11:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

A's rumor

Not to be a wet blanket, but Beane won't go for "Matt Murton, Rich Hill, Michael Wuertz, and a prospect such as Brandon Sing for Barry Zito and Jay Payton". Jay Payton was the steal of last year's trades, and Barry Zito is still Barry Zito-- meaning he's the only link to their "Big 3" days, still has filthy stuff, and won't go for this price. I think we are getting a bit excited about Rich Hill's value right now, and other teams aren't. We can't wish him into truly being a top prospect. As far as this "Baltimore trade", Al, do you think it has no merit at all? I thought you were saying that at the beginning of the post but by the end it still seemed possible...

Missing Wrigley summers since 1998.

by cervantes05 on Dec 28, 2005 11:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I disagree...

if you follow the link i put in above, AZ Phil goes into detail about why he thinks Beane would go for this deal. Basically, AZ Phil structured this potential deal to mirror the ones Beane made with the Braves and Cardinals when dumping Hudson and Muler last year. If you look at what they got in those deals, the players were of the same contractual status as the ones in the above trade, and were of equal or lesser talent level. This means that even if Beane wants more for Zito than he did for Hudson or Mulder, he'd be getting it. I mean, MATT MURTON! That's a big talent, and he fits into Beane's philosophy incredibly well.

As far as Payton is concerned, i doubt Beane is a GM that plans on spending $4.5 million for a 4th OF (which is what Payton would be if the A's got Muron). I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him moved.

If you break down the trade as AZ Phil does, its basically Murton, Hill, and Wuertz for Zito and Sing for Payton. Both trades seem entirely reasonable.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by shawndgoldman on Dec 28, 2005 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and just to clarify...

this isn't a rumor i'm posting, its just a speculation on how the Cubs could obtain Tejada without giving up Prior.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by shawndgoldman on Dec 28, 2005 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

unbelievable

all this angst, and now the cubs are now saying they never even made the offer. LMAO!

face it, folks -- hendry's about done. what you see is what you are probably going to get on april 3. this team already costs over $100mm.

cf pierre
2b walker (we hope! -- otherwise, insert neifi here)
1b lee
rf jones
3b aramis
lf murton
c barrett
ss cedeno

bench: neifi, hairston, mabry, patterson, blanco

rot: z, prior, maddux, williams, rusch
pen: dempster, howry, wuertz, wellemeyer, williamson, novoa; eyre and ohman

that's 26, so one will be picked off (i'll guess williamson).

by gaius marius on Dec 28, 2005 12:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Where's Wood?

So you're assuming Kerry Wood will not start the season on the active roster?

by cubz1963 on Dec 28, 2005 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

and Wellemeyer isn't going to be on the roster.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 28, 2005 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok spark

then keep williamson -- if he can still throw, of course.

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i

think aramis will hit fourth, despite the right/lefty thing.

i'm wondering what will happen to the rotation when Wood comes back healthy, assuming that happens. is sounded as though rusch was all but assured that he wouldn't be in the pen if he resigned. and williams seems more suited to starting than relieving. maddux obviously wouldn't be demoted.

i'm not sure if williams can be sent down to AAA until we have an injury in the roation, but i don't know what else could happen.

by tomas21 on Dec 29, 2005 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'd put him in the pen

we'll need the help out there, and he's pretty much proven at this point that he can't survive the grind. if you put him out there and he does well, and then decline his $13mm option for 2007, you might stand a chance of resigning him as a closer for half that price.

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I'm sorry he doesn't throw 100 MPH fastballs. He threw at the low 90s, and he still wasn't fully recovered. I can't throw, but he can.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 29, 2005 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hope so

but i think the jury's out until late march, at least.

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From the MLB Cubs' site

"Wood was not expected to be ready to return to the rotation by Opening Day and won't have to rush. The Cubs have five starters in right-handers Carlos Zambrano, Mark Prior, Greg Maddux, and Jerome Williams, and left-hander Glendon Rusch."

by KenBrett34 on Dec 28, 2005 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Al's wallet is out the price of a decent porterhouse when Wood goes DL in March.

by Ivychat on Dec 28, 2005 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agreed to bet...

