In 2009 I wrote that Carlos Zambrano cannot win with the media or fans. It turned into an article about just how good Zambrano had been in his career with the Cubs. Despite that, it had been done with much hatred toward him. The following February I turned it into an annual piece. The 3rd Annual article was written here at Obstructed View in mid April. Zambrano is now gone so it seems appropriate to publish the 4th annual look at how good he’s been. It will be, in all likelihood, the final one I do.
Baseball Reference’s Play Index is a fabulous tool, which doesn’t cost much money and I’ve found to be more than worth it. I’m beginning this by looking at the last decade (2002-2011).
Zambrano’s ranks 19th in baseball among starters with 800 or more innings. It’s just behind Justin Verlander and ahead of Cliff Lee. His 124 ERA+ is tied with Verlander and just behind Cole Hamels and Randy Johnson. Only 11 pitchers have thrown more innings.
His Batting Average allowed ranks 10th. Only five pitchers allowed a lower slugging percentage: Tim Lincecum, Brandon Webb, Jason Schmidt, Roger Clemens and Ubaldo Jimenez. His .680 OPS Allowed ranked 17th, just behind behind CC Sabathia and Tim Hudson, but ahead of Cole Hamels and Randy Johnson.
Only Roy Halladay, CC Sabathia, Johan Santana, Roy Oswalt, Mark Buehrle and Tim Hudson have a higher rWAR than Zambrano. Actual pitching wins? You know, something fans have said he can’t do. He ranks 10th best.
Since 2002, only 10 Cubs pitchers have thrown 400 or more innings. Zambrano’s 32.7 WAR is more than double of the second higher (Kerry Wood). Granted, Z threw a lot more innings, but longevity matters. If you take the bottom 5 of those in WAR, they have been worth only 6 more WAR than Zambrano has. Those pitchers are Carlos Marmol, Matt Clement, Randy Wells, Sean Marshall and Greg Maddux. Zambrano’s 124 ERA+ is tied with Mark Prior and trails only Marmol’s 132, which has been accomplished as a reliever. Zambrano’s winning percentage is .611 (tops).
1950-2011
Z’s 122 ERA+ ranks 14th among pitchers who started 85% of their appearances and have thrown 1200 or more innings. Z’s .235 batting average allowed is 11th best. His slugging allowed is 15th best, just behind one of the greatest pitchers I’ve ever seen in my life: Dwight Gooden. His OPS allowed is 46th best over the last 60+ years. He ranks 73rd in WAR. If you added in his contributions with the bat it would be better. Still, he’s been the 73rd most valuable starting pitcher over the last 60+ years.
Among Cubs players and using the same parameters, but dropping it to 800 minimum innings pitched, Z has the best ERA+ since 1950. His batting average allowed is the best. Slugging allowed is 3rd best. OPS allowed is 4th best. Only Fergie Jenkins and Rick Reuschel have provided more value (rWAR) than Zambrano.
1901-2011
Using a 1500 IP minimum and 85% of appearances as starts, only 27 pitchers have a better ERA+. He’s 31st in winning percentage. He ranks 90th in WAR since the beginning of the American League era.
Looking at just Cubs players and using the same parameters except an 800 IP minimum, only Jack Pfeister, Jake Weimer, Pete Alexander, Hippo Vaugh, and Jack Taylor have a better ERA+ than Zambrano. Only Pfeister and Weimer have a better winning percentage. Only Jenkins, Rick Reuschel, Alexander, Bob Rush and Vaugh have more rWAR than Zambrano.
1876-2011
Z’s 122 ERA+ ranks 37th in all of baseball history among pitchers with at least 1500 innings (started 85% of appearances). 37th, yo. His winning percentage is 40th best. And in the entire history of Major League baseball only 118 starters have a higher rWAR than Zambrano. Think about that. After 135 years there have been only 118 starting pitchers who have been more valuable than Carlos freaking Zambrano.
Among Cubs players who started 85% of their games and threw at least 600 innings, Zambrano’s ERA+ ranks 9th all-time. He also ranks 9th in winning percentage and rWAR. 8 Cubs starting pitchers since 1876 have been more valuable than Carlos Zambrano in a Cubs uniform.
It’s a shame so many people missed the very good career Zambrano put together in favor of hating him for some reason. People talk about stats guys missing the fun in baseball. Well, it seems to me most Cubs fans missed out on one of the better starting pitchers the Cubs have ever had. There must be a lot of stats oriented Cubs fans and I’m not one of them.
