I’ve been reading a lot of things from fans the last few days about how silly it is that the organization may not call up Brett Jackson when rosters expand. I know we all want to see him play and it’s not like this team has anything to lose by playing him in terms of production, but they do have something to lose.
The 40-man roster isn’t an issue. The Cubs currently have 40 on their roster, but 2 of them are on the 60-day DL. Brian Schlitter will remain on it, but Andrew Cashner will soon come off the DL. They could also move another player on the 15-day DL to the 60-day DL like Marcos Mateo. Players on the 60-day DL do not count toward the 40-man roster. The Cubs could also clear space by releasing a couple of guys.
What the Cubs stand to lose is service time. Once the player is added to the Major League roster, he begins accruing service time. After 6 years of service time he becomes a free agent. If the Cubs were to call Jackson up in a few days, he’d accrue about 30 days of service time. It’s not a lot, but since the Cubs aren’t in contention, don’t need Brett Jackson to accomplish any goal they may have it doesn’t make sense to add him to the roster.
I know Cubs fans won’t like it, but I wouldn’t even add him to the 40-man roster this offseason or give him a chance to make the big league club out of spring training. The Cubs are unlikely to contend next year so saving as much service time as possible for a young player like Jackson makes a lot more sense than wasting some of that service time.
If the Cubs wait until June of next year to call him up, they could not only buy that 7th year of service before being eligible for free agency (like they did with Starlin Castro), but they’d ensure he won’t be eligible for arbitration 4 times. The Cubs did not ensure that with Castro and he’s almost certainly going to be arbitration eligible for the first time after the 2011 season. Castro will then have 3 additional years of arbitration, which means he’ll be making more money. If the Cubs were to call Jackson up soon and then let him take over early next year, he’d be eligible for arbitration after the 2014 season and be eligible for free agency after the 2017 season. If they wait until next June, he’s not be arbitration eligible until after 2015 and would not be eligible to file for free agency until after 2018. The Cubs buy themselves the extra year of service time and an extra year of league minimum salary.
This is exactly what intelligent organizations do. We’ve seen the Rays do it several times. We’ve seen the Red Sox do it. There’s a great reason to do so and it’s because it makes the player worth less money and buys the extra year of service time.
Let’s say the Cubs call Jackson up and give him CF to start next year, which is what Cubs fans want. He’d make the prorated league minimum, which would be $69,000. We’re not sure what league minimum will be in the years to come as the CBA expires at the end of the season. It’s currently $414,000 so we can safely assume it will be higher than that. Let’s say $425,000 in 2012 and an increase of $10,000 each year thereafter. As a result, we get this pay schedule for Jackson if he’s called up this week and stays on the team after that.
2011: $69,000
2012: $425,000
2013: $435,000
2014: $445,000
2015: $2 million
2016: $4 million
2017: $8 million
Total: $15.4 million
If the Cubs instead wait until next June to call him up, the pay schedule would be as follows:
2012: $283,333
2013: $435,000
2014: $445,000
2015: $455,000
2016: $2 million
2017: $4 million
2018: $8 million
Total: $15.6 million
The Cubs pay $200,000 more, but if they were to retain Jackson beyond 2017, they’d pay him free agent value, which would be over $10 million*.
*All the values listed above are for illustrative purposes only. We have no idea how much Jackson is going to be making after arbitration or in free agency. However, the reasons for not calling him are quite obvious when looking at this information. Through 2017, the Cubs would pay $4 million less to Brett Jackson if they wait to call him up until June of next year. If we want the Cubs to stop throwing money away, this would be a great start.
It’s also not as if Jackson doesn’t have a thing or two to work on either. How much are these fans going to complain if the Cubs call Jackson up, as these fans want them to do, and then Jackson struggles? As great as Brett Jackson’s numbers appear to be at AAA, you have to keep in mind the league he’s playing in. We’re talking about a league (Pacific Coast League) where the average batter has an .810 OPS. Jackson’s is well above that, but he has struckout an awful lot. He has a strikeout percentage of 30.6% and his .420 wOBA in AAA is helped out by his .439 BABIP.
I’m not as concerned as some about the strikeout rate. Jackson is a guy who is going to strikeout a lot. There’s no way around that. He’s going to take his walks and hit for power and steal some bases, too. Still, it would be nice to see him lower the strikeout rate and see what he can do at AAA when his BABIP normalizes.
For those clamoring for the Cubs to call up Trey McNutt, let’s get real. The guy has struggled at AA for much of the season. Maybe it’s due to some injuries. Maybe it’s not. All I know is that as soon as he hit AA last year, his strikeout rate dropped considerably. As a result, his performance has suffered. While he still has a lot of potential, he’s sure as hell isn’t a guy who has earned a callup. He’s a guy who clearly still has some work left to do in the minor leagues. The same can be said about Brett Jackson.
I’m not going to be upset if they call either up. I won’t think either is necessarily a bad decision, but I don’t think they’d be good or intelligent decisions either.
I’m fine with not calling him up, if there are good reasons for it. So are players like Montenez and LaHair doomed to be, at best, injury replacements?
Good points all around. My only problem with leaving Jackson down is the announced rationale: that Marlon Byrd is still here. Although with the way the Cubs have continually pissed off MLBPA, perhaps it’s best they aren’t entirely forthcoming with their reasons for leaving Jackson at Iowa. (dying laughing)
If they’re going to make an honest attempt to contend next year, does a guy like Jackson become expendable? Given their recent signings, I’m wondering if they’re not considering using some of the AAA guys to acquire contenders. Probably wishful thinking all around.
I think you’re underrating Marlon Byrd. He’s not a great player, but he’s a good one and he’s worth a lot more than his contract. If the Cubs leave Jackson down because of Byrd it’s a defensible decision. It’s unlikely that right away Jackson would be as good or better than Byrd. I think in a couple years he’ll be as good as Byrd, if not better, but not right away.
I also don’t think the Cubs have pissed the MLBPA off as much as you do. They suspended Bradley without pay and then quickly agreed to pay him the meaningless amount of money he was owed. It was probably cheaper to just pay him than deal with the MLBPA. They suspended Zambrano last year with pay when they put him on the restricted list. They’re going to fight this decision and I think they should. The $3 million or so is worth it. This was a decision made by Ricketts and he’s tight with Selig and other owners. The owners currently have a lot more power than the MLBPA does.
[quote name=josh]If they’re going to make an honest attempt to contend next year, does a guy like Jackson become expendable? Given their recent signings, I’m wondering if they’re not considering using some of the AAA guys to acquire contenders. Probably wishful thinking all around.[/quote]If you’re going to try to contend next year trading guys like Jackson and McNutt makes sense if you acquire guys who are worth more than their contract. If you’re acquiring a good ballplayer who isn’t yet free agent eligible then it makes sense.
From what I’ve read it doesn’t sound like they’re going to make any attempt to contend or any attempt to even trick the fans. What I think we’re seeing is the beginning of the rebuilding process. I don’t know how Ricketts and the new GM sells it to the fans, but based on everything I’ve read it sounds like that is the direction they’re going.
[quote name=josh]I’m fine with not calling him up, if there are good reasons for it. So are players like Montenez and LaHair doomed to be, at best, injury replacements?[/quote]The best reason for not doing it is because it makes him cheaper and gives the Cubs control of him longer. It gives them control of him in years that are going to be more important than 2011 or 2012.
[quote name=mb21]If you’re going to try to contend next year trading guys like Jackson and McNutt makes sense if you acquire guys who are worth more than their contract. If you’re acquiring a good ballplayer who isn’t yet free agent eligible then it makes sense.
From what I’ve read it doesn’t sound like they’re going to make any attempt to contend or any attempt to even trick the fans. What I think we’re seeing is the beginning of the rebuilding process. I don’t know how Ricketts and the new GM sells it to the fans, but based on everything I’ve read it sounds like that is the direction they’re going.[/quote]I guess I just feel a little more guarded, but I’m definitely interested to see what choices they make in the off-season. Given the GM vacuum, this off-season seems doubly important now, in terms of gauging the future.
I’ve never actually thought about it until now, but why is Iowa (nowhere close to an ocean) in the “Pacific Coast League”?
Probably doesn’t matter but it just suddenly struck me as funny.
I wasn’t actually sure if September call-ups kicked in service time but now that it’s been cleared up, I’d be okay with Brett Jackson going to winter ball instead of riding the bench in September as the Cubs continue to try to win games here with Baker/DeWitt/Campana/Colvin battling for OF time.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I’ve never actually thought about it until now, but why is Iowa (nowhere close to an ocean) in the “Pacific Coast League”?
Probably doesn’t matter but it just suddenly struck me as funny.[/quote]
Because the previous league (The American Association) had a Big XII moment back in 1997 and completely disbanded. Some teams went to the PCL, some to the International League.
im pretty sure LaHair’s bat is just as good as Pena’s. Just let him take over next year
[quote name=Chris Dickerson]Because the previous league (The American Association) had a Big XII moment back in 1997 and completely disbanded. Some teams went to the PCL, some to the International League.[/quote]
Aha! Thanks for the clarification. It’s almost as strange as Atlanta being in the NL West.
http://www.amctv.com/the-walking-dead/videos/the-walking-dead-season-2-trailer-from-comic-con
[quote name=dylanj]im pretty sure LaHair’s bat is just as good as Pena’s. Just let him take over next year[/quote]
That would lead to about 75 unearned runs.
[quote name=Chris Dickerson]Because the previous league (The American Association) had a Big XII moment back in 1997 and completely disbanded. Some teams went to the PCL, some to the International League.[/quote]
So some of the teams went to German? Mexico? Niger?
[quote name=Chris Dickerson]Because the previous league (The American Association) had a Big XII moment back in 1997 and completely disbanded. Some teams went to the PCL, some to the International League.[/quote]The good thing is that the PCL is not a DH league while the AA was. I hated how Cubs pitchers were not allowed to hit in AAA. That made no sense.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Aha! Thanks for the clarification. It’s almost as strange as Atlanta being in the NL West.[/quote]
False?Oh you, mean the Old West.
[quote name=mb21]The best reason for not doing it is because it makes him cheaper and gives the Cubs control of him longer. It gives them control of him in years that are going to be more important than 2011 or 2012.[/quote]This is assuming that he turns out good enough to worry about how much you’re paying him. He should be wherever he will develop best. If he needs more ABs without the big league pressure, leave him down. If he needs experience against major league pitching, bring him up. Its worth the extra money if it helps him become a valuable player.
[quote name=alf]This is assuming that he turns out good enough to worry about how much you’re paying him. He should be wherever he will develop best. If he needs more ABs without the big league pressure, leave him down. If he needs experience against major league pitching, bring him up. Its worth the extra money if it helps him become a valuable player.[/quote]I’ve always felt this way about worrying about arb clocks. It’s a good problem to have.
[quote name=alf]This is assuming that he turns out good enough to worry about how much you’re paying him. He should be wherever he will develop best. If he needs more ABs without the big league pressure, leave him down. If he needs experience against major league pitching, bring him up. Its worth the extra money if it helps him become a valuable player.[/quote]
I agree with this. I feel like bringing him up this September is kind of an either-or thing, but they should give him the option of making the team out of spring training if he’s going to tear the cover off the ball.
[quote name=dylanj]im pretty sure LaHair’s bat is just as good as Pena’s. Just let him take over next year[/quote]LaHair is Hoffpaiur redux.
Methinks it’s a stretch but stranger things have happened.
Was I the only one not really impressed by LeMaheiu? He didn’t look especially fluid in the field, and his swing seems to have a real tendency to get long and loopy.
I can think of something wrong with that. If your overweight first basement misses any time for injury, your infield has less power than a village in Burundi.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Then give me a CJ Wilson .[/quote]
Hands off. TEX might also make a play for Fielder.
Alvin tried that, he didn’t want to join BCB.
[quote name=GBTS]I can think of something wrong with that. If your overweight first basement misses any time for injury, your infield has less power than a village in Burundi.[/quote]HI-YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You’ll have to buy me dinner first.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Was I the only one not really impressed by LeMaheiu?[/quote]No, but it’s widely known around these parts that you don’t like anything.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]LaHair is Hoffpaiur redux.[/quote]How much worse would the team have been with Hoffy at first this season? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I mean that as a serious question.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Was I the only one not really impressed by LeMaheiu? He didn’t look especially fluid in the field, and his swing seems to have a real tendency to get long and loopy.[/quote]Can’t take a walk, hits for no power, what’s not to love?
[quote name=josh]Can’t take a walk, hits for no power, what’s not to love?[/quote]He’s from LSU. That’s all I need.
I think LaHair would give you a low .800 OPS. For free. Use the $ you would have spent on Pena for the draft
you know something MD should look at is what a potential long term extension would look like for Castro. He’s arb eligible after next year.
[quote name=dylanj]you know something MD should look at is what a potential long term extension would look like for Castro. He’s arb eligible after next year.[/quote]
Ol’ Bruce Levine suggested the Cubs should explore a Longoria-style contract for Castro.
[quote name=dylanj]I think LaHair would give you a low .800 OPS. For free. Use the $ you would have spent on Pena for the draft[/quote]Yeah, that’s kind of my thought too. There’s a risk, but if the Cubs find themselves in contention near the ASB, then maybe they can make a deal.
[quote name=dylanj]I think LaHair would give you a low .800 OPS. For free. Use the $ you would have spent on Pena for the draft[/quote]Hoff: 3308 MiLB PA, 848 H, 195 2B, 21 3B, 121 HR, 273 BB, 511 K, .837 OPS
LaHair: 4044 MiLB PA, 1068 H, 261 2B, 7 3B, 158 HR, 375 BB, 868 K, .864 OPS
So in 736 more PA than Hoff had, LaHair has 208 more hits, 66 more doubles, 14 fewer triples, and only 37 more HR, 100 more walks, and a whopping 357 more Ks.
It’s also worth noting that LaHair’s two best full seasons in the minors have come in the notoriously hitter-friendly PCL. I’d be shocked if he can produce even a .750 OPS over a full major league season.
MLBTR now features reverse standings.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Hoff: 3308 MiLB PA, 848 H, 195 2B, 21 3B, 121 HR, 273 BB, 511 K, .837 OPS
LaHair: 4044 MiLB PA, 1068 H, 261 2B, 7 3B, 158 HR, 375 BB, 868 K, .864 OPS
So in ~1000 more PA than Hoff had, LaHair has 208 more hits, 66 more doubles, 14 fewer triples, and only 37 more HR, 100 more walks, and a whopping 357 more Ks.
It’s also worth noting that LaHair’s two best full seasons in the minors have come in the notoriously hitter-friendly PCL. I’d be shocked if he can produce even a .750 OPS over a full major league season.[/quote]I hate our minor league system. Why can’t anyone play baseball right!?
^^ HT notgraphs
[quote name=josh]I hate our minor league system. Why can’t anyone play baseball right!?[/quote]I’m not sure it’s all on the system. I just think the Cubs don’t value on-base skills as highly as they value athleticism and raw power. So you get guys who are fast, are defensively flexible, and/or have solid power, but are utterly lacking in the one skill that will enable them to maximize the value of their other tools.
LaHair’s MiLB numbers are all over the map, BTW, even during his time in Seattle’s system. Strange player, but not in a good way.
[quote name=josh]MLBTR now features reverse standings.[/quote]
We’re #6!
[quote name=Rice Cube]We’re #6![/quote]Things are looking up!
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I’m not sure it’s all on the system. I just think the Cubs don’t value on-base skills as highly as they value athleticism and raw power. So you get guys who are fast, are defensively flexible, and/or have solid power, but are utterly lacking in the one skill that will enable them to maximize the value of their other tools.
LaHair’s MiLB numbers are all over the map, BTW, even during his time in Seattle’s system. Strange player, but not in a good way.[/quote]oy! (and not in a good way)
[quote name=WaLi]Things are looking up![/quote]
If the Cubs work hard enough, they still have a shot at #2 (dying laughing)
Hasn’t the possibility of adjusting the current service time/arbitration model been discussed following the expiration of the CBA? Isn’t it possible this just becomes a moot point after this year? I think MLB might be coming around on the idea of how silly it is for major league ready players being left in the minors for months at a time, strictly for financial services.
[quote name=Jack Nugent]Hasn’t the possibility of adjusting the current service time/arbitration model been discussed following the expiration of the CBA? Isn’t it possible this just becomes a moot point after this year? I think MLB might be coming around on the idea of how silly it is for major league ready players being left in the minors for months at a time, strictly for financial services.[/quote]It’s been my experience that folks who made a lot of money off of cheap labor are usually disinclined to see that change.
What the Cubs decide to do in September might turn out to be inconsequential regardless of what changes are made to the CBA, but I think the they’d probably do well to keep Jackson in AAA until next summer, or until he puts a dent in his astronomical K rate. There is enough downside potential with him that it doesn’t make sense to enter next spring counting on him to hold down centerfield, which is enough to make me think the Cubs shouldn’t be fielding offers for Marlon Byrd. He’ll be a relatively valuable rental player at next year’s deadline, and by then it’s very likely that Jackson will be ready.
[quote name=alf]This is assuming that he turns out good enough to worry about how much you’re paying him. He should be wherever he will develop best. If he needs more ABs without the big league pressure, leave him down. If he needs experience against major league pitching, bring him up. Its worth the extra money if it helps him become a valuable player.[/quote]You have that concern with every prospect, but I’d prefer the Cubs get maximum value. If there’s really reason to believe he NEEDS to be at the big league level to get to where you think he can be, call him up, but the Cubs might be the first team to think that’s true.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]It’s been my experience that folks who made a lot of money off of cheap labor are usually disinclined to see that change.[/quote]
Well, isn’t the idea that the changes would allow for labor to remain cheap without punishing a player for developing as fast as possible?
[quote name=Jack Nugent]What the Cubs decide to do in September might turn out to be inconsequential regardless of what changes are made to the CBA, but I think the they’d probably do well to keep Jackson in AAA until next summer, or until he puts a dent in his astronomical K rate. There is enough downside potential with him that it doesn’t make sense to enter next spring counting on him to hold down centerfield, which is enough to make me think the Cubs shouldn’t be fielding offers for Marlon Byrd. He’ll be a relatively valuable rental player at next year’s deadline, and by then it’s very likely that Jackson will be ready.[/quote]That’s exactly what I’m thinking. The Cubs have a good CF right now who isn’t making much money. Jackson has an issue or two he can work on. The Cubs aren’t going to contend. It’s the pefect time to let him work on his skills, get maximum value out of him and still have a good CF on the big league club.
[quote name=Jack Nugent]Well, isn’t the idea that the changes would allow for labor to remain cheap without punishing a player for developing as fast as possible?[/quote]Depends on what the owners can get the players to agree to. The owners found a loophole. The players will try to close it, but they’ll have to negotiate. My guess is that the current CBA is simply extended and baseball plays by the same exact rules for X number of years longer.
Can Flaherty play any 2B?
[quote name=dylanj]you know something MD should look at is what a potential long term extension would look like for Castro. He’s arb eligible after next year.[/quote](dying laughing) I set up two polls right after I published this one to post later today or tomorrow about just that. Damn. Funny that we were thinking the exact same thing.
I want to get your opinions on it before I look into it so the polls are going to be for that purpose and then the next day I’ll look at it from a different perspective.
[quote name=mb21]Depends on what the owners can get the players to agree to. The owners found a loophole. The players will try to close it, but they’ll have to negotiate. My guess is that the current CBA is simply extended and baseball plays by the same exact rules for X number of years longer.[/quote]I don’t see how you can completely abandon arbitration eligibility without hurting small market teams. They rely on that ability to time a player’s intro, to stay competitive, to some degree. It seems like an okay compromise to me. If the team really need the player, because they were in contention and he would be an upgrade, or you lose a couple of players to injury, most teams would call the person up anyway. It’s a compromise deal, but it seems fair to me.
[quote name=mb21]Depends on what the owners can get the players to agree to. The owners found a loophole. The players will try to close it, but they’ll have to negotiate. My guess is that the current CBA is simply extended and baseball plays by the same exact rules for X number of years longer.[/quote]
Except, isn’t all the talk that MLB will almost certainly add a second wild card team to the postseason, perhaps even just to have a one-game playoff against the other wild card?
If they’re as open to that sorta change as most insiders would have us believe, then I’d say it’s reasonable, if not definite, that they’d consider changing the arbitration rules?
And isn’t realignment still on the table? I dunno… I’m in no position to say exactly what changes will be made, but if I had to bet on it, the CBA will undergo some sort of change.
[quote name=dylanj]I think LaHair would give you a low .800 OPS. For free. Use the $ you would have spent on Pena for the draft[/quote]I meant to reply to your comment the other day about that, but I also agree. LaHair’s last 3 seasons make Micah Hoffpauir’s impressive AAA seasons look horrible.
[quote name=Jack Nugent]Except, isn’t all the talk that MLB will almost certainly add a second wild card team to the postseason, perhaps even just to have a one-game playoff against the other wild card?
If they’re as open to that sorta change as most insiders would have us believe, then I’d say it’s reasonable, if not definite, that they’d consider changing the arbitration rules?
And isn’t realignment still on the table? I dunno… I’m in no position to say exactly what changes will be made, but if I had to bet on it, the CBA will undergo some sort of change.[/quote]The thing with adding a new playoff team is that it’s something both the players and owners would love. The players would get a bit more playoff money and the owners would get some too. This is something they can agree on quickly. changing arbitration rules will be a little more difficult. It could happen, but I guess I’ve been under the impression neither side is even thinking too much about it and more than pleased with the current system.
[quote name=Work sucks]Can Flaherty play any 2B?[/quote]
I sure as hell hope so. I’ve seen him play 2B a little, but I can’t say whether he can stick there or not. My gut tells me he’d be passable there, which could make him a great candidate to take some of Barney’s ABs.
Flaherty is a good hitter. He may never be an everyday player, but worst case scenario I think he’s a very nice utility player with a lot of flexibility. Honestly– I don’t think the Mark DeRosa comps are all that contrived. He might be a better hitter, with just as much positional flexibility.
[quote name=mb21]Depends on what the owners can get the players to agree to. The owners found a loophole. The players will try to close it, but they’ll have to negotiate. My guess is that the current CBA is simply extended and baseball plays by the same exact rules for X number of years longer.[/quote]
I don’t think the union minds the current setup because the players that control the union reap the benefits. Free agents are overpaid because teams save money on all their indentured youth. And players that are good enough to get free agent money run the union. The guys who get screwed (players whose service time runs out in their early thirties) get ignored when they become eligible for FA, leave baseball, and have no say in the union leadership.
Agreed, GW. There’s a reason that league minimum in baseball is way lower than any other league.
We talked a month back about a Baker/Flaherty platoon at 3rd base. How does Flaherty look at 3rd?
[quote name=mb21]The thing with adding a new playoff team is that it’s something both the players and owners would love. The players would get a bit more playoff money and the owners would get some too. This is something they can agree on quickly. changing arbitration rules will be a little more difficult. It could happen, but I guess I’ve been under the impression neither side is even thinking too much about it and more than pleased with the current system.[/quote]
I think the concern for MLB needs to be allowing teams to add a good prospect to the roster as soon as they think he’s ready. It’s a win-win for the team, and the player– team gets better, player earns his (presumably) deserved promotion.
Hell, you could even look at it like this– what about teams like the Cubs who maybe feel like calling up their best prospect in September could benefit them financially by bringing more people out to the park to see a part of the future of their favorite team. You gotta believe it would take a much, much-hyped prospect to make a significant number of additional fans come out to the park, but it seems like a fair, if somewhat minor consideration.
[quote name=Jack Nugent]I think the concern for MLB needs to be allowing teams to add a good prospect to the roster as soon as they think he’s ready. It’s a win-win for the team, and the player– team gets better, player earns his (presumably) deserved promotion.
Hell, you could even look at it like this– what about teams like the Cubs who maybe feel like calling up their best prospect in September could benefit them financially by bringing more people out to the park to see a part of the future of their favorite team. You gotta believe it would take a much, much-hyped prospect to make a significant number of additional fans come out to the park, but it seems like a fair, if somewhat minor consideration.[/quote]If they really thought it would add revenue enough to cancel out the long-term negatives, I guarantee you they would do it. I don’t know if one guy has the impact on a losing team that it seems like he should.
[quote name=josh]If they really thought it would add revenue enough to cancel out the long-term negatives, I guarantee you they would do it. I don’t know if one guy has the impact on a losing team that it seems like he should.[/quote]Baseball is still a team sport. Unless he’s Michael Jordan (literally), he probably won’t bring enough fans to pay him the extra cash.
[quote name=GW]I don’t think the union minds the current setup because the players that control the union reap the benefits. Free agents are overpaid because teams save money on all their indentured youth. And players that are good enough to get free agent money run the union. The guys who get screwed (players whose service time runs out in their early thirties) get ignored when they become eligible for FA, leave baseball, and have no say in the union leadership.[/quote]Exactly. The current setup ensures cheap labor for the owners and windfall free-agency for the top players and veterans. I can’t see any impetus to change from either group.
[quote name=mb21]We talked a month back about a Baker/Flaherty platoon at 3rd base. How does Flaherty look at 3rd?[/quote]
Well, I’m not sure I’d call him a real asset on defense at either of 2b or 3b, but he’s an infielder by trade, and as nice as it is that he’s played some OF recently, he’s gonna have to make his living primarily as an infielder, and it isn’t gonna be a SS or 1B.
I feel like if he couldn’t hack it at 2B or 3B, we’d have heard that by now. And this is another aspect of his game that sorta reminds me of DeRosa– the book on him was that his actions were a little too long for 2B, and his bat wasn’t quite up to par at 3B. I think both of those are both partially true of Flaherty, but at the end of the day, DeRosa was adequate at both positions, and I’d be really surprised if the same doesn’t prove true of Flaherty.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Exactly. The current setup ensures cheap labor for the owners and windfall free-agency for the top players and veterans. I can’t see any impetus to change from either group.[/quote]
Again though– isn’t the idea that the changes absolutely wouldn’t compromise cheap labor for the owners? I guess I just don’t see how that goes out the window by adjusting the rules…
[quote name=Jack Nugent]Again though– isn’t the idea that the changes absolutely wouldn’t compromise cheap labor for the owners? I guess I just don’t see how that goes out the window by adjusting the rules…[/quote]What do you change the rule to that would allow this? Only count full years or something? I think the balance is that the loophole is already known in the current system. A new system might mean a new loophole.
FW(little)IW– Flaherty had 7 errors in AA this year. No idea what the distribution of those errors was among the 5 or 6 positions he played.
Flaherty already has 6 errors at AAA though.
Speaking of polls, what happened to the OVBlog prospect rankings poll?
[quote name=Rice Cube]Speaking of polls, what happened to the OVBlog prospect rankings poll?[/quote]I’m going to do another one when the minor league season ends. Sorry about that.
[quote name=mb21]I’m going to do another one when the minor league season ends. Sorry about that.[/quote]
No problem! Just thought I missed it at some point.
I’ve been pretty behind all day and normally I don’t bother with reading through an old thread once a new one pops up, but the Alvin/Prozac image made my entire fucking day.
From Bleacher Nation:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/08/30/brett-jackson-andrew-cashner-chris-carpenter-dj-lemahieu-trey-mcnutt-and-junior-lake-to-the-arizona-fall-league/
Bruce Miles says Javier Baez is headed to Boise to close out the season.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/30/1778913/chicago-cubs-no-1-draft-pick-no.html
Also, the Daily Herald is putting up a pay wall?!?!
Who the fuck is going to pay to read the Daily Herald? If people are going to pay to read that place then I suggest we here at Obstructed View add a pay wall. What the fuck?
[quote name=Rice Cube]From Bleacher Nation:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/08/30/brett-jackson-andrew-cashner-chris-carpenter-dj-lemahieu-trey-mcnutt-and-junior-lake-to-the-arizona-fall-league//quoteHm. This article borders on implying that Quade is a lame duck. I wonder what communications between Quade and the FO have been since Hendry left. If they don’t feel like they can tell Q to play B Jax and he’ll do it, might as well send him some place he can play (correction).
Though, to be fair, it was Lou that wouldn’t play Colvin (and, as it turns out, he might have had a point).
[quote name=josh]Hm. This article borders on implying that Quade is a lame duck. I wonder what communications between Quade and the FO have been since Hendry left. If they don’t feel like they can tell Q to play B Jax and he’ll do it, might as well send him some place he can play (correction).
Though, to be fair, it was Lou that wouldn’t play Colvin (and, as it turns out, he might have had a point).[/quote]
Quade IS a lame duck. I don’t think there is a solitary person on the planet that thinks Quade has a chance in hell of keeping his job through the end of his contract. The only reason he isn’t gone is probably A) it wouldn’t be fair to scapegoat him, B) there is no point in scapegoating him since Hendry already wears that hat, C) he isn’t doing any lasting damage by being there and D) his replacement would be just as much of a lameduck since they won’t hire anyone longterm until they have a new GM in place.
[quote name=mb21]Who the fuck is going to pay to read the Daily Herald? If people are going to pay to read that place then I suggest we here at Obstructed View add a pay wall. What the fuck?[/quote]
I think demand for OV is recession proof. Let’s do it.
Can someone put a Cubs hat or logo on this duck?
http://www.csnchicago.com/08/29/11/Cubs-see-another-side-of-Aramis-Ramirez/landing_insider_mooney_loud3r.html?blockID=556244&feedID=661
[quote name=Bad Horse]http://www.csnchicago.com/08/29/11/Cubs-see-another-side-of-Aramis-Ramirez/landing_insider_mooney_loud3r.html?blockID=556244&feedID=661[/quote]Great article
[quote name=Aisle424]I think demand for OV is recession proof. Let’s see what happens.[/quote].
[quote name=Aisle424]I think demand for OV is recession proof. Let’s do it.[/quote]I barely seek out you bastards for free.
Wait, no one else is paying to view OV? WHAT THE FUCK?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Wait, no one else is paying to view OV? WHAT THE FUCK?[/quote]
You get the special Gold Member Edition, MO. That is extra, but well worth it, in my opinion.
In fact, I wanted to let you now about the opportunity to UPGRADE to the PLATINUM MARQUEE SHIT-DOESN’T-STINK Edition. It includes all your favorite memes, faget jokes, and discreditedness, but this one goes to 11. Shall I go ahead and charge your credit card?
[quote name=Aisle424]You get the special Gold Member Edition, MO. That is extra, but well worth it, in my opinion.
In fact, I wanted to let you now about the opportunity to UPGRADE to the PLATINUM MARQUEE SHIT-DOESN’T-STINK Edition. It includes all your favorite memes, faget jokes, and discreditedness, but this one goes to 11. Shall I go ahead and charge your credit card?[/quote]
shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/should-the-cubs-extend-starlin-castros-contract.html
[quote name=mb21]I think you’re underrating Marlon Byrd. He’s not a great player, but he’s a good one and he’s worth a lot more than his contract. If the Cubs leave Jackson down because of Byrd it’s a defensible decision. It’s unlikely that right away Jackson would be as good or better than Byrd. I think in a couple years he’ll be as good as Byrd, if not better, but not right away.
I also don’t think the Cubs have pissed the MLBPA off as much as you do. They suspended Bradley without pay and then quickly agreed to pay him the meaningless amount of money he was owed. It was probably cheaper to just pay him than deal with the MLBPA. They suspended Zambrano last year with pay when they put him on the restricted list. They’re going to fight this decision and I think they should. The $3 million or so is worth it. This was a decision made by Ricketts and he’s tight with Selig and other owners. The owners currently have a lot more power than the MLBPA does.[/quote]
Agree with the points about Byrd. On a good team, Byrd a is a glue guy and you can tell he has respect of his teammates.