Garza arbitration hearing set for Friday
Matt Garza's arbitration hearing is set for Friday. The Cubs offered $7.5m and Garza asked for $12.95m. We haven't heard any rumblings about a settlement, but that doesn't mean much given the Cubs reporters' access to this front office. No word from ace Cubs reporter Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe either.
Image of the day
Comment of the Day
Read the first 56 comments of this tedious thread about reliever usage. Then read comment 57 and laugh. Then come back here and tell me not to tell you what to do.
Fireworks factory update
When are we going to get there? As soon as the Theo compensation is worked out, which could be "any day now"
Is there a Cubs game today?
No
Who owns the Cubs?
Is that like the Executive Chairman?
(dying laughing) (dying laughing)
What is it with Rays players and burglaries? Perhaps the Hamburglar was denied entrance to the stadium in 1999.
@ Berselius:
It’s a new market inefficiency.
GBTS wrote:
You see those little arrows next to reply/quote? If you’re at the top hit the >> button. If you’re at the bottom hit the < < button. To move up the page hit the < or > buttons.
I assume that works on a phone, but I haven’t tried it. Let me know.
So it’s $7.5 million and $12.95 million now? What’s it going to be next week? $4 million and $130 million? Last I heard it was $7.95 million and $12.5 million.
That completely ruins it. (dying laughing)
@ mb21:
Agreed. It’s better if you have to work for it.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120131&content_id=26530906&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc
@ josh:
If you go straight to the comment you miss a couple things. First, you miss the in depth analysis and I really enjoyed that. It’s why I was reading the thread to begin with. Second, you’re only reading that one comment and it’s just not as funny not having read the deep discussion that took place before it. I love that Tango/MGL didn’t delete it.
@ mb21:
Slam!
@ WaLi:
Ouch.
http://www.maxpreps.com/blogs/MaxWire-National-Blog/WeSC1dUcdEiS5ZD1jTlUdA/texas-aandm-recruit-matt-davis-blasts-texas-on-twitter.htm
Do other coaches draw names out of hats?
mb21 wrote:
Also that no one on the following 50 posts even acknowledged it (dying laughing)
mb21 wrote:
I think you can get the gist of how tedious that thread was before the comment just while scrolling down. I’m probably just assuming everyone is as impatient as I am though (dying laughing).
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/why-oliver-loves-yu/
Executive Chairman summary for SK – the guy behind the Oliver projections explains why the system gave Yu Darvish a great projection, and looks at other Japanese league pitchers who came to MLB.
@ Berselius:
That could be. Maybe because I enjoyed it so much I’m thinking that was necessary, but maybe it wasn’t.
@ Berselius:
This is why I miss comment ratings. (dying laughing)
\Berselius wrote:
I read about about ten of the comments. I was more looking for the funny one, so there was a degree of suspense there, and my brain kept trying to make out if one comment or another on ERA+ was intended to be a joke, so that when the real joke happened, it was all the funnier for being so brainless.
mb21 wrote:
I miss them because now I have to actually read them to find which ones to include in the next day's Facepalm.
As I’m sure most of you know, Colin Cowherd is one of the ass-hattiest of the ass hats on ESPN. I’m sure one of your GIF guys can put good use to this.
[img]http://raysindex.com/GIFs/Herd.gif[/img]
I decided I’d abuse admin privileges to make my own comments look popular. (dying laughing)
I guess it really only looks like my grandma highlighted them.
@ mb21:
Well played, good sir.
GBTS, I added links for top and bottom of comments.
@ GBTS:
I do what I’m asked even if what I’m asked isn’t necessary. Just the kind of guy I am.
@ AndCounting:
(dying laughing)
@ mb21:
(dying laughing)
What an honor.
MB while you’re at it I’d like a special “Refresh page” button, as well as links to all my personal bookmarks.
And before you all make jokes, yes, they consist of a fair amount of various types of pornography.
[img]http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-z5HATJf9oX4/TylpiVoaJmI/AAAAAAAAB1Y/v1FERlGqwIQ/s800/gammons%2520tweet.JPG[/img]
Huh.
@ Aisle424:
Sweet. The Cubs don’t have any A prospects so the Sox get nothing: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/6/2688854/chicago-cubs-top-20-prospects-for-2012
Aisle424 wrote:
Wrong. Starlin Castro and they get Theo back.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t have that many A-level prospects, right?
