Sons of Ivy
MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - Printable Version

+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) (/thread-8401.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - rok - 12-14-2010

I'm still loyal. That will never change. I've just become more cynical, and it's made me expect less and less, so it's all easier to swallow.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - VanSlawAndCottoCheese - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123334:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:27 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Dec 14 2010, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The money, even though most of it is backloaded to 2012, was never the issue. Length of contract isn't either. It's just the fact that up to this point we're trying to patch up a 75 win team with other teams' hot rubbish (Pena and possibly Webb) symbolically means very little in the grand scheme of things and just feels like a half-assed attempt at tinkering with a mess of a team.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno. What moves do you want them to make? Trading Demp or Ramirez, perhaps, but anyone else is either young enough or weighed down by too much money to be worth it. Signing Webb--again, depending on money and contact length-- is exactly the type of move this team can do right now: something somewhat risky with a potential for a huge payoff.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - Coldneck - 12-14-2010

I think Hendry should call up Texas and NYY and see if they're interested in Zambrano or Dempster. Perhaps we could net some useful prospects in a deal and get out of our obligations to pay them at the same time. Z would probably nix a deal for him with his NTC though.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - satchel - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123300:date=Dec 14 2010, 10:22 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Dec 14 2010, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123299:date=Dec 14 2010, 10:10 AM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This sucks simply because a national league team with less revenue than the cubs does anything and everything it wants to get championships. Yet the cubs sign .196 hitters and 84 MPH pitchers (so they hope) and trot out everyone else from a 5th place team again next year. Being a cub fan sucks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why more and more I'd lean toward blowing shit up and starting over, even though it will never happen. This team isn't beating the Reds and Tards let alone the Phillies of the world anytime soon. Two to three moves away from competing, my ass.

That said I'd still be on board for Garza because it is good for the present and future.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But what is blowing it up? trading aram? because that is the only valuable veteran starter on the team, fuk and soriano wont net you anything and fuk comes off the board next year.

Dempster might net something good around the trade deadline if he is putting up similar numbers maybe byrd also, but after that who?

Soto imo is too young to trade he has 4-5 good years left(possibly more) he can certainly be a center piece along with Castro. Its not a marlins situation where they actually had something to blow up, you cant really trade away the team when there is only a few valuable players to trade.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - rok - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123339:date=Dec 14 2010, 01:42 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ Dec 14 2010, 01:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123334:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:27 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Dec 14 2010, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The money, even though most of it is backloaded to 2012, was never the issue. Length of contract isn't either. It's just the fact that up to this point we're trying to patch up a 75 win team with other teams' hot rubbish (Pena and possibly Webb) symbolically means very little in the grand scheme of things and just feels like a half-assed attempt at tinkering with a mess of a team.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno. What moves do you want them to make? Trading Demp or Ramirez, perhaps, but anyone else is either young enough or weighed down by too much money to be worth it. Signing Webb--again, depending on money and contact length-- is exactly the type of move this team can do right now: something somewhat risky with a potential for a huge payoff.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know exactly. There's no way we could have done something as bold as signing Lee and trading for Gonzalez, but here we are in year 2 of the Ricketts regime, and we're still spinning our tires and stuck in the mud. I'm fine with the long-term approach, but as a fan who doesn't look forward to this team getting spanked regularly for the next 2-3 years with no end in sight, it's just hard for me to feel anything for this organization other than sad.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - willis - 12-14-2010

