Jim Hendry Close to Extension with Cubs

The sale of the Cubs is still up in the air, delayed due to the economic crisis and Joe the Plumber trying to figure out what net income means. That isn't stopping the Cubs from doing business though. They already extended Piniella before the playoffs started and it looks like Jim Hendry might get three more years or at least three more years worth of paychecks from the Chicago Cubs.

Kenney has previously said only that he would put his recommendation of
a Hendry extension "on a tee'' for new ownership. But sources indicate
that position has changed, possibly because the worldwide financial
crisis may have devalued the franchise while making it highly unlikely
the team will be under new ownership before the start of the 2009

One source indicated that a three-year extension is being discussed and could be completed soon.

Nothing is official yet, but the link above goes on to say the Mariners, the only team searching for a GM this offseason, asked the Cubs for permission to speak to Hendry about their vacancy and were turned down. Hendry had a an option he could exercise for 2009, but was a little weary of being a lame-duck GM with the pending ownership change. 

The Cubs being in a state of prosperity on the field and I'm sure on the accounting books, probably couldn't be happier with Hendry right now, thus the extension. 

I know Hendry has his enemies around here, I mean 2005 and 2006 were bloody awful, but I'm all for the extension. He didn't hit every ball out of the park the last two years, but
under his watch and with the people that he's surrounded himself with, he's responsible for the  best Cubs team most of us have ever seen
and the best team in the NL in 2008...at least on paper. And while that seems like a hollow achievement, it's actually the one every GM should strive to accomplish - to put together the best team out there year after year and make the playoffs. As the playoffs taught us all this year, anyone can win or lose a 5-game series, no matter the tremendous difference in talent, so just get there and hope the cards flip the right way for you. The Cubs are now in that position and a large part of that is due to who Jim Hendry has traded for, signed, listened to and hired. 



Agreed, Rob. Just no more 2006s, please.

I wonder what MannyTrillo thinks about all this.

A plain old General won't do?

they'd do better as the Marines.

"Nothing is official yet, but the link above goes on to say the Marines, the only team searching for a GM this offseason..."

Actually Rob, I think that the Marines are looking for a Few Good Men.

I only kid because I care.

Wow... you fixed it in the time it took me to write my pithy post. You really are dreamy...

why proofread when I have a thousand editors at my disposal?

When the hell do we get an owner?

"The Seattle Times reports that Jerry DiPoto, Kim Ng, Tony LaCava and Jack Zduriencik are the finalists for the Mariners' GM opening."

dipoto and ng...

dipoto...super nerd...super scout..."hot new kid" in the executive scene. ex-player with tons of real-life and superficial megafan-like baseball knowledge.

ng...one time "hot new kid" in the executive scene who's now pushing 40. paper-pusher extraordinaire from the high-ups of internet MLB operations to various team operations...extremely familiar to the "old guard" executives of many teams...groomed for almost a decade at executive/team meetings as a tag-along and leader

lacava and zduriencik...whatever.

I'd be more excited if it was Frank DiPino.

Chad's head will explode if Kim Ng gets the gig.


of course they have plenty of holes to fill too with Lowe, Manny, Furcal, possibly Penny and Kent scheduled to be FA's. But they'll certainly be some competition for any FA's the Cubs might be interested in.


TLFC asked me to write something...

I swore by Stoney and never thought I would like anyone else, but Brenly has grown on me as an analyst. I really like him, and would be sorry if he went. Especially to the Brew Crew.

Two division titles in a row. He deserves the extension.

world series doesn't start until next Wednesday...

that should keep the enthusiasm up for a pretty low-level national interest matchup.

This playoff scheduling sucks bad.

Can't wait for the big Kevin Stocker vs. Bobby Abreu piece during the World Series.

According to the MLBPA:


Interesting in that they cite this as the clause violated:

"Players shall not act in concert with other players and clubs shall not act in concert with other clubs."

I am not sure what the recourse would be, but it would be very damned hard to convince any reasonable person that the super agents who have more than one FA in a given year don't negotiate in concert against the clubs.

It would be much easier to prove Sammy Sosa's case than Bonds's, wonder why he gets the special treatment from the MLBPA.


grew up a Braves fan and still lives in Alabama so I'm sure that would be his first choice.


more Peavy talk, says Padres don't mind dealing him to Dodgers if guys like Kershaw or Kemp are made available.

turned off the Red Sox game when it was 7-0.


Re: Rob G:

"why proofread when I have a thousand editors at my disposal?"

Or a dozen editors, at least.

From Buster Olney re: Peavy

"The Padres are seeking at least two young pitchers in return, along with someone who can become the team's everyday center fielder sometime in the immediate to near future."

Cubs have lots of young pitchers, plus Felix Pie who can become the Pads everyday center fielder.

I'd like the Cubs to extend Hendry, and have him get Peavy, fire the first shot of the offseason, let everyone else know the Cubs are trying to add to the best team in the NL. See if he can cause some panic moves by others.

From ESPN.com:

"At least one team the Padres have spoken with about Peavy have demonstrated an interest in expanding the deal to include shortstop Khalil Greene, whose $6.5 million salary the Padres would like to move, and Atlanta is relatively flush with middle infielders, with Yunel Escobar and Brent Lillibridge."


It doesn't make sense that the Braves would want Greene. That's gotta be either the Cards or the Cubs. Didn't Hendry have a player-crush of some kind for Greene? I think I'd take him if it brought us Peavy.

there's not many players I'd want Theriot over, but Greene is one of them.

He's had an OBP over .300 twice in 5 seasons and and OPS+ over 100 twice. I don't really think he'll hit 27 home runs ever again.

Agreed, but if it gets us Peavy? I suppose you shouldn't downgrade an everyday position for a SP spot, but hell, stick Greene on the bench and play Cedeno.

Wait in this scenerio is Theriot being sent to SD? If not Theriot starts, Greene sits, Cedeno is DFA.

If Theriot is being sent to SD, play Greene, and still DFA Cedeno.

Cedeno is brain dead as a baseball player. I dont want him on the Cubs anymore.

Yeah. Getting rid of Cedeno is would be the biggest move of the offseason. I mean, the guy is why the Cubs have lost 6 straight playoff games in the last 2 years.

I don't see Greene being better than Cedeno.

Peavy isn't coming to the Cubs. If they still had Sean Gallagher, then sure, you send the Padres Gallagher, Pie, and Ceda, maybe Marshall too. That could've gotten Peavy. But right now Pie is a big old cipher, Ceda's future is as a one-inning reliever, and Marshall is good but doesn't have the sort of potential the Padres are looking for.

While Greene is not great, he's 1000 times better than theriot. what he lacks in OBP he makes up in slg. Sure, he won't hit 27 homers again but he will hit @15.

He can also, you know, actually field his position well.

And even if it's a net loss at with greene at short Jake Peavy makes it worth it.

Greene OPS+

2004: 114

2005: 95

2006: 97


2008: 63


2007: 72

2008: 95


Greene: 5.4, 2.7, 6.1, 7.9, 1.5

Theriot: 4.2, 5.6


Greene: -4, -12, 17, 13, -1

Theriot:  3, -1

if taking on Greene's salary would mean Peavy, sure, maybe we can trade him again, but he's definitely not 1000 times or 100 times or 10 times or even 1 time better than Theriot, especially not for $6.5 M or whatever he's owed.


Agreed. If taking on Greene means getting Peavy at a more reasonable price, then sure. But I still make him compete for a job, and I consider Cedeno and DeRosa other candidates to play SS (and Theriot, if he's not traded to the Pads in the deal).

look at the disparity in home runs and Ryan Theriot's reliance on teammates in order to score.

couple that with far inferior glove.

more homers better glove. good enough for me.

Theriot helps his teammates score runs by having a high OBP. This means the pitchers throw more pitches and his teammates more often get to bat with a runner on and the pitcher pitching from the stretch. Also opens up holes on the infield.

Greene drives himself in more, but his OBP is atrocious and would hurt this offense. He's not a table setter because he is terrible at getting on base, and he's not a run producer because he's got a low batting average and an extremely high strikeout rate. He jumps up and surprises you sometimes by knocking one out of the yard, but he's mostly not any help on offense.

He appears to be better than Theriot on defense, but he is not Theriot's equal offensively (at least if we're looking at what Theriot did in 2008). Add that Greene is making millions of dollars while Theriot is a little above 400 K and I don't think there are many teams out there that would trade Theriot for Greene.

I will anger this house with my ruin! -Shake Master

"Greene drives himself in more, but his OBP is atrocious and would hurt this offense. "

Their career OPS is the same.

So which is it?

Also, Theriot couldn't score 90 runs on the best offensive team in baseball.

What does that tell you?

So even if you believe that runs are team dependent (which i don't - not 100% at least) what's his explanation?

Greene wouldn't hurt the offense. He'd add more power and a better glove. overall, he's an upgrade from theriot. Theriot is one of the worst players in baseball.

No don't mention money. It's not ours and it is an irrelevant argument.

"No don't mention money. It's not ours and it is an irrelevant argument."

Just because it's not "our" money doesn't make it irrelevant--there's still a limit to how much SOMEBODY is going to pay a bunch of guys to play baseball.

If money were no object, Hendry could sign Teixera and put Lee on the bench. He could get Furcal, Manny, Lowe, and Sabathia, too. Money is relevant.

I'll gladly take Theriot's OBP over Greene's home runs.

And calling Theriot one of the worst players in baseball is pretty ridiculous. I wouldn't say he's an above-average major league player right now, but he's not one of the worst. He's better than Greene, among others.

Yeah, their career OPS is exactly the same. And Khalil is coming off of a terrible year while Theriot appears to be improving. Does that mean I expect Theriot to hit 10 points higher next year? Not really. But I'd have pretty low expectations for Greene coming off of this year.

This argument, besides as a means to express my obvious difference in baseball philosophy from Chad, is pretty irrelevant. I don't think Hendry is looking to replace Theriot with Greene. He might be looking to replace him with Furcal, but not Greene.

when have the cubs recently not gotten the guy they wanted because of money?

also, you'll take OBP over Slugging? I'll take Greene's defense over Theriot's weak arm.