If Gammons is right (and I’m not saying he is), that would pretty much mean Brett Jackson, right?
Both jackson and Rizzo are B+.
Personally, I’d have Jackson and Rizzo as A- prospects. I’m kind of surprised that both are B+.
It would be hilarious if Rizzo ended up back in Boston after all of this. Of course, that means the Cubs get Theo for Cashner, which I probably would have been fine with.
@ Aisle424:
I traded my Zune for an iPod. But I owed some asshole some money, so I gave him the iPod. That’s okay though, I’m only out a Zune.
I’d have been fine with Cashner for Epstein, but I’m not OK with Rizzo for Epstein.
I’m bracing myself for the worst. This is the sort of shit that never goes the Cubs way. I’m half expecting Bud to somehow declare the whole Theo signing null & void, making Todd the interim GM.
@ GBTS:
(dying laughing)
Aisle424 wrote:
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnso4wu4S51qd50vc.gif[/img]
WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET TO THE FIREWORKS FACTORY
@ mb21:
I’m with you. I still don’t see how Rizzo can be part of the compensation when he wasn’t even part of the Cubs organization when Theo came over.
@ pinetar:
Not only that, but where’s the precedent that a team has sent top prospects to another for this type of compensation? It doesn’t exist. I’m guessing anyone on the 40-man roster is off limits. That takes care of Rizzo. I’m also guessing that Brett Jackson and any 2011 draft pick is off limits. That takes care of Baez and some of the other draft picks that are worth watching that we drafted last year. I doubt the Red Sox want Szczur because of his contract. I’m going to guess it’s Trey McNutt and I think that’s too much all things considered.
Most of Big Ten now giving 4 year scholarships. OSU, PSU, NW, MSU, and UW confirmed to be giving 4yr scholarships. Purdue the only school confirmed not to be giving 4yr scholarships.
mb21 wrote:
Can’t trade last years draft picks for the first year I believe is the time frame.
Sawx running out of options for rotation looking for OF and SP, Compensation decided Friday, Garza going to Arbitration Friday…
Any way something is under wraps and we just haven’t heard about it yet? Seems awful convienient if Garza isn’t shipping up to Boston. Or the talks went on hold when Compensation issue came up.
What happens if Selig hands over B Jax? I mean, in terms of the Cubs watchability this season? It reduces to zero, right?
I know, what if Marlon Byrd Muay Thai fights someone every night.
josh wrote:
We still have Scurzzur to play Left or Center eventually. Brian LaHair is going to see if he can cut checks in Left during Spring Training. This may open up room for Rizzo the Rat or Josh Vitters if either gets hot and bothers the PCL. We also get a full year of the new, bulky, Tony Campana who, if nothing else, will be funny to watch in Left or Center.
Question: Watchable Team or Better Draft Pick?
We’d also still have Barney.
If Bud is like “Brett Jackson is the compensation” Couldn’t the Cubs just be like “nevermind, keep Theo”? Then we could just sign him next year. I mean we already have like 5 other GM’s on the team and it isn’t like we will win this year.
@ pinetar:
Yeah, that’s true, but I would assume this is somewhat different, but I don’t know for sure.
GBTS wrote:
I’d also flip my lid if BJax is sent over. I don’t even like sending McNutt there, to be honest.
Mish wrote:
I think the Cubs should send Rebel Ridling.
I think they should Alfonso Soriano and $1 million in cash.
Mish wrote:
.
Pezcore wrote:
Scurzzur, Rizzo and Vitters aren’t even MLB ready, are they? I can’t hang my hopes on Brian LaHair.
Rizzo played in the big leagues last year so yeah, he’s big league ready. He’ll go to AAA to begin the season, but if he hits as well there as he did last year he’ll be up pretty soon. Vitters will begin the year at AAA. If he has a hot start and there’s an injury to a 3rd baseman he could get called up. He’s not too far. He’s not too good either. Szczur is further way.
Regardless of that, I just don’t want the Cubs farm system to get much worse. Taking Jackson or Rizzo out of it makes it pretty bad again. it’s about average as it is right now.
I think some of the writers are just being fatalistic. Surely that’s the case.
I tend to think so too, but did the Cubs really agree to send something significant? If so, they’re fucked. I don’t see the Cubs lying and pretending they didn’t say it if they did. I think it all comes down to that. If they agreed to send something significant then I expect Brett Jackson will go to Boston.
