wilk

All of this is incorrect. All of it. Hendry even came out once in 2004 or 2005 and ripped Prior for coming out of a game when "nothing was wrong with him". They waited until 2007 (!) to have his shoulder properly examined and operated on. No, sorry, you're imagining a sentiment that didn't exist. I'm aware you wouldn't be convinced otherwise, especially since Prior is headed out, and I'm not sure what the point would be in debating arbitrary perceptions of a third-party's feelings - however, in all my dealings and with people I've talked to, I've never thought "the front office is sure treating Prior like garbage!" This is just the way some fans interpret the business.

They've said Fukudome in Japan but yes, he supposedly plans for it to say "Kosuke" here in the majors. Nothings been confirmed though.

This whole "Cubs treated Prior like garbage" thing is blown totally out of proportion. The Cubs did about everything they could and Hendry did not treat him any worse than anyone else. The handling by some of the staff could be considered detrimental emotionally and physically but this didn't come from the front office.

Who is the ambiguous "prospect"? It'd take more than Pie and Prior and I don't believe the Cubs would give up Pie, Prior, Cedeno if that were even good enough for them.

1. San Diego doesn't want to trade Khalil Greene. 2. Khalil Greene's perceived value by his club is more than the Cubs could reasonably give up. 3. Towers just lost his prime target to Hendry and is very well aware of Hendry's love affair with Greene, further emphasizing point 2 and tacking on sentimental cost. The Michael Young debate might be easy to end but I don't think the Khalil Greene clamoring is very feasible either.

greene bad = fact and ima smartest. conversation done. -1500.

Yes. And now the Cardinals take who seems like the next obvious candidate to break out from Rule 5. I wonder if he must be hurt worse than I thought? I don't fully understand getting Lahey yet.

He supposedly wants to go by / have his jersey say "Kosuke," but I'll take a jersey that says anything he wants.

I've noticed. At least, it seems pretty obvious it's the same kid. I once pointed out how I never see him add any respectable discussion whatsoever to any conversation and he just went off telling me how he knows everything there is to know about baseball and shows it in all his posts. I said, again, I haven't seen it -- then he linked me to something like 3 posts in the last maybe 2 years in which he'd have one semi-reasonable baseball post followed by a dozen more of the asinine immaturity. Impressive, eh?

Isn't calling it the "worst post I have ever heard of in my life" a bit of hyperbole as well? Just sayin. That was the point.

I think this is the worst post I have ever heard of in my life. Yeah, isn't hyperbole fantastic. Why be reasonable when you can be WILD AND CRAZY?

I would like to know why this trade will be completed by October 15th. It's been said enough places that I believe it's true but no one has said or been positive of the reason; I'm curious. Oct 15 is an important date for many end of season events -- electing free agency, demanding a trade, etc. But the waiver period ends November 10th and the only rule everyone is sure of is the six months to complete the PTBNL. It's speculated that it's whichever comes first of six months and the completion of season, but is anyone privy to the rule book here? It could just be that the clubs simply agreed on October 15th as the deadline. I also believe that the PTBNL would not have to clear waivers if traded after October 1st, which could make guys like Rapada and Cotts, who could otherwise have difficulty clearing waivers, more likely.

He'd be quite a bit worse. I don't agree. Burrell misplaying a ball is better than Floyd not getting to it at all. I literally think it would be impossible to do worse than him defensively, his range is completely nonexistent. It's pointless to argue unless they both play it and we can actually compare, but I definitely disagree. How much Burrell have you watched? I'm willing to bet not enough and you're making an intelligent guess based on how poorly you feel Floyd's been. It might be hard to believe but Burrell is worse and Wrigley's right isn't going to improve anything for him. I think Burrell is easily worse than Floyd or Murton out there.

Burrell's bat would be a great help but I can't see him being a "perfect addition" when he's an awful left-fielder and he'd be forced to play right. And yes, Burrell would be worse in right than Floyd/Murton. What, was no one who could play right put on waivers?