I want a shortstop that can actually field.

Also, Theriot doesn't do much for a baseball team. He gets on base but only on first. He might have decent speed but he's a terrible baserunner. He's a pretty bad player. And he just had a career year. I will be you a steak at mortons that Theriot will come down in batting average and obp next year. if i figured it right his BABIP is .340.

So when Greene posts another +.700 ops season and theriot posts a -.600 with terrible defense, you'll see why you were wrong.


Peavy + Greene >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fucal

unfortunately for you there's nothing that supports your assertations that he's a terrible baserunner or defender other than your misguided hate for him.

I don't think he's good at either, but definitely not terrible. Actually...average is the appropriate term to describe Theriot.

But I'm proud of you that you broke out BABIP....even the cavemen learned how to use fire.

even the cavemen learned how to use fire.


I hate to do this... but there evidence is to support the assertation (I thought ascertion was spelled like that, but both of them actually look wrong to me) that Theriot is a terrible baserunner.

There is: Derrek Lee's GIDP count
There is: all the caught stealings
There is: Batting 2nd in front of Lee and Ramirez and being driven in 84 times.
Ther is anecdotal evidence of stupid baserunning, like the mistake that cost us a run in game three of the playoffs.

Cubs lead the league in runs scored by a pretty wide margin.

The Cubs #2 hitters were 6th in runs.

Theriot, with the exception of 14 at bats batting 9th, had his worst numbers in the 2 slot. It was the only place his BA was below .300 and his OBP below .400.

Rob jacked up the FRAA numbers for the shorstop

Theriot is at -3 for this year and his career.
Green is at -2 for this year and +6 for his career.

I was using FRAA2, you're using FRAA , so I didn't jack up anything. Pretty sure FRAA2 or Rate2 is better for comparing over multiple seasons.

but whatever, it's all relative...

Theriot's baserunning #'s at BP, EQBRR(over replacement)

2008: -0.19197

2007: 1.32 

I certainly agree he should be doing better with his speed though.

What speed? I think there's sterotyping going on here. Just because you're a middle infielder that doesn't make you fast.

There's no such thing as FRAA2, which is probably why I didn't realize you were using it. If you're comparing contemporaries, there's no need to use the 2 and 3 stats.


i think the word you're looking for is ASSERTION

Theriot has zero defensive range and zero power, but to say he lacks speed is a bit over the top. He's fast, and more importantly, he's smart. Theriot has a high baseball IQ that is hard to quantify.

Anyway, I can quantify what he did on the bases in 2008:

1st to 3rd on single: 11 for 22, 50%, first on Cubs, ahead of Fontenot's 8 for 18, 44%.

1st to home on double: 9 for 14, 64%, second on Cubs to Fukudome's 6 for 8, 75%.

2nd to home on single: 16 for 21, 76%, third on Cubs behind Johnson's 10 for 12, 83%, and Fukudome's 14 for 18, 78%.

On third, less than 2 outs, score in inning: 35 for 44, 80%, third on Cubs behind DeRosa's 33 for 34 (!), 97%, and Fontenot's 11 for 13, 85%.

Here is the table.

Theriot had an off-year stealing. We'll have to see whether he can regain his 2007 form. He is probably a little slower than the usual 30-steal guy. Not a great athlete overall.

I do have a quibble with caught-stealing numbers, though. On at least three occasions, Theriot was thrown out when Lee or Ramirez struck out on a 3-2 count. That's more like caught-hit-and-running than caught-stealing.

And speaking of Cub shortstops, Nate Spears played short for Mesa yesterday, with Darwin Barney on the bench.

Good finds Phil. I will add some of my own. I just looked at the game logs for the month of April.

Theriot was on base 44 Times.

He scored 18 of them (41%)

10 of those times on base he either went 1st to 3rd on a single, or stole 2nd or 3rd base to get himself into better scoring position (23% of the time)

He ran himself off the bases 4 times - once CS 3rd, once CS 2nd, and twice CS 2nd when Lee K'ed on a full count

22 times he didn't score were not his fault (50%). He was on base, often moved himself up, and yet no one was able to bring him in. 5 times Soriano made an out after he got on, 8 times for Lee, 11 times for Ramirez, Pie twice, Lieber, Hill, Blanco, Ward, Fukudome, DeRosa, Murton all once.

My favorite was on April 7th when he walked, stole 2nd, and went to 3rd on a throwing error, only to see Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez all K in succession.

Granted you can always cherry pick single events, but this is a month's worth of data. And it shows that Theriot gets on base and often uses his speed to move around the bases. But since he doesn't hit homeruns, he depends on others driving him in to score. This should not be surprising.

That's some neat work you did there, and I want to commend you for the effort, VA Phil.

That being said, tell me if any of these things might factor into going from 1st to 3rd on a single.

1. Infield or outfield single
2. Single to Left Field, Center Field, Right Field
3. Depth of the outfielders when a single is hit
4. Number of outs in an inning

Without looking at those factors, you can't really make any sound judgment, particualry when your sample sizes are so small.

Those are the types of things that BP factors in, and they came up with Theriot being an average baserunner.


FRAA adjusted for all-time is the same as RAA2 if you look under their fielding numbers by position. If I don't put the F in front, no one knows I'm talking about defense. I almost always use the adjusted for all-time numbers because it's smart to stay consistent. If I want to later on compare Theriot to Dunston, I'm using the same numbers I've used before.

you don't successfully steal 20+ bases in today's MLB without speed. Is he a good basestealer or a good baserunner, certainly not last season, but he does have speed.

You don't use the all-time adjusted stats because the context of the conversation isn't all-time it's 2008 to 2009. Using the all-time stats is wrong. Here's why:

Say you're comparing two shortstops. One with a lot of range and a weak arm, and one with a cannon but not much range.

Say in one 'era' you have a lot of fast guys who like to pound the ball on the ground and leg out hits. Let's call it the 80's. In that time it's better to have the guy with the cannon arm, because the guy with the weak arm may get to the ball, but still not be able to throw anyone out, and the softer hit balls which are hit to him he has trouble converting to outs as well.

Then you have the late 90's full of muscled up guys who run slow. Here the guy with the greater range will be able to convert more outs, because he has time to get the ball and throw it to first, whereas your cannon guy still lets balls go into left and center and only converts the ones hit right to him.

When picking a shortstop, like we're debating here, it's relevant to know whether we're talking about the late 90's or mid 80's.

The rate 2 numbers can be informative in sort of a hodge-podge way 'How would this shorstop play in an average season, with average speed runners, with an average number of astro turf fields and grass with an average height during a year with average rainfall were the basepaths were watered down an average amount' but you shouldn't use them to estimate how likely a shortstop is going to be good in a specific year (unless you have all the component numbers and factors).

"unfortunately for you there's nothing that supports your assertations that he's a terrible baserunner or defender other than your misguided hate for him."

See exhibit A


Yes, adding Peavy to the team would be a bigger improvement than adding Furcal. And I'd gladly slap Greene on the bench to be a defensive replacement if it meant that the Cubs didn't have to send Marmol, Soto, or Samardzija to the Padres. But that's not going to happen. The Padres won't send Peavy away just to get rid of Greene, and they aren't going to accept any deal that doesn't include a really high quality player or three.

None of what you just said is at issue. But look at what you just said:

"And I'd gladly slap Greene on the bench to be a defensive replacement if it meant that the Cubs didn't have to send Marmol, Soto, or Samardzija to the Padres."

You have to be kidding, right? Now with Soto you have a point, he's an everyday player but I would trade Marmol AND Samarja for Peavy.

Peavy is one of the best starting pitchers in baseball. Neither Marmol or Samarja are that.

Assuming the Cubs sign Dempster and Wood back:

The Cubs already have a pretty great rotation.
Jason Marquis/Sean Marshall/Rich Hill/Chad Gaudin/etc.

But they are weak in the bullpen. I absolutely do not trade Marmol and Samardzija, both who could be big-time players and can help the Cubs in relief right now.

I would assume getting Peavy would involve sending Marmol, Samardzija, Pie, and Theriot or Cedeno to the Padres while taking on Peavy and Greene at full cost. Also might involve sending over some cash, since Samardzija might want some money in exchange for waiving his no trade clause. All this to get Peavy, who now has some health questions and doesn't address an area of weakness, makes our bullpen deficiency even worse. Do the Cubs then trick some fool GM into trading a few really good relievers for Jason Marquis?

The Cubs just don't make the most sense.

The Cubs need to address bullpen, RF (or CF), and maybe SS before they start thinking about trading from areas of weakness to add to the rotation.

1st rule of baseball:

You can never have too much pitching.

If you want to bring up health questions about Peavy then you must consider health questions concerning Harden and Zambrano.

And they can have Carlos Marmol. A top starter is 100% more valuable than a reliever.

"If you want to bring up health questions about Peavy then you must consider health questions concerning Harden and Zambrano."

I'm being Devil's advocate as Peavy in a Cubs uniform looks great, but couldn't that be more of an argument to maybe stay away from a guy like Peavy?

I'm starting to wonder if you're just throwing around random percentages, now.

Did you know that 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Joe. Forfty percent of all people know that.

Let me ask you Joe offer the GMs of every baseball team their choice of the best starter in the league or the best reliever in the league. I would bet big big money that they would choose the starter. 100% of them.

I'm just playing with you. I'd trade Marmol and Someninja for Peavy in a heartbeat.

I don't think your two uses of 100%, there, are equitable.

100% of the people typing this post agree with me.

84% of all TCR readers know that when the comment box is this thin, the argument has gone on long enough.

15% haven't figured out that nested comment option exists.

1% is AZ-Phil who just has his own special way of commenting.

Yeah, I'm stunned nobody has been compared to Hitler yet. Godwin save us!

How about Goodwin's Law

the longer an argument goes here at TCR the greater the likelihood that some will invoke Dusty Baker's proclivity to use underperforming 'proven vets'?


Threepio! Shut down all trash compactors on the detention level!!! Do you hear me??!?! Threepio!!!!! Shut down ALL TRASH COMPACTORS on the detention level!!!!

