BTW...Nice headline by NBC.

Soriano to CF?

With all that money spent, the Cubs better be good next year. I think they'll win the division and into the playoffs. Prediction: Soriano will make a great CF.

BTW...Nice headline by NBC.

That must be for the Dixie edition.

B James projections for 2007:

Floyd, LHB, 416 AB, .267/.354/.471
Jones, LHB, 534 AB, .272/.326/.459
Murton, RHB, 509 AB, .316/.383/.481
Soriano, RHB, 644 AB, .275/.331/.522
Erstad, LHB, 259 AB, .270/.327/.375

Of course, Erstad is not signed yet, but is reported as being close. What to do with this group, assuming that Jones is not traded--(I think they should keep him).

vs RHP
Soriano, CF
Floyd, LF
Jones, RF
Murton, RH backup/PH
Erstad, LH backup/PH/def. sub

vs LHP
Soriano, CF
Floyd or Jones, RF
Murton, LF
Floyd/Jones, LH backup/PH
Erstad, LH backup/PH/def. sub

It seems that many posters don't want to see Murton platooned. But why? Isn't it the Cubs' job to get the best hitters up most often, and in full consideration of the platoon advantage?

BTW...Nice headline by NBC.

For those that don't want to link (and in case NBC gets wise and changes the headline) it reads: "Cubs sign Hometown BOY Cliff Floyd"...And no, the bi-line was not written by Stuart Scott, so it is offensive, not "street smart".

Kind of suprising...Then again, despite Chris Elliot's protestations, he couldn't get Tim Burton to change the title to "Cabin Man" in 1994....

Perhaps the NBC writers really wanted to write "Cubs sign homeboy Cliff Floyd"....Now that would be shockingly unproffesional. Either way, doesn't compare to my shock upon moving to New Orleans in 1997 and seeing police posters describing wanted assailants as "Negro Males"...in 1997!

Jesus Christ, it's the W Sox who are close to signing Erstad, not the Cubs. That's what can happen when reading the same Chicago newspaper which covers both teams. So, I should redo my post, but I'm too lazy.

I'll just say that they should keep Jones, in spite of having signed Floyd.

A complimentary headline would have read "Cubs Sign Pretty Boy Floyd."

i really can't dislike this. i hope Floyd is healthy, he's a helluva guy and a damned good teammate.

Last year was weird. Despite his injuries, Cliff has always hit. Prior to last season, he posted an OPS+ of 125 or better in 6 of 7 seasons since 1999, and the only season he didn't he was still decent with an OPS+ of 110.

For the first time in years, Cliff didn't hit. I think Floyd's going to have a nice bouneback year for the Cubs next season.

I second what scott said. Cliff Floyd was my favorite Met while he was on the team. I wish him all the best.

A complimentary headline would have read "Cubs Sign Pretty Boy Floyd."

Nice game, pretty boy. And if you find "hometown boy" offensive, then you're just looking to be offended. Have you ever heard the phrase "hometown man" in your life? "Hometown guy"? "Hometown dude"? What about "hometown homey"?

My first thought about the deal - at least it's a mutual option for next year, and not a player option. Any financial terms yet?

(Not that it really matters - I still hate this.)

Oh, holy #### #### #### #### #### ####:

Free agent outfielder Cliff Floyd agreed Wednesday to a $3 million, one-year contract with the Chicago Cubs after spending four seasons with the New York Mets.

Floyd can make an additional $4.5 million this year in bonuses based on plate appearances and time on the active 25-man roster. The deal includes a mutual option for 2008 that could become guaranteed if he has 100 games started or 425 plate appearances this year.

He could earn $17.5 million over two years if he has 550 plate appearances each season and $15.5 million if he has 500 each season.

$17.5M????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yeah, he's going to be the fourth OF with that contract, right. So long, Murton. Enjoy those ass splinters.

Albuquerque made it into a Repoz obscure reference today! As a Burquean, I'm so proud...

if he's getting 550 plate appearances a year, he's healthy. if he's healthy, he's almost certainly hitting to get that much playing time. if he hits like he can when healthy, he's going to make the cubs a MUCH better team.

just sayin.

Yeah, he's going to be the fourth OF with that contract, right. So long, Murton. Enjoy those ass splinters.

I hear the white sox need outfielders.

I bet Beane has the Cubs on speed-dial for the next month.

Hometown boy is a very common expression, and is not offensive in the slightest except to an idiot, black or white.

"Negro" means "black" in Spanish; therefore neither term can possibly be more offensive than the other.

If Floyd gets that many PAs, he'll almost certainly be worth the deal. Of course, you're right that it will mean curtains for Murton.

'Hometown boy' is a common term but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to be offended by it.

I disagree - Negro when speaking a language that uses negro for black cannot possibly be more offensive than simply saying black.

'Hometown boy' is a common term but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to be offended by it.

I'm sorry, but it's PC run amok. There's no possible way any reasonable person could read that headline and think that the media outlet was only using the word "boy" because Floyd is black.

Not allowed? Of course you're allowed. It's just a silly thing to get all wrapped up in. I could be offended if you called me "white." Actually, I do, which I suppose is equally stupid. If you called me blanc instead, I would hardly be more offended. I realize that "negro" was a term that was used to refer to black people during the age of officially sanctioned/widespread public racism, but it continued to be used--by both white and black people--well into the period of civil rights. The idea that it's inherently offensive seems to be a modern invention, perpetuated perhaps by confused, historically and etymologically ill-informed people who can't handle the fact that it begins with the letter "n," and spawned a slang form the usage of which is inherently derogatory because of its circumstances of coinage and use. The idea that "negro" could be offensive simply because it is a foreign term being used as an English word--not an idea that I think very many people would have--is shot down by the usage of dozens and dozens--thousands, tens of thousands--of foreign words in English.

Now, it is archaic because it is rarely used today, and that is largely because some people seem to find it offensive. But that's a different matter.