And if that happens the Cubs farm system is no better than it was a few months ago. That would be very disappointing and only prolong the “building” process yet another year.
mb21 wrote:
That $1MM is the kicker.
What did the Marlins send to Chicago to get Ozzie Guillen? Maybe that is the precedent.
Rice Cube wrote:
Didn’t Ozzie resign from Chicago?
josh wrote:
I don’t think even Ozzie knows what he did (dying laughing)
I’ll look it up. I do recall the Marlins sent some prospects back.
I think Ozzie did resign, but there was a potential tampering charge.
It was a couple mid-level prospects, but there was a tampering issue too.
This is something I wrote a few months ago and it includes a discussion about the two prospects the White Sox received: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/more-on-compensation-for-theo.html
The conclusion was something along the lines of Josh Vitters and Chris Carpenter, but no way on Brett Jackson.
Looks like the comp was a C+ minor league pitcher and a utility infielder. I guess they fired him, but still had him under contract, and so could bar him from taking another job, or something like that.
@ josh:
But that is also a lateral move, right? Theo had a veritical move so the compensation should be less IMO. Hopefully Bud sees it that way.
Right, but it comes back to the deal where the Red Sox even let the Cubs talk to Epstein before compensation parameters were set, and also on the interpretation of “significant”. I’m sure the Red Sox can use the “significant” as a bargaining chip but you’d expect people to at least be reasonable.
@ WaLi:
It should be, but I think it all comes back to whether there was an agreement to send something significant in return? If the two sides agree to that then Selig is obligated to award the Red Sox a player or players based on that agreement.
If the Cubs agreed to that then they messed up.
Has anything above a C+ rated prospect ever changed hands in the history of MLB when a non-player staffer switched teams?
So was it worth it to lose B Jax, if that happens? I mean, the org is definitely changing from the inside-out. That’s something, even if this ends up being a setback.
Wedding photos will never be the same…
http://gma.yahoo.com/photos/dad-photoshopped-into-wedding-pictures-1328040317-slideshow/dad-photoshopped-into-wedding-pictures-photo-1328039811.html
Breaking Bad in 8 bits.
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
New rendering of RF RegularTron
http://www.thewrigleyblog.com/2012/02/new-rendering-of-bleacher-patio-and-led.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheWrigleyBlog+%28THE+WRIGLEY+BLOG%29
How the current Top 30 players were viewed as propsects:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/2/1/2764217/the-top-30-positions-players-in-baseball-how-they-were-seen-as
@ josh:
I think the Cubs could bounce back okay from giving up Brett Jackson, and if that’s what they have to give up then I’d be annoyed as hell but I think the Cubs with Epstein and Hoyer can work to replace that level of prospect in a couple seasons. If that’s what it amounts to, that is.
The more pertinent question is whether the Red Sox deserve Brett Jackson, and I’m leaning in the direction of “no” here. I think that level of demand is unreasonable whether the Cubs promised substantial compensation or not. That goes way beyond substantial…it’s ludicrous.
Mish wrote:
I didn’t know Pujols was rated so highly. That one year at A ball must have made quite an impression.
Rice Cube wrote:
This ludicrous? Another problem I have with losing a BJackson, besides the point of appropriate compensation, is this team so far away from contending that I need to hold on the belief that guys close to the majors (Brett, Rizzo, McNutt?) could actually speed along the process. I don't want all my hopes in guys that are 4-5 years away from their cup of coffee.
Not sure how to embed the youtube linke/too lazy to google the html code. Also, I’m not sure why my comment got lumped into the link reference above.
Nice diggs.
@ Aisle424:
That is absolutely awesome.
@ cdw:
You just post the url and it does it for you.
@ cdw:
I agree with this. There’s just no way that the Red Sox deserve to get someone like Brett Jackson. Theo took a promotion. The Red Sox chose to let him talk to the Cubs. They chose to allow him to accept the offer. The question is what kind of agreement did Ricketts make?
@ mb21:
Depends on if it’s written down in legalese, caught on tape or just a *wink wink nudge nudge*. I think it was probably as simple as Ricketts saying “We’ll try to make it worth your while” and now the Red Sox are just being dicks.
mb21 wrote:
Therein lies the rub. We also know Crane was involved, so maybe he thought he could bullshit his way out of lying about “significant” compensation.