Zambrano wasn’t without his faults. Who is?
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/zambrano_v_volstad/
This.
I think the Cubs are trying to get one of the top 1-2 draft picks in 2013. I think they’re tanking 2012. Those top choices are the only way to obtain a franchise player (Justin Upton, Bryce Harper, Longoria, Strasburg) with the new CBA. Look what 2-3 years of top 5 draft choices has done for Nationals, Rays, etc.
I know people are saying that Soriano is next, but I’m not sure if I buy it. For one, it’s way different to eat a $54M contract than an $18M contract. And Soriano, while equally lambasted in the media, doesn’t bring the same clubhouse “distractions” that Zambrano did. He just sucks at hitting and is lazy. Lastly, the Zambrano trade worked out perfectly in that he was able to go to a club that would embrace him and actually be interested in acquiring him. I doubt the same can be said about Soriano.
I think Soriano is a Cub for at least one more year, and then he is either cut or traded for some minor league nobodies.
Basically, dumping Soriano for nothing doesn’t “cleanse” the clubhouse and the Cubs Way in the same fashion as dumping Zambrano. There’s no reason to pay Soriano to play for another team in 2012. The team will suck and if they want to free up a spot for B-Jax in the summer they should just trade Byrd or bench/platoon Soriano.
[quote name=Rice Cube]
[/quote]I see you conveniently left out the picture taken 3 seconds later where Zambrano ripped off the puppies head and ate it.
[quote name=mb21]http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/zambrano_v_volstad/[/quote]Break even then?
Good post BTW. I hope you do one when Z decides to retire. Hopefully he won’t fall off a cliff and will retire before he completely sucks.
[quote name=Mac]I see you conveniently left out the picture taken 3 seconds later where Zambrano ripped off the puppies head and ate it.[/quote]That’s apparently what he did to Michael Barrett and all those Cubs prospects that you never heard about again.
Outstanding. Outfuckingstanding.
[quote name=Mac]I see you conveniently left out the picture taken 3 seconds later where Zambrano ripped off the puppies head and ate it.[/quote]I think you’ve mistaken Carlos Zambrano for Ted LIlly.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think you’ve mistaken Carlos Zambrano for Ted LIlly.[/quote]
OK, Al.
[quote name=Suburban kid]OK, Al.[/quote]
Nice snark.
Hey MO, I basically plagiarized your FB wall. Love, Mish.
[quote name=GBTS]I know people are saying that Soriano is next, but I’m not sure if I buy it. For one, it’s way different to eat a $54M contract than an $18M contract. And Soriano, while equally lambasted in the media, doesn’t bring the same clubhouse “distractions” that Zambrano did. He just sucks at hitting and is lazy. Lastly, the Zambrano trade worked out perfectly in that he was able to go to a club that would embrace him and actually be interested in acquiring him. I doubt the same can be said about Soriano.
I think Soriano is a Cub for at least one more year, and then he is either cut or traded for some minor league nobodies.[/quote]
Possibly, but I’m not seeing a reason for Theo to keep him around another season. He’s not going to sniff even 3 WAR ever again and even minus another 18MM he’s not going to be more palatable to other teams. The Cubs are eating gobs of cash from here on out regardless of whether he’s on their roster putting up shit numbers or on somebody else’s. And given how he is so utterly not Theo’s type of player to begin with, unless Ricketts balks at swallowing up to 40MM I’d be surprised if Soriano is still a Cub come Opening Day.
I was thinking about this as I was trying to calm down enough to actually sleep last night after fighting with every person with a Twitter account and vengeance in their heart for Zambrano, is it because he was so good so young that people just can’t get past his decline? Do they not recognize the hell his arm went through at a very young age, but rather than blow out an elbow or shoulder, he just kept going out there with less than the best every year?
If Ryan Dempster was as good at the beginning of his career as he has been with the Cubs lately, and then regressed to where he was at the start of his career, would people be talking about him being more interested in dick jokes and Harry Caray impressions than winning?
What if Ted Lilly’s career was reversed? Suddenly his running on the field and arguing with an umpire in a game he wasn’t pitching, whipping his glove to the ground like a maniac, and allegedly trashing the pipes in the Dodgers’ clubhouse don’t seem as endearing.
I don’t know. I keep searching for some halfway rational reason why people who have never met him hate him so much.