"I bet Beane has the Cubs on speed-dial for the next month."

What in Beane's recent history would convince you that he knows how to construct an offense?

"I bet Beane has the Cubs on speed-dial for the next month."

I don't believe the Cubs are looking to trade Murton, if that's what you're getting at (regardless of what the Floyd signing might mean for Murton's playing time in '07). I'm much less down on this than UCCF is. Floyd is a good bat, which is something the Cubs need. I'd sure as hell rather have him than the FA OF who looks about ready to sign 8 miles south.

Floyd can make an additional $4.5 million this year in bonuses based on plate appearances and time on the active 25-man roster. The deal includes a mutual option for 2008 that could become guaranteed if he has 100 games started or 425 plate appearances this year.

He could earn $17.5 million over two years if he has 550 plate appearances each season and $15.5 million if he has 500 each season.

Even in this offseason, I'm stunned. How can you sign such a redundant player for a possible $17.5 million? Either the Cubs just spent an awful lot of money to keep Murton out of the lineup, they're preparing to deal Jones, or they've come up with some ridiculous alternative that I can't even comprehend.

For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to guess that Jones won't be on the team in 2007. Who should the Cubs trade him for? You probably won't believe this, and perhaps I'm no longer thinking clearly, but it seems like the Cubs could really use Eric Byrnes. He's had huge platoon splits his whole career, so that even in the year he was non-tendered he hit lefties fairly well, and he's 300/357/527 vs LHP overall. The Cubs currently don't have a decent right-handed bat off the bench (I refuse to concede that Murton won't start) or a backup in CF if Soriano needs some time off. Byrnes would be a much better CF option than Pagan, he's a one-year commitment, and he could give Floyd a rest against some lefties. How about sending Jones to the Angels for a C+ pitching prospect (Mendoza?, O'Sullivan?) and their 4th or 5th best SS prospect -- Mount and Statia are both better than any SS prospect in the Cubs system -- and then flipping the pitching prospect to the Diamondbacks for Byrnes? Would this make sense or have I lost my mind?

If I had any reason to believe that a black person was offended by it, I would not use the phrase. If a lily white whiner told me it was intrinsically offensive, I would ignore him.

If I had any reason to believe that a black person was offended by it, I would not use the phrase. If a lily white whiner told me it was intrinsically offensive, I would ignore him.

These Giambi comments are pretty hamfisted, even for kevin.

How can you sign such a redundant player for a possible $17.5 million? Either the Cubs just spent an awful lot of money to keep Murton out of the lineup, they're preparing to deal Jones, or they've come up with some ridiculous alternative that I can't even comprehend.

I hope against hope that this causes Hendry to step up his efforts to move Jones (who has openly said that he'd rather play elsewhere this year). Otherwise, "redundant" is exactly right - Floyd may be better than Murton this year, though that's certainly not a given. But is he going to be $8M better? Their ZiPS projections aren't all that different.

By the time you add up Floyd ($3M), Marquis ($7M), Derosa ($4.3M), Rusch ($3M), and Blanco ($2.5M), there's more than Zito money right there (and that's assuming Floyd reaches none of his incentives). That's the Zambrano extension with room to spare.

Is that $20M spent really that much of a likely improvement over Murton, other 5th starter (Wade Miller/Mark Prior), Theriot/Cedeno, generic backup C, and generic LH reliever (of which the Cubs already have an overabundance)?

Even in this offseason, I'm stunned. How can you sign such a redundant player for a possible $17.5 million?

Thing is, if he reaches the incentives necessary to earn that much, there's a reasonable chance he'll be worth it.

I don't think this deal screws Murton. If anything, it improves the Cubs trading posture with respect to Jones. Or maybe my two beers are kicking in.

To finish my thought--I don't think Floyd's redundant, even if he plays the same position as Murton/Jones. If he forces one of them to the bench on a given day, that's a good bat that'll be on the bench which, combined with the signing of Daryle Ward, makes this bench (and roster as a whole) look a lot stronger than last years. While it would be nice to have perfect allocation of good hitters, what the Cubs really need are good hitters, period. It'll be nice not to go into a season with a handful of automatic outs on the roster, as the Cubs have been wont to do in recent years.

Vauz, a term is not inoffensive just because you say it is not, no matter how much etymological "evidence" you care to provide. I would hope this would be obvious to anybody. Anyway, the english epithet "negro" and the spanish word "negro" are not the same word; they are not even pronounced the same way. I hape never heard anyone use the latter word in a sentence otherwise spoken in English; have you?

Vaux, a term is not inoffensive just because you say it is not, no matter how much etymological "evidence" you care to provide. I would hope this would be obvious to anybody. Anyway, the english epithet "negro" and the spanish word "negro" are not the same word; they are not even pronounced the same way. I hape never heard anyone use the latter word in a sentence otherwise spoken in English; have you?

I hope against hope that this causes Hendry to step up his efforts to move Jones (who has openly said that he'd rather play elsewhere this year). Otherwise, "redundant" is exactly right - Floyd may be better than Murton this year, though that's certainly not a given. But is he going to be $8M better? Their ZiPS projections aren't all that different.

Is that true? Has Jones "openly" asked to be traded. Everything I've read said he asked the team, but I've yet to see that quote attributed to him. The one interview he did (I think it was the Score) he didn't sound happy about playing for the Cubs, but he wouldn't say he asked for a trade.

It's not a bad signing, IMO. If he plays enough, he'll earn that money. For now, I'll trust Pinella to divide up the playing time appropriately, until he proves that he can't. I'm going to give him a clean slate.

By the time you add up Floyd ($3M), Marquis ($7M), Derosa ($4.3M), Rusch ($3M), and Blanco ($2.5M), there's more than Zito money right there (and that's assuming Floyd reaches none of his incentives). That's the Zambrano extension with room to spare.

