+- 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: Hey Butch (/thread-7428.html)
Hey Butch - Quinn - 04-07-2009
![[Image: cubs-enhanced-boxscore-april-6-2009.jpg]](http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/cubs-enhanced-boxscore-april-6-2009.jpg)
Stolen from Ace. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]
Hey Butch - Jody - 04-07-2009
![[Image: 70384439_ba1fd5b9de.jpg]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/70384439_ba1fd5b9de.jpg)
That was definitely a great start for him and I hope he can keep it up (pun intended) but there is a long way to go yet.
Hey Butch - Quinn - 04-07-2009
I agree. I just wanted to show of Ace's work.
Hey Butch - veryzer - 04-07-2009
the font is a ballplayer. he's gonna be just fine. so will the riot and the miles.
Hey Butch - Butcher - 04-07-2009
I never said I had a problem with Fontenot. I'm glad he's going to get plenty of playing time.
However, one has nothing to do with the other. Let's do some math.
These players are likely to miss this many games (guesstimates, of course):
Bradley -- 60 - 70
Alf -- 20 - 30
Ramirez -- 20 - 30
Lee could use days off -- 20
Give Fontenot a rest against tough lefties -- 15
So, on the low end, that's about 135 games. On the high end, it's a full season worth of games. DeRosa can play all of those positions.
This is why I'm lamenting DeRosa's loss. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Fontenot.
Hey Butch - kbwsb - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=27986:date=Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I never said I had a problem with Fontenot. I'm glad he's going to get plenty of playing time.
However, one has nothing to do with the other. Let's do some math.
These players are likely to miss this many games (guesstimates, of course):
Bradley -- 60 - 70
Alf -- 20 - 30
Ramirez -- 20 - 30
Lee could use days off -- 20
Give Fontenot a rest against tough lefties -- 15
So, on the low end, that's about 135 games. On the high end, it's a full season worth of games. DeRosa can play all of those positions.
This is why I'm lamenting DeRosa's loss. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Fontenot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was gonna post the exact same thing, albeit, less eloquently. DeRosa wasn't our 2nd baseman. He was our Super-sub, a guy who could play anywhere on the diamond, and play it well.
How many guys are there like that in major-league baseball? I literally can't think of <i>one.</i> (Chone Figgins?)
IOW, he was a highly unique, extremely valuable player.
But, at least Jim shrewdly got a similarly valuable player back in the deal.
Hey Butch - ruby23 - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=27986:date=Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I never said I had a problem with Fontenot. I'm glad he's going to get plenty of playing time.
However, one has nothing to do with the other. Let's do some math.
These players are likely to miss this many games (guesstimates, of course):
Bradley -- 60 - 70
Alf -- 20 - 30
Ramirez -- 20 - 30
Lee could use days off -- 20
Give Fontenot a rest against tough lefties -- 15
So, on the low end, that's about 135 games. On the high end, it's a full season worth of games. DeRosa can play all of those positions.
This is why I'm lamenting DeRosa's loss. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Fontenot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you rather have DeRosa as a super sub or Bradley on the team? It's really that simple and the answer sould be equally as simple.
Hey Butch - Butcher - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=28014:date=Apr 7 2009, 12:29 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Apr 7 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=27986:date=Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I never said I had a problem with Fontenot. I'm glad he's going to get plenty of playing time.
However, one has nothing to do with the other. Let's do some math.
These players are likely to miss this many games (guesstimates, of course):
Bradley -- 60 - 70
Alf -- 20 - 30
Ramirez -- 20 - 30
Lee could use days off -- 20
Give Fontenot a rest against tough lefties -- 15
So, on the low end, that's about 135 games. On the high end, it's a full season worth of games. DeRosa can play all of those positions.
This is why I'm lamenting DeRosa's loss. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Fontenot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you rather have DeRosa as a super sub or Bradley on the team? It's really that simple and the answer sould be equally as simple.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not making the connection. Seems to me it's DeRosa or Miles. Or are you saying that the extra $2.5 M we saved by replacing DeRosa with Miles allowed us to sign Bradley? Sorry -- I'm not buying that. Especially when we just ate $2M on the Gaudin debacle.
Was that simple enough?
Hey Butch - rok - 04-07-2009
The monetary issues/constraints made a lot of sense to me a few months ago. After the Gaudin debacle, the need to shed payroll to fit Milton onto the team makes zero sense. I know it's all hindsight, but still.
Hey Butch - Butcher - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=28028:date=Apr 7 2009, 12:58 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Apr 7 2009, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The monetary issues/constraints made a lot of sense to me a few months ago. After the Gaudin debacle, the need to shed payroll to fit Milton onto the team makes zero sense. I know it's all hindsight, but still.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It never made sense to me. We saved $2.5M by trading him. Was that really the difference in a $40M contract? Seems silly to me.
Hey Butch - ruby23 - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=28018:date=Apr 7 2009, 12:42 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 7 2009, 12:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=28014:date=Apr 7 2009, 12:29 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Apr 7 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=27986:date=Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Apr 7 2009, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I never said I had a problem with Fontenot. I'm glad he's going to get plenty of playing time.
However, one has nothing to do with the other. Let's do some math.
These players are likely to miss this many games (guesstimates, of course):
Bradley -- 60 - 70
Alf -- 20 - 30
Ramirez -- 20 - 30
Lee could use days off -- 20
Give Fontenot a rest against tough lefties -- 15
So, on the low end, that's about 135 games. On the high end, it's a full season worth of games. DeRosa can play all of those positions.
This is why I'm lamenting DeRosa's loss. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Fontenot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you rather have DeRosa as a super sub or Bradley on the team? It's really that simple and the answer sould be equally as simple.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not making the connection. Seems to me it's DeRosa or Miles. Or are you saying that the extra $2.5 M we saved by replacing DeRosa with Miles allowed us to sign Bradley? Sorry -- I'm not buying that. Especially when we just ate $2M on the Gaudin debacle.
Was that simple enough?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple and wrong, Hendry wasn't signing Bradley until DeRosa was gone. Whether you think that should have been the case or not makes no difference. The $$$ saved by trading DeRosa and letting Wood walk are the reason why Bradley is on this team. The Gaudin mistake was a mistake and Hendry has even said that. No matter how you slice, it was always an either/or thing with DeRosa and Bradley, there was never a chance both were gonna be on the team. I also haven't even said a thing about the desire to get more left handed.
Hey Butch - veryzer - 04-07-2009
i honestly think they traded derosa to make room for peavy. then the peavy thing fell through.
Hey Butch - kbwsb - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=28037:date=Apr 7 2009, 01:08 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Apr 7 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i honestly think they traded derosa to make room for peavy. then the peavy thing fell through.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There may be something to that, but again, what's the connection? Peavy's a pitcher.
And rube, tom, are you saying that a team with a $142 Million dollar payroll freely axed the team MVP over 2 million bucks?
Doesn't wash.
Hey Butch - Andy - 04-07-2009
<!--quoteo(post=28037:date=Apr 7 2009, 01:08 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Apr 7 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i honestly think they traded derosa to make room for peavy. then the peavy thing fell through.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree Tom. I think they traded DeRo for pieces of a trade to SD. I have little doubt it pissed Hendry off that it didn't go through and he then traded for Heilman as a way of shaping up a pitching rotation he expected to have Peavy in.
Hey Butch - savant - 04-07-2009
DeRo is 34 going into the last year of his contract, he is playing this year for the last contract he will ever get. Lou wanted to use DeRo as the super sub, but he wanted to be a starter, as he was signed to be. Right or wrong Hendry traded him so he could still be a starter as Hendry had promised him he would be.