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here: (1) Pull him back from waivers. (2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract. (3) Make a trade. If I understand waivers correctly with item 3, the Cubs can only trade 3 types of players: (a) player(s) from the Cubs 40-man who has (have) cleared waivers; (b) a player from the Cubs 40-man, who was claimed on waivers first by Oakland; © player(s) who is (are) not on the 40 man roster. If it's scenario 3a or 3b, there would be no impact on the 40-man roster; however, if it's scenario 2 or 3c, the Cubs would have to remove somebody from their 40 man roster to add Stewart. That would be either a player who has cleared waivers or somebody the Cubs would have to DFA. Interested to see how all this unfolds. Right. When I said it'd "have to" be for players who aren't on the 40, I was jumping a step and assuming no one Oakland would want from the roster would clear 20 teams in waivers to make it to Oakland. The Cubs would have had to already put them on waivers or did it within the hour their Stewart claim was accepted and it's possible someone made it through, but who? Jacque Jones? Koyie Hill? Neal Cotts? That was my point of the impact of the 40-man roster. It'd more likely be players who are not on the 40-man that would be traded -- which makes guys like Mitch Atkins and some low-A pitchers vulnerable. I don't think they reach a deal, personally.

But there is no way Murton makes it through waivers to Oakland. It'd have to be for players who are not on the 40-man or as a PTBNL.

We wouldn't have to worry about the Sox. But the Nationals, the Dodgers, the Cardinals... yeah there are teams who would claim him before we had a shot. I don't see how our chances of Dunn are any better than hoping for the one card suckout. It's just very unlikely... I really like Dunn, but I guess I'm just not rating him as highly as others here. If the Reds and Cubs have an informal/formal agreement that's pretty clearly solid, I don't see other teams diving on Dunn. I could easily be wrong. For the most part, this is a different scenario than the "gentleman's agreement." If we were trying to pass someone we had no intention of trading through waivers to option him, or it's a trade for a rather minor playoff-push role player with a deal in place, yeah - you don't often have a GM putting in a claim merely to hassle. But this is a player the teams would legitimately want and he would legitimately help any club he goes to. Plus, we don't have the means to offer the Reds the best package -- that doesn't mean the "best package" is what the Reds would want but it's more stacked out of our favor. If the Dodgers or Nationals or someone were to want Dunn (and they do), they would have every motive to claim him and probably believe they could top an offer from the Cubs anyway. Of course, I could be wrong too...

We wouldn't have to worry about the Sox. But the Nationals, the Dodgers, the Cardinals... yeah there are teams who would claim him before we had a shot. I don't see how our chances of Dunn are any better than hoping for the one card suckout. It's just very unlikely...

Do you mean why didn't they release him? He had to be waived and clear in order to be sent to AAA in the first place. Why? Im almost positive Ohman has options left. Yes, he has one option but he has over 3 years (almost 5) of ML service time. So, he has to pass through waivers in order to be optioned. If my count is right, he was only a few days away from five years -- at which point he could decline an optional assignment.

Do you mean why didn't they release him? He had to be waived and clear in order to be sent to AAA in the first place.

There's no way a Gomes makes it through August ML waivers.

So we're to the point that there are people creating arguments to defend inane hyperbole. Yay. Please, something newsworthy, happen.

Wow. I think it's hard to even TRY to conjure up a trade that lopsided. Texas should never trade with any team ever again, for their own good. What about Francisco Liriano, Joe Nathan and Boof Bonser for AJ Pierzjackass?

I hope this whole thread is a joke. It's all in the semantics of "natural." How ridiculous. He was a shortstop in college from sophomore year and was drafted as a shortstop and played there for Daytona that year. Then he was something like 45:55 shortstop to 2B from 2002 until 2006 when he was mostly at second for the Cubs. I think in his professional career he's played less than 50 games more at 2B than SS. However, from this thread you'd think someone suggested Prince Fielder was a natural shortstop or something.

Well, I'll give you one thing: You're the first person to say that I shy away from arguments. In fact a moderator warned me for trying to create too many arguments. I'm still waiting for another poster to respond to my sledgehammer of an argument in the ichiro thread. You see, I really do have reasoning and when I post them people have problems arguing against them. I can assure you am I am well-versed in the knowledge of the game's economics, sabermetrics, the minor leagues' prospects, the draft's prospects and just about every thing else. I said shy away from intelligent conversations. Granted, I could have missed a few. I didn't mean, "NO YOU'RE WRONG"-esque posts to be included in what I was referring to. I don't necessarily doubt you are as "well-versed" as you claim but I do know I've never seen it from you. You can't just expect people to think you're intelligent, you have to show it. I know there's plenty you've said that I have rock-solid data to dispute but chose it's not worth getting into any discussions since I've seen how you react to it. Perhaps then your problem isn't with knowledge but with stubborn arrogance that makes mature intelligent conversation impossible -- the, "I know I'm right so I refuse to discuss it or show my reasoning!" disease. Anyone can just TELL me how smart they think they are. I have a hard time believing the people who spend their time saying it rather than showing it.