erik316wttn

God dammit. [expletive] you, Hendry. [expletive] you right up the ass you rotten son of a bitch. *sigh* this is why we can't have nice things.

I think the best thing they could do is to decide to keep Bradley, then immediately get the PR wheels turning and try to mend fences between Bradley and the fans.

Andre would have been first-ballot if the turf in Montreal hadn't ruined his knees.

I would like to change my post to what TT said. He speaks for me on this issue. how many times have you even been to wrigley? Shhhhh.... grown-ups are talking. And if you absolutely must know: 15

I think Lee Smith would get some consideration from the voters.

Completely agree. Go to a White Sox game and enjoy a never ending barrage of advertisements over the PA system and corporate sponsored replays and shell games between every inning. Maybe someone will hit a HR into the Nissan Kids Fun Zone or over the Papa John's right center field wall! And a 7:11 start time, courtesy of your friends at 7-11!

I would like to change my post to what TT said. He speaks for me on this issue.

The irony never gets old. Yeah. Stadiums named after the family that once owned the team is SO much like some generic insurance company or faceless corporation buying rights to the stadium. I can't believe I didn't see it myself!

Hell, if you're going to have a jumbotron, lets go whole-hog and have mascot races and a corporate name, too! One of the greatest things about Wrigley is it's traditional feel. I don't want to give that away.

Wrigley needs a jumbotron like the Cubs need another overpaid middle reliever.

Wed have probably ended up with Dewon Brazelton or Colt Griffin and 2003 might not have happened. Steve Bartman would be at home quietly enjoying his headphones and turtleneck. 2003? What happened in 2003? Something of significance? And who is this Bartman fellow?

Oh, if only the Twins could have afforded Prior....

You know it's bad when the Pirates are calling you an idiot.

I'm pretty darn sure that isn't enough to get Roy Halladay. That isn't enough to get Roy Halladay's spikes.

I don't think I could do a better job of being a MLB GM than Hendry. That doesn't prevent me from thinking that he's horrible at it, is better qualified to be setting pins in a bowling alley, and should have been replaced years ago. I'm not saying I could do better than Hendry. I'd probably run the team into the ground. But I know enough about baseball to know when someone is doing a bad job. It's like when a Cubs player is having a terrible season... is he immune from criticism from us because none of us could do any better? I am saying, though, that the Cubs could most likely do a lot better than Jim Hendry, and Ricketts shouldn't let him handcuff this team any more before making the change. Even after he's gone, we'll still be feeling his influence upon this team for quite some time. He's done some good, yes, but I think those are overrated (Nomar and Lee fell into his lap, and the Pirates were in fire-sale mode with Ramirez and he was just the first guy to call them. Harden was a good deal, though. I'll give him that, but he negates that move by not even offering arbitration.) He's done more harm to this team than good, let a completely incompetent manager ruin two of the best arms this franchise has ever seen, gave out no-trade clauses like they were candy thereby severely handcuffing us in making necessary personnel moves, and giving out completely baffling contracts to players who didn't deserve it. There are worse GM's than Jim Hendry, but the fact that "the next guy might not be better" isn't a good reason to not fire him. If you suck at your job, you'd be fired, and your boss wouldn't even consider what your replacement might be like. It should be the same here.

That's quite a statement without knowing who the new guy might be. Are you kidding me? Are you honestly implying we should keep Hendry because the next guy might not be any better? Really?

I'd do it if we could get Halladay to sign long-term. That would be a dealbreaker.

Fixed

Why are we getting rid of Harden in the first place? Because our GM has no idea what the [expletive] he's doing.

Howry and Eyre both pitched well for the Cubs in the first couple of years. Latroy was good as long as he wasn't closing. That said, I'm not a fan of the deal for Grabow. It's not about the first couple of years. It's about the life of the contract. And they are giving out a big money contract at the same time they are crying about not having any money to spend this offseason. Whose fault is that, I wonder? I'll go out on a limb right now and make the bold prediction that 10 guys who will pitch better than Grabow this coming year will be let go because teams didn't want to tender them a contract for the 2010 season. These are guys who will ultimately sign contracts for much less than Grabow just got signed for. Just about every team in the league is crying about the economy. Meanwhile, Hendry is walking around throwing big money at mediocre relievers like he's got all the money in the world to spend this offseason. I'm actually debating what's worse, giving Miles the contract he got last year or giving Grabow this one. They both stink. The Miles one was worse because he's always sucked. Grabow is at least moderately talented.

What did we expect? When you have one of the worst if not the worst GM in baseball these things will happen frequently. I keep saying he's a bottom-5 GM, but nobody believes me.

Unless something changed while I wasn't paying attention, I don't think he ever was. He made it known he'd like to stay as a Cub. I don't see the harm in it, Milwood or not. If Milwood is on, a rotation of Z/Harden/Lilly/Milwood/Demp is a division-winner. Granted, it's not quite Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux/Clement, but it's still pretty damn good. That frees us up to trade Wells or Marshall in a package for a bat. You might not see the harm in it, but according to every single media report, Hendry sees a tremendous amount of harm in it. He gives away draft picks to sign middle relievers and doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents. In Jim's mind he must think they can get the same quality picks just by paying overslot later in the draft. They gave up a good amount for Harden, he performed to expectations and they are just going to let him walk for nothing. I know. And that's why Hendry needs to go, pronto. Ricketts shouldn't even give him another year to [expletive] up this team. That's like saying "Oh, I have this fire in my kitchen. I think I'll just wait and see if it goes out on its own" rather than grabbing a fire extinguisher and putting it out.

Don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer.

Unless something changed while I wasn't paying attention, I don't think he ever was. He made it known he'd like to stay as a Cub. I don't see the harm in it, Milwood or not. If Milwood is on, a rotation of Z/Harden/Lilly/Milwood/Demp is a division-winner. Granted, it's not quite Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux/Clement, but it's still pretty damn good. That frees us up to trade Wells or Marshall in a package for a bat.

If we get Milwood, does that mean Harden won't be offered arb?