Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40756:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40749:date=May 28 2009, 10:31 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 28 2009, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40746:date=May 28 2009, 10:20 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not to beat a dead horse, but I just don't see how it could've been a money move -- especially when he signed Aaron Miles for nearly the same amount just hours after the trade.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't. It was about playing time and getting more left handed. I think money and the ownership transfer was used as a diversion. We still spent (and threw away) plenty of money in the offseason on other players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are welcome to believe that it wasn't about money, and you very well could right, but the fact is, Miles is making less than half of what DeRosa was.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40759:date=May 28 2009, 10:56 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40755:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40750:date=May 28 2009, 10:32 AM:name=ColoradoCub)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ May 28 2009, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40748:date=May 28 2009, 09:29 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40746:date=May 28 2009, 10:20 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not to beat a dead horse, but I just don't see how it could've been a money move -- especially when he signed Aaron Miles for nearly the same amount just hours after the trade.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
because you are wrong?
Derosa is making 5.5 million in 2009. Miles is making 2.2 million in 2009.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should look at the quote from Hendry again. He doesn't say that money wasn't a factor, in fact, he alludes that it was, but he's still admitting that they identified moving DeRosa as the best way to get a more left handed lineup, and makes it sound like that was the primary motivation for the deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So which argument are you making? Are you saying it WAS about money, or are you saying, as Butch does, that it wasn't about money?
I am making 2 different points. One, Hendry is not going to come out and admit that the move was about money. The quote above is about as close to that as you will see a GM come, unless it's someone from a small market. So even if saving money was the primary reason for the deal, he is still going to make it sound like getting more lefthanded was the reason.
Two, despite what Butch said, trading DeRosa and signing Miles DID save them almost 3.5 million dollars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year, of course. A guy with Miles's skill set is a dime a dozen -- a player like Miles should be making league minimum. Bobby Scales does what Miles does -- but better. And yet, we're going to be paying him $5M over the next two seasons. If you're claiming some sort of fiscally responsible motivation, it's hard to look at the Miles signing and not shudder (not to mention the other money we've pissed away).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I agree that the Miles signing was a compete and utter waste of money, but you can't lump in his 2010 salary and say we are spending the same amount of money we are spending on DeRosa. If Hendry has a budget, it's for 2009, and for 2009 Miles over DeRosa saves over 3 million dollars. Add in 5.5 million for Marquis, and you've pretty much paid for Bradley.
As far as the other money we've "wasted", that would have happened anyway.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40760:date=May 28 2009, 10:56 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40756:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40749:date=May 28 2009, 10:31 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 28 2009, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40746:date=May 28 2009, 10:20 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not to beat a dead horse, but I just don't see how it could've been a money move -- especially when he signed Aaron Miles for nearly the same amount just hours after the trade.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't. It was about playing time and getting more left handed. I think money and the ownership transfer was used as a diversion. We still spent (and threw away) plenty of money in the offseason on other players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are welcome to believe that it wasn't about money, and you very well could right, but the fact is, Miles is making less than half of what DeRosa was.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year.
If you're claiming fiscal responsibility, you don't sign a guy like Miles to a 2-year, $5M contract. Miles is replaceable with a guy making league minimum. See Scales, Bobby.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40762:date=May 28 2009, 10:58 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40760:date=May 28 2009, 10:56 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40756:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40749:date=May 28 2009, 10:31 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 28 2009, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40746:date=May 28 2009, 10:20 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not to beat a dead horse, but I just don't see how it could've been a money move -- especially when he signed Aaron Miles for nearly the same amount just hours after the trade.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't. It was about playing time and getting more left handed. I think money and the ownership transfer was used as a diversion. We still spent (and threw away) plenty of money in the offseason on other players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are welcome to believe that it wasn't about money, and you very well could right, but the fact is, Miles is making less than half of what DeRosa was.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year.
If you're claiming fiscal responsibility, you don't sign a guy like Miles to a 2-year, $5M contract. Miles is replaceable with a guy making league minimum. See Scales, Bobby.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Butch, this is a total bullshit argument. You are now arguing 2 points completely unrelated to your original. 1, should we have signed Miles at all? I agree we should not have. 2, should we have spent that much money on him? I agree we should not have. But because we don't like the signing, and because we don't like the amount, that still doesn't give you the right to change the laws of accounting and pretend signing Miles and trading Derosa doesn't save the Cubs money, because it does. In the aggregate, they both cost 5 million, but one costs us 5 million over 2 years, and one costs us 5 million this year. Those aren't the same thing.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40761:date=May 28 2009, 10:58 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40759:date=May 28 2009, 10:56 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40755:date=May 28 2009, 10:52 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40750:date=May 28 2009, 10:32 AM:name=ColoradoCub)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ May 28 2009, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40748:date=May 28 2009, 09:29 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40746:date=May 28 2009, 10:20 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not to beat a dead horse, but I just don't see how it could've been a money move -- especially when he signed Aaron Miles for nearly the same amount just hours after the trade.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
because you are wrong?
Derosa is making 5.5 million in 2009. Miles is making 2.2 million in 2009.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should look at the quote from Hendry again. He doesn't say that money wasn't a factor, in fact, he alludes that it was, but he's still admitting that they identified moving DeRosa as the best way to get a more left handed lineup, and makes it sound like that was the primary motivation for the deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So which argument are you making? Are you saying it WAS about money, or are you saying, as Butch does, that it wasn't about money?
I am making 2 different points. One, Hendry is not going to come out and admit that the move was about money. The quote above is about as close to that as you will see a GM come, unless it's someone from a small market. So even if saving money was the primary reason for the deal, he is still going to make it sound like getting more lefthanded was the reason.
Two, despite what Butch said, trading DeRosa and signing Miles DID save them almost 3.5 million dollars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you factor in Miles's second year, of course. A guy with Miles's skill set is a dime a dozen -- a player like Miles should be making league minimum. Bobby Scales does what Miles does -- but better. And yet, we're going to be paying him $5M over the next two seasons. If you're claiming some sort of fiscally responsible motivation, it's hard to look at the Miles signing and not shudder (not to mention the other money we've pissed away).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I agree that the Miles signing was a compete and utter waste of money, but you can't lump in his 2010 salary and say we are spending the same amount of money we are spending on DeRosa. If Hendry has a budget, it's for 2009, and for 2009 Miles over DeRosa saves over 3 million dollars. Add in 5.5 million for Marquis, and you've pretty much paid for Bradley.
As far as the other money we've "wasted", that would have happened anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying Miles is making the same amount of money as DeRosa. I'm saying that if cost-savings is the motivation, the signing Miles to a contract like that completely flies in the face of that approach. Not to mention, Hendry was perfectly willing to eat Gaudin's and Vizciano's salaries.
I know it doesn't all add up and make a zero sum. But if Hendry's motivation was to shed salary, you can't look at his offseason as a whole and still claim that. What's the Cubs' total payroll now? $140M? DeRosa's extra $3M (over what Miles is making) wasn't going to break the bank. It makes no sense.
The only things that make sense are:
- The DeRosa trade was to stockpile young arms to be part of the Peavy deal (which obviously wasn't in place...since it didn't happen). Which means Hendry fucked up.
- The DeRosa trade was to make us more left-handed. Which was stupid. Which means Hendry fucked up.
Any way you slice it, Hendry fucked up. And he isn't going to come right out and say that. In fact, I'm sure he'd much rather say it was a money issue.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Clearing 10 million dollars off of your payroll to sign a FA, and being cost conscious can be 2 separate things. You can do the former without doing the latter.
The Guadin and especially Vizcaino salaries are completely irrelevant. They were sunk costs. The Cubs were paying them no matter what, so eating them was inevitable. If they were replaced by shitty guys earning the same amount of money as them, ie if they went out and signed Daniel Cabrera for 5 million after cutting Vizcaino, you are right, it wouldn't make sense. They were instead replaced by guys already on the roster.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40769:date=May 28 2009, 11:15 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Clearing 10 million dollars off of your payroll to sign a FA, and being cost conscious can be 2 separate things. You can do the former without doing the latter.
The Guadin and especially Vizcaino salaries are completely irrelevant. They were sunk costs. The Cubs were paying them no matter what, so eating them was inevitable. If they were replaced by shitty guys earning the same amount of money as them, ie if they went out and signed Daniel Cabrera for 5 million after cutting Vizcaino, you are right, it wouldn't make sense. They were instead replaced by guys already on the roster.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So are you really saying that the $3M dollars we saved with Miles on the roster instead of DeRosa was the motivating factor for trading him? What is that? 2% of our total payroll? If we can eat any salary at all, surely we can eat the extra $3M to keep a player of DeRosa's talent on the roster.
Posts: 540
Threads: 26
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40742:date=May 28 2009, 09:11 AM:name=ColoradoCub)-->QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ May 28 2009, 09:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40741:date=May 28 2009, 09:08 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 09:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40737:date=May 28 2009, 10:02 AM:name=ColoradoCub)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ May 28 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Iowa?
Also...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->General manager John Mozeliak revealed Tuesday that his "gut feeling" gives Troy Glaus "probably less than a 50-50 chance" of playing at all in 2009 because of January shoulder surgery that was initially expected to sideline him for the first 4-6 weeks of the season. There's speculation that St. Louis could pursue Garrett Atkins or Mark DeRosa with fill-ins Joe Thurston and Brian Barden doing poorly.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hang.gif[/img]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't that just be wonderful?
His avg/obp/slg have been rising pretty steadily lately. .266/.333/.446
Still not All-Star numbers, by any means, but much better than where he's been. I'd honestly like to trade for him. It won't happen because it will be like Hendry admitting that he fucked up, but he'd be the perfect piece to our puzzle right now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not great numbers, but he'd be leading our team in RBI's with 32
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marquis would be leading the team in wins with 6.
I like you guys a lot.
Posts: 517
Threads: 24
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
I will say again, if Hendry made that move so that we could get more lefthanded, he's a schmuck. That's an absolutely ridiculous justification, especially when the lefthanded bat you appear to be replacing him with isn't an offensive monster.
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40775:date=May 28 2009, 11:41 AM:name=FlyAtTheThigh)-->QUOTE (FlyAtTheThigh @ May 28 2009, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I will say again, if Hendry made that move so that we could get more lefthanded, he's a schmuck. That's an absolutely ridiculous justification, especially when the lefthanded bat you appear to be replacing him with isn't an offensive monster.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I will agree with you. Again.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40775:date=May 28 2009, 11:41 AM:name=FlyAtTheThigh)-->QUOTE (FlyAtTheThigh @ May 28 2009, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I will say again, if Hendry made that move so that we could get more lefthanded, he's a schmuck. That's an absolutely ridiculous justification, especially when the lefthanded bat you appear to be replacing him with isn't an offensive monster.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
who are you talking about? Which lefthanded bat isn't a monster? Bradley?
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40777:date=May 28 2009, 11:53 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40775:date=May 28 2009, 11:41 AM:name=FlyAtTheThigh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FlyAtTheThigh @ May 28 2009, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I will say again, if Hendry made that move so that we could get more lefthanded, he's a schmuck. That's an absolutely ridiculous justification, especially when the lefthanded bat you appear to be replacing him with isn't an offensive monster.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
who are you talking about? Which lefthanded bat isn't a monster? Bradley?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
they're convinced that miles replaced derosa. they're wrong, but they're convinced nevertheless.
Wang.
Posts: 14,113
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40777:date=May 28 2009, 11:53 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 28 2009, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=40775:date=May 28 2009, 11:41 AM:name=FlyAtTheThigh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FlyAtTheThigh @ May 28 2009, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I will say again, if Hendry made that move so that we could get more lefthanded, he's a schmuck. That's an absolutely ridiculous justification, especially when the lefthanded bat you appear to be replacing him with isn't an offensive monster.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
who are you talking about? Which lefthanded bat isn't a monster? Bradley?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he meant the combo of Miles/Fontenot.
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
DeRosa was moved to make Fontenot the everyday 2B. Sort of.
I still think the DeRosa trade was a precursor to the botched Peavy deal. But I haven't decided which is worse; that scenario or the "handedness" scenario.
Posts: 560
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=40789:date=May 28 2009, 01:58 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 28 2009, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->DeRosa was moved to make Fontenot the everyday 2B. Sort of.
I still think the DeRosa trade was a precursor to the botched Peavy deal. But I haven't decided which is worse; that scenario or the "handedness" scenario.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For my money the lefty thing had to be addressed. I mean we were horrible against the Dodgers. People have been saying we need to get a more balanced lineup around here for years. Fontenot was hitting great at the end of the year last year, and miles gave us a need for a utility guy after Dero was moved. I get that. I do think however, if the Peavy deal had gotten done we'd all have been happy to let DeRosa go.
I think if Harden stays on the DL for any length of time Hendry will figure out a way to get Peavy. Then all we need is Alan Trammels blessing to put Fox at third and we'll be just fine.
|