[quote name=Smokestack Lightning]Possibly, but I’m not seeing a reason for Theo to keep him around another season. He’s not going to sniff even 3 WAR ever again and even minus another 18MM he’s not going to be more palatable to other teams. The Cubs are eating gobs of cash from here on out regardless of whether he’s on their roster putting up shit numbers or on somebody else’s. And given how he is so utterly not Theo’s type of player to begin with unless Ricketts balks at swallowing up to 40MM I’d be surprised if Soriano is still a Cub come Opening Day.[/quote]I’ll be surprised too, but that’s based on one thing: Soriano is not one of the three best outfielders on the roster. He may not even be the 5th best. I don’t think a team can justify playing him at the expense of others. Even if it means Jackson leaves ST with the team I think we’ll see that before Soriano being a Cub next year.
Lots of Cub fans hated on Z because lots of Cub fans are fucking idiots, yo. Just that simple. The man was a warhorse for this club and should have his number retired.
There isn’t a rational reason to hate someone you don’t even know. I don’t know what it is. I’ve always thought Zambrano took a lot of heat because Wood and Prior couldn’t stay healthy. With them down the team had no chance, but there he was having a very good career, but it didn’t result in anything. Certainly not like what fans expected at the beginning of the last decade.
I don’t know. I don’t think I’ll ever know why fans so despise some players they don’t even know.
From the Shire:
Why would he fall backwards?
I think that is fake.
[quote name=GBTS]Why would he fall backwards?
I think that is fake.[/quote]The guy filming it fired a shotgun at his chest as he shot himself. Duh.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/01/05/the-final-details-on-the-carlos-zambrano-trade-and-a-settlement-of-his-grievance/
[quote name=mb21]I’ll be surprised too, but that’s based on one thing: Soriano is not one of the three best outfielders on the roster. He may not even be the 5th best. I don’t think a team can justify playing him at the expense of others. Even if it means Jackson leaves ST with the team I think we’ll see that before Soriano being a Cub next year.[/quote]Hopefully Ricketts understands that keeping Soriano and eating his contract while MAYBE getting back a player that has some upside(like Volstad) is the same as not eating his contract and letting him play everyday except without the upside.
BUT he has stated that Theo can eat whatever amount he feels is necessary to make the team better.
I keep seeing people saying that eating $54 million is different than eating $18 million. But is it really? A sunk cost is a sunk cost.
If that $54 million no longer has any current value, does it matter whether he is on the team or not?
I agree that he is not the clubhouse problem that Zambrano was, so there is no non-baseball reason to get rid of him. This would strictly be a baseball decision. Does Soriano’s sporadic power numbers justify holding a roster spot this season? If not, then I expect him to be gone.
[quote name=Aisle424]I keep seeing people saying that eating $54 million is different than eating $18 million. But is it really?.[/quote]
Agreed. Non-edible cash tastes the same and fucks up your bowels, regardless of how much.
Basketball players —-> tall
Here’s the way I see it: if you’re willing to eat $15 million of Z’s contract you’re willing to eat $54 million of Soriano’s contract. I don’t believe Soriano has any value at all. Z was still decent.
Z waived his 2013 vesting option. He can now get a $100K bonus for winning Comeback Player of the Year. Not as awesome as making the Fish pay $19MM, but would be great for Z’s resume if he wants to seek a new contract.
The only meaningful difference between eating the $15 million on Z and the $40 to $50 million on Soriano is that, I believe (and I could be wrong) the money has to be sent to the new team within the first month or two. In other words, it’s not spread out over three years if the Cubs “eat” $40 million of Soriano’s remaining salary. They’ve got to send it all up front, which is a pretty substantial chunk of cash to come up with (and then not get the benefit of inflation).
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]The only meaningful difference between eating the $15 million on Z and the $40 to $50 million on Soriano is that, I believe (and I could be wrong) the money has to be sent to the new team within the first month or two. In other words, it’s not spread out over three years if the Cubs “eat” $40 million of Soriano’s remaining salary. They’ve got to send it all up front, which is a pretty substantial chunk of cash to come up with (and then not get the benefit of inflation).[/quote]Ewww…time to Google that stuff to see if it’s true. If it is, that’s quite an immediate hit to the books.
Can’t teams negotiate the money transfer though such that they don’t take that big of a hit?