Chad and 433-



Chad and 433 FTW. Nicely played.

fwiw, Greene with a career 3:1 K:BB ratio and getting worse....a very bad sign for his future.

Theriot on the other hand with a .79 K/BB...yes more walks than K's, which is usually a very good sign for the futre.

I'd give Greene an edge with the glove, but not much. Theriot's a pretty average NL shorstop. His OPS was just higher than the league average NL shortstop  this year and he was just under with the glove. Last year, he was well below in OPS but a bit above with the glove, that smells like an average player to me.

Greene is just a more expensive way to get the same production in a different way.

Furcal on the other hand....

Thanks for interceding, Rob. I was beginning to feel like I was taking crazy pills.

"Greene is just a more expensive way to get the same production in a different way."

Only offensively.

I love how this argument show the absolute ridiculousness of OPS.

But more to the point, Greene is a better defender with a real arm. Theriot has a horrible, weak, girl arm.

Did Theriot kill and eat your puppy or something?

If we look at last year's OBP for each player, over 600 plate appearances Theriot would be on base EIGHTY fucking times more than Greene.

Green is an injury-prone, way over-priced turd who can't run at all and strikeouts 30% of the time he comes to the plate. Oh but there will be 10 less infield hits against us over the year because his arm is stronger than Theriot's. Yeah, that's worth $4 million.

Who gives a shit. those 80 times he still won't score runs. As I stated above and Neal reiterated, he scored 85 runs in front of DLee and Aramis and was on the highest run scoring team in baseball.

he fucking sucks. get over OBP. look at some other stats for a second.

and my whole argument hinges on the fact that greene is a much better fielder.

Theriot has a weak arm and makes stupid plays. he fucking sucks.

That's cos Derrek Lee keeps grounding into DP's after Theriot gets on.

Of course... we won't mention that Theriot had a higher GIDP rate than Lee did.

Shh... don't tell anyone.

I believe you've said this more than once (i.e. ad nauseum) but by what standard are you measuring?

If you look at GDP by plate appearance:
D P LEE 3.9%

If you look at GDP per ground ball:
D P LEE 11.7%

And If you look at the stat I thought you were looking at, GDP with runners on base:

D P LEE 8.4%

D P Lee had the higher rate in 2008.

I believe you've said this more than once (i.e. ad nauseum) but by what standard are you measuring?

The only standard that makes sense. Which is none of the three that you listed.

First of all, the first two stats are completely irrelevant. Both irrelevant because it is impossible to hit into a double play with the bases empty, and neither stat controls for that.

The third stat is closer, but still irrelevant. A GIDP rate when people are on base is different than when people are in "double play position" - i.e. a runner on first. You can't GDP without a runner on first (well... you can, but it would have to be a rare occurrence).

Most people who wanted to be accurate and use a "standard" that would make sense would use the rate of GDP with runners on first.

According to Baseball Prospectus:

Theriot: 18.6%
Lee: 17.2%

But who cares about actually being accurate, eh?

Ah, so you aren't measuring at all, Baseball Prospectus is. Well, that clears that up.

But what is BP measuring? How do they come up with 22 GDP's for Ryan Theriot and 31 for D P Lee? I thought it was 19 and 27 respectively?

Ah, so you aren't measuring at all, Baseball Prospectus is. Well, that clears that up.

Yea... forgive me for not doing work that has already been done.

How do they come up with 22 GDP's for Ryan Theriot and 31 for D P Lee? I thought it was 19 and 27 respectively

Hmm... honestly I am not sure why they have the larger numbers. On their individual player pages, they have 19 and 27 for GDP.


Even with the lower numbers (assuming the same number of opps that BP came up with), you get this:

Theriot: 16.1%
Lee: 15%

BP seems to be measuring DP'S in their DP rate, which is different from GIDP.

Yea... but then that doesn't really make sense to only use situations with runners on first as DP Opps. If you are going to use all DPs, then you need to use all situations with runners on base with less than 2 outs, and BP doesn't do that.

What happens with a man on first if you line out to first and the guy steps on the base before the runner gets back?

Obviously that is a double play, jackass. But that is not my point.

But when you include all double plays, you also are including situations where you line out to SS and double off a guy at second, even with first base empty.

If you are going to include all double plays, and not just GIDP, then you need to include ALL double play offs, and not just GIDP opps.

Get it?

I do get it. I was implying that they were including double plays hit into in 'double play' (man on first, less than two out) situations, shit-for-brains. I'll try to be less obtuse in the future. Lee would be at another disadvantage there, hitting behind those two.

I do wonder, now, if they're counting the strike-em-out, throw-em-out types.

I sent them a message. We'll see if they get around to fixing their definition or stat.

obviously, this TCR conversation thread is moving to the far right.


Get over yourself. He sucks in your mind because you don't like him. Just because you keep posting this shit time after time doesn't make it any more correct.

If your entire argument hinges on defense then your argument is weak. Just get Izturis back then. He was better defensively than Theriot too. Hell, play Cedeno. He has a strong arm as well. I don't think anyone has argued that Greene is worse defensively than Theriot. It's just an absolutely stupid trade-off to upgrade defensively for that much of a downgrade offensivley. Not to mention - again - that Green is incapable of playing a full season without going on the DL for something, can't run worth a shit, and strikes out 3 times as much as he walks.

One day everyone is ragging on Lee for not driving in runs because he grounds into double plays and only hits singles and has lost his power. The next day it's Theriot's fault for not scoring runs.

Also, the whole "highest scoring team in baseball" argument is pointless. It means nothing. They scored a lot of runs because they had production up and down the lineup and everyone scored a fair amount of runs. It doesn't mean that a few guys at the top should have scored a ton of runs. We had one guy with 100 runs (DeRosa) and one guy with 100 RBI (Ramirez). We scored the most runs as a team because Edmonds, Soto, were contributing hitting lower in the order.

Ryan Theriot is one of the worst shortstops in all of baseball. At best, he's bottom 3rd.

Get over your man crush on him, he had a career year and he has the worst fucking arm.

"One day everyone is ragging on Lee for not driving in runs because he grounds into double plays and only hits singles and has lost his power. The next day it's Theriot's fault for not scoring runs. "

I think I am criticizing Theriot for not being able to steal second or get a big jump to avoid the double play and being in scoring position when Lee hits his single. That's pretty consistent. All year long Lee was hitting into double plays. All year long, Theriot was a shitty base stealer, making the problem worse. Either Theriot doesn't have the green light, which implies that the coaching staff doesn't trust him to steal bases, or he has it and just couldn't do it. Which was it?

I don't hate Theriot, he's just not that great. Every year his power numbers are dropping, and now his base stealing ability is going the same way. It's not likely that Theriot is going to continue to have a .387 OBP given the lack of power. He hits into Double plays like they're going out of style. The boneheaded baserunning moves really became apparent this year, but maybe that was just an off year. The Off-season posistional upgrade targets should be CF/RF (tied for first), then SS, and 1st base. Theriot had a nice little year, but we can definetly do a lot better. We've got a top of the order that needs some real speed and some lefty balance. We've got a desperate Cubs Fan nation that sees Cedeno play a couple of games at short and thinks ' Oh, that's what a shorstop should do'. There are places to hide good bats in the lineup, they're called left field and first base.

who the fuck watches Cedeno and thinks that's what a shorstop should do?

Cedeno has the baseball acumen of Corky.

maybe it's just my browser but i got the same clip 3 times

ahh Pebkac on my part, sorry. Anyway, just look at the three fielding plays on Cedeno's highlight reel.

Remember that play when Theriot threw to no one at second from his ass?

He's not good.

As many know here, I loathed Hendry for his 2005, and 2006 performance. Wanted him gone. Two season's tickets worth of garbage and I couldn't even GIVE tickets away. When John McD opened the bank, he made moves that helped the team get to the next level in the next two years. For whatever reason, though, in each of the last two years we're 0fer in the Playoffs. Not good, as the bar has been raised.

Yeah a while back some posters on this site wanted Khalil Greene and i pointed out he hasn't improved in his major league career one single bit. In fact he has steadily got worse despite his 27 HR season in 2007. That can easily be labeled as a career year or a fluke because the rest of his numbers were still pretty lousy.

This year he managed to strike out 100 times and only walking 22 times in 389 AB's. He struck out 128 times in 611 AB's in 2007. He is a mess. I don't know about his defense but I don't really care when you hit that bad.

As for getting Peavy trade Felix "I can't hit breaking stuff" Pie! And let them pick 2 of our best pitching prospects and just be done with it.

I'm lazy.

How did Greene hit on the road?

Cedeno, two words......GO AWAY!!!!!!!!

.802 on the road, .658 at home for his career.

Petco ain't that extreme though, unless it's a mental block.It's actually close to neutral for righties but brutal on lefties, at least for home runs.

at Hendry over the years by Miles..


How could he forget the Pierre trade under the mistakes?

Miles really does God's work over there. He typically takes a measured tone with his commenters, but sometimes he has to put the hammer down ("As far as trading Zambrano and Fukudome to the Giants for Lincecum, that's absurd, too"). Plus he completely took the air out of the whole criminal-damage-to-Dodger-property fracas (in the 10-8-08 post).

A rational, clear-eyed beat reporter who still voluntarily addresses Juan-Pierre-loving trolls...if Bruce Miles didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.

Those comments on Bruce Miles blog are a hoot, especially that Merkle guy. If I didn't know any better, I would think that was Chad or even Manny.

Merkle makes Silent Towel look like Calvin Coolidge.

Merkle: Juan Pierre is awesome! And he's a proven winner!
Miles: No, he's not, and the Dodgers stopped playing him because of it.
Merkle: Juan Pierre is awesome!
Miles: There are, like, 1,000 guys who have better numbers.
Merkle: Yeah, well, Pierre played in fewer games than they did!

Yes, adding Peavy to the team would be a bigger improvement than adding Furcal.
adding Furcal (his bad back causing him to miss 125 regular season games and his 3 errors in the finale of the NLCS) would fit in very nicely with the possibility of continuing our playoff losing streak--a perfect fit, if he can repeat his 2008 season.

