CoolHandLuke

1.) The Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik trade did not help the White Sox. 2.) The White Sox are no more real than the A's or the Orioles right now. Are you kidding me? He was their leadoff man. I guarantee the Cubs would take vintage 2005 Scott Podsednik in a heartbreat. Not at the cost of Aramis Ramirez. Kind of a bad example, but Carlos Lee brings similar offensive value to Aramis, and even has the same "lack of hustle" sort of stigma that productive latin players often receive.

Do you think we could just trade farm systems with them?

Tampa Bay wouldn't do that, unless the Cubs added a guy like Marshall or Gallagher along with Murton. But if the Cubs are interested in a guy like Brignac, then it would make some sense. Which I would gladly do. However I am pretty sure it would take way more than that.

From 1990 to 2002 you tell me where the commitment to winning was by the front office. Was it the signing of Henry Rodriguez? Or was it was that mid-season acquisition of Rick Aguilera? Was it letting Greg Maddux go over a few million dollars and some respect? How about the commitment to finding a great manager? Was it Jim Essian or Jim Lefebvre that is on your pedestal of great Cubs' managers? Since 2003 we have spent money on premeire free agents, made significant in-season/off season trades, and hired the best managers available. All while the fans have put more emphasis on winning, to the point of running players/coaches/broadcasters out of town that weren't up to snuff or on board due the pressure of delivering the winning atmosphere that is craved. I'd say that's a pretty big mindset change. And I'm sorry, Dusty Baker is the person that delivered that change - whether he cultivated it himself or not. "In Dusty we Trusty" was a real thing for 2 years in Chicago. You don't think that maybe it was just an utter lack of direction, among other terrible traits, by the front office? Ed Lynch wasn't sitting at his desk saying to himself "shucks, we are the lovable losers! I am just going to sign crappy old players because losing is perfectly acceptable!" If you really think that, then I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this argument. Lovable losers is just something made up by the media and propegated by the typical moron fan to account for a franchise that has been terribly ran for over a half century. The cubs were not bad because of the phrase, they were given the phrase because they were so often bad.

you really shouldn't worry about the brewers...you should really be worrying if lilly and hill don't return to form because without them we are going to go nowhere... with them however, the brewers will not be able to outlast us I don't really understand where the idea that the brewer's talent doesn't stack up with the cub's talent comes from. I think the only area where we have a clear cut advantage is in the bullpen, and we all now how unpredictable bullpen performance is. If Sheets stays healthy, then a rotation of Sheets, Gallardo, Suppan, Parra, Bush/Villanuava/Weaver is at least as good as ours, with a good chance of being better than ours. I am worried about the Brewers, and I'm especially worried about the Brewers if Lilly and Hill pitch like they have, for the rest of the year (which they won't). no, i never said that...the brewers ARE a very good team, and they have a very nasty line-up...that being said though...once our lineup starts to gel...i think we are slightly better plus i believe a huge wild card in the race will be the trade deadline this year...i have a feeling hendry is going to pull off something very very nice...but that is just me probably being way too optimistic I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I just recall a lot of people thinking that we have more talent than the brewers, and I just don't see that at all. I expect a very tight race.

I think the Cubs have done pretty poorly in almost every aspect of developing position players. Scouting, drafting, teaching, handling correctly once in the majors. Everything.

That's not what I said. Read and understand. He changed the landscape/mindset of the franchise from "lovable losers" to one that doesn't accept losing as an option any more. We have the New York/Boston mindset we just don't have the championships - yet. Maybe the new owner will take the extra steps to do so. Even so, Dusty Baker was the manager of the 2003 team that changed Chicago's mind on what is acceptable. Whether you like it or not, whether he did it on his own merit or not, 2003 in my mind is when this franchise turned the corner and winning became the focus. This is a ridiculous idea. Do you seriously think that winning wasn't always something that was strived for by every front office/player/coach in cubs history? It's not like 2003 happened and they were like, "whoa, maybe winning should be a priority".

you really shouldn't worry about the brewers...you should really be worrying if lilly and hill don't return to form because without them we are going to go nowhere... with them however, the brewers will not be able to outlast us I don't really understand where the idea that the brewer's talent doesn't stack up with the cub's talent comes from. I think the only area where we have a clear cut advantage is in the bullpen, and we all now how unpredictable bullpen performance is. If Sheets stays healthy, then a rotation of Sheets, Gallardo, Suppan, Parra, Bush/Villanuava/Weaver is at least as good as ours, with a good chance of being better than ours. I am worried about the Brewers, and I'm especially worried about the Brewers if Lilly and Hill pitch like they have, for the rest of the year (which they won't).

This move doesn't mean much to me, but I have to say, if Sheets stays healthy and Gallardo comes back strong, I am really worried.

This makes no sense to me.

Reed Johnson v. RHP so far this year: .278/.316/.333

IMO there is about a 0.001% chance of Crede coming close to maintaining his current level of play. This is the very definition of "time to sell high". Sure about that? His BABIP is actually lower than his average this season, which means he's getting unlucky. I would be willing to bet my life that Joe won't end the season with an 1.100 OPS, Babip be damned.

Which Baylor? I'm a little confused. If you are talking about Don, it doesn't make sense to me because Lieber was already with the Cubs a year before Baylor was the manager. Why would that prevent Baylor from gloating about the trade? He directly benefitted from it - it's not like the trade was 20 years ago. I just can't picture a scenario in which Don Baylor would have a chance to snicker about a trade that took place such a long time before he was hired as manager. Was a reporter like, "Mr Bayor, well before you managed this team, Jon Lieber was acquired for Brant Brown. Do you care to comment on that trade?" I'm not implying that you are lying or anything, I just was hoping you could clarify the situation for me.

Why in the heck would they waste their time and money to dig it up? Completely stupid.

If the sox don't use the hot start to trade crede they are da dumb.

So you seriously think benching Braun would be an option based on two weeks of good hitting by a player who has established in over 2000 at bats that he is below average? I hope not.

Because they can charge more for the sponsorship slot if they know viewers are still watching. Most people tune away right after the game. In this case it wasn't so bad, but I have often seen them do it i like the 5th inning. Catch that Kosuke! At least bob won't have to pitch to Howard.

whew. Werth foul pop to Lee.

Why do broadcasts always award "player of the game" and "play of the game" before the game is over? I have never understood this.

Rudy Seanez is heavily tatooed.

Wow. I love you, Derrek.

HE'S OUR 8TH INNING GUY!

Which Baylor? I'm a little confused. If you are talking about Don, it doesn't make sense to me because Lieber was already with the Cubs a year before Baylor was the manager.

As a cub fan, used to decisions based on small sample sizes instead of the larger picture, it is fairly puzzling.

I say if Hill ends up sucking the entire year, then we are screwed no matter what. So why not leave him out there starting, which is really the only place he can solve his problems. And Lieber fans: he isn't that good anymore. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a few good innings doesn't change the fact that he is fairly mediocre at the very best. As I see it, our rotation currently has a pretty good chance of being bad. If Dempster pitches more like the Dempster of the last few years and less like the Dempster of the last two games, then that is one bad starter. Ted Lilly has looked terrible so far this year and looking over his career statistics, it is not an outrageous thought that he may have a bad year. Marquis, is obviously Marquis. Rich Hill pitching like Rich Hill is the most crucial component of our rotation's success, and I'm sorry but a move to the bullpen is not going to magically fix the problem, whatever it may be.