Are you sure that’s true, Ace? i was always under the impression the team just paid the paycheck. Anyone you can ask about that?
[quote name=mb21]Are you sure that’s true, Ace? i was always under the impression the team just paid the paycheck. Anyone you can ask about that?[/quote]Same here.
Cubs ——-> building $4m “Kerry Wood Field” at Lane Tech High School
[quote name=WenningtonsGorillaCock]Cubs ——-> building $4m “Kerry Wood Field” at Lane Tech High School[/quote]WTF
[quote name=mb21]Are you sure that’s true, Ace? i was always under the impression the team just paid the paycheck. Anyone you can ask about that?[/quote]I’m definitely not sure – I’m trying to find where I read it. It’s one of those things you have in the back of your head that you know you read, but you don’t know (a) the context, or (b) the legitimacy of the source. I hope I can find it.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Ewww…time to Google that stuff to see if it’s true. If it is, that’s quite an immediate hit to the books.
[/quote]
Good thing we don’t have to pay for a real roster this year!
I do know that, per the just-expired CBA (I’m guessing this stays the same), whatever money you send over with a player counts against your “payroll” for league calculation purposes, and that’s a year-by-year thing, rather than a one-time lump sum thing (http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf)
But what I’m not sure about is when you physically have to send over the money. When just thinking about it, it seems like it should be negotiable. Like I said though, it’s stuck in the back of my head that I read it somewhere…
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]The only meaningful difference between eating the $15 million on Z and the $40 to $50 million on Soriano is that, I believe (and I could be wrong) the money has to be sent to the new team within the first month or two. In other words, it’s not spread out over three years if the Cubs “eat” $40 million of Soriano’s remaining salary. They’ve got to send it all up front, which is a pretty substantial chunk of cash to come up with (and then not get the benefit of inflation).[/quote]
i’m not sure why it would matter. thats what banks and net present value calculations are for.
i just asked Keith Law how that payment thing works. We’ll see what he says
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]I’m definitely not sure – I’m trying to find where I read it. It’s one of those things you have in the back of your head that you know you read, but you don’t know (a) the context, or (b) the legitimacy of the source. I hope I can find it.[/quote]
I trust you saw it, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. I guess I could see the reasoning behind it. What happens if the Cubs traded Soriano to the Cleveland Spiders, agreed to send $50 million and the following year the Cubs went bankrupt? Considering that it does make the most sense.
However, I know when Cot’s has calculated payrolls in the past they have split the money paid other teams evenly.
In fact, there’s Carlos Silva as an example. http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4754761
IIRC, the payments had to be made on January 1st. At the very least teams can agree on how the money will be paid.
[quote name=GW]i’m not sure why it would matter. thats what banks and net present value calculations are for.[/quote]Banks that can loan you money with interest due, and a net present value calculation that the other team may not accept. That’s why I’m saying it’s a potential issue.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that whatever it is I read (I threw it out here in part because I’d love to have clarity on it) was totally out of context.
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]Banks that can loan you money with interest due, and a net present value calculation that the other team may not accept. That’s why I’m saying it’s a potential issue.
[/quote]
yeah, if the two teams had significantly different ideas about future interest rates, it would be a problem, but realistically…
I believe Silva was due $14.5 million over 2 years and Bradley $22 million. Silva earned $6.5 million in 2010 and $8 million last year. I can’t remember how Bradley’s deal was constructed, but I know it was backloaded.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=BRADLEY19780415A
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=SILVA19790423A
Cubs owed Bradley $21 million and M’s owed Silva $22 million. They agreed to send $9 million and it was split over the two years remaining on the contracts.
[quote name=GW]yeah, if the two teams had significantly different ideas about future interest rates, it would be a problem, but realistically…[/quote]Yeah. It doesn’t make much sense that the two sides couldn’t just negotiate an agreement.
mb’s suggestion that a team could go bankrupt before the final payment was made is a plausible explanation, but teams become debtors or all kinds of things (and take the risk of not being paid years down the line).
If it wasn’t making for an interesting discussion, I would wish I had just kept my mouth shut, because I feel like there’s a 95% chance my memory is flawed…
[quote name=mb21]IIRC, the payments had to be made on January 1st. At the very least teams can agree on how the money will be paid.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, when the Dodgers finances were made public, some of their biggest debts were to players that hadn’t played for them for a while like Marquis Grissom and Manny Ramirez. This leads me to believe that the team either sends the funds to the new team each year, or pays the players directly. I can’t remember if those players had oddly structured contracts though. Some guys will restructure to have payouts well into their retirement, and that’s different from trading a guy and eating part of his salary.