... but we did not set terms.

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2005 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

none of my business, but

a steak seems fair. :)

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right...

... and I'm happy to discuss this with Chuck, but he seems to be avoiding me today.

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2005 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm assuming

that wood, god love him, may not make another start for the cubs ever.

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Really...

Don't burst my bubble. Please.

God's not the only one, I love Woody too.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 29, 2005 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Say Gaius...

... want to bet on that?

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2005 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'd

like to get some of that action. i'm always willing to make bets with hopeless optimists or hopeless pessimists.

by tomas21 on Dec 29, 2005 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he will...

because saying Wood will never start for the Cubs ever again is way too drastic. And way too sad for me.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 29, 2005 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

my standard ante

is a donut, in honor of you-know-who.

and yes, i would be willing to bet a donut on that possibility, if you please to.

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

i prefer the boring cake donut, the one that's always the last to get eaten in a dozen mixed donuts. as long as its not a jelly donut. i can'r believe people eat those.

by tomas21 on Dec 29, 2005 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

i think there are plenty of ways to criticize Hendry without making fun of his weight. I happen to be a thin person, but i think fat people get way too much crap. this is especially true in hendry's case, as if anyone had an excuse for putting on weight right now, with all the stress he has now, both personally and professionally, its him.
and i doubt you would ever call him that if you met him, he's one of the true gentlemen in the game.
My grandfather, one of the best human beings to ever walk the planet, used to say that if you wouldn't say something to someone's face, you probably shouldn't say it. words to live by, and i don't think being a public figure should make you lose that act of decency towards you.

by tomas21 on Dec 29, 2005 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

looks like

he's one of the true gentlemen in the game.

i'm not the only one you've assigned a fantasy personality to. have him over for dinner much, do you? ;)

fwiw, i feel quite fine about it. hendry is a public person in his job and he should know it if he doesn't. it's why he makes the money he does. and such commentary, specious or not, is part and parcel to public life.

besides, he really does like donuts.

by gaius marius on Dec 30, 2005 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

fantasy?

i've met hendry on several occaisions, twice at spring training where i was able to have fairly lengthy conversations with him. he was incredibly gracious and generous with his time, something he likely doesn't have a lot of.

to consider someone a gentleman doesn not require intimate knowledge of the person. its not like i said he never lies to his wife or something.

and to my mind your namecalling of hendry is more than specious, its cowardly and classless, but it doesn't surprise me to hear it from you, or that you can't recognize it in yourself.

why does a public figure not deserve the same common decency and respect you'd give to someone you met on the street (you don't laugh and point and make fun of fat people you meet, do you? i hope?).

public figures are certainly subject to criticism, especially when their work affects a large sector of the population such as a politician or gm. But i don't think they are subject to childish namecalling. again, that's classless.

thanks for giving more evidence that my "fantasy" persona of you is reality.

by tomas21 on Dec 30, 2005 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what's classless

about pointing out the well-known fact that jim hendry likes a donut now and again?

and why do you assume that i don't mean "cruller jim" affectionately? i like crullers myself, you know. and, while i don't think he's done a particularly competent job for the cubs over the years, i have little reason to think he's a bad guy -- just as you have precious little reason to think he's a good guy.

anyway, if you want to feign indignation, let 'er rip. your world is your business. but to me, he is and always will be my dear old cruller jim. :)

by gaius marius on Dec 30, 2005 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I read this exchange with interest...

... it's hard to show that you are calling him this "with affection" when you are saying it in a text form here.

Maybe you are, and maybe you do have some respect for Hendry (and other public figures), as you say.

It's one thing to criticize the public performance (the GM job) of a public figure.

