What's that exactly? That Marquis and Dempster are going to have to compete for rotation spots with the Seans and Hart. I've criticized Hendry's talk about Dempster going to the rotation because I very much doubt its sincerity and I don't think it's fooling anybody. Telling bad lies just makes the organization look silly and sleazy and it irritates fans. Question: why is Dempster still a Cub? If he blew his second year as a closer, wouldn't he be worse as a starter? He should be hidden in middle relief with a run cushion (or if the Cubs are losing by 4+ runs), or not on the roster. What the Cubs should have done (and a number of people suggested it on the forum at the time so it isn't hindsight), is either traded him during the 2nd half of 2005 or in the offseason that year while his value was at roughly it's peak. Instead, the Cubs took a guy who had arm trouble, somewhere around a career 5.0 ERA and a tendancy to give up HR's and inexplicably believed that he had miraculously become a great pitcher in 2005 and was their new answer to the closer role - only to see him spend the next two years reverting back to what he was previously. When they picked him up originally, I think everyone bought into the "low risk, high reward" idea - nothing wrong with that, in fact I think it WAS low risk and high potential for reward. Unfortunately the organization once again failed to evaluate their players well and missed out on that "reward" they could have gotten by moving him after 2005. Instead, we have a guy who's getting paid too much for his production. I know all MLB teams have situations like this, but it irks me to no end to see an organization that can't seem to evaluate talent well enough to buy low and sell high at least more than 10% of the time. *sigh*