The Cubs don’t want to get blackballed over this either. If they told Lucchino they would get “significant” compensation and there isn’t a good faith effort to meet a reasonable standard of “significant,” then the Cubs are going to have a hard time finding people to agree to deals with them in the future. Even if it isn’t something Bud can hold them to, word gets around when people are lying assholes who can’t be trusted.
Aisle424 wrote:
If I recall correctly, the sequence of events was…
1. Cubs asked Boston for permission to talk to Theo Epstein
2. Epstein accepted job
3. Cubs and Red Sox started negotiating compensation
So somewhere between 1 and 2, someone (don’t know which side) said something but did not establish the parameters of reasonable compensation before Theo became a Cubs employee. I think the Cubs had one standard while the Red Sox were looking to swindle the hell out of Chicago– which is what they’re supposed to do anyway, but is probably unreasonable.
So at that point, whose fault is that? Did Crane Kenney actually say flat out that he’d offer Brett Jackson on a silver platter and that’s why Boston expects it?
It does seem the Cubs wanted the Sawx to believe they viewed significance on the same order of magnitude and then use a difference of opinions on what is significant after they landed Theo. Aisley makes a good point about negotiating in good faith and the repercussions if the Cubs don’t deal in such a way. My guess is Theo’s reputation from previous dealings with other GMs would offset most of the I don’t want to deal with these lying assholes ramifications. Especially since he and Hoyer were not the onces that made the promises of significance.
I’m just going to be glad when this is compensation issue is over.
Kewl
cdw wrote:
yeah, I think that will help, but if Crane or Ricketts bold-faced lied, or used their corporate speak and linguistic gymnastics to purposefully make Lucchino and Henry think one thing, while meaning another is going to have a repercussion. Whether Theo and Jed are innocents won’t matter, because they are working on behalf of Ricketts.
SWL is calling Alvin a plagiarist
@ Sk on an iPad:
False
@ Aisle424:
I didn’t read every word over the weekend, but does this qualify as the first BCB direct link on WordPress?
@ Mish:
I believe so and Aisel424 will go without dinner for a week. (dying laughing)
I vote the Cubs send David Kelton and Julio Zuleta as Theo comp.
@ Rodrigo:
I’d want Dustin Pedroia in return too.
Give them Ryan Dempster. That’s 15 million freed up and a bunch of corny story-lines. Plus, I’m sick of his ugly mug.
I’d rather they take Garza than Jackson.
@ Aisle424: GBTS, you can click on the link that Aisle424 left. It will take you to the linked page. (dying laughing)
On bunting, which I know you guys love:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/should-sluggers-ever-bunt/
Blue Jays out on Cespedes, sign F. Cordero.
Rice Cube wrote:
I honestly love it when a slugger lays down a careful bunt to take advantage of a shifted or deep infield.
Carlos Pena laid down 10 bunts last year. 8 were hits, and 1 advanced a runner. That’s in addition to the benefit of forcing opposing infields to alter the shift, which helped when he swung away.
The latter benefit is one thing that is sorely missing from the Fangraphs article.
@ ACT:
Me too. For a guy like Pena or others have defenses shifted or infielders playing way back it’s almost an automatic hit if they get it down.
The bottom line is this: you have to bunt. If you don’t, the defense plays exactly where they want rather than playing at a position in which they can field against the bunt.
@ ACT:
I agree, I think if they lay down the bunt in the right situation to catch the defense off guard, that’s a great play.
Conversely, I wish they’d teach pitchers more often to pull the bat back and slap it over the head of the charging 3B.
Rice Cube wrote:
Agreed, though I suspect many managers like to keep things as simple as possible for pitchers, since their main job isn’t to hit.
That bottom of page link is pretty convenient.
I just noticed this (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)
ACT wrote:
I don’t think one should equate “simple” with “giving up an out” though. But that’s just me, I know that managers for the most part don’t seem to mind.
@ mb21:
The Book basically says you have to keep the defense honest. So the bunt (or threat of it) is necessary.
In terms of sluggers bunting, I have no problem with them doing it if the get on base consistently. I usually have no problem with players bunting for hits, it’s the sacrificing with quality hitters that annoys me.
@ GBTS:
Yes, much more convenient than the arrows.
@ Mish:
Sacrificing in most situations is dumb, but there are some in which the win expectancy increases. Those are the situations in which I like a bunt. It’s just that managers bunt far too often in situation in which the WE does not increase, but rather decreases.
Rodrigo, on my iphone it shows me as not logged in at the top of the page butlogged in down at the comment box.
I love that the anchor tag for the GBTS links are #GBTS
@ Berselius:
The bottom one is. There was already an existing anchor tag for #respond so I used that one and then added the #GBTS one. Hey, it’s specifically for him so it ought to be personalized. (dying laughing)
@ mb21:
We’re all about personal service here at OV
@ Berselius:
Definitely. OV 3.0 is going to provide personalized links for each visitor. For GBTS, this article would be located http://www.gbts.net/chicago-cubs/daily-facepalm-2-1-12.html#comment-76540. Should I have kept that secret?
mb21 wrote:
GBTS’s personlized links would be nothing but links to alien porn and pizza hut milf clearinghouses.
The level of customer service at this blog is outstanding.
@ mb21:
I haven’t noticed that yet. I’ll have to keep an eye out.
I mostly use my iPhone to troll here.
@ Rice Cube:
Don’t even think of using that shit. It’s spoken for.
mb21 wrote:
I’m not so much concerned about players/managers bunting too often (I’m not even convinced they do) as I am that they bunt too predictably. I’d like to see more mixing strategies to keep the defense guessing. Nothing is more boring than a sac bunt when the opposing team knows it’s coming.
@ GBTS:
You’re welcome.
I like this photo because Theo is obviously frightened:
[img]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f25/joshuallen/Theo.jpg[/img]
Ooooooh fancy!
[img]http://i41.tinypic.com/alhs3b.jpg[/img]
Shame about the Aisley snub though.
@ Suburban kid:
It would be fancier if those links weren’t broken. At least I assume they are. Aisley is going without dinner for a week so we contacted Google and had them remove his name.
I’m sooooooooo hungry….
Do the comment numbers not show up fully for anyone else? The frame is cut off for me. I only see 30. instead of 130.
Again, internet explorer so not a big deal at all since I’m probably the only one that uses it (dying laughing)
Brian Cashman has a mistress?
http://deadspin.com/5881346/
@ WaLi:
The comment numbers only work properly in some browsers right now. We’re going to switch back to the theme we initially tried to launch with WordPress soon so that problem will be fixed. We’ll also have a different mobile detector so problems with the mobile version should also be fixed. The site here won’t look any differently than it does. The mobile site will. It’s just something I’ve not wanted to fuck with right now.
@ Aisle424:
I hope you’re learning a valuable lesson.
@ Mish:
FTR, I don’t care about Cashman’s sex life, or anyone’s other than mine. But if there are legs to the story, I’m assuming it will be blown up due to it being about a) someone with the Yankees and b) sexy time.
Out of curiosity, why do people still use IE? Here’s our browser stats:
[img]http://s50.sitemeter.com/rpc/v6/server.php?a=GetChart&n=9&p1=s50ovblog&p2=LM\QLMZK[QL&p3=13&p4=0&p5=68.102.149.69&p6=HTML&p7=1&p8=.%3Fa%3Dstatistics&p9=&rnd=62885[/img]
@ Mish:
I don’t care about anyone’s sex life other than yours too.
My two bosses and I work mostly with Microsoft products (Visual Studio, SQL Server, Silverlight, etc), and they are both married to IE as their internet platform (both are over 50). Most of our staff under 30 (including myself) use FireFox, with a few people using Chrome.
My boss has a printout outside his office about all the Features IE 9+ has over FIrefox/Chrome/Safari, but I tell him that no one cares. More than half are features that no one who simply browses would really care about.
@ mb21:
I actually have to use IE because I’m at work and it’s the only browser I can use here. But I use Firefox at the house. Trust me, I hate IE so if I could, I would use something different.
mb21 wrote:
Ours, mb. OURS.
new shit up: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/evaluating-the-cubs-likely-lineup.html
Mish wrote:
Reminded myself of this.
[img]http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tumblr_ll592ia5uw1qzp1zzo1_500.jpg[/img]
@ mb21:
(dying laughing)
@ GBTS:
My thought exactly
[img]http://www.timspeciale.com/images/spelled-ocean-wrong.jpg[/img]