I doubt they'll sign Furcal though. With his bad back he can't bend over very well and all Cub players have shown expertise in doing that after the last 9 playoff games.


nothing big, Trib might hold on to something like 5% of the team for tax purposes and to make a bigger profit when the markets go back up and lending starts opening up again.

They have a $600M tax bill due in June, so it's certain to get done by them.

Who honestly gives a fuck about Khalil Greene? So Peavy's salary is essentially $15.5M in 2009 and Lou has another SS to look at in spring training. Best case scenario: He's functional for the 09 Cubs. Worst case scenario: DFA his ass the fourth week of March. Anybody here really want that to get in the way of getting Peavy?

I don't care about Greene but adding 6.5 million dollars of crap that Greene is, is a concern.

And I can't believe Chad is bringing up Greene's power. If you want a guy that hits about 15 HR's and drives in 60-70 while hitting .250 with a sub .300 OBP, and call it an improvement in Theriot, i got to laugh my ass off at that.

Hey remember the old Cubs SS Alex Gonzalez? Maybe Greene can be his clone.

Our team is trying to get away from the low BA, high strikeout, non walking type players that are a dime a dozen in MLB.

Here's all I'm saying. If the Padres decide to insist that Greene goes where Peavy goes (similar to what Florida did with Beckett and Lowell), then fine. That should have absolutely zero bearing on whether to acquire him. If the Cubs don't want him, they can cut him the next day for all I care. Peavy costs $9M in 2009, Greene costs $6.5M. So the proper way to look at it IMO is that the cost of Peavy is $15.5M. Small price to pay for the NL's best pitcher over the last 5 years. And who knows, maybe the Cubs actually get something out of Khalil if he can play his way onto the roster in ST.

If he is what we thought he is, fuck it. Cut his ass. Nothing at all to lose.

Peavy costs $11M next year fwiw...

Misread Cots - extra $2M for the Cy he won. I'd still take that, even for a guy with a 3.80 road ERA.

mike, let's be very clear.

A. Theriot fucking sucks
B. Greene is a much better fielder
C. I'm really only mentioning him as I would take him with Peavy
D. If we can't get Peavy (and i don't think we can) i want Furcal

You know what fucking sucks?

Paying 6.5 million + for this....

.213 BA, .260 OBP, in 389 AB's, with 22 walks, 100 strikeouts, 10 HR, and 35 RBI.

Or his career line of 2300 AB's, while sporting a .248 BA.

It's all about slugging with you isn't it? Doesn't matter if a player hits .200 as long as he can hit HR's huh? Then why is Richie Sexson a journey man now? It's not like Greene has Adam Dunn or Jack Cust power, or can even take a walk to save his life. If your hitting .230 you better damn well be walking close to 100 times a year or your not going to be a major league baseball player for much longer. Greene can't do any of that so he isn't even good enough to be in the majors any more.

Poo Poo Ryan Theriot hitting .307 with a .387 OBP and only scoring 85 runs all you want. Look what Jimmy Rollins did in 556 AB's this year (Theriot 580 AB's)while hitting .277 with a .349 OBP, only 76 runs scored. Thats with 47 SB's and only being caught 3 times, and with Utely, Howard, and Burrell behind him to drive him in.

You just don't get it do you? The team concept is getting away from free swinging clueless hitters like Greene. Lou has put together a lineup that has gone from being poor at taking a walk to being one of the best, which in turn has made it one of the best offenses in the league. For the most part this lineup runs up other teams pitch counts and extends innings by taking walks.

And Ryan Theriot taking 73 BB and only striking out 53 times is a hell of alot more valuable than Greene will ever be the rest of his career.

BTW Chad weren't you a Cesar Izturis is the second coming of god supporter? That turned out well didnt it? I am still waiting for him to be this .300 hitter you predicted. So already your credibility on this issue is about nil. Mean while i was one of the few to actually support Theriot and think he could have a year that surprises many people.

He isn't the best in the world, but he is the best in our entire franchise at the position, and other options we pay millions for to get less production than the 400k we pay Theriot.

Greene sees more pitches than Theriot. Theriot is actually pretty bad at that.

Greene had one caught stealing and grounded into only 7 DP's, which takes a pretty big chunk out of Theriot's OBP advantage. He was also injured last year, which may explain part of the reason his numbers were so far off the previous season's.

Then there's the thing which Rob set about right handed hitters in Petco. Some guys may be right handed, but their power may be to center or right center, so you can't just arbitrarily apply ballpark RH/LH splits to anyone. Looking at his HR's, it looks like he's pretty much a dead pull hitter.

Last year Greene hit crappy on the road and at home. For his previous three years he hit .265 .307 .462 on the road versus .214 .275 .378 at home. It's a pretty damned safe bet that he's going to be a better hitter if you take him out of that ballpark. He's an extreme flyball hitter, which may tend to contribute to our boom/bust offense that we usually have in July versus April, which could be bad.

Theriot was a historically bad RBI man in 2008, driving in roughly 10% of the guys on base when he came up, following a 13.4% performance in 2007. One sac fly on the season. Greene batted .214 last year and matched Theriot's ability. In 2007 he drove in 16.8% of the guys ahead of him, as well as himself 27 times.

When it comes to defense, assuming Lee is back with the Cubs this year, you could expect Greene's numbers to get a little better because of Lee, just like everyone else's do.

All-in-all, I think the Greene, playing in Wrigley is going to have the slightly higher upside than Theriot. By no stretch of the imagination is it a 'slam dunk' debate for either the Theriot camp or the Greene camp. They're both players with large flaws in their games, who do certain things well.

Greene sees more pitches than Theriot. Theriot is actually pretty bad at that.

Greene had one caught stealing and grounded into only 7 DP's, which takes a pretty big chunk out of Theriot's OBP advantage.

At this point you might want to start back tracking on your comments.

Greene - career #p/pa - 3.73
Theriot - career #p/pa - 3.65

Last year - Greene - 3.78
Theriot - 3.75

Yeah i think the first part of your arguement is bullshit lets go onto the second part.

Its tough to ground into double plays when you strikeout as much as Greene does in so little playing time. But Greene still grounds into his fair share despite not hitting. If Greene managed to stay on the field for the whole year he was on pace for 15 or so DP's to Theriots 19. Not a whole lot of difference. What is worse hitting .213 and grounding into DP's or hitting .307 and doing it?

There is this site called ESPN.com, takes about 10 seconds depending on your internet connection in order to research this stuff before you post so you don't look like a fool.

I know you're not really smart, Mike, but 3.73 is more than 3.65. You're the one that says that Theriot sees more pitches. That is what the grownups call a lie. Greene sees few pitches, yes, but Theriot sees even fewer. I never said that Greene saw a lot of pitches, I just said that Theriot sees fewer (which is correct) and that he sees very few (which is correct).

Theriot bats after a low OPB leadoff man and the pitcher slot. If you use the same site that we mention oh, 1000 times a year here you can see that Theriot hits into a double play 18.6% of the time when he has a chance to and Greene does it 8.8% of the time. Or you could just use that peanut between your ears and say to yourself 'if a guy strikes out a lot and hits a lot of fly balls when he's not striking out, then he's going to hit into few double plays'.

It's really not rocket surgery. It's just learning to seperate opinion from fact.

Well when you can show me my quote where i said Theriot see's more pitchers than Greene, then your the liar and your full of shit. And please don't try the arguement, "Ohhh i aint got time to look it up for you." Because its kind of hard to look up something that doesn't exist.

You say Greene see's more pitches, but then you follow it up by saying Theriot is actually pretty bad it at.

Greene - 3.73 career
Theriot - 3.65 career

Last year - Greene - 3.78
Theriot - 3.75

In order to clear up your moment of stupidity....3.73 and 3.78 is good while 3.65 and 3.75 are pretty bad.

I think the rest of the board see's that your a fucking idiot on this subject because they are nearly identical. The only difference is Theriot can actually hit a baseball, Greene can't.

It's like arguing that the guy who hit .345 is a pretty good hitter but the guy who hit .343 is a shitty one. I mean seriously are you that stupid?

And further proof of your stupidity and inability to read because i pointed it in the post before this. Your using GIDP stats based on his 389 AB's, Greene can still ground into as many DP's as Theriot. And again you want a .213 hitter grounding into 15 DP's? Or a .300 hitter grounding into 19?

Try not sticking your head between your legs and screaming na na na na. Because no matter what you say to convince yourself, you know your dead ass wrong and so does everyone else.

Direct quotes from you. Maybe you shoud re-read what you said before denying it next time? Do you have split personalities or something?

" The team concept is getting away from free swinging clueless hitters like Greene....For the mostpart this lineup runs up other teams pitch counts and extends innings by taking walks."

Theriot does not run up any team's pitch count. He sees among the fewest pitches in the league. If you had a draft and your looking for guys who see a lot of pitches, Theriot would be one of the last kids taken, and he would go after Greene. How is it that you cannot comprehend that?

I never said Greene was good at it (I am now repeating myself... this happens a lot when dealing with fanatics), just that Theriot is bad at it.

"Your using GIDP stats based on his 389 AB's, Greene can still ground into as many DP's as Theriot. And again you want a .213 hitter grounding into 15 DP's? Or a .300 hitter grounding into 19?"

I am going to try very short words for you here, Mike C. If Theriot had opportunities as frequently in his 661 PAs as Greene had he would have hit into 23 double plays. Had Greene had the same PA's as Theriot had he would have hit into 11 double plays. I know math is hard, but maybe the kid down the block can teach you about decimals and division sometime.

I never said Greene was a great player. I think he's probably not a .215 hitter, and I think that Theriot is not likely a .307 hitter. All I said is you can't just look at Theriot's OBP and think he's all that great. Because he was an atrocious baserunner he got very little mileage out of that OBP and he also managed to get the guys on base ahead of him out 22 timess, which is also bad. If you want to Theriot's 2008 to Greene's 2007 it would take him 2038 PA's to get as many XBH's as Greene had. That's a lot of PA's, and the XBH's that he collected over those 2038 PA's wouldn't be nearly as good.

The best WARP1 season Greene had (6.0) is better than Theriot's best season (5.0), so when I say that the upside is slightly higher with Greene - who has shown the ability to take a walk, play above average defense and hit for power, is a bit higher than Theriot's (they're the same age by the way), I think I am standing on pretty firm ground.