It's another to call him names. I'd stay away from the latter.

by Al Yellon on Dec 30, 2005 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

are you joking?

aren't you the gracious host who LOLed at cruller jim just yesterday?

al, you don't have to play the village parson just because some troll on your site is projecting his less admirable confrontation-seeking traits (which are clearly manifest, as he continues to try to interpret any comment i make in the worst possible light as ammunition to mindlessly attack) onto me.

it's funny! laugh, dammit! :)

by gaius marius on Dec 30, 2005 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and seriously

your draw chuck contest is an order of internet character assassination several magnitudes greater than anything i've ever aspired to in my life -- and, apologies to chuck, it's pretty funny too. :)

that you don't see tomas expressing righteous outrage against that says everything about what motivates him, but that's neither here nor there.

but you, al? sanctimony isn't civility.

by gaius marius on Dec 30, 2005 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I did laugh...

... but then I let it go.

As far as the contest is concerned, I thought it was a way to gently poke fun at someone who has been so consistently negative and occasionally downright churlish here.

He's had fun with it on his site too, you know.

Hope you voted.

by Al Yellon on Dec 31, 2005 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

fwiw

as a point of reference, the longest conversation i've ever had with a public figure was with robert downey junior some years ago. he seemed very nice. wildly extrapolate your own starstruck conclusions.

by gaius marius on Dec 30, 2005 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Williamson...

... isn't going anywhere. He's a pet Hendry project, like Dempster. And in fact, the two months he threw in 2005 were pretty similar to the two months Dempster threw in 2004. I'm not saying that Williamson will be as successful in 2006 as Dempster was in 2005, but he ought to be better than he was. Wellemeyer's likely the odd man out.

I do not think Hendry is done. I do think we are likely not to hear much for the next week to ten days, for the simple reason that baseball management types, like anyone else, would like some time off during the holidays!

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2005 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

williamson

he ought to be better than he was

may be servicable and may never pitch in the bigs again. the man's had his arm opened up more often than the hood of my car. i wouldn't count on him for anything quite yet. if he can knock wellemeyer or novoa out of the pen, so much the better. but i'll have to see it first. he could get crushed in mesa.

by gaius marius on Dec 29, 2005 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland Signed...

I just heard on WMVP that Garland has signed a 3 year deal for 7, 10 and 12 million. You can remove him from the trade talk.

by SonnyJ9 on Dec 28, 2005 12:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well...

first of all the Brock-for-Broglio deal would make me feel a little suspicious. It seems very very one sided.

You want Hendry to be bold? I think at this point keeping Prior is more of a risk than acquiring Miguel Tejada. I say take the risk and keep Prior. Let him show us that he belongs here.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 28, 2005 12:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It could get ugly if Tejada for Prior goes through

There's a big fly in the ointment that I haven't seen discussed here (if it has I apologize) that was put forth by another blogger that goes by the handle Arizona Phil.

"If the Cubs were to acquire Miguel Tejada in a trade this off-season, he would have one opportunity to demand a trade, and that would be during the "Free-Agency Filing Period" during the 15 days immediately following the 2006 World Series. If Tejada were to demand a trade at that time, the Cubs would have until March 15, 2007, to trade him, and Tejada would get to name no more than six clubs to which he would refuse a trade.

If the Cubs fail to trade him by March 15, 2007, Tejada would immediately become a free-agent, and he would lose the $38m in salaries left on his contract.

If Tejada demands a trade after the 2006 season and the Cubs DO trade him prior to March 15th, then Tejada can be a free-agent after the 2009 season, which is when his contract expires, anyway."

Do we really want to take a chance that the best shortstop in baseball will opt out after only one year? You know that Boston and the Yankees would be willing to spend a whole lot more than what would remain on the last 3 years of his contract to sign him. His agent's not dumb no matter what you think of Tejada. This could turn into a one year Furcal type deal for him. Demand a trade and pit the Cubs against even bigger spenders than we are.

If so, after 2006 both Prior and Tejada would be gone. Do you really want to take that chance?

I have only one superstition. I touch all the bases when I hit a home run. - Babe Ruth

by Kurt on Dec 28, 2005 3:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Heh!

Mass exodus could ensue.

Wood is a free agent after this year as is Juan Pierre and Derrek Lee.

Additionally, A Ram can elect free agency if he'd like due to the stupid contract that Hendry signed him to.

