Cubs Sign Trever Miller, And Yes, That Is The Most Exciting News of the Day

The Cubs inked soon-to-be 39 year old Trever Miler to a minor league deal. He'll earn 800K if he makes the team. He'll get a non-roster invite to spring training and I'm sure we'll get the full list of those invitees by the end of the week. It being a minor league deal, hard to get to worked up over it, but Miller has done absolutely nothing other than see his K rate get cut in half over the last two seasons, while still maintaining the ability to walk the stadium.

Year Age Tm W L W-L% ERA G GF SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP WP ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB
2009 36 STL 4 1 .800 2.06 70 9 0 43.2 31 11 10 5 11 1 46 2 1 199 0.962 6.4 1.0 2.3 9.5 4.18
2010 37 STL 0 1 .000 4.00 57 3 0 36.0 30 17 16 2 16 0 22 2 4 98 1.278 7.5 0.5 4.0 5.5 1.38
2011 38 BOS-min 0 0   2.70 3 1 0 3.1 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0   0.600 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.4   PAW · IL
2011 38 TOT 0 1 .000 3.80 48 5 1 21.1 25 9 9 2 12 2 12 2 2 106 1.734 10.5 0.8 5.1 5.1 1.00
13 Seasons 18 17 .514 4.18 694 133 11 523.1 521 264 243 54 237 28 434 43 22 106 1.448 9.0 0.9 4.1 7.5 1.83
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 1/30/2012.

Spring training roster filler at its finest.

- Some random AL GM (hint: rhymes with Washington) believes Selig will side with the Red Sox and give them significant compensation from the Cubs for Theo Epstein. "I don’t think MLB wants executives leaving their teams before their contracts are up and therefore he will try to deter teams from doing that again.’’ If they cared so much about that, then they just wouldn't allow teams to even give permission. 

- Articles on Josh Vitters and Brett Jackson to fill the time. 

- Anthony Rizzo was named the 33rd best prospect in baseball by MLB.com, Jackson #37 and Javier Baez #62.

Other than that, Cespedes watch continues.


Return to Homepage

Comments

So, do these has-beens get paid as an NRI, or it is a free audition? What a collection of crap Theo has assembled, "on paper".

I am not even bothering looking at his loogy splits.

We need to start bringing in guys who can at least drive in some runs if we are bringing in re-treads and seniors: Pat Burell just retired. Theo? Matt Stairs? Ron Bloomberg? Randall Simon? Ben Grieve? Can Hollandsworth still hit?

BTW, ROB G, since I am totally bored on the baseball front, I am going with "Moneyball" as the Oscar winner for Editing - neck and neck with The Artist. The Artist will win best picture. Although The Descendents is a terrific story and well cut. The trailers I have seen are actually pretty cogent and don't give the entire movie away, which is what J.J. Abrams despises...

For a team that was near the bottom in most offensive categories, where is the run production going to come from exactly?

For a team that was near the bottom in most offensive categories, where is the run production going to come from exactly?

Bryan LaHair, duh.

I am going with "Moneyball" as the Oscar winner for Editing - neck and neck with The Artist. The Artist will win best picture.

out of most of the nominated films, I've only seen Midnight in Paris and Moneyball. I did think Moneyball was very well executed all around as a feature film (editing, cinematography, sound, etc). Story-wise, they set up the classic sports underdog story well and just nailed the final 20-25 minutes. I wasn't as enamored by the Brad Pitt or Jonah Hill's performances as others seem to be, but they didn't fuck up the film either.

If you're still looking for an unslanted documentary, you'll be disappointed of course. And should probably stop going to see movies.

who was looking for an unslanted documentary? some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks.

it's hard to ignore revisionist history when you know what happened and what became of it. one can separate themselves from it and "just enjoy a film" but if someone decides to make a WW2 film and took the liberties with history that Moneyball did you're going to find people not interested. let's have brad pitt play hitler and since italy/japan/etc leaders don't matter much let's smoosh them all together into a hapless nerd. let him play samuel jackson's role of "mystic negro who is smart as hell, but can't help himself or see the forest for the trees."

...the scout thing...the timeline issues...the amount of made up stuff, which isn't just a scene or 2...or 3...or 5...

i'm not even talking about "making up" dialogue or creating drama by falsifying how players are signed (a plane trip at xmas time to sign a minor player...really). i'm talking about creating something new when a blueprint already existed.

who was looking for an unslanted documentary?
you and the 10% that bitched about the movie w/o seeing it...

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/01/30/the-re...