[quote name=mb21]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=SILVA19790423A
Cubs owed Bradley $21 million and M’s owed Silva $22 million. They agreed to send $9 million and it was split over the two years remaining on the contracts.[/quote]And that might be the answer. Thing is, that could also just be talking about “when” the money was sent for payroll purposes (that is to say, MLB requires teams to report annually their “payroll,” in which payroll teams account for these kind of payments on a year-to-year basis (i.e., if the Cubs ate $39 million on Soriano’s deal, the Cubs would have $13 million in “payroll” each of the next three years for Soriano, the other team would have $5 million in “payroll” for each of the next three years)).
I’m glad you mentioned it. I had never really looked into it because I just assumed that’s how it was. I was sure I had seen Cot’s list payments from other teams over multiple years, but other than that I didn’t know. Cot’s could easily have been wrong, but I know for sure that the Silva money was split over a couple years. According to the beat writers the Cubs are still paying Carlos Silva in the form of Marlon Byrd.
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]And that might be the answer. Thing is, that could also just be talking about “when” the money was sent for payroll purposes (that is to say, MLB requires teams to report annually their “payroll,” in which payroll teams account for these kind of payments on a year-to-year basis (i.e., if the Cubs ate $39 million on Soriano’s deal, the Cubs would have $13 million in “payroll” each of the next three years for Soriano, the other team would have $5 million in “payroll” for each of the next three years)).[/quote]
What I mean is, your books – your “payroll” for MLB purposes – could say you’re getting the money year by year, but the physical transfer of cash was an up front payment.
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]
If it wasn’t making for an interesting discussion, I would wish I had just kept my mouth shut, because I feel like there’s a 95% chance my memory is flawed…[/quote]
Look, if you wanted to be discredited, all you had to do was ask if you wanted to join our superblog.
[quote name=Ace@BleacherNation]And that might be the answer. Thing is, that could also just be talking about “when” the money was sent for payroll purposes (that is to say, MLB requires teams to report annually their “payroll,” in which payroll teams account for these kind of payments on a year-to-year basis (i.e., if the Cubs ate $39 million on Soriano’s deal, the Cubs would have $13 million in “payroll” each of the next three years for Soriano, the other team would have $5 million in “payroll” for each of the next three years)).[/quote]That’s true. I’ll look around for the January 1st date that I have in my mind, but maybe I was making that up.
[quote name=mb21]I’m glad you mentioned it. I had never really looked into it because I just assumed that’s how it was. I was sure I had seen Cot’s list payments from other teams over multiple years, but other than that I didn’t know. Cot’s could easily have been wrong, but I know for sure that the Silva money was split over a couple years. According to the beat writers the Cubs are still paying Carlos Silva in the form of Marlon Byrd.[/quote]And a partridge in a pear tree.
I looked for a couple minutes and can’t find anything. I’ll just assume I made up the January 1st thing.
For the record: I’m a Z hater.
Yeah he did great things for the team, yeah I loved watching his no hitter in 2008, but that’s history. Today, he’s a nutjob with a bad temper and it’s costing the team a shitload of money. I don’t seen anything wrong with being pissed about that.
And most of all, I just can’t stand the talk about his “passion to win”. A passion which turns an outstanding player into a basket case is no glorious virtue. It’s a medical condition.
[quote name=DamageControlFreak] A passion which turns an outstanding player into a basket case is no glorious virtue. It’s a medical condition.[/quote]
You are assuming causality when we have no idea why he has regressed. In fact, there is more evidence to support the fact that the heavy innings logged on his young arm are more likely to be the cause than some attitude problem.
And I’d bet all of Zambrano’s salary plus what the Cubs still owe Carlos Silva that Z’s mental state didn’t cause his velocity to take a dip the last few years.
Could he have been more focused? Probably. Was he a downright asshole sometimes? Definitely. But did that cause him from being a 5 WAR pitcher in his early years to a 2-3 WAR pitcher in his later years, to a replacement level pitcher last year? I highly doubt it.
So what you’re telling me is Z was an ace?
[quote name=mb21]http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/zambrano_v_volstad/[/quote]
Makes sense. Once you accept the proposition that these two pitchers are roughly equal from a projection standpoint, this is a clear win for the Cubs. They have the option of keeping the younger pitcher on the team under arbitration costs.
[quote name=shawndgoldman]Makes sense. Once you accept the proposition that these two pitchers are roughly equal from a projection standpoint, this is a clear win for the Cubs. They have the option of keeping the younger pitcher on the team under arbitration costs.[/quote]
unless you accept the proposition that they are both replacement level (dying laughing)
I haven’t been to BCB in months. I just went there to see what Alvin said about Z, and the first sentence I read:
Does he get paid by the comma? I’d rather he get paid by the coma.
Pre-planned? As opposed to…post-planned?
Just say “planned” or “arranged,” you faget!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-zambrano-deal-made-official-20120105,0,4717374.story
Z violated trust…so I guess there really was no way to salvage it. Oh well.
[quote name=GW]unless you accept the proposition that they are both replacement level (dying laughing)[/quote]
That’s why it’s crucial that it’s an option. If they cut Volstad they don’t pay a penalty, right?
[quote name=shawndgoldman]That’s why it’s crucial that it’s an option. If they cut Volstad they don’t pay a penalty, right?[/quote]
they are on the hook for this year, just as they would have been for big z.
i can’t muster up any excitement for a deal where one of my favorite players leaves and chris fucking volstad is the return.
[quote name=GW]they are on the hook for this year, just as they would have been for big z.
i can’t muster up any excitement for a deal where one of my favorite players leaves and chris fucking volstad is the return.[/quote]
Correct. Even if you were ambivalent about Z the whole deal was “meh”…
[quote name=GW]they are on the hook for this year, just as they would have been for big z.
i can’t muster up any excitement for a deal where one of my favorite players leaves and chris fucking volstad is the return.[/quote]
I agree with this.
[quote name=DamageControlFreak]Today, he’s a nutjob with a bad temper and it’s costing the team a shitload of money.[/quote]Bad-tempered nutjobs may be expensive, but they’re worth every penny.
(dying laughing)
I forgot about the Reed Johnson signing, which pushes the Cubs OF to 5 not including B-Jax.
If Soriano wasn’t blocking anyone this season I would say just platoon him against lefties and hope for the best (.400 wOBA against lefties two years ago). But if he sucks ass, I don’t want him playing ahead of Campana or Jackson, which he inevitably would be. Then he’s really a sunk cost.
The Cubs have 7 OF on their 40-man roster. It’s strange.
[quote name=mb21]The Cubs have 7 OF on their 40-man roster. It’s strange.[/quote]Yabbut I’m pretty sure Sappelt isn’t seeing Wrigley this year. Or if he is, its at the expense of Campana, not Brett Jackson.
Once Jackson comes up there should be 6 major league outfielders vying for playing time. In that scenario, with this team, Soriano should be the odd man out. Unless they trade Byrd.
I think Sappelt makes the opening day roster instead of Campana. If they get rid of Soriano, I’m thinking it’s Soriano, Byrd, DeJesus, Johnson and Sappelt. if they get rid of Soriano then I’d guess Byrd, Sappelt, DeJesus, Johnson, Campana
I disagree.
I’m an idiot who can’t write what he means.
yea i think sappelt maks the roster too
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]yea i think sappelt maks the roster too[/quote]I’m fine with that. I don’t think Campana is all that good, but he does one thing extremely, extremely well and its fun to watch. Wouldn’t miss him too much though.
In fact I really wouldn’t mind seeing Campana back in AAA working on upgrading his on-base skills, in which case he would become the ultimate power in the universe.
[quote name=GBTS]In fact I really wouldn’t mind seeing Campana back in AAA working on upgrading his on-base skills, in which case he would become the ultimate power in the universe.[/quote]I think he should work on growing a few inches.
[quote name=mb21]I think he should work on growing a few inches.[/quote]I get messages in my junk mail folder that claim they can help with that.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I save messages in a special folder that claim they can help with that.[/quote].
[quote name=mb21]I think he should work on growing a few inches.[/quote]Perhaps he and Vogelbach can come to some sort of mass-sharing agreement.
[quote name=GBTS]In fact I really wouldn’t mind seeing Campana back in AAA working on upgrading his on-base skills, in which case he would become the ultimate power in the universe.[/quote]Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve created. The ability to get on base is insignificant compared to the power of The Scrap.
[quote name=Aisle424]Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve created. The ability to get on base is insignificant compared to the power of The Scrap.[/quote]Don’t try to frighten us with your grindy ways, Aisley. Your sad devotion to hustle and grit has not helped you elevate the team’s wOBA, or given you enough clairvoyance to make decisions based on run expectancy char–
Enough! This bickering is pointless.
Aaaaaaaaand… scene!
Your tan has really faded, Mish.
[quote name=Aisle424]Your tan has really faded, Mish.
Yeah but my cheek jones are f’n awesome.
That’s no moon.
^^ too large to be a space station.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this
[quote name=Aisle424]That’s no moon.
[quote name=Berselius]I’ve got a bad feeling about this[/quote]About what? (dying laughing)
Oh, Theo. You had me at “sunk cost.”
Is this the guy that’s not selling jeans or what?
[quote name=Suburban kid]Is this the guy that’s not selling jeans or what?[/quote]The portly gentleman in question is Dan Vogelbach. He’s what Prince Fielder would be if he were younger and whiter.
This seems like a cool dad:
[quote name=Rice Cube]This seems like a cool dad:
[quote name=Rice Cube]The portly gentleman in question is Dan Vogelbach. He’s what Prince Fielder would be if he were younger and whiter.[/quote]Right, I’m pretty sure that’s the non jeans selling guy. He looks impossibly young.
[quote name=Suburban kid]Right, I’m pretty sure that’s the non jeans selling guy. He looks impossibly young.[/quote]They should make him do the Truffle Shuffle before each minor league game to amuse the children. Even though, unless their parents showed them the movie on nostalgia night, they’d have no idea what the Truffle Shuffle refers to.
[quote name=Suburban kid]Right, I’m pretty sure that’s the non jeans selling guy. He looks impossibly young.[/quote]He’s 7 years old. That’s why his weight is a huge concern.
Via Hobbiton:
So Paul just decided to make it up, then. Good work, you diminutive fucking waste of skin. If was a worthless a cunt as you, I’d toss myself off a bridge, but I suppose you could suffice by drowning your dwarvish ass in a fucking mudpuddle, you slimy, fabulist, shitloving fuckwad.
Paul Sullivan sucks the sweat from a dead man’s asshole.
In regards to Soriano, I think a team can negotiate how to pay out the contract. Remember Bobby Bonilla?
“Nevertheless, starting on July 1, 2011, Bobby Bonilla will remain on the franchise’s payroll for 25 years, collecting an annual salary of $1,193,248.20. Those are the terms the Mets agreed to Jan. 3, 2000, when they bought out the final year of Mr. Bonilla’s contract.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339013108198050.html
I don’t know this site I’m quoting very well, but I’ve read this story dozens of times.
[quote name=josh]In regards to Soriano, I think a team can negotiate how to pay out the contract. Remember Bobby Bonilla?
“Nevertheless, starting on July 1, 2011, Bobby Bonilla will remain on the franchise’s payroll for 25 years, collecting an annual salary of $1,193,248.20. Those are the terms the Mets agreed to Jan. 3, 2000, when they bought out the final year of Mr. Bonilla’s contract.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339013108198050.html
I don’t know this site I’m quoting very well, but I’ve read this story dozens of times.[/quote]I’m confident Thoyer will find a more beneficial arrangement. Things were very different when the Mets did the Bonilla thing.
I agree, I just meant that it was possible to do something besides a simple lump sum buyout if they needed to dump Sori.
Where is that “unanimous verdict” quote from, MO?
So there’s no way in hell Fielder is getting anything like what Boras is asking, right? No one wants him that bad, I don’t think.
[quote name=GBTS]Where is that “unanimous verdict” quote from, MO?[/quote]Sullivan fabricated it, in my view. Here’s the column: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0106-cubs-chicago–20120106,0,4944992.story
Just tweeted at him for clarification. Not holding my breath though.
[quote name=GBTS]Just tweeted at him for clarification. Not holding my breath though.[/quote]Welcome to the world of the banned.
New shit about the Cubs Convention:
http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/cubs-mesh-corporate-sponsorship-and-a-veiled-reference-to-pubic-hair-into-cubs-convention.html
http://www.httpguru.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=51470
http://www.judicialclerkships.com/forums/member.php?u=591303
http://www.bs-karlslund.se/bsk-forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=103596
http://www.mbga.com/member/3459
http://s4lem.com.s90094.gridserver.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=23060