How great would that be to Jim Hendry's "legacy" to see him trade for a guy on a 4 year contract only to lose him after 1? And see the rest of the team walk out after him?

Such a scenario could only happen to the Cubs. Hendry might just deserve it for his rampant negligence since the summer of 2003.

Then again, Hendry isn't guaranteed a job beyond 2006. He might not care who's here in 2007 because he might not be either!

by Ivychat on Dec 28, 2005 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

...you

are still a cub fan right?

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Dec 28, 2005 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But Hendry, Dusty and MacPhail make it so hard.

by Ivychat on Dec 28, 2005 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

question

how tall are you?
justing wondering whether the napoleon cartoon of you was accurate at all.

by tomas21 on Dec 29, 2005 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

mmhmm

the love hate relationship with the Chicago Cubs and Chuck lives on.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Dec 29, 2005 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, hold on a second.

This is, I believe, the right that any player traded in the middle of a multi-year contract has. Since Tejada has already asked to be traded, the theory is that once he gets somewhere, he'd be happy enough that he wouldn't do this again.

There are no assurances of that, of course, but methinks Arizona Phil is trying to stir up something that isn't really there.

Finally, if this scenario played out and the Cubs did trade him before March 15, 2007 -- if he is indeed "the best shortstop in baseball", as you note, wouldn't he command some pretty good players in return?

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2005 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From Tejada for 4 years to players in return?

The "best SS in baseball" is not my opinion, just the flavor of what has been discussed to this point. It can certainly be argued that he's the best hitting SS, though his miscues at the position are well documented. In fact, I believe CBS Sporstline rates him as the #1 fantasy SS (a decidedly offensive category) in the game.

As for your hope on getting good players in return, that could be the case, but do we want to see Prior go this year and Tejada the next, already knowing the turmoil that we'll have on the free agent front after 2006? If the talks drag on into March we could have a similar situation to Houston as we're afraid to work on other fronts until we see what the players "traded for" could cost us.

If Prior is gone and Tejada walks, watch everyone else start jumping ship that might otherwise stay (Aramis) opting out for greener pastures.

Prior is a known entity, contract wise, for the next 3 years. We can still hope that the big 3 can put together an injury free year and make us all happy. But if Prior is gone and Tejada leaves after 2006, I don't think you'll be able to stop that hole in the dam from rupturing.

I think you have too much faith in Tejada staying in Wrigley after he arrives. You may be hoping for too much. Tejada already knows that he's underpaid compared to Furcal and that he can rectify that after one year in Chicago. He also has might enjoy going back into the fray of an AL East pennant race as a Yankees or Sox player, with a better chance (in his mind) to win a ring. I'm thinking from Tejada's perspective, not as a Cub fan.

I have only one superstition. I touch all the bases when I hit a home run. - Babe Ruth

by Kurt on Dec 28, 2005 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Although I have been supportive...........

........of the Prior-for-Tejada deal, the thought of "renting" Tejada for just one year in exchange for Prior is rather sobering. Because it could happen, I have to believe - as a Cubs fan - that it will happen.

Must confess I'd forgotten about this out clause, and unless you can lock down Tejada BEFORE sending Prior to Baltimore (which is unlikely), I'm now shifting my support to the "Retain Prior's Services" campaign.

by tville on Dec 29, 2005 11:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Brock for Broglio

Al,

you make great points about trades. The truth is none of us have a time machine to look ahead and see what will happen. Your Brock for Broglio example is well done. Still as Cub fans, we must no be spooked by deals that took place 40 years ago.

All of the arguments here are well thought out, still we cannot tell the outcome. We can only hope that JH makes decisions that are in this team best interest.

by ccd on Dec 28, 2005 10:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly right...

... or even four years ago (Dontrelle Willis), or eight years ago (Jon Garland).

The former was a negative, although the Cubs did get value (three years of Matt Clement). The latter was a huge mistake.

If a GM goes through life thinking every minor leaguer he deals will turn out to be those guys -- or Lou Brock -- he's not going to have a job very long.

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2005 3:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs