whitesoxin' Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Aramis Ramirez opted out of the final two years of his deal with the Cubs and filed for free agency on Monday. Had Ramirez not opted out, the Cubs would have had him at $22.5 million for the next two years with an $11 million option for 2009. As a free agent, the 28-year-old could receive at least $60 million over five years. He'll keep negotiating with the Cubs, but it doesn't look like the two sides are at all close to a deal. The Angels, Dodgers, Phillies, Red Sox, Giants and Padres are among the other teams that could talk to him. Oct. 30 - 6:56 pm et This article is from rotoworld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Aramis filing for free agency ≠ Cubs Lose Aramis. Not yet anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 09:16 PM) Aramis filing for free agency ≠ Cubs Lose Aramis. Not yet anyway. I hope they enjoy the 5/60 to 5/65 they'll be paying a dog (in terms of effort) if they plan on keeping him. And it's 5/75 more to get a free swinging vet who can't play defense and who would play in CF (Soriano). And they still have no pitching, a hole in LF, RF, at 2B, and SS...... as well as CF and 3B if they can't get those 2 guys, and a thin pitching FA market (and thin market in general), with the Cubs having no farm system....ya they are pretty bad. The Cubs never win bidding wars, and they'll have to in order to get Zito, A Ram, Soriano, or Matsuzaka. I wish them good luck with that one. Edited October 31, 2006 by whitesoxfan101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If he goes to the Angels, the Angels get stronger, but it takes away the Yankees' best trading partner if they really do want to get rid of ARod. Making it at least interesting for us. I'm surprised the Cubs didn't make a stronger push to resign him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 10:08 PM) If he goes to the Angels, the Angels get stronger, but it takes away the Yankees' best trading partner if they really do want to get rid of ARod. Making it at least interesting for us. I'm surprised the Cubs didn't make a stronger push to resign him. I'm not, they NEVER spend the biggest of money on the biggest of players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) I'm not, they NEVER spend the biggest of money on the biggest of players. Why bother when you can just get an expensive manager? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Ramirez puts up great numbers, but as stated before, the guy is a dog. The Cubs would be far better off without him. If they really are raising their payroll to $120 million as been reported, they will be able to spend a lot on free agents, and Hendry usually has no problem finding teams that will give him something good for nothing if he picks up a contract. As nice as Ramirez numbers usually turn out, this is addition by subtraction if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) Ramirez puts up great numbers, but as stated before, the guy is a dog. The Cubs would be far better off without him. If they really are raising their payroll to $120 million as been reported, they will be able to spend a lot on free agents, and Hendry usually has no problem finding teams that will give him something good for nothing if he picks up a contract. As nice as Ramirez numbers usually turn out, this is addition by subtraction if you ask me. I agree, in theory, with every word of what you say. However, who the hell is going to play 3B for them next year? Joe Randa? They need Ramirez' home runs badly, as a team that is HORRIBLE with power as it is, and they have nobody in their system even close to MLB calibur at 3B. It's a catch 22, because losing a dog like him and his 11 million dollar a year paper isn't bad, but they have nobody that can play 3B for them if he leaves, and there isn't much out there on the market, unless of course you want to dump Carlos Zambrano for A-Rod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 10:36 PM) I agree, in theory, with every word of what you say. However, who the hell is going to play 3B for them next year? Joe Randa? They need Ramirez' home runs badly, as a team that is HORRIBLE with power as it is, and they have nobody in their system even close to MLB calibur at 3B. It's a catch 22, because losing a dog like him and his 11 million dollar a year paper isn't bad, but they have nobody that can play 3B for them if he leaves, and there isn't much out there on the market, unless of course you want to dump Carlos Zambrano for A-Rod. This is correct. Ramirez HAD to file - he'd be stupid not to. It's a contract ploy/escape clause to get a bunch more money and guaranteed years from someone in a weak FA year. If he doesn't file, he gets no "raise" and is obligated for the remainder of his deal. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him stay with the Cubs at more years and bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 10:08 PM) If he goes to the Angels, the Angels get stronger, but it takes away the Yankees' best trading partner if they really do want to get rid of ARod. Making it at least interesting for us. I'm surprised the Cubs didn't make a stronger push to resign him. The only push they had was for him to not take the option. Now that he is a free agent, they have another chance. I couldn't see him negotiating with the Cubs without exercising that option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) The only push they had was for him to not take the option. Now that he is a free agent, they have another chance. I couldn't see him negotiating with the Cubs without exercising that option. Maybe. They have been negotiating, though. I wonder what numbers Ramirez's camp has presented. It can't be the $60 mil over 5 that rotoworld mentions -- I'd think the Cubs would jump at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Everyone on here keeps calling him a dog, etc. But the guy flat out has great stats. Even with his lazy attitude, he will produce over 100 RBI's for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeFroman Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Addition by subtraction.... that is unless the cubs pay him 14 mill a year... Then its subtraction multiplied by subtraction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) Addition by subtraction.... that is unless the cubs pay him 14 mill a year... Then its subtraction multiplied by subtraction... if the cubs lose 30+ Hr's and 100+ rbi's they will officially be trying to win every game 1-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 He'd be dumb to take the Cubs over a team like the Angels that are far more ready to win. Plus the Angels will probably offer just as much money, if not more, cause they desperately need some pop in there lineup (especially at the hot corner). Dallas McPherson, Casey Kochman are two guys that a team may be able to acquire for a lot less than they could have two years ago (due to injuries). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 09:53 AM) Everyone on here keeps calling him a dog, etc. But the guy flat out has great stats. Even with his lazy attitude, he will produce over 100 RBI's for you. No Sh*t, he can dog it all he wants for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) No Sh*t, he can dog it all he wants for me. Too bad for Cubs fans that he was absolutely invisible when they needed him most. The vast majority of his numbers last season came when the season was lost and done with, and he could officially shift into "play for the new contract mode". He's the Joe Murphy of baseball - nice numbers, but all of them empty and meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(The Critic @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) Too bad for Cubs fans that he was absolutely invisible when they needed him most. The vast majority of his numbers last season came when the season was lost and done with, and he could officially shift into "play for the new contract mode". He's the Joe Murphy of baseball - nice numbers, but all of them empty and meaningless. I didnt know he wasnt there to pitch in the rotation when they needed him most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didnt know he wasnt there to pitch in the rotation when they needed him most. When Derek Lee went down Aramis was expected to pick up some of the slack. As was stated earlier, he didn't. He had a good late second half when the season was over. Meaningless numbers. Plus he is absolutely horrendous fielding 3rd base. He tried to catch an easy pop up and it bashed him right on his big freaking melon head. No, I would not want him on my team. I would love to see him with the Angels. He is not a winner. In fact he will make a good team lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) When Derek Lee went down Aramis was expected to pick up some of the slack. As was stated earlier, he didn't. He had a good late second half when the season was over. Meaningless numbers. Plus he is absolutely horrendous fielding 3rd base. He tried to catch an easy pop up and it bashed him right on his big freaking melon head. No, I would not want him on my team. I would love to see him with the Angels. He is not a winner. In fact he will make a good team lose. I think he's one of those guys that really needs to be put in the right situation in order to succeed. Specifically, he can't be the man, like the Cubs needed him to be, he has to be with a team that has the ability to cover for the mistakes he'll make in the field, and the team that has him has to really need his bat. It's actually possible that the Cubs could be in that situation next year...if Lee has a full, good, healthy year, and they have a leadoff man, such that there are a lot of RBI opportunities and he's protecting Lee, and Lee is there to bail him out on some throws from 3rd to first, and Lee is able to be the man on offense, he could fit in quite well with the Cubs. But he's an equally good fit with the Angels...O.C. can cover some ground at SS and make things easier on him, his job in the lineup would be to protect Vlad the Impaler, Vlad is the star and his job is protection, etc. He may not be able to make a team a winner on his own, but he's a useful piece if you understand how to use a guy like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Ramirez splits last year..... G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS April 21 71 13 14 2 0 4 10 12 8 1 1 .197 .321 .394 .716 May 29 109 13 29 8 1 5 15 3 7 0 0 .266 .296 .495 .791 June 26 105 9 29 6 0 5 18 7 12 0 0 .276 .325 .476 .801 and then.... G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS July 26 96 18 33 5 2 10 27 11 11 0 0 .344 .414 .750 1.164 August 28 111 26 37 11 1 7 19 11 16 1 0 .333 .400 .640 1.040 September 26 98 13 30 6 0 6 28 6 9 0 0 .306 .346 .551 .897 plus...... G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Pre All Star 85 320 40 83 19 2 16 52 25 32 1 1 .259 .320 .481 .801 Post All-Star 72 274 53 90 19 2 22 67 25 31 1 0 .328 .388 .653 1.041 When the Cubs still had a shot in that AWFUL, AWFUL NL and NL Central, and when Lee got hurt, Ramirez did not step it up, at all. But then when July, the 2nd half of the year, and the the time where the Cubs were dead comes up, Ramirez all of a sudden catches fire (playing for the paper and new contract) and ends up with a great season (although deceptive) numberwise. That's what I mean by not hitting when it matters, or at least that was obviously the case in 2006. (Yes, I know I put that in the other thread too, but just wanted it in here as well for discussion purposes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) When Derek Lee went down Aramis was expected to pick up some of the slack. As was stated earlier, he didn't. He had a good late second half when the season was over. Meaningless numbers. Plus he is absolutely horrendous fielding 3rd base. He tried to catch an easy pop up and it bashed him right on his big freaking melon head. No, I would not want him on my team. I would love to see him with the Angels. He is not a winner. In fact he will make a good team lose. Yes, im sure that he is a bad player because he had a slow start, im sure that is totally what type of player he is, blah blah blah 30 hr's 100+rbi's you can paint it any way you want to. The guy can flat out produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) Yes, im sure that he is a bad player because he had a slow start, im sure that is totally what type of player he is, blah blah blah 30 hr's 100+rbi's you can paint it any way you want to. The guy can flat out produce. He better be playing sidekick though. He proved last year he can't do it unless he has major lineup protection, and I still don't like the idea of a guy not showing up for 3 months, waiting for the team to die, then fattening up when the season is done to get his money. But then again, you see lots of guys like that on World Champs, so maybe your right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You know, a lot of teams would like a guy who is a good 2nd half hitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) He better be playing sidekick though. He proved last year he can't do it unless he has major lineup protection, and I still don't like the idea of a guy not showing up for 3 months, waiting for the team to die, then fattening up when the season is done to get his money. But then again, you see lots of guys like that on World Champs, so maybe your right. You're saying he had protection in July? If you look at his stats, he ALWAYS heats up as the year goes along. So if he slumps in the first half it gets more pronounced, but it doesn't mean he only produces in garbage time. Arguably his best 2 months in 2003 were the last 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.