It could be that Theriot will be the better player next year, it could be that he won't. I just don't see how he can improve, but I can see how Greene can. So if were to trade for Greene, and he doesn't hit like he did in 2004, 2006 or 2007, then turn him into Theriot's defensive replacement and give the job back to Ryan Singles.

Don't know how to break this to you but Izturis still has a job in the majors. What does Tony LaRussa know that you don't?

Any way Ryan Theriot is a garbage player. With all his gaudy numbers he still only managed a 95 ops+ WOW!!!! WHAT A PLAYER.

All that and a very below average glove. So with Theriot we get a below average bat and a blow average glove.

a 95 OPS+ for a shortstop though is not below average.

Theriot .746 OPS, league average for a SS last year was .738

actually beat out Tejada.

i worded that poorly.

we have below average hitter with a below average glove.

correct me if i'm wrong here but isn't ops+ of 100 mean an average major league hitter? while shortstops by nature my usually be under that, I can handle a sub 100 guy who can actually field.

Can I just say that all your numbers mean crap and what is really important here is that Theriot is the scrappiest player on the team. If you can't win on grit then it don't make it worth winning at all.

Rob G
I doubt Hendry is weary of being a lame duck GM since he isn't one yet. He might be wary or leery, but probably not weary. That's it for today's vocabulary lesson. Next week we'll discuss arcane, archaic, and esoteric. I know, I'm an asshole. I'm at work on a Saturday against my will. I have nothing better to do.

I checked out the Joe the Plumber link there and then got curious about all the money he was going to save with Jesus Obama's health plan.

I did a google search for Obama's health plan and google gave me:

OBAMA'S PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA. Lowering health care... (snicker).

I went to the link:


And maybe it's just my brower or security settings, but for me (IE) that says:

The page at the following address was not found

Good thing I don't work for the Republican party. That would be all over TV tonight.


You can find his plan, there's a few funny bits in there, but this had to be the best part from the highlights:

"A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level."

How is taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy 'fiscally responsible'? Maybe it was backwards day at party headquarters when they were dreaming that one up. God, politicians disgust me. The 'typical' american family is going to save $2500 on health care. How much is the average American family going to save? Clinton must have taught him that trick.

"How is taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy 'fiscally responsible'?"

Not that I think politics should be much of a topic of conversation here, but I feel the need to respond to this one. Then I'm done.

It's fiscally responsible in that the plan is to negate a previous move that was fiscally irresponsible (the Bush tax cuts that benefited the rich far more than the poor or the working class).

If you deny that, you must have a Chad-esque grasp on statistics.

And I'm spent.

Couple reasons you shouldn't have responded.

Obama is all about 'change' but now you're saying he's all about 'chaging back'.

Our country got by for 130 years without misdirecting tax revenues at all. I can recommend several places to live if you think taking money from the competent and giving it the incompetent is the best way to run a country.

I never claimed to buy into anyone's slogans. I don't think any of these candidates represent change. I'm not sure I think any of these candidates represent fiscal responsibility either. But I think McCain stands more for finding circular routes for money so that it ends up back in the hands of the wealthy whether it has been earned or not.

Calling the poor incompetent is ridiculous. I know many competent poor and many incompetent wealthy people. A lot of today's wealthy have merely been born into wealth, not earned it through their competence. Similar situation with today's poor and working class. Competence most often not at issue.

Or maybe you're pointing to the government as incompetent? Then I would mostly agree with you, but since the wealthy have most of the influence on the government they have nobody but themselves to blame for that.

I may have to avoid this site for a few months. With no baseball news it is clear this just becomes a forum for miscellaneous arguments, which I've been guilty of fueling recently. I'm done now.

. . . incompetent wealthy people. . . . born into wealth, not earned it. . . .


I didn't realize it was impossible to improve your lot in life. If your parents are poor, then you're going to be poor and there's nothing you can do about it.


And the stuff about being born rich... There's a 1000 John Edwardses for every Paris Hilton.

Are you seriously equating being rich with competence and being poor with incompetence? If you do then you have obviously no clue as to what is going on in the real world. Take the time to live and get to know people in slums and depressed communities (or even wealthy exclusive communities) before you go and make generalizations like that.

In America? Yes.

You can get free education through graduate school. If you don't want to work hard enough to take advantage of that, why is that anyone else's fault besides your own? Some people don't have the mental capacity to finish that much eduction, but if they want there are still jobs they can do that will make at least $40K a year, with benefits. Some people have very crappy 'lots in life' which are not their fault, but in the US those people are a lot more rare than donkeys would trick you into believing.

Ok that just confirmed something I've been suspecting since user registration for this new site opened up:

Silent Towel beat The Real Neal to this user name.

How long have you lived in the Philippines? You seem to know nothing about the US. You realize that we have free education through 12th grade here, right? Do you realize that you can get a scholarship to university if you do well in the final four years of that free education? Do you realize that you can get public grants and low interest rate loans to pay for continuing eductation? Do you realize that even without those things you can work to put your way throug university and grad school, and get yourself a good job? Are those things easy to do? No, they're fucking hard. Just like they were for the 'rich' when they did them.

But why would you do any of those things, when you can get a bunch of your slacker friends to get together and legally steal money from the wealthy and give you free healthcare, daycare, an other welfare benefits? The New American Dream: Let them make the money, and vote it away from them.

The idea that a kid who is the product of a poor education in the CPS and gets spit out after four years at Crane or Westinghouse has the same shot as a kid whose parents can afford to pay the property taxes in Kenilworth or Highland Park or Lake Forest and send them to those public schools, or if they choose, to Northshore Country Day or Woodlands or Loyola is fanciful at best.

Sure, a few ultra-exceptional kids do somehow find a way through the rotten schools and end up at a magnet, but for the most part, kids who excel in school are the products of parents who excelled in school. I have two kids in school right now and almost to a student this is true - the ones whose parents are involved do well, the ones whose parents are screw-ups, don't.

The lack of decent schools for everyone leads to the perpetuation of the underclass. And while I'm sure it will be nearly impossible for you to believe, it's why the average lower class 5 year old in Western Europe has a better chance of ending up in the upper class by the time they're 50, than a 5 year old in the U,S. does.

PS: On the heels of the 25 billion dollar car company bailout and the 700 billion dollar bank bailout and AIG and all that is to come - and there is a lot more to come - it might be a good time to put the exasperation about welfare on the shelf for a while. There's now more money in the hands of a smaller percentage of Americans than at any time since the Gilded Age.

P.S. Those bailouts were buying assets, not giving money to stock holders, and haven't happend yet.
P.P.S. The stockmarket has lost what, 15 trillion dollars in the last three weeks.


by propping the failed companies by backing them with public money (they have a name for that i hear) any stockholder will make money unless the welfare money (they have a different name for that, too, i hear) doesn't inspire the market.

There you go. The banks are relieved of their financial obligation but the people with mortgages are not. Yeah, there's your free market at work. You don't have to directly give money to stockholders to look out for their interests.

If we were actually living with the free market economy you know doubt believe in, there would be no more GM, AIG, Washington Mutual and several less airlines etc. You espouse a meritocracy for the individual but not for huge corporations.

Holy Ghost

The banks are not 'relieved of financial obligations' they're relieved of insurance on mortgages that had value that were difficult to quantify. The government is buying that insurance, which translates at the end of the day into a lot of mortgages, and in theory floating those mortgages so the people who haven't been paying them get some more time not to pay them (at the expense of people who do pay their mortgages).

The whole situation was caused by the government pressing these institutions into making and insuring these mortgages in the first place. 'Every citizen gets a home' sure as hell wasn't a Republican idea, was it? So, we have government influence on the market, which causes it to fuck up, we have the Democrats not supporting a bill to introduce more controls on Fannie Mac, and now the congress (controlled by democrats at last check) passes a bill to buy back the shitty insurance they pressured the companies into issuing in the first place.

Jesus Obama sees the success that government influence played here and wants to do the same thing to the health insurance market - and democrats think, again, it's a great idea.

And finally we have a stock that was trading at $60 a year ago and you brain scientests thinking that now when it's trading at $1 the unnamed 'fat cats' are rolling in cash.

I also wasn't in favor of the bailout, nice try.

*edit, since I am learning you up on these money things, WaMu got bought by Wells Fargo.

since I am learning you up on these money things, WaMu got bought by Wells Fargo.

Umm... no it didn't.

It got bought by JPMorgan Chase.

Good try though.

Ahh, that's right. I get WaMu and Wachovia mixed up. WaMu wasn't propped up, it was more akin to siezed.

Does the GOP email you your talking points directly or do you have to go to Sean Hannity's web site? I'm sure since you are so in tune with all things financial, you realize the "it's all the fault of Congress forcing banks to give loans to poor people" argument is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.

Neither the Community Reinvestment Act — the law most cited as the culprit — nor other affordable housing goals set by the government forced Fannie, Freddie or any other lender to make loans they didn’t want to. The lure of the subprime market was high yields and healthy profit margins — it’s as simple as that. In other words - 'twas greed killed the beast.

Your whole argument can be traced back to two editorials - one in Investor's Business Daily and the other in the Wall Street Journal. Hannity, Limbaugh and all the rest got their marching orders and ran with it. And you, loyal foot soldier, did your duty as well. And for that I award you the Sarah Palin Medal for Ass Talkery.

as predictable as the tides comes the 'Talking Points' jab.

Get a new phrase.

You can't respond to the points so you accuse them of being rehashed and old.

Chad... what the hell are you talking about?

He DID respond to points. And you ignored them.

No, actually he didn't respond to points, he regurgitated the same BS that you did. I said it was HUD's policy changes in the late 90's under the Clinton Admin that caused the agencies to back the bad mortgages and the best that you two could come up with was 'No it wasn't - I read it on my liberal website so that's the truth, and 'nanny-nanny boo boo'.