You can't lump Rusch's money in there, which you've done a couple of times. That was last year. If he doesn't play at all, does insurance pick any of that up? And normally, I'd agree on this point (as we showed what happened last year with Furcal). But I refuse to think this way until Zambrano signs the dotted line with another team. After this offseason, I'm fully convinced the Cubs will give him what he wants.

Thing is, if he reaches the incentives necessary to earn that much, there's a reasonable chance he'll be worth it. I don't think this deal screws Murton.

I'm thinking of it this way:

If media reports were right, there were 3 or 4 teams interested in signing Floyd. He took an incentive-laden one-year contract to come to the Cubs, where the incentives are all based on how much he plays. He must have gotten some assurances that he would be given every opportunity to reach those incentives, or he wouldn't have signed the contract (unless all of the other teams pursuing him offered total crap deals, which in this market seems unlikely).

So I'm not sure it's really going to matter how well he plays. Yeah, if he's completely in the tank he'll sit, but if he's just mediocre, or even just average? I think he could put up his 2006 rate stats (.244/.324/.407, or at least a Wrigley Field-adjusted version that would keep him around the same 91 OPS+) and keep his job.

It's why I hate playing-time incentive contracts - it's really hard to bench a guy when you know that you're costing him millions by doing so. He's going to get every benefit of the doubt on playing time, every chance to play through slumps and hit his way out of 2-for-25 and 4-for-38 stretches. The only real way he won't get a chance to get his incentives will be if he gets hurt.

It's not just about Floyd - it's about future signings as well. The Cubs have to keep credibility among the players and player agents for negotiations down the road, and they can't afford to become known as the team that will offer you a fat incentive-laden contract and then never give you the chance to reach the incentives.

Unless he gets hurt, I suspect we'll see Floyd get at least 120 starts this year, regardless of how he's playing.

You can't lump Rusch's money in there, which you've done a couple of times. That was last year.

It was a bad signing before Rusch ever missed a game with medical problems. We don't get to wipe it off the books just because it happened more than 12 months ago. The Cubs still have to pay.

It was, and is, wasted money, just like the contracts from this year.

But I refuse to think this way until Zambrano signs the dotted line with another team. After this offseason, I'm fully convinced the Cubs will give him what he wants.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it, unless you think the Cubs really are operating with an unlimited payroll ceiling. They may still have enough money to sign Zambrano because they're willing to go that much higher in payroll - but that only means that all of the wasted contracts prevented the Cubs from making a different move for an impact player. Maybe the Cubs can afford Zambrano, but maybe they could have afforded Zambrano plus a run at Johan Santana (or Daisuke Matsuzaka). Or Zambrano plus a big offensive upgrade. Or Zambrano plus a couple of smaller upgrades. Or Zambrano plus a bunch of minor league free agents, or scouting upgrades, or draft signing bonuses. There's a million places this money could go that would benefit the team more than these players will.

Unless the Cubs would be willing to pay for all of that stuff anyway no matter what it costs, then the wasted money is (at least in theory) preventing them from making other moves that could benefit the team.

Is that $20M spent really that much of a likely improvement over Murton, other 5th starter (Wade Miller/Mark Prior), Theriot/Cedeno, generic backup C, and generic LH reliever (of which the Cubs already have an overabundance)

I think yes.

He looked the other way when the Giambi boys were roidin' up.

Well, sure, and he tried so very very hard to keep them both in the green and gold forever. At this point I could bring up that the Yankees let Giambi and his agent work language ito the contract he signed with them that wouldn't allow them to opt out if he was ever proven to take steroids, but that wouldn't be a bashing of Beane so I won't bother. I will ask this, though, since the Giambis and Velarde and Tejada etc., left the organization, have there been any rumored steroid users on the A's? Eric "Junk Food" Chavez certainly isn't. Joe Blanton is if steroids come in cupcake form. I hope to god Kotsay and Kendall go on them at some point. A few minor leaguers have been caught but, really, what the hell can Beane do about that? Every organization has guys in the minors doing steroids because every minor league system is filled with guys with nothing to lose. For all the crap Beane takes about steroids, isn't it entirely possible that once he recognized it as a problem, he quietly went about eliminating the problem from the team without making a circus of it? What did he have to gain by waiving players or making a circus of the issue? Baseball had no disciplinary action against steroids at the time and, since testing was confidential, he couldn't have possibly known for sure who was taking and who wasn't. And he certainly wasn't in the position to sell off players for pennies on the dollar because of what he suspected. Sometimes I wonder how superhuman we can expect sports figures--athletes and executives and so on--to be. The moralising gets to the point of ridiculousness.

'Hometown boy' is a common term but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to be offended by it.

"Allowed" as in a court of common law? Sure, nobody is going to lock you up for it.

"Allowed" as in a court of common sense? No, then you are not "allowed."

I still think you're viewing the Cubs with behind Dusty shades UCCF. I hated the Piniella hiring at the time, and am still iffy on it, but one of the things I'd trust him not to do is care whether a guy is reaching playing time incentives. If the Cubs go all '06 Cardinals and make the world series are people going to expect Neal Cotts to keep coming in in the most important times to get him the WS MVP? I don't think Floyd winds up with more PAs than Murton. If he touches those incentives, it's cause Jones was traded.

but one of the things I'd trust him not to do is care whether a guy is reaching playing time incentives. If the Cubs go all '06 Cardinals and make the world series are people going to expect Neal Cotts to keep coming in in the most important times to get him the WS MVP? I don't think Floyd winds up with more PAs than Murton. If he touches those incentives, it's cause Jones was traded.

I can't think of very many actual examples to support your claim. Teams offer contracts like this, especially to "star" players like Floyd, not as protection against poor performace but as protection against injury. It's not so much that managers don't want to cost them millions, it's that the Union will raise a big fuss if this happens often or in anything even remotely resembling an unjustified case. And as noted earlier, there are concerns of how future FAs will view signing with your team. Floyd was signed to play if healthy.

I find it interesting that folks seem to assume the platoon would be Murton & Floyd. If Jones & Floyd are both on the team, I expect the platoon to be Murton & Jones. Cliff Floyd just became one of our full-time starting OFs when healthy (granted one likely to get lots of rest).

My additional fear if both Jones & Floyd remain on the team is that, if Floyd gets hurt, the Cubs response will be to bring up Pie, shift Soriano to a corner and still platoon Jones & Murton.

Now if Jones is traded, I'm happy to have Floyd on the team (though he's still overpriced). I'll also say that although I don't think it's the likely outcome, the amount of money here does signal Floyd as the starter and that makes it more likely the Cubs will shift Jones into a true 4th OF role, backing up all three positions and probably getting pretty good playing time.

This signing is bad news for Pie (the Cubs seem clearly to try Soriano in CF, guaranteeing Pie starts in AAA barring injury ... not that that's a bad thing IMO) and Ward. Nobody is rooting for a Jones trade more than Ward ... though I suppose he'd catch on somewhere.

I also find it interesting that Cliff Floyd would have been a "classic" Kenny Williams acquisition -- established good player coming off a disappointing, often injury-plagued season or two (Thome, Dye, Pierzynski, etc.) -- and a better player than Erstad and a fine replacement for Podsednik. Not exactly Williams' kinda money though.

If this turns out as well for the Cubs as the Dye signing for the Sox, I could probably live with it. :-)

I think this signing looks fine. Sure, the contract COULD be worth $17.5 mil over two years, but it could also be worth billions of Harry Carays if the Caray family stages a coup deposing the current administration and changing our national currency.

It sounds like those attacking the deal for the most part are assuming that Floyd will perform normally and make all of the performance bonuses, which seems almost impossible.

If he does nothing, the Cubs are just out $3 million and they can send him on his way. It's worth $3 to gamble that he might be an average or above average player.

As for the word use, I can see arguments from both sides. If there was a major issue, I would just sit people in a room together and try to moderate.

Evaluating the pure use of the term is extremely contextual, like any language use. If I call my best friend a M-Fer in one tone, he'll laugh it off. If I call my wife that, I might get my ass kicked. If I call one of my students that, I'll be fired AND get my ass kicked.

However to respond to someone who is concretely upset and rather than asking their reasons saying "You're a PC idiot! Let's look at word etymology (hehe)!" sure doesn't show much empathy or understanding of ethnic perspectives. If anything, it smacks of self-absorbedness and entitlement.

Racial issues make people weird. This is normally intuitive stuff to most people--it's ok to say, "This place is dead" to describe a party, but you probably have to consider your relationship with the audience when you are considering saying the same at a funeral.

Everyone's vulnerable on different issues at different times. If a rape victim doesn't like you to make jokes about rape, that doesn't make him/her "PC" or a "whiner" or whatever, just someone who needs some empathy. Freedom to speak doesn't mean freedom from being called an insensitive jackass.

If I call my best friend a M-Fer in one tone, he'll laugh it off. If I call my wife that, I might get my ass kicked.

Was the word might used here to indicate the force she would use? Otherwise I think you used the wrong word here.

However to respond to someone who is concretely upset and rather than asking their reasons saying "You're a PC idiot! Let's look at word etymology (hehe)!" sure doesn't show much empathy or understanding of ethnic perspectives. If anything, it smacks of self-absorbedness and entitlement.

I think since we are talking about a newspaper headline I think this is the appropriate time to argue in that manor. If he was telling Floyd that he is a PC idiot for being offended we would have a problem but if there is a forum for the "quite being so PC" this would probably be it.

All though it does remind me of something that happened to a friend of mine… He was at the cafeteria at his job and got a discount on his food (I forget the reason). When he sat down with his friends he told them about the discount and they asked him which cashier gave him the discount. He looked up and said it was the black cashier. One of the black girls he was sitting with looked at him and said "she is not black, look at her skin and mine does that look black to you?" A bit taken aback he said he was sorry and wasn't trying to offend her and then asked her what an appropriate description would be. She said dark brown or brownish\black would work. At this point he said it was obvious to him that she was having a bad day and was taking out some frustrations. So to lighten things up a bit he said that he was fine with that but from now on she could not use the term "white" when describing a white person that from now on all white people were to be described as "desert sand" colored. She smiled and apologized for her accusing tone.

If you google "hometown boy" you get 3,000,000 hits. I'm pretty sure "hometown boy" is a fairly common usage. And, now, dammit, I've got that stupid Journey song in my head.

Freedom to speak doesn't mean freedom from being called an insensitive jackass.

Well said.

Probably the stupidest move Hendry has made this off-season, if it plays out like it's described in the article. Of course, Hendry's dumbest moves have occasionally turned out well, at least for awhile. Baker might be gone, but Baker's Ratchet remains in effect.

I've advocated using Murton in a platoon role to accommodate Jones, who was already on the roster and good against RHP. But to actually sign another flawed LH hitter to platoon with him? One who put up a .731 OPS last year and is always hurt? Mind-bogglingly dumb.

I've advocated using Murton in a platoon role to accommodate Jones, who was already on the roster and good against RHP. But to actually sign another flawed LH hitter to platoon with him? One who put up a .731 OPS last year and is always hurt? Mind-bogglingly dumb.

You know, Cliff Floyd would have been a perfect fit with the Mariners instead of the discarded husk of Jose Vidro. More and more I see a lot of excellent moves this offseason, but they're for the wrong teams. Floyd should be a Mariner. Piazza should be a Twin. Zito should be a Met. Hillenbrand should be an Isotope.

So much to respond to, and I'm avoiding the race discussion (if it is one) altogether. I'll start here --

Yeah, he's going to be the fourth OF with that contract, right. So long, Murton. Enjoy those ass splinters.

It's pretty easy to assume that $17.5MM/2yrs means he'll get playing time or that some guarantees are in place (as UCCF later argues in Post #37). I don't necessarily agree. First, we shouldn't start with the assumption that he's going to make $17.5MM -- this is a best case scenario (from Floyd's standpoint) and we all should know about his injury risks. The truth is that we can't really judge the size of his contract unless we know how the incentives are broken down -- which number is he more likely to have -- $3MM? $5MM? $7MM?

I also don't concede the point that he must have received a commitment in order to sign. To the contrary, I think it's just as easy to assume that no team was going to give him a guaranteed salary more than, say, $5MM and that Floyd took the best deal out there monetarily and otherwise (i.e., returning home), not necessarily because he has any gurantees of playing time.

That said . . . I do think that he'll be given every opportunity to get as much time as possible. Hendry even hinted as much when he mentioned how he's looking forward to a lineup with Floyd, Ramirez, and Lee. Floyd will get this opportunity not because of his contract, but because Hendry (and presumably Piniella) want to give him the chance.


I hope against hope that this causes Hendry to step up his efforts to move Jones (who has openly said that he'd rather play elsewhere this year). Otherwise, "redundant" is exactly right - Floyd may be better than Murton this year, though that's certainly not a given.

When I heard about the deal yesterday, my first thought was a bit along these lines. I liked the deal because I figured that Floyd would outhit Murton. I figured that if Floyd was healthy and got 400 PAs platooning with Murton, he would more than justify it and still give Murton 200 PAs (or so) mainly in a platoon role. Yes, this isn't the full-time commitment to Murton that many of us preach about, but I still figured that it was a good thing -- Murton is still young, but at 26 he doesn't have a *ton* of development left.

OTOH, I figured that if Floyd is healthy for only part of the season, he'll still contribute in perhaps 150-200 PAs and still allow Murton to get substantial playing time. Essentially, Floyd could be looked at as valuable as the *good* bench hitter we've been wanting to see for years (fingers crossed about Daryle Ward).

This was before I saw the PECOTA projections and Duffy's Post #5 above. Both have Murton outhitting Floyd. (Floyd gets 380 PAs in PECOTA and Murton 500.) It isn't broken into platoon splits, but if Murton proves to be a better alternative against both LHPs *and* RHPs, this would be the doomsday scenario of which UCCF complains -- and the contract would be yet another bad one.

One thing I hadn't considered, however -- and am kicking myself about -- is Walt's observation:

I find it interesting that folks seem to assume the platoon would be Murton & Floyd. If Jones & Floyd are both on the team, I expect the platoon to be Murton & Jones. Cliff Floyd just became one of our full-time starting OFs when healthy (granted one likely to get lots of rest).

So long as either Floyd or Murton can play RF, this makes perfect sense to me -- we've been complaining about Jones's problems against LHPs ever since we signed him and a Joneston platoon would be far more productive than a Floydton one. If Floyd is only capable of 300-400 PAs, it would also allow Murton to get time than he would in a standard platoon role.

If it works out that way, I like the deal; it gives the potential of a productive OF, while also allowing Murton to get meaningful playing time. We'll just have to see if Piniella (and Hendry) recognizes this scenario.

If a rape victim doesn't like you to make jokes about rape, that doesn't make him/her "PC" or a "whiner" or whatever, just someone who needs some empathy.

Yeah, because that's the same situation as this one. You're just begging to be called silly again.

The only people with reason to be offended by that headline are Cub fans.

I'm sure the headline writer had no malice in mind at all, but geez, guys, you ought to know that you shouldn't call a 34-year-old black man a "boy," in any context whatsoever. Someone who communicates with the general public for a living really ought to know better than that. The best thing you can say about it is that it's a very careless use of the language.

It's like a headline reading "Ichiro's courage in switching to CF proves he's not yellow."

Excellent handle, No, 54, mispronunciation and all.

Now for a few odds and ends:

* I hope against hope that this causes Hendry to step up his efforts to move Jones (who has openly said that he'd rather play elsewhere this year).

I'm with Moses on this one -- if Jones has expressed this, it certainly hasn't been "openly". To the contrary, on several occasions this offseason, both the Cubs and Jones have denied that he's looking to go elsewhere. Still, if the Cubs do deal him, it wouldn't be a bad thing (depending on what they get in return).

* UCCF: By the time you add up Floyd ($3M), Marquis ($7M), Derosa ($4.3M), Rusch ($3M), and Blanco ($2.5M), there's more than Zito money right there (and that's assuming Floyd reaches none of his incentives). That's the Zambrano extension with room to spare.

Moses Taylor: You can't lump Rusch's money in there, which you've done a couple of times. That was last year. If he doesn't play at all, does insurance pick any of that up? And normally, I'd agree on this point (as we showed what happened last year with Furcal). But I refuse to think this way until Zambrano signs the dotted line with another team. After this offseason, I'm fully convinced the Cubs will give him what he wants.

UCCF: I think that's the wrong way to look at it, unless you think the Cubs really are operating with an unlimited payroll ceiling. They may still have enough money to sign Zambrano because they're willing to go that much higher in payroll - but that only means that all of the wasted contracts prevented the Cubs from making a different move for an impact player. Maybe the Cubs can afford Zambrano, but maybe they could have afforded Zambrano plus a run at Johan Santana (or Daisuke Matsuzaka). Or Zambrano plus a big offensive upgrade. Or Zambrano plus a couple of smaller upgrades. Or Zambrano plus a bunch of minor league free agents, or scouting upgrades, or draft signing bonuses. There's a million places this money could go that would benefit the team more than these players will.

Two points. First, Bruce Miles hints that to make room for Floyd, the Cubs will likely release Rusch. If they do, I don't imagine that they would be able to recoup any insurance money, so I agree with UCCF that it's essentially a sunk cost.

OTOH, I don't see it (or the collection of deals) as an impediment to resigning Zambrano. It seems to me that the Cubs are in a "no holds (or contracts) barred" scenario and, for all intents and purposes, their payroll may very well be unlimited -- or at least quite high. There's virtually no way that the Hendry/McDonough/the Tribune are willing to deal with the fallout of seeing Zambrano go elsewhere. They're still dealing with the Greg Maddux flak.

I also think it's unfair to say that these deals are preventing them from getting other impact guys. The Cubs bid on Matsuzaka was made before they signed DeRosa, Blanco, and Marquis; even if the Cubs were willing to make a higher bid (which they weren't), it can't be said that these deals prevented them from doing so.

How did that happen? No. 53 has the excellent handle, not me.

I also think it's unfair to say that these deals are preventing them from getting other impact guys. The Cubs bid on Matsuzaka was made before they signed DeRosa, Blanco, and Marquis; even if the Cubs were willing to make a higher bid (which they weren't), it can't be said that these deals prevented them from doing so.

And next year? These guys will all still be under contract. That $7M to Marquis is $7M that won't be going to someone else.

Yes, I think it will prevent them from pursuing other players. Maybe they got what they wanted this year, but (as with the Rusch deal) we can't just look at things based on what's happened between mid-October and now. Past deals cost money now, current deals cost money in the future. Marquis + Derosa + Floyd next year (if Floyd's option vests) is close to $20M. There's the money to sign the best player in next year's free agent class.

I do think they'll resign Zambrano, and they'll give him what he wants. He's a lot more worthy of Zito money than Zito is. But it would have been really nice to have Zambrano under contract without the payroll being any higher than it is right now. I don't believe there's not a ceiling here, I just don't. The Cubs have never operated that way, and I can't think of any reason they'd be starting now. It's not like they're suddenly under new ownership.

At what point does the desire not to offend anyone cripple the language? Words like cripple, black, Oriental, and Jew are in a very different category than 'tard, ######, slope, and kike. In our struggles to find offense in words, we obscure the language or fill it with less specific, often inaccurate, heavy-syllable phrases. African-American is used to refer to everyone we'd formerly call black, but includes those who are neither African or American (Jamaicans, for example), and does not include some who are African and American (Egyptian-Americans).

We no longer take into consideration any sort of context, or past history of the speaker. Howard Cosell was scandalized because he used the phrase "that little monkey" to describe a black football player. Nevermind that he had one of the most celebrated relationships between sportcaster and athlete with activist Muhammed Ali. We say "the black cashier" rather than fumble to find some less obvious way to distinguish them; worse, it is disingenuous. You know the listener has an internal monologue that goes "oh, the black one."

The assumption should be that we don't mean to cause offense until we prove otherwise, not the opposite. If someone asked me to call him a "flib-flub-floo" because that's was his choice of designation, I'd do it. But if that person, before communicating this to me, said I was a racist or insensitive for not calling him a "flib-flub-floo," I'd tell him to get a life.

And next year? These guys will all still be under contract.

Sure, but I'm not at all convinced that these signings will be an impediment next year either. When, if ever, has Hendry said that he can't sign a player because he was tapped out? To my knowledge, it's always been a matter of principle -- he believes, for instance, that Rafael Furcal is simply not worth the deal he got.

There probably is a ceiling -- there has to be at some point -- but I don't believe Hendry operates from the idea that "I can't sign Player A because he'll put me over my payroll." To the contrary, I believe that if Hendry really wanted a player, but it would put him $5mm over his budget, McDonough and the Tribune would give him the flexibility. Instead, Hendry operates from the idea that "$X for Player A is just absurd."

I'm with Moses on this one -- if Jones has expressed this, it certainly hasn't been "openly". To the contrary, on several occasions this offseason, both the Cubs and Jones have denied that he's looking to go elsewhere.

I wanted to find someplace where I'd seen an in-depth look at the Jones situation. This article from the Sun-Times a couple of weeks back does it. Among other quotes:

It's no secret the Cubs have been peddling Jones this offseason. Jones never demanded a trade, but the sides appeared to be in agreement on an exit strategy. Maybe the best thing for both sides would be a mutual parting of the ways, was the wording, according to a source close to the situation.

At the end of the year, when it was clear Dusty Baker -- the manager who helped lure Jones off the free-agent market -- wasn't returning, Jones let teammates, and eventually the front office, know he wouldn't mind moving on.

From the buzz going around the winter meetings in Florida last month, it's a surprise he still is employed by the Cubs. One general manager characterized the Cubs' desire to trade Jones as aggressive. "Jacque Jones to anywhere, from what I'm hearing," the GM said.

Of course neither the Cubs nor Jones are going to come out in the press and say that a trade has been demanded - how often does that really happen? But Jones has been open about his unhappiness with playing in Chicago (there was a better interview from earlier in the winter that I can't find where he expressed his frustration over his treatment by the RF fans), and the Cubs have been actively trying to trade him. It adds up to a player who asked to be gone.

This is a pretty good thread--a hybrid of typical Cub fan angst and linguistic/social norms debate. Good stuff.

Of course neither the Cubs nor Jones are going to come out in the press and say that a trade has been demanded - how often does that really happen? But Jones has been open about his unhappiness with playing in Chicago (there was a better interview from earlier in the winter that I can't find where he expressed his frustration over his treatment by the RF fans), and the Cubs have been actively trying to trade him. It adds up to a player who asked to be gone.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It still hasn't been "openly" as you suggested.

Still, who really cares? I think we all agree that a Jones deal might benefit both Murton and the Cubs.

To the contrary, I believe that if Hendry really wanted a player, but it would put him $5mm over his budget, McDonough and the Tribune would give him the flexibility. Instead, Hendry operates from the idea that "$X for Player A is just absurd."

I think it's an excuse he makes in the press, because saying "we refuse to let the payroll be high enough to accommodate this guy" is the sort of thing that creates fan backlash in a team playing in one of the biggest markets in the league. After all, I'd say Hendry's track record isn't exactly stellar when it comes to handing out only reasonable free agent contracts.

This is the first time in I guess forever that the Cubs have let the payroll slip above $100M. Last year's payroll was about $94M. This year we're looking at probably $120M by the time all of the arb awards are in. Next offseason, if there are more things the team needs, I just don't think they're likely to say "bump it another $25M to add the best available player." The big bump has already happened.

I think it's an excuse he makes in the press, because saying "we refuse to let the payroll be high enough to accommodate this guy" is the sort of thing that creates fan backlash in a team playing in one of the biggest markets in the league. After all, I'd say Hendry's track record isn't exactly stellar when it comes to handing out only reasonable free agent contracts.

My point is that his payroll cutoff is soft and somewhat flexible, not rigid. As I said, if someone Hendry really wants becomes available, but would put them a few million over their budget, there has been every indication that McDonough and the Tribune would allow Hendry to pursue the deal and not say that the current payroll was a fixed number that could not be exceeeded under any circumstances. As you just exoressed it, they "let the payroll slip."

If/when Santana hits the market, the Cubs may not join the bidding, but it won't be because these signings would preclude it; it would be because Hendry either (a) decides he doesn't need Santana that badly, (b) believes that the prices and terms Santana is demanding is outrageous and that no one should pay them, and/or (c) believes that his better efforts are devoted elsewhere -- either to the offense or by getting better "bang for the buck" from other pitchers.

I find it interesting that folks seem to assume the platoon would be Murton & Floyd. If Jones & Floyd are both on the team, I expect the platoon to be Murton & Jones. Cliff Floyd just became one of our full-time starting OFs when healthy (granted one likely to get lots of rest).

So long as either Floyd or Murton can play RF, this makes perfect sense to me -- we've been complaining about Jones's problems against LHPs ever since we signed him and a Joneston platoon would be far more productive than a Floydton one.

Why would a Joneston platoon be far more productive than the alternative? Quoting my post from the last Floyd thread:
I like Floyd, but he really seems like a strange fit on the Cubs right now. In the last 3 years, Floyd has hit 277/369/498 vs righties and 218/285/379 vs lefties. Over the same span, Jones has hit 276/339/487 vs righties and 226/280/370 vs lefties.

Floyd has a better career line against lefties, but over the past several years, he's had huge platoon splits that make him no better an everyday candidate than Jones. Floyd actually has had larger platoon splits in the last 3-4 years than Jones, though he has had a better overall line due to his better numbers against RHP. Floyd had a few years in his 20s when he posted better numbers against lefties than righties, but in his 30s he's struggled mightily against them. If he has more injury and durability concerns, couldn't you make a case that he is a better platoon candidate in order to preserve him for PAs against righties in which he could be dominant? I'd rather keep him rested and let Jones flail away against LHP if the difference between them in such instances is nearly as small as it appears.

Fine, I withdraw my use of the word "openly" at least as it relates to a specific trade demand being made in the press by Jones this offseason. But I defend my use of the word "openly" as it relates to his expressing his frustration with playing in Chicago, his frustration with the fans, his displeasure over the departure of Dusty Baker, and the team's attempts to trade him this offseason.

But yes, a Jones deal is best for all involved.

What will the Cubs do if Prior finally gets healthy? Are they screwed then? I know it's a big if, but still...

Even with Jones' huge split, is Floyd projected to be better than him?
Also I guess this means that Soriano is definitely installed in CF. I thought Jones was the alternative for CF, if Soriano had a hard time adjusting

The assumption should be that we don't mean to cause offense until we prove otherwise, not the opposite.

Fantastic post--puts into words the way I've long felt about runaway victimization. I get called "white boy" all the time, and because there is no institutionalization that prevents it, there is no uproar. Yet it only bothers me if the intent is to cause offense. It's actually a relief to hear others discuss the 800-lb gorilla in such frank terms.

As an aside, my last girlfriend operated on the opposite assumption--that we DO mean to cause offense and have to prove otherwise. Needless to say, I broke up with her and am glad I did.

You guys and your craziness...

Gak.... saved by a White Sox fan.

You realize this will in effect curse Cliff Floyd next year...

I'm Jewish, and I would be pretty offended if someone referred to me as "that Jew." There's definitely a negative connotation. Why? I don't know. It just does.</em>

I refer to myself as a Jew, and have friends ask me something like "a collegue is Jewish and lost his mother, you're a Jew, what's appropriate for the situation?" Substituting "you're Jewish" for "you're a Jew" does not change the sentiment at all from my perspective.

"That Jew" lends more of an argument because it's hard to find context where it wouldn't be tied to some offense. Sure, I had inlaws (no more) that used the term "jew down," which is a totally different story.

The office is now looking at me funny since I just laughed my ass off. I didn't realize us desert-sandies could wield such power over this site.

For example, it would be weird to refer to someone as "a catholic" instead of "catholic," or "a frenchman" instead of "french," but those distinctions are more subtle.

But "a Protestant" or "a Moslem" is pretty standard. I've seen "a German" or "an Italian" with some regularity as well.

But "a Protestant" or "a Moslem" is pretty standard. I've seen "a German" or "an Italian" with some regularity as well.

I rarely see that. Again, I think it would be pretty odd to say something like, "my new neighbor Dirk is a German." Also, note that most slurs are nouns: mick, kraut, wop, dago, kike, chink, spic. I think that supports the notion that a noun is less respectful.

Make of it what you will but there was a minor dustup regarding google recently.

If you search for "jews", you get lots of jewish-oriented websites.

If you search for "jew", you get neo-nazi websites.

See here for google's explanation.

OK, not so recent apparently, I guess the controversy started in 2004 and I only just saw it mentioned recently.

Matt Murton for Scott Podsednik, as soon as Pods is healthy. A speedy proven vet to replace Pierre!

All this ethnic-slur talk makes me glad I'm kind of an ethnic mutt. A northern European kind of mutt, but a mutt nonetheless. Just try to offend me! You can't do it, I don't give a sh*t about any of my ethnicities. Even the Finns in my family are ethnic Swedes.

Anyone offended by that headline is just looking for things to be offended by. If I was in charge of editing that headline, I'd change it, but not without deep and multilayered disgust at the reason I had to change it.

Matt Murton for Scott Podsednik, as soon as Pods is healthy. A speedy proven vet to replace Pierre!

OK, levski.

All this ethnic-slur talk makes me glad I'm kind of an ethnic mutt. A northern European kind of mutt, but a mutt nonetheless. Just try to offend me! You can't do it, I don't give a sh*t about any of my ethnicities. Even the Finns in my family are ethnic Swedes.
Anyone offended by that headline is just looking for things to be offended by.

Typical desert-sand trash!

Typical desert-sand trash!

I prefer the term Saharan-American, myself.

Typical desert-sand trash!

We bedouins will eviscerate you when we get our hands on you, city trash!

Levski called me a "homo" once. what was his intention in doing so? Should I be offended. Should I give a #### about his intentions?

like cripple, black, Oriental, and Jew

Two of these words are still in common use. I don't think anyone ever says "cripple" anymore and only people over 55 and department store owners in China use the word "Oriental" (Glitziest such store in Beijing is called "Oriental Plaza", but the referent is spatial, not racial. Terms have history, people. "Negro" is as offensive to many people as "Colored" and are any of you going to argue seriously that we should bring back the term "colored people"?

I didn't find the headline at all offensive. Hometown boy is a common expression. Hometown hommie or hometown homeboy on the other hand might be stretching it.

I think Floyd will have a fine year next year, but then I thought that about Alfonzo when he went to the giants.

Make of it what you will but there was a minor dustup regarding google

This comment on a subsequent link off of that page sums up how I feel re: Jew.

but i believe jews who are proud of being jews should
show it by calling themselves jews, not jewish and
definitely not jewish persons.

Two of these words are still in common use. I don't think anyone ever says "cripple" anymore and only people over 55 and department store owners in China use the word "Oriental"

Terms have history, people. "Negro" is as offensive to many people as "Colored" and are any of you going to argue seriously that we should bring back the term "colored people"?

It wasn't until I got to college that I even heard about Oriental being a no-no. I'm still not sure I understand what the big deal is... I certainly would not be offended to be referred to as Occidental. A friend of mine in college said it had something to do with equating people to possessions: an Oriental vase, an Oriental rug, an Oriental woman. I would have guessed it is more about lumping together a group of distinct peoples and cultures in one word.

I don't understand what is wrong with the word "Negro." I don't use it but it doesn't feel weighted at all. "Colored," on the other hand, is a remnant of segregating all that one finds "impure" by not being perfectly white. That's a term that has built into it a sense of defining people by what they are not (and generally, to their failing), as opposed to what they are.

Cripple, and its cousin retard, are all but dead as reasonable parts of the language. Crippled and retarded, however, are still at times used without offense.

What it comes down to in the end is that there are always going to be people that have pigheaded notions of the worth of their fellow human beings. I'd rather know it's out there than have them conform on the outside and hate on the inside. What we seem to have forgotten is that nobody has the power to offend. Individuals either choose to take offense or not to. There are better ways to address the underlying issues of difference in society than whitewashing the language.

I'd rather know it's out there than have them conform on the outside and hate on the inside.

And what will you do with that knowledge? Will it affect your actions? If not, it doesn't matter if you know it or not. Presumably it will affect your actions with regard to that person negatively. That person will in turn interpret those actions as representing disapproval, rightly. So why not cut to the chase and disapprove outright?

Unless you mean to say you will take certain actions, but behind the person's back. I don't see how that is a principled position. So I think you just haven't thought this through.

I'd rather know it's out there than have them conform on the outside and hate on the inside.

And what will you do with that knowledge? Will it affect your actions? If not, it doesn't matter if you know it or not. Presumably it will affect your actions with regard to that person negatively. That person will in turn interpret those actions as representing disapproval, rightly. So why not cut to the chase and disapprove outright?

Unless you mean to say you will take certain actions, but behind the person's back. I don't see how that is a principled position. So I think you just haven't thought this through.

I am not sure that is what he means. What I am thinking when I read this are the times in which your sitting there and someone is trying to say "yeah it was that guy in accounting...no not that one the black one that we talk to yesterday" but as the words are coming out of their mouths they pause because one of the people in the conversation is black. So they struggle with "is black the right word to say here, am I going to offend them, if not black what word can I use...African American, boy I don't know every time I say that I feel like a tool like everyone can see through me"

So it is now obvious to everyone in the conversation that there is something that has made the speaker uncomfortable with the description leaving people wondering, do they have a problem with blacks, the word blacks, what word was he thinking about saying before he said black and all eyes are now on the black person in the conversation to see how they are going to react, furthering the awkward moment.

So what I think CrosbyBird is saying the person should just say black like he would if it were all white people in the conversation and that way he is being genuine and if there is a problem with the descriptor they pick the person offended will say something and things can move on.


So what I think Crosbybird is saying the person should just say black like he would if it were all white people in the conversation and that way he is being genuine and if there is a problem with the descriptor they pick the person offended will say somthing and things can move on.

And what will you do with that knowledge? Will it affect your actions? If not, it doesn't matter if you know it or not. Presumably it will affect your actions with regard to that person negatively. That person will in turn interpret those actions as representing disapproval, rightly. So why not cut to the chase and disapprove outright?

Unless you mean to say you will take certain actions, but behind the person's back. I don't see how that is a principled position. So I think you just haven't thought this through.

I will make a determination, based on context and situation, as to whether a confrontation is appropriate. It will rarely be the case.

Generally, I don't waste my time showing disapproval. If someone wants to be a bigot, that's their prerogative. There's plenty of other people I can associate with. You can nearly always tell by context if the person intends to be a jerk or not.

I don't spend nearly as much time on this site as I used to, but threads like this are worth coming back for. Humor, baseball analysis, civil social debate, and italics run amok. Thanks, all.