So far everyone I've talked to that doesn't know a damn thing about baseball really enjoyed the film and was surprised how much they would enjoy a baseball film. So did a lot of people that know baseball and know the book. So the filmmakers and studios did what they needed to and they're now all a little richer.

"some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks."

you can substitute The Rookie in there if it makes more sense.

i already saw a kickass baseball movie in the last 12 months and what do you know...even though it wasn't real i enjoyed it. amazing, huh?

it's called Sugar. it's awesome. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0990413/

i'm also waiting on Dead Ball to come out in the US...Japanese horror/gore baseball film. i'm not 100% sure, but i don't think you can throw a baseball 200kph and take a zombie's head off with it. i'm willing to suspend reality to find out.\

is it that hard to believe that some people who know a lot about the situation don't want a made-up rehash of it, especially a 120+ minute version with a thrown in subplot involving a cute kid making small talk letting brad pitt develop his character's humanity?

considering you already deemed the movie a bomb when they announced they were making it, I'm comfortable with saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Moneyball didn't work for you (although I don't think you even saw it), cool, movie enjoyment is subjective like that.

The filmmakers did do a good job though of making the material resonate with a larger audience w/o compromising anything that was truly important in the story.

no, i didnt understand how they'd market it and sell it.

i never declared it a bomb. i wouldn't have been surprised, though.

no, i didn't think they'd spend about 15-20m promoting the thing 3 months before it even hit theaters, even with brad pitt.

i don't care what the filmmakers were doing. i never said they couldn't make the film. meh

if i didn't enjoy the book why would i want to see an even more bastardized version in film form?

i didnt see the remake of Bad News Bears...no interest...i love the original.

not only am i capable of liking a baseball movie, i don't feel the need to watch every one for one reason or another.

it's a lot easier to call me an "elitist" rather than saying i expected a documentary and i'm incapable of suspending reality to enjoy a story.

so you've admittedly taken a cantankerous position on a film you've never even bothered to watch.

you're everything that is wrong with the Internet...

"if i didn't enjoy the book why would i want to see an even more bastardized version in film form?"

"i didnt see the remake of Bad News Bears...no interest...i love the original."

also again,

"if i didn't enjoy the book why would i want to see an even more bastardized version in film form?"

it's not like i've been vague with why, either.

"if someone decides to make a WW2 film and took the liberties with history that Moneyball did you're going to find people not interested."

Damn, you too late on that, brotha. Someone already did just that and apparently people were interested to the tune of $321M worldwide.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inglourio...

As I recall it, you did peg it a bomb - or that no one would watch it as it was not "accurate"... or some bullshit like that. Same thing.

If you knew shit about film making (which you don't), you would know that it is anadapted screenplay and an adapted work takes liberties from the original source. It is not supposed to be a documentary in any way. It is a story about David vs. Goliath and Billy Beane's passion, innovation, and relationship with his daughter (or lack thereof). Some items in the film are based on the book. Some are not. Not the first time this thing has happened. You've seen Gone With the Wind, right?

In that sense, the adapted screenplay holds true to the story concept of the above, and is terrifically cut, well shot, awesome mix, well-acted by the main actors, well-crafted.

As I recall, did you not make a comment that the character who played Carlos Pena was bad? Or that was someone else? If so - the character had one line.

As ROB G states, if you don't like this, that is totally your perogative as art in all forms is obviously very subjective.

I love Sugar. Terrific story. Mediocre acting. Raw. Not particularly well-shot with many flaws in lighting and editing. But, "charming".

However - it is a completely different animal than Moneyball and comparatively in Low A ball in comparison to Moneyball.

"As I recall it, you did peg it a bomb - or that no one would watch it as it was not "accurate"... or some bullshit like that. Same thing."

absolutely not.

and i would never assume the general public would demand accuracy out of it. that's not even in my profile.

the "sullen pena" was covered by many. that's a very minor detail compared to other issues i have with -multiple- aspects of the film...and we're not talking minor things. this film has a composite character for christ's sake...and i don't care how human his little girl makes the beane character.

i don't care about...this...film. not a revolutionary thing, a few hundred other million joined me in not wanting to see it.

"If you knew shit about film making (which you don't), you would know that it is anadapted screenplay and an adapted work takes liberties from the original source. "

okay real neal. moving on, i do know what an adaptive screenplay is and if your comprehension was better (hi, neal) you'd realize i'm not bitching about how i don't know what an adapted screenplay is. i'm saying i have no interest in seeing a 2+ hour drama based on a book that i didn't like. i have plenty of friends IRL who saw the film or heard/saw other sources which didn't make the film something worth giving 2 hours to. given what i think of the book, i don't think i'd enjoy the film so i haven't seen it yet. i'm pretty clear what these reasons are, too.

in the past i wondered how they'd market the film to make back the money they put into it.

some of you are very protective over the whole "moneyball" lineage...grow up and be a TB fan, forget the beane fanboyism.

"As I recall it, you did peg it a bomb - or that no one would watch it as it was not "accurate"... or some bullshit like that. Same thing."

absolutely not.

Hmmm...well it is interesting that at least two of us here think otherwise.

No matter.

This quote sums up your feeling on the matter, and the comparison in your mind of Moneyball with a Disney comedy:

"some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks."

How you draw this conclusion, is quite puzzling.

(Hi Silent Towel. Is that you?)

"some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks."

if you want a reason why it goes into fantasy land we can start with the composite character, move onto timeline issues, dismiss the minor dramatizing, and still have plenty of major dramatizing left over.

to me, this whole era was evident down to beane-stories of agroness before the book came out. i laughed off some of the over-dramatized stuff in the book, but the film took it way beyond. the look inside the draft room was neat, though...but keep in mind what the film did to convey it...and yes, i've seen dialogue excerpts myself, in case that matters.

now, if i didn't enjoy the book, why would i want to watch Disney's "The Rookie" version of a history i already know?

can't people just be happy the general public actually went to watch a baseball drama? that's rare. it's not for everyone.

...now, if i didn't enjoy the book, why would i want to watch Disney's "The Rookie" version of a history i already know?

That is a very valid point.

We are just looking at the piece through different glasses.

There were several story points I felt affinity towards (and the book did not reflect the Hollywood-ized version) and as someone who teaches in a large film school, probably have a different technical perspective than you do on the overall craft and achievements.

It seems as if you were criticizing the film when not having even seen it, which is what ROB G had alluded to in the first place.

Suffice it to say, as I am understanding now, is that maybe you just meant you had no interest in seeing it based on the book that you didn't like.

All the other stuff with your interesting comparisons to "Sugar" and "Mighty Ducks", I am just going to leave alone.

at first i was shocked at the new direction it was going given what the 1st run of the movie was supposed to be...the daughter character took on much more importance and the plan to integrate/use real players in the film took a backseat.

actually, from the out-set i was surprised they were going to try to sell a baseball drama to the general public using a highly paid actor to do it.

i was surprised how much investment they put into marketing the film, too. this was being trailer screened and tv buys for ads months before it was even rated.

as far as taking a nearly-doomed project start-to-finish in a genre that's historically (especially recently) not attractive to the general public...home run.

i'm just too close to the real history to enjoy it for what it is...call it elitism, but i'd rather just say i need more time to separate myself from the real history in order to actually enjoy it for what it is.

You all make compelling arguments. Allow me to interject with a Jose Macias Snake Monster.

http://flic.kr/p/bmmJuV

♥♥♥ 귀여워!! ♥♥♥

ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

สวย

ᶠᶸᶜᵏᵧₒᵤ

fa
rt.

MONEYBALL!

*golf clap* revoked.

Wrong moneyball?

*insert aqua teen moon dude with middle finger*

*cries*

it's a lot easier to call me an "elitist"

troll is the word I would use.

oh man, if i was trolling i could do a lot better and pick a way better subject. out of all the material to work with, a brad pitt movie would be really low on that list.

i'm not 100% sure, but i don't think you can throw a baseball 200kph and take a zombie's head off with it.

You totally can. A zombie is made up of rotting flesh and is generally much softer and mushier, which is why it's easier to lop off body parts and destroy the brain. If Randy Johnson can explode a bird, then he could certainly explode a zombie head (or knock it off its shoulders).

What doesn't make sense is how they can be so strong and move so quickly with such week tissue. The slower moving zombies seem more feasible.

Is that the guy from Versus?

[edit] Ne'ermind, guess it's the same director...

I have no idea what the hell just happened there but I declare Joe the winner for sheer entertainment value!

Sugar was awesome. I believe that I rented it due to a discussion here at TCR a long time ago. I thank whoever brought it to my attention.

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:15pm — The E-Man New
Re: Cubs Sign Trever Miller, And Yes, That Is The Most ...
So, do these has-beens get paid as an NRI, or it is a free audition? What a collection of crap Theo has assembled, "on paper".

========================

E-MAN: Whether you are Alfonso Soriano or Jae-Hoon Ha, players don't get paid a salary at MLB Spring Training, but they do receive a weekly Spring Training allowance (housing, food, and walking around money) that amounts to about $1,100 per week. Since MLB Spring Training runs about six weeks, an NRI who lasts to the final cut would make about $6,500.

Conversely, players at Minor League Camp (which runs four weeks) get about $250 per week Spring Training allowance.

While Soriano or Dempster might consider the $6,500 to be merely pocket-change, it's a fortune for a player like Blake Lalli, who will probably be making about $15,000 in 2012.

Thanks PHIL.

As you can tell, I was curious if some of these guys could make a few bucks during this period.

I suppose if the chances are slim that an NRI, who is not in the organization, and will most-likely not catch on with another team, the player can bank some of the money you allude to, and can get a break from high-school coaching, the local Sears job, Bennigan's bartending, and the like.

I would imagine that many of these kind of fringe (or "downward trending") players have family challenges: wives giving the guy "one more shot"; guys getting divorced from those spouses that just can't take it anymore (Peter Finch); players that are kept on a string by the club to fill a spot, perhaps?

It is a curious and interesting lifestyle keeping the dream alive. Not unlike many musicians I have known over the years.

"I am not even bothering looking at his loogy splits. "

check out m.byrd's then...it might make some feel a bit better about him.

for some reason lefties destroyed him at the plate last year. i wouldn't be surprised to see him putting up a .340-ish ob% with 15-ish homers while setting himself up for some decent CF/LF trade bait come mid-season.

FWIW, Theo signed Trever Miller to a minor league contract last August after he was released by the Jays (was traded to the Jays earlier in a deal that sent Corey Patterson to the Redturds) and called him up to Boston two weeks later. So there's history there between Miller and Epstein. Miller at $800k vs the $2MM he made last year, and Marshall gone, makes it a real possibility he'll play for the Cubs sometime in 2012.

As for me, I'm hoping Bud Selig takes a look and hands him back to the Red Sox.

having a press conference...

Twitter box in sidebar is filled with his quotables.

The dude did conditioning training on Navy Seals. I'm never saying a bad word about him. Ever.

He spells his name stupid.

Bruce Miles lists 15 of the 21 in his twitter which can be found on the sidebar

James Adduci, OF
Alfredo Amezaga, INF
Michael Brenly, C
Marco Carrillo, RHP
Edgar Gonzalez, INF
Brett Jackson, OF
Jay Jackson, RHP
Jason Jaramillo, C
Trey McNutt, RHP
Trever Miller, LHP
Jonathan Mota, INF
Dae-Eun Rhee, RHP
Chris Rusin, LHP
Bobby Scales, INF
Matt Tolbert, INF

http://wiklifield.thecubreporter.com/Cubs_Non...

looking at AZ Phil's list on the sidebar, here's who he has that wasn't named yet:

Apodeca, Berg, Caridad, Corpas, Lalli, Mather, Parker, Rhoderick, Smith and Struck

Apodeca, Corpas, Mather and Parker I believe are in, leaving 2 more spots.

Michael Brenly is a can't miss, he has clout in the (TV) booth. Besides, he fits right in with all that have been injured and looking for a great rebound year. Wasn't Bob a so-so in the minors as well? Now, with your comments about him being so-so in the majors as well (listening). Regardless, he a few good games at Wrigley as a Cub killer. St. Michael's revenge! Heh-heh...

the full 21

James Adduci, OF
Alfredo Amezaga, INF
Michael Brenly, C
Marco Carrillo, RHP
Manny Corpas, RHP
Edgar Gonzalez, INF
Jae-Hoon Ha, OF
Brett Jackson, OF
Jay Jackson, RHP
Jason Jaramillo, C
Blake Lalli, C
Rodrigo Lopez, RHP
Joe Mather, OF
Trey McNutt, RHP
Trever Miller, LHP
Jonathan Mota, INF
Blake Parker, RHP
Dae-Eun Rhee, RHP
Chris Rusin, LHP
Bobby Scales, INF
Matt Tolbert, INF

Am I the only one who's surprised that Rizzo isn't going to ST? I don't know if it really means that much to go, but I kind of assumed he would be there. Also wondering why Carpenter isn't there either. Or are they both going to be there because they're on the 40 man? Yes, that's probably it. I was going to delete all this when I thought of the 40 man, but fuck it's slow, so enjoy, bitches!!!

Rizzo and Carpenter are on the 40-man.

(as you noted...pays to read).

Indeed, Bobby Scales has been freed.

Maybe this is the year Jay Jackson gets moved to be a position player since he is not much of a pitching prospect anymore.

AZ PHIL constantly touts his hitting (best hitting pitcher in the PCL), and heaven knows this team needs some rbi's desparately.

Free agent corner outfielder Smaily Borges refused to take a drug test, triggering his suspension. The 28-year-old Cuban, whom the Cubs released on Dec. 12, played for low Class A Peoria last season and batted .233/.278/.353 in 133 at-bats.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects...

BTW - KPat signed by the Brew to a Minor League "deal" with no NRI to ST.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/1/30/2759324/ran...

a list of what someone believes to be the current 10 worst contracts (only considering the dollars and years currently left).

So for that reason Soriano only finishes 9th.

I have no idea what this person is thinking. The list makes no sense...

same. i was going to comment that #10 has 1 too many digits on it's rank then i saw how the list ranked out and the people on it. it seems like a list that should have been shitcanned before the article was written.

-edit- no wonder, it was sourced at the huffington post and re-listed by rob neyer. sanity of the situation returns.

I believe he was thinking of how hard it would be to get rid of each contract or how big an impact just releasing them would be and ranked it accordingly. Lists are always subjective. Also, probably a Red Sox fan.

Crawford is still just 30 though.

Hard to see how Fielder's is worse than Pujols though.

crawford is an awesome reason why you throw out slugging/OPS on a guy who's hitting 30 and gets a lot of it from triples. he's a "fake" .800 OPS guy...and playing in the wrong home park for triples from a lefty. i'll never understand how he got long-term 20m a year, but it would help if he was 5+ years younger and had some upside to show.

I can guarantee you hitting 30 or playing at a different ball park wouldn't account for that much of a drop in stats. Something else is going on and if it's fixable even partially the Red Sox are in good shape. Except for 2008 too he hit over .300 every year so it's not just triples he's hitting. He is getting very good contact all around.

it's not the guy i got an issue with as much as him getting a contract that long for 20m a year...that's slugger money, imo.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospect...

#6, #43, #54 at the moment

still waiting on Edwin Jackson, Derrek Lee and Raul Ibanez though.

says Cespedes would rank between #7-#15 on their top 100 list.

Bobby is back! I-Cub emeritus...

Bobby Murcer? He of the delayed steal? Probably not who you meant ... Damn.

warning track power murcer, as my dad called him.

Your dad had it exactly correct. Traded Madlock for him. Guh...

Well the Madlock for Murcer trade was stupid, but it's not like Murcer was horrible?
1977: .265/.355/.455, 27 HR, 89 RBI, 90 runs OPS+108
1978: .281/.376/.403, 9 HR, 64 RBI OPS+107

Well, we had just watched a 25 yr. old (black) Madlock put up two seasons of:
.354/.402/.479, OPS+141 and
.339/.412/.500, OPS+151.

Then traded him away (for making too high of a salary demand) for a 31 yr. old (white) Murcer -- then paying Murcer more money than Madlock had asked for. After that, it was pretty hard to watch Bobby hit all of those stupid warning track flies and feel very good about it.

I'm still bitter.

27 HR's is not just warning track power. The second season? Ok. got it.
I didn't say "the trade of Madlock for Mercer was a genius move."

The trade was definitely in the Cubs top 10 worst of all time.

Just going from memory, there were a lot of warning track flies with ducks on the pond late in games that the Cubs lost in that first year, despite the 27 that went out. My memory has a lot of those dingers being in non-clutch situations. I know, I know, there's no data that proves the existence of "clutchiness" as a baseball skill. This is just my emotional memory of that blighted era of Cubs history. The precipitous decline the next year just made it all the worse.

I'm pretty much in agreement with what you have pointed out above. I just wanted to add my recollections to the mix. When the game is on the line in the late innings and Murcer is at the plate -- bam! Warning track fly. Damn Murcer.

George Bell was similar in his late game "clutchness".

He will try to avoid the 3 cut dates during their 44 days of spring training.

In earth-shattering news that is surely of some importance to the "Ricketts is cheap" crowd, the scout per diem is now NOT being reduced from $50/day, per the Sun-Times.

Ricketts sucks for not being able to make up his mind.

that's not Ricketts decision of course. it's epstein's.

the cheapest move since Steiny and the yanks decided to revoke dental insurance from all employees is undone.

scouts on flight delays celebrate with a $6 beer all over the US.

X
  • Sign in with Twitter