I don't even know who the hell that guy he mentioned is.

what a bunch of crap.

if said it yourself, it's not the school it's the parents. when parents are involved in a kids education they study and do well. when they don't, the kids don't.

get good grades
go to college

it can be done by anyone

So people with idiots for parents are screwed. Sorry, dude, we've got Wall Street's back but can't help you. Your parents are just too dumb and you've got to pay the price. Luckily in America there aren't many idiots who have kids, huh?

There are lots of idiots who have lots of kids, and they're all voting 'Obama' next month.

Forgot about this foolishness.

"it's why the average lower class 5 year old in Western Europe has a better chance of ending up in the upper class by the time they're 50, than a 5 year old in the U,S. does."

It has nothing to do with the fact that the average lower class 5 year old in 'Western Europe' comes from a family with a better work ethic than the ones in America, does it. Are you still trying to ban ice cream sales to keep the murder rate down?

Someone who was an educator for 40 years, both public and private schools, wealthy and poorer school systems once told me this: "A good student can get a good education anywhere." Try to keep that in mind next time you start getting into your 'nothing is anyones fault' mentality.

Someone has been drinking all of the GOP flavored coolaid.


"It's fiscally responsible in that the plan is to negate a previous move that was fiscally irresponsible (the Bush tax cuts that benefited the rich far more than the poor or the working class)."

In order for your point to have any merit, you would need to show that the tax cut HURT the poor AND helped the rich.

You merely just say that it helped the rich people more.


If the tax cut helped the rich while hurting the poor (which it didn't) then you would have a point. But you don't.

I said it benefited the rich far MORE than the poor, which I consider irresponsible.

It's hard to figure who exactly it hurt until the government decides where it's going to get the money to pay off some of the deficit (that was not created by tax cuts, but that was certainly not diminished by the tax cuts).

Charlie, Charlie

Income tax cuts always benefit the rich more than the poor because the rich pay income taxes and the poor don't.

"I said it benefited the rich far MORE than the poor, "

Once again, this is not a problem.

Show me a problem then we can discuss it.

I believe in tax cuts for all. Across the board. But that will help the rich FAR more.

But the rich spend more money than the poor. so the rich help the economy far more.

Neither guys tax plan is going to affect the top 10% any because they will still walk through all the loopholes and pay the same amount. Both guys will be fiscally more responsible than Bush, because Bush has been a Reaganesque tax cutter and a FDResque spender. Both of them want to match either cutting or raising spending and taxes. What makes Obama's tax plan bad is he still wants to raise taxes on the most successful small buisness that make around 250k a year, which if you live in a large metropolitian area is middle class, so if more "fairness" in the tax code is your concern McCain's plan is the best because neither plan will affect the rich, both will help the middle and lower portions of "the middle class" will get some relief and the poor dont pay taxes (infact the Bush Tax Cuts put more people off the tax rolls then any POTUS in history has done). The only practical difference is that the upper middle class is going to be hosed under Obama's plan. Chad is right because the small buisnesses will spend their money in a more pro-growth fashion (hiring people and buying the neccesities to run their buisnesses) than the poor will because they will spend their money on the nesscities of life and that most of time results in an uptick in the price of commadities (supply and demand, if more people buy milk, milk goes up) so really their Standard of Living stays about the same.

"fair" tends to have more than 1 view of what it actually defines.

...also the law of supply and demand is not linear. when too many people control too much with too little regulation supply can be manipulated.

think Enron in California...

if you don't like that...think OPEC.

we don't live in an insular economic vacuum. it's not unique, either. iceland knows all about that right now.

the idea that paying a few extra hundred or thousand to a small buisness is going to hurt them...well, they probably should better prepared for that before they start their american dream. seriously, that's not a good situation to be in. it costs to get a business running, but BOTH guys have small business incentives and existing tax laws are ***VERY*** friendly to helping them out already. there's more "welfare" going to these small businesses than a lot of people would suspect.

we have soooooooo many people around here that get bent all the hell out of shape every time they raise property taxes (every 5 years, by law/assessment) and they end up paying *gasp* 50-400 bucks extra a year. you'd think they were 1 paycheck away from being on the street or could no longer afford their asthma medication. it does hurt some people that get those real shocking upgrades in their property value (usually those in once-rural/now-suburban areas), though.

nothing is going to be "fair" to everyone.

thanks for the self-righteous lecture, crunch!

for a minute there, i thought i was reading the new york times...

thanks for mallard filmore-like biting comeback to a well constructed argument.

also, look into your use of "self-righteous."

well aware of the term's meaning. i stand by it, but, by all means, keep on pontificating.

i'd give you credit for that fillmore pun, but it was probably unintentional so i'll just ask that you stick to dazzling us with your nobel-caliber tax policy insights, you quack...

judging by that pile of crap you do know the meaning of "self-righteous"...you just don't own a mirror.

if you'll look at the original thing you replied with a talk-radio canned rant (which is where mallard comes into this) you'll see that oh...nothing...is about me.

just pointing that out.

you can't throw out a bunch of empty buzzwords and phrases to combat a constructed argument even if you don't believe in it. i swear...talk radio is rotting the brains of this nation.

The problem is that the infrastructure of our country is crumbling, we're pouring billions a month into Iraq, we've just bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry and someone is going to have to pay for it. If you have a way to raise money besides taxes I'd love to hear it. If you have a better group to tax than the one percent of the nation that holds forty percent of the wealth, I'd love to hear about that as well. See, when you raise taxes on someone who's rich, they still have money left over to buy more crap and prop up the economy. When you tax the middle class and poor, they run out of liquid assets and must rely on credit. And that whole credit economy is just soaring, huh?

How about taxing the 80% of America that holds 99.5% of the wealth?

The top 10% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes in the U.S.

We already have an "income redistribution" tax system, and always have. That may be "patriotic" or "fair" in the minds of some, but to say that the successful people in this country don't pay their "fair share" is absurd.

Good thing I don't work for the Republican party. That would be all over TV tonight.

Woo! An html error!

The plan is here.

But what the hell does this have to do with the Cubs? Or baseball? Or even Johann's mom?

And if you don't know what fiscal responsibility means, I don't think the rest of us can help you.

Maybe you should ask Rob G?

Fiscal responsibility is not taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Are you really that far detached from reality?

Why ask Rob when we can hear your charming opinion on the matter?

Because Rob G is the one who brought it up?

Most people (with brains bigger than a peanut, to use your phrase) understand what fiscal responsibility means when politicians talk about it. And it has nothing to do with regressive or progressive taxation policies.

It has to do with spending what you have, and not increasing the national debt.

But go ahead and change the meaning all you want.

It is always easier to argue against something that you make up.

Your witty rejoinders would be even more witty were they logical.

"It has to do with spending what you have, and not increasing the national debt." How is raising taxes "spending what you have"? Raising taxes and spending that money on some hairbrained scheme is not fiscally responsible, it's socialist drivel.

If you were actually to read, comprehend and think through his proposals, you'll probably see some flaws. He wants to force insurance companies to offer physicians cheaper catastrophic insurance. This is the same type of government interfernce that put the housing market, and what looks like the economy in the whole it is in today. Instead of addressing the actual problem - ridiculously high claims against physicians due to a punitive legal system gone wild, he wants to force companies to make bad business decisions. And then when there are no insurance companies, because they can't pay all the claims, what is the goverment going to do? Bailout the insurance companies, and blame president Bush? How about passing a law limiting the claims to something ridiculous, like $5 million, so that physicians don't have to spend half their income on insurance, and then seeing what that does to the cost of healthcare? None of these other countries with 'affordable' healthcare have $25 million personal injury lawsuits.

Oh crap, sorry, I forgot, economics and logic are not to be used, especially around TCR. Obama in '08, depression in '10!

I agree with Neal on there needing to be a fix for the broken medical liability system. You don't have to do ANYTHING wrong to be named in a medical liability lawsuit, yet it counts as "legal activity" when your insurance rates come up for renewal. It is fear of lawsuits that is driving up the cost of medical care and leading to excessive numbers of tests being ordered to cover your own ass, just in case. The jackpot legal mentality has to be eliminated.

Secondly, whether the increase in your taxes is $2, $2,000, or $20,000. That is money that you earned through your own work, either by muscle or by mind, and why should it be taken from you to satisfy the needs of someone else who did not earn it? Where is the incentive for success? Why would you want to give up your hard-earned money, and the time spent generating that income, without question? The argument that sickens me the most is "Oh, THEY can afford it". Who is "they" and why do "they" deserve the money "they" earned any less than you do? What happens when "they" becomes "you"?

Wow... so much wrong I don't even know where to start.

How is raising taxes "spending what you have"

It isn't that difficult to understand. If you raise taxes, you have more money. Get it? BUT... with that said, Barack Obama is not raising taxes. You can spout talking points all you want, but taxes are not being raised. They are instead being changed.

If you were actually to read, comprehend and think through his proposals, you'll probably see some flaws.

I have read, I do comprehend, and I have thought through his proposals. And you are right - I do see flaws. He isn't perfect. And his proposals are not perfect. I never said anything of the sort. But again, it is always easier to argue against something that isn't being argued. You are good at that.

This is the same type of government interfernce that put the housing market, and what looks like the economy in the whole it is in today.

Wrong. Most people, even John McCain, have pointed to the lack of government interference in the housing market has the key problem. But go ahead and think that it was because of too much "interference."

Instead of addressing the actual problem - ridiculously high claims against physicians due to a punitive legal system gone wild,

HAHA. So the high cost of health care is due to law suits? You do realize that just because you say something is true does not make it true, right? Medical liability insurance is a relatively insignificant part of the cost of health insurance. GWB ran on tort reform in 2004, and most studies found that the proposals would barely make a difference. Personal injury lawsuits are a great bogeyman talking point for the GOP, but they make little difference in the actual cost of health care.

so that physicians don't have to spend half their income on insurance

Nice... you don't typically like to just make up stats, but I guess you changed your mind on this one.

"It isn't that difficult to understand. If you raise taxes, you have more money. Get it? BUT... with that said, Barack Obama is not raising taxes. You can spout talking points all you want, but taxes are not being raised. They are instead being changed."

I've got a couple of bridges I think you'd be interested in. No one seriously thinks that the Obaman tax cuts are going to go through, if he intends to do all of his funding.

"Wrong. Most people, even John McCain, have pointed to the lack of government interference in the housing market has the key problem. But go ahead and think that it was because of too much "interference."

Wrong. You don't know the difference between the word 'oversight' and 'interference'. "In 1996 the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In addition, HUD required Freddie and Fannie to provide 12% of their portfolio to “special affordable” loans. Those are loans to borrowers with less than 60% of their area’s median income. Naturally, these targets increased over the years with the 2008 target being 28%. At a hearing in 2003, Barney Frank explicitly stated that Fannie and Freddie’s government privileges were conditional on their willingness “to make housing more affordable.” The only way to achieve the low income loan targets while dramatically increasing lending was to erode underwriting standards."

I considere you now learned up on the subject.

"HAHA. So the high cost of health care is due to law suits? You do realize that just because you say something is true does not make it true, right? Medical liability insurance is a relatively insignificant part of the cost of health insurance. GWB ran on tort reform in 2004, and most studies found that the proposals would barely make a difference. Personal injury lawsuits are a great bogeyman talking point for the GOP, but they make little difference in the actual cost of health care."

That analysis of the study is pretty interesting, and relevant to the conversation, however your argument is wrong. As a doctor you have two choices when it comes to insurance, buy or don't buy.


Regardless of what the actual rates should be - and it sounds like they're out of line - it's the fear of the $10 million lawsuit that forces you to pay them. Now if the insurance companies are engaging in anti-competitive activites - then take them down. If they're not, and you're not going to limit the damages on the suits so that physicians can not take the insurance or form their own risk sharing groups - then let them buy government insurance, at least in that case the government has control over both the premimums and the payouts. There are better ways to handle it than to dictate rates to private corporations. That's a path, as we now see, to disaster.

No one seriously thinks that the Obaman tax cuts are going to go through, if he intends to do all of his funding.

Hmm... great insight. So you are going to attack Obama for what he says he is going to do, but only pick and choose. Nice.

You don't know the difference between the word 'oversight' and 'interference'.

I know the difference.

I considere you now learned up on the subject.

I know exactly what happened with HUD, Fannie and Freddie, and the like. I also know that it had very little to do with the current economic crisis. Yes, banks were encouraged, and even required, to offer lending to low and moderate-income communities, but that is hardly the reason for the economic crisis that we are in. Renowned economist Nouriel Roubini gives the cause of the crisis as follows:

The crisis was caused by the largest leveraged asset bubble and credit bubble in the history of humanity were excessive leveraging and bubbles were not limited to housing in the US but also to housing in many other countries and excessive borrowing by financial institutions and some segments of the corporate sector and of the public sector in many and different economies: an housing bubble, a mortgage bubble, an equity bubble, a bond bubble, a credit bubble, a commodity bubble, a private equity bubble, a hedge funds bubble are all now bursting at once in the biggest real sector and financial sector deleveraging since the Great Depression.

Here are a couple of other places to start on that: Media Matters and the American Prospect.

I don't necessarily disagree with you last section on insurance, but it doesn't really address your original point that medical liability is driving up medical costs. Which is simply not true.

OK, I have to admit that I don't understand what you're talking about. Here's the quote - and this guy is not a heart surgeon.

"His premium was $23,000 in 2002. Then it jumped to $47,000. This year, he got a quote for $84,000."

This is for a guy with no claims. Explain to me how premiums that almost quadrupled in 2 years is not going to drive up cost of health care. I am not being sarcastic or anything, please explain it to me.

"Hmm... great insight. So you are going to attack Obama for what he says he is going to do, but only pick and choose. Nice."

I am going to attack Obama for telling people what they want to hear, particuarly when some of those ideas are dangerously stupid.

His policy proposal reads like a kid in a candy store. 'What does this group want? OK, lets throw that in. What about them? OK, add that in too. And these guys over here? Yes, we can do that, all we have to do is update the web page right? OK done and done. Where's the money coming from? Well, the rich people because they only have 25% of the vote, and Exxon because they're an oil company, they don't get any votes.'

It's no great mystery on how they determined their proposed tax cut plan, they said 'Where's the cutoff line to get enough of the upper middle class behind us? OK, those people all get cuts' I belong to an income bracket that Obama has marked for tax cuts, but I don't want tax cuts I want a government that pays down it's debt and then can do 40% more with their tax money than they can do today. Give me a president who says 'We are going to keep the taxes the same, and cut spending for my four years, then see where we're at'. Give me a president who's more interested in doing what's right for the country, than what's right for his election.

He's got some good and great ideas on his web page, some of which may save money. Too bad he was never a US Senator and he could have authored some laws to put those plans into action over the last 20 months while his party had control of the law making institution.

You can't get much more anti-conservative than to say that the Government should expand their insurance business - but it's one of the very few things the US Government is good at, and it would help the average (not typical - another piece of bullshit Obama tries to sneak by us) American. Every problem in the US is not caused by evil corporations and greedy ultra-rich, and if the Socialist party would accept that, our government would probably be a lot more efficient.

Edit: Typo and the fact that you didn't read what you quoted me:

"a housing bubble, a mortgage bubble, an equity bubble, a bond bubble, a credit bubble, a commodity bubble, a private equity bubble"

All of those things are directly related to the activities and policies of the HUD initiated under the Clinton administration. When you make it so more people can buy houses, that causes the prices of houses to go up. When you get equity in your house without making any payments at all (due to artificially increased housing demand), you actually don't have to pay your mortgage, you just pay it with the equity you 'earned' The actual problem is that everyone who wanted a house had a house, so demand stalled. Then there was a snowball effect on the other bubbles (Housing effects Equity, which effects Mortgages which effects credit, which effects bonds). You're too smart not to realize that. The single cause of the problem was that people were buying houses they couldn't afford, because the US Govermenent made it very easy for them to do so. The Republicans are at fault for enjoying the paper profits, and not putting Ron Paul's legislation in place and the Democrats are at fault for not understanding the ramifications when trying to create their utopian society for families with $50K annual incomes. Houses for everyone! What right minded politician would object to that?


I beg to differ about the effect of frivolous lawsuits on the cost of healthcare. If two tests are ordered instead of one, even though the probability of that test is low but there is fear of legal consequences, you have effectively doubled the cost of treating an illness.

Medical liability insurance varies from specialty to specialty and state to state. Mine is equal to 20% of my gross income. The insurance for a OB/GYN or Neurosurgeon is much higher, but who do you want cracking your skull open to relieve the subdural hematoma after your car accident? There is a real liability crisis and tort reform is important to physicians.

i didn't bring up fiscal responsibility, I brought up that Joe the Plumber isn't very good at math or understanding tax rates.



"i didn't bring up fiscal responsibility, I brought up that Joe the Plumber isn't very good at math or understanding tax rates. "

No, but the blog you linked, who ironically also isn't very good at math (250/50 = 10), did.

from Rotoworld

Rich Hill surrendered two runs and four hits in 5 1/3 innings for Aragua of the VWL on Friday.
Hill, who is looking to put a disastrous 2008 behind him, struck out six and walked none in his debut in Venezuela. It's a very encouraging start as he tries to rebuild his stock and put himself in position to claim a rotation spot next spring.

Is that a typo? Or did he really not walk anyone?

A Rich Hill that doesn't walk people would be VERY, VERY helpful to next year's Cubs team.

I am sure most of the hitters in the VWL care more about driving the ball and getting Xtra base hits then being patient at the plate as to impress the scouts. I would bet a good chunk of money that Hill only averaged 3 pitches per AB in the game.

i believe the only VEN player with more than 100 walks in a season is bobby abreu.

i know e.alfonzo got into the 80s/90s when he played...i know he did 90+ once based on a played out long-ago non-TCR argument.

I did not mean to apply that its because he is playing aganist Venzulans or other hispanics. Everybody does it because scouts dont care about it because they think its a learned skill.

yeah, i was just throwing that in as an aside...i was just thinking of 100+ walk VEN players and only abreu popped to mind.

my bad for not making it clearer...etc.

all this theriot talk...

you dont need FRAAISNKZX^2 stats to break down theriot or compare him.

he hits singles. he doesn't even have doubles power. he takes a walk occasionally. he plays average D with an average arm.

big f'n deal.

his peers people wanna compare him to aren't even the same type of hitters for the most part. he gets on base 20-30 more times than his peers and doesn't seem to do much with it.

imo, he's not even a problem. he's just a little role player who's role isn't much of a question until its time to pay him 3+ million bucks.

he has an alarming lack of power, but he gets on base and plays average enough D to not stick out like a sore thumb.

i'd rather have furcal and all, but he's not THAT much of an upgrade considering he's a nearly 10m dollar player. having him on SS pretty much locks in having to keep a defensive-minded guy at 1st cuz furcal throws rockets that makes aram's rockets to 1st look like a soft lob.

Submitted by Andrew on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 4:13am. From ESPN.com: "At least one team the Padres have spoken with about Peavy have demonstrated an interest in expanding the deal to include shortstop Khalil Greene, whose $6.5 million salary the Padres would like to move, and Atlanta is relatively flush with middle infielders, with Yunel Escobar and Brent Lillibridge."

It doesn't make sense that the Braves would want Greene. That's gotta be either the Cards or the Cubs. Didn't Hendry have a player-crush of some kind for Greene? I think I'd take him if it brought us Peavy.


ANDREW: The Cubs drafted Khalil Greene in 2001 (14th round), but they couldn't sign him, so he went back to Clemson where he was "College Player of the Year" in 2002. Then the Padres drafted him in the 1st round of the '02 draft.

Greene fits the profile of an Alex Gonzalez-type SS, so Jim Hendry probably sees Greene in a more-positive light than some other GMs might. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs are the team that wanted to have a Jake Peavy deal expanded to include Khalil Greene, especially with Ronny Cedeno likely having run himself off the team after getting into an animated argument with the trainer the last weekend of the season. In fact, the Cubs might go after Greene even if they can't get Peavy.

If the Cubs were to acquire Greene, he would probably be given a golden opportunity to be the everyday shortstop (and #8 hitter), with Ryan Theriot replacing Cedeno as the primary back-up middle-infielder. And if Greene flops, the Cubs can always just move Theriot back to SS.

Something like Sean Marshall, Jose Ceda (who was acquired from SD for Todd Walker), Ronny Cedeno, and Felix Pie would probably be the Cubs "best offer" offer for Peavy and Greene, with the Cubs willingness to take back considerable payroll an important part of the deal.

And I would think Peavy will require that his "new club" agree to exercise the $22M 2013 club option before he would waive his "no trade."

speaking of...


blog rumors, but says Cards want Peavy and Greene

and Peavy would waive his no-trade clause to go to Houston, he's hunting buddies with Oswalt. And don't forget he gets a boost in his salary with no state tax in Texas.


can't imagine what the Astros would have left to offer, but you never know.

Makes sense that its the Cards that wanted Greene sense he would actually be an improvement at SS for them. BTW, the latest on the Peavy talk is that Towers wants "controlable pitching" and middle infield (I think he means just SS as Matt Antonelli is one if the not the best 2b prospects in the game) help.


I still think the Cards are the favorites as a Jaime Garcia, Jess Todd, Kyle McCleelan/Chris Perez, Colby Rasmus and Brandon Ryan for Peavy and Greene deal is pretty tough to pass up. I know everyone thinks the Braves are the leaders at this point, but they lack any starting MLB outfielders and have only 1 reliable starter for next year in Jurrjens. Unless they are going to spend some serious money this winter they are not going to competing with the Phils or the Mets next year so it would be really dumb to sell the farm for Peavy.


somehow he thinks the Cubs need to trade Soriano and Ramirez to the Dodgers to sign Manny.

Eh, job security. Rogers just wants to gripe about Manny being Manny come June.

5:00 pm comes earlier for Phil ever day.


I read that article and had trouble figuring out why a team with a premium athlete like Soriano and no CF or RF couldn't fit both onto the team.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if the Cubs gave Manny a four year deal, let Soriano play right for two years, then let Manny move to first for the final two years of his contract. It's not going to happen, but I would have to think it's more plausible then dealing Soriano.

No way am I voting for Khalil Greene. His record is undistinguished, his defense policy is muddled, and his revenue demands would be a substantial burden. Plus he's got a funny, foreign-sounding name! No sir.

(for the humorless: /satire)

What are the Padres doing with Giles? BP doesn't think he could play right anymore, but didn't they chase after Fukudome? Maybe Fukudome and $6 million could get us Giles to bat 2nd ($11 million one year contract).

Someone mentioned Bradley in the last thread for right field. I would be alright with that, if he keeps the racist stuff under his collar and only has one or two blowups a year.

I was under the impression that Giles prefers staying on the West Coast - didn't he turn down a trade to a contending team last year, opting to stay with a farily mediocre team in order to live in SD?

Yeah, but he's a FA if San Diego doesn't pick up his option, so the scenario would be that they pick up his option only if he agrees to the trade. In either case he wouldn't be in SD next year if he wants to play. Boston was also one of the teams he had specified in his limited NTC - so maybe he'd be more willing to play in the Friendly Confines with our small RF.

Giles turned down a trade to the Red Sox in August, which I couldn't understand at the time. I know it's a cliche, but doesn't that throw his "desire to win" into question?

I guess, but how does 'desire to win' play out, anyway? He has a desire to get on base 40% of the time, and if what Rob G was saying about hitting to RF at Petco is true, it probably won't be very hard for him to achieve that desire with the Cubs.

think I qualified it as "if I remember", but if I didn't, I should have...


3 yr Park Factors from 2005-2007 on page 10 of 23
for Petco (where 100 is average)

Avg: 94
HR: 78

Avg: 87
HR: 92

random story I came across looking that up about Petco

What's that, about 2 more HR's a year for Giles if he played at Wrigley? (100 and 119 LHB Factors)?

I've often thought the same thing about big parks and winning, but I couldn't find any evidence to support it. Fenway is a pretty damned good hitter's park, for example.

This is funny from that article:

"However, Bill James did research years ago showing that teams playing in pitcher's parks won championships more often. Why? The answer lies in the relationship of runs to winning. If you outscore your opponents by 100 runs in a low run environment, you'll have a better record than if you have the same difference in a high run environment."

Whoever wrote that should have his SABR card taken away.

I'm probably doing the math wrong here, but 41% difference would be about 1.64 more home runs at home for Giles assuming the everything stays the same on the road.

On the other hand, Adrian Gonzalez is good for 5.74 more which would take him over 40.

I think there's a better chance of Giles hitting 40 HR's for the Cubs next year than Adrian Gonzalez.

Is it me or is Neal especially ornery today?

Early Onset Male Menopause?

We need an OBP-GYN consult.

"Adrian would be the most difficult guy for us to move," Towers said. "I don't see any circumstances in which we would do it. He is young, under control for three more years, has plus offense and plus defense."

via the tabloid NY Post "news"paper.


Recent comments

Subscribe to Recent comments
The first 600 characters of the last 16 comments, click "View" to see rest of comment.
  • Sure, no marks and some inconsistencies in the witness's statements. But firing your gun into garage wall immediately after an argument and punching out your car window is still threatening and out of control behavior. There was certainly enough for MLB to think it warranted a 30-game suspension.

    Charlie 15 min 17 sec ago view
  • I'd prefer they be flexible with the closing situation depending on matchups. You're not really adding a lefty reliever if you use him strictly as a closer.

    Charlie 15 min 49 sec ago view
  • Stockpiling young talent isn't only for trading for someone like Chapman though. Even with an elite closer winning the World Series is basically a crap shoot so the key is to get to the playoffs as much as possible and not just mortgage everything on one year. Once you get there an elite bullpen certainly helps but the playoffs can be won by one hitter or starting pitcher getting hot (Murphy, Molina, Baumgardner) and a closer might not be able to stop that.

    johann 40 min 8 sec ago view
  • I'm also not crazy about press convictions. As the police report noted, there were no marks on the lady in question. There's a TMZ link (of course) to her police pictures, as well.

    I think the only way this trade goes real bad is if Cubbery intervenes and Chapman is suddenly bad for some reason.

    Old and Blue 43 min 29 sec ago view
  • I am right there with you closing in on 60.

    I don't care that much about "mortgaging" one player who is not only blocked by two guys, but is not ready to hit the majors for at least a couple years.

    There is no reason why this team, this year, can't have a real shot at something NONE of us have experienced.

    Further, I don't feel that even if they fall short that they have ruined their farm system.

    I have made my opinion clear here, with others, Warren was shit on the Cubs save one spot start.

    The E-Man 2 hours 13 min ago view
  • Trading for Warren, Warren sucking, getting Warren back for Chapman plus 3 prospects, sounds like Revenge of The Yankees on the former Boston executive. Old rivalries never die.

    I pray to the heavens above Chapman doesn't suck for some reason, or he'll be booed out of town faster than a Todd Hundley revival meeting.

    Old and Blue 2 hours 20 min ago view
  • I'm kind of nostalgic for the Schwarber-for-Miller rumors.

    Brick 2 hours 32 min ago view
  • This offseason, after some ridiculous playoff run and Chapman saving every game from here until the end of the postseason striking out 27/9innings, I welcome anyone to quote this thread and call me a dummy: I hate this trade, and my hate is 2 parts Chapman makes this team less likeable and 1 part that's a ridiculous overpay for 30 regular season innings and, at tops, 10 postseason innings. Already hoping they don't extend him.

    Charlie 2 hours 34 min ago view
  • btw...Thanks AZ Phil. I'm really enjoying your take on this trade.

    Cubster 2 hours 56 min ago view
  • I'm a bit disappointed on the Warren experience. Essentially they gave Castro away for crickets (OK, well they signed Zobrist with the Castro salary dump). Otherwise one might look at it as Chapman for Castro and our #1 minors prospect (Torres) + McKinney/Crawford. Seems pricey for a 2 month rental. We will see if this price tag is that steep in a relative way based on the remaining deadline deals for relievers.

    Cubster 2 hours 57 min ago view
  • Yep. One of the great things about this team (in addition to being really good at baseball) was the "likable" factor. Feels a bit different now. Who knows...maybe Chapman will be the king of the dance parties.

    billybucks 3 hours 5 min ago view
  • Here are some possible corresponding minor league moves we might see in the aftermath  of the Chapman trade: 

    SOUTH BEND to MYRTLE BEACH: OF Donnie Dewees and INF Bryant Flete  

    EUGENE to SOUTH BEND: OF Robert Garcia and INF Vimael Machin 

    There is really no reason to replace Billy McKinney at Tennessee because both Chris Coghlan and Jorge Soler are doing their rehab at Tennessee.  

    And there are plenty of pitchers at Iowa. No need to replace Warren at AAA. .  

    Arizona Phil 3 hours 26 min ago view
  • I am 70 years old. The Cubs last played in the World Series in 1945. I was born in 1946. I hate to lose a prospect like Torres, but when the opportunity is there to get that World Series ring, you go for it. This was the idea in stock piling all this young talent. I would like to see Reddick added now and the Cubbies should be done.

    Hagsag 3 hours 56 min ago view
  • I would expect Richard to accept an optional assignment because based on how he's played this season, there is a decent chance that he won't find work elsewhere. Rather stay and potentially get a ring. Same goes for Coghlan since he's struggled mightily this year.

    Edwards should not go down. He's pitched very well and Maddon is very impressed with him. I would expect Grimm to go down for Cahill so he can get back on track (he's pitched better in July, but he's not getting enough appearances).

    chitownmvp01 4 hours 5 sec ago view
  • chitownmvp01: Indeed Clayton Richard would seem to be odd man out once Chapman reports, but Richard might accept a minor league assignment if he is promised a return to Chicago on 9/1 when MLB Active List rosters expand (Richard has minor league ioptions left).

    Arizona Phil 4 hours 3 min ago view
  • The only player in the deal that would cause me a second thought is Gleyber Torres.

    McKinney and Crawford are decent prospects but both are redundant/replaceable in the system and Warren was really only a middle-reliever or #6 starter, so to me it's really just Torres for Chapman.

    Arizona Phil 4 hours 23 min ago view