biittner77

I'm not sure he has closer stuff, his biggest issues is probably that he doesn't miss bats. What I mean is that he has a good/ potentially overpowering fastball and he doesn't project to have a good enough breaking ball to be a starter so he "looks" like a closer candidate.

Replace Gorzelanny- who probably starts in the rotation with Silva who will be relegated to mop up duty until he shows signs of life. I'm fine with that pen but I doubt Piniella would be. If Marmol flames out as closer, what do you do? Guzman has durability issues. Samardzjia has closer stuff but he can't throw enough strikes. Caridad looks like he would be a great candidate but he doesn't have a lot of experience. Change great to decent and the same is true for Parker. If they sign another vet reliever they probably have to trade Marshall to give them more flexibility to promote/ demote arms from AAA.

Relief pitchers are the flukiest of all players. Lots of them have 1 good year- Jeff Fassero in 2001 for example. Unless they suddenly find an extra 3-4 mph on their fastball I wouldn't attribute that to steroids.

Really? It's hard to believe any Illinois fan would think Ron Turner was a great hire. Weis would be the type of guy that the new head coach will want to keep around after they fire the rest of Lovie Smith's staff.

Seems like everyone has jumped off the Soto bandwagon and forgotten about him. Soto is not going to be a #8 hitter for the rest of his career. I think he'll build on his 2008 season and put up some good numbers this year. I think most people would agree. However, counting on him to improve is not a sound plan since there's still a good chance that he won't rebound or not enough to make up the offensive shortfall.

I didn't see the game yesterday but in the highlights it seemed like they had Cutler rolling out more- and by more I mean more than once. I've heard several analysts say that Cutler is better when he's on the move and I'm wondering if Turner finally figured that out.

What if he rolled up his massive contract and used it instead of a bat? I'm more concerned that Fukudome won't lead off this year but bat 5th to balance the lineup. It would not surprise me to see this lineup at least at the start of the season: Byrd Fontenot Lee Ramirez Fukudome Soriano Soto Theriot P

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million. If they want to trade him they can always include money in the deal. So there's really no advantage to paying him more up front. If he stinks then they likely will have to pay him to go away. If he's good they might not have to pay as much or they won't mind keeping him.

You'd have to fire Hendry first. Hendry right now is in "save my job" mode which is a very dangerous situation for any franchise. Pie is not a leadoff batter and does not hit for enough power to be the "LH rbi man" that Piniella and Hendry covet.

I'd rather let Davis manage the Cubs than Sandberg.

There's probably a lot better job security as a minor league hitting instructor since they don't get fired as a scapegoat when minor league teams aren't winning. Gerald Perry was the best hitting coach the Cubs have had in many years but they had to blame somebody for the poor offense last year.

So this thread was really 7 pages of one person insanely defending Purdue as a top 2 in the Big 10 or is there something else?

Once Bay and Holliday sign, Bradley's value should go up. For a team looking for an OF there isn't much else available.

Candyland

Foolishly or deliberately because they don't want to have to deal with him next year? You could make the argument that they want him gone more than any of the players do.

Maybe. But they have had him playing a lot of LF and RF recently. That could certainly be due to the injuries he's had in recent years. Maybe not at the expense of taking the best player but Jackson certainly fits a need.

A lot depends on whether or not he can play a legit CF. I fhe can that increases his chances sinc eit doesn't seem like he'll hit for the kind of power that teams look for from corner OF. The fact that the Cubs took a CF with their 1st round pick in last years draft suggests that the org isn't sold on his ability to stick in CF.

Actually, since we're going with an often unused 12th pitcher anyway, I hope they don't give up on him at all this year. The positive about having a 12-man pitching staff is that you can use the Rule 5 draft to bring in a pitcher you don't plan to use much this year. It hinders the flexibility of the bench and pen some this year, but it has the potential to help in the future if Parisi/Patton develops into a quality reliever. If we were going with an 11-man staff, we wouldn't have the extra spot and would have to let him go if he didn't perform immediately. The Cubs also have a lot of guys that still can be optioned to AAA when the need arises. Caridad, Stevens, Parker, Gaub, Diamond, Patton and whomever else gives the pen a lot more flexibility to hide a Rule 5 BP arm. That wasn't the case last year, particularly at the start of the season which made carrying Patton more of a liability.

I think part of the benefit biittner was seeing was that if nobody claims him, it potentially demonstrates to Bradley that his value might not be what he thinks it is. Maybe it opens a door to sitting down with him and explaining that mending fences and playing with the Cubs in 2010 is his best option. Not sure that would be the outcome, but I think that is part of what biittner was saying. Yes, that's what I was getting at. It may be a long shot but it's better than paying him to play somewhere else.

I think everyone is seeing what the Yankees did and are, whether they realize it or not, using at the reason to spend more. That doesn't mean spend Yankee type money but spend more relative to what you are normally willing to do. I can't tell if you're serious. The Yankees have been spending that way for many years. Last year was the first time that a FA spenidng spree actually paid off. I doubt anyone is taking their spending cues from the Yankees, particularly a team in a different league.

Of course there's a chance of that. But why in the world would the Cubs want to do that? To dump Bradley. I'm not saying it would happen, but I suggested a trade to the Yankees awhile ago that would be an example: Bradley + Marshall/Gorz + Colvin + Stevens/Atkins/Berg for Swisher + Marte. If the Yankees won't do Swisher, tweak the deal and make it for Cabrera while removing one of the pitchers from the Cubs. It's not pretty, but it's better than paying Burrell to sit on the bench and Bradley to play in Tampa. Including prospects is just throwing good money after bad. If the Cubs really just want to get rid of Bradley, they should just get rid of him. There's no reason to give up future assets in order to get a marginally better return. If the Cubs are going to trade prospects, they shouldn't be traded with Bradley. That only dilutes their value. I don't neceassarily disagree but keep in mind that money is an issue and if it would save perhaps $10 over the next 2 years I could see where that might be deemed worth it. A better solution might be to put him on irrevocable waivers like the Red Sox did with Manny Ramirez. Perhaps there's a team willing to take him at that salary. If no one takes him it sends him a message that he needs to shut up and not let things bother him or he'll either be out of baseball in 2 years or have to take a big paycut.

If they leave him in AAA for a couple years he might get anxious and hired by some other organization. It could be wishful thinking though.

Seems like the very definition of mediocre pitcher. Maybe they'll be trading him to someone else.

There's always the challenge of being able to win at the very highest level. Lots of coaches are egomaniacs that can't resist the temptation. Steve Spurrier and Nick Saban for example. What does Urban Myer have to prove at Florida?

It's a big win in the sense that it ends a losing streak. It was a big win for him personally since it saved his job for the time being.