The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - willis - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123340:date=Dec 14 2010, 01:50 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 14 2010, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think Hendry should call up Texas and NYY and see if they're interested in Zambrano or Dempster. Perhaps we could net some useful prospects in a deal and get out of our obligations to pay them at the same time. Z would probably nix a deal for him with his NTC though.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That is a pretty damn good idea if they whiff on Greinke. Both are going to want/need pitching.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - vitaminB - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)-->QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So are we a WS team with Gonzalez instead of Pena? No. So then we're stuck with a rented player and down three prospects on a team that didn't win a WS.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - willis - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123346:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM:name=vitaminB)-->QUOTE (vitaminB @ Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So are we a WS team with Gonzalez instead of Pena? No. So then we're stuck with a rented player and down three prospects on a team that didn't win a WS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No...not this coming year. A contender in the division with him? Yes. And I think if they would have given up quality prospects, they wouldn't have without an extension, so it wouldn't have been a rented player.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - vitaminB - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123347:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:52 PM:name=willis)-->QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123346:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM:name=vitaminB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vitaminB @ Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So are we a WS team with Gonzalez instead of Pena? No. So then we're stuck with a rented player and down three prospects on a team that didn't win a WS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No...not this coming year. A contender in the division with him? Yes. And I think if they would have given up quality prospects, they wouldn't have without an extension, so it wouldn't have been a rented player.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So you would have rather given up quality prospects (Jackson, Lee, Cashner) and then signed a multi-million dollar deal to a guy coming off shoulder surgery?

I think if we're building for this 2012 push then we're doing it the right way. We have a ton of young talent coming through the system right now. We just need to get through this clog at the major league level so they have somewhere to play.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - The Dude - 12-14-2010

clearly Hendry just needs to sign more guys to play 2B. We have a severe shortage by his standards.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - Coldneck - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)-->QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the exception of Sarlin Castro we don't have a prospect near as good as the pitcher (top 10 in baseball) SD got from Boston. We even tried to make a deal with SD, but Boston had a better offer.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - Bricklayer - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123347:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:52 PM:name=willis)-->QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123346:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM:name=vitaminB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vitaminB @ Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So are we a WS team with Gonzalez instead of Pena? No. So then we're stuck with a rented player and down three prospects on a team that didn't win a WS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No...not this coming year. A contender in the division with him? Yes. And I think if they would have given up quality prospects, they wouldn't have without an extension, so it wouldn't have been a rented player.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think I understand your logic. What does the quality of the prospects have to do with an extension?

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - Butcher - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123365:date=Dec 14 2010, 04:21 PM:name=Bricklayer)-->QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Dec 14 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123347:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:52 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123346:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM:name=vitaminB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vitaminB @ Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So are we a WS team with Gonzalez instead of Pena? No. So then we're stuck with a rented player and down three prospects on a team that didn't win a WS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No...not this coming year. A contender in the division with him? Yes. And I think if they would have given up quality prospects, they wouldn't have without an extension, so it wouldn't have been a rented player.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think I understand your logic. What does the quality of the prospects have to do with an extension?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what he's saying is the Cubs wouldn't have given up highly rated prospects without an assurance (or at least plenty of confidence) that an extension would happen.

MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox) - willis - 12-14-2010

<!--quoteo(post=123368:date=Dec 14 2010, 04:30 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 14 2010, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123365:date=Dec 14 2010, 04:21 PM:name=Bricklayer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Dec 14 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123347:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:52 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123346:date=Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM:name=vitaminB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vitaminB @ Dec 14 2010, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123343:date=Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM:name=willis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (willis @ Dec 14 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The team could have traded for Gonzalez. The pieces are there and he isn't making dick this year. In fact, the cubs will be paying (I know deferred) Pena more money than it would have cost for Gonzalez. So I don't consider that too bold to pull off. Bold-absolutely. Awesome-yes. But they could have done it. The problem is that this team is afraid to pull the trigger because Hendry has Ricketts convinced a tinker here and a tinker there gets it done. The real is they are going to run out a bunch of overpaid vets detined to finish behind a medium market team and 4 small market teams.

Well maybe 3 small market teams because the Pirates are eternally garbabge...since 1992 at least.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So are we a WS team with Gonzalez instead of Pena? No. So then we're stuck with a rented player and down three prospects on a team that didn't win a WS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No...not this coming year. A contender in the division with him? Yes. And I think if they would have given up quality prospects, they wouldn't have without an extension, so it wouldn't have been a rented player.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think I understand your logic. What does the quality of the prospects have to do with an extension?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what he's saying is the Cubs wouldn't have given up highly rated prospects without an assurance (or at least plenty of confidence) that an extension would happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yep...no way they would have thrown all the gems at the Padres without an extension. That's my point. I agree with the initial point of not trading a bunch of valuable future pieces for a rental.