JeffH

Truer words were never spoken. One of the many reasons ours is a laughingstock franchise.

Have you ever said anything, and then regretted it? To clarify, IF getting Matsui has any positive influence on whether or not the Cubs can persuade Fukudome to join the team - the team would be better with Matsui. Simply because I think Fukudome is exactly what the Cubs need in the #2 spot in the lineup. But I also think that Soriano belongs in the middle of the lineup, and I think Ryan Theriot is a good player. And I think I'd have a chance with Scarlett Johanson if we were to wind up hanging out for some reason. We're both wrong. I thought she had that restraining order that said you couldn't be within 1000 feet? Which is why I need her to agree to hang out with me. If she justs gets to know me I'm sure she'll change her mind. jcf, I'm afraid you have zero chance with her. I hear she thinks Jim Hendry is an excellent GM.

Antonelli, Matt

Under what appears to be Jim Hendry's plan, 4/9ths of the Cubs every day lineup will consist of Felix Pie, Ryan Theriot, Kaz Matsui, and a pitcher. Add in no-sure-things Kosuke Fukudome and Geovany Soto and you're looking at a very real possibility that 2/3rds of the starting lineup could be absolutely awful.

Honestly, I don't see why we would have to add a whole lot more top-end talent beyond Hill and Pie. The Yankees deal being talked about is Hughes, Cabrera, and another pitcher. The Red Sox are offering a package featuring Crisp and Lester and the Twins want Crisp replaced with Ellsbury. I doubt the Red Sox relinquish Ellsbury (although they should). It seems to be that Hill's value is comparable to either Hughes or Lester and Pie is at least as valuable as Crisp or Cabrera.

Richie should be a backup in Iowa, just like last season. He's behind Soto, Blanco and Koyie Hill, I'd guess. Some guys who might be taken are Josh Kroeger, Justin Berg (even though he has awful control), Grant Johnson. Hell, maybe Ryan Harvey. Cal, I don't believe Berg is eligible. Can you re-check?

Any chance they will say (Borat style) "Not!" I don't think so. If they get Matsui, they'll be confident they can get Fukudome, if he declares he's coming to North America. Matsui and Fukudome go back a long ways. It's Neifi-Furcal all over again.

Why do people always write this? Do you disagree? Very, very much so. Your theory assumes there has never been a non-chicago source that scooped the chicago press corps regarding a Cubs acquisition, and that their will never be. I think that's an absurd assumption. How's this: I believe it is extremely unlikely that an out-of-town source is going to scoop the Chicago press corps on a Cubs acquisition. I also believe that those occasions where it does happen will be extremely few and far between.

Why do people always write this? Do you disagree?

Yes. $16.25/2.

No out-of-town source is going to scoop the Chicago press corps on a Cubs acquisition.

The problem with major league performance incentives for 2008 is that, as supposed contenders, the Cubs may not want to let Prior "strengthen his arm" by pitching at the major league level. If he's going to give us sub-Dempster/Marquis/Marshall/Hart performance in the rotation or sub-Wuertz/Ohman/Eyre performance in the bullpen this season, they may not want him pitching on the big club, even though it may be best for the long term. The incentives for 2008 should be based on starts and/or appearances at the AAA level, assuming that is permissible under the CBA... No way. I doubt that's possible anyway. But why not give the team insurance against poor performance. If he's pitching major league innings, presumably he's going to be pitching well, and worth the incentives. If he's not good enough to pitch major league innings, then there's no point giving him incentives for logging time in the minors. I'm in favor of giving the team insurance against poor performance. But where is Prior's insurance against "I'm getting stronger every day" (tip of the cap to the band Chicago) "but I'm not strong enough yet to crack this top 3 NL pitching staff"? What's his incentive to sign such a deal? I guess if you plan to sign him to a contract like this, you need to trade one of your five salaried starters (well, four plus Hill), replace him with a kid like Hart to start the season, and make a real commitment to having Prior in your rotation as soon as he's ready to pitch. I wonder if the Cubs are willing to do that.

All anyone needs to know about Cesar Izturis is, at this point in his career, he is a better offensive player than he is a defender.

The problem with major league performance incentives for 2008 is that, as supposed contenders, the Cubs may not want to let Prior "strengthen his arm" by pitching at the major league level. If he's going to give us sub-Dempster/Marquis/Marshall/Hart performance in the rotation or sub-Wuertz/Ohman/Eyre performance in the bullpen this season, they may not want him pitching on the big club, even though it may be best for the long term. The incentives for 2008 should be based on starts and/or appearances at the AAA level, assuming that is permissible under the CBA...

With Hendry on the scene, Kaz won't be poor much longer.

Trading prospects for a guy like Nathan is what smart organizations do. You'll have him at a good price for one year, then let him walk and take two draft choices. If your amateur scouting and player development divisions know what they're doing, you'll have more trade chips in a couple of years. And the cycle continues... That said, the Cubs have more pressing needs. Like, oh I don't know....maybe...AN OFFENSE?!?

Bobby Brownlie also.

It seems extremely unlikely that the Cubs are after Matsui as an additional enticement for Kosuke to sign here. The Cubs probably consider any benefit in that regard to be "gravy". The Cubs simply like Matsui.

I believe that all players with at least 10 years of MLB service time make it onto the HOF ballot.

I imagine that will happen whether the Cubs sign Matsui or not.

Does he like to play Trivial Pursuit? Does his father deliver Yoo-Hoo?

what part of hill's numbers don't look dominant? and he may be older than crawford, but he's got a lot less service time, so he's considerably cheaper. How long will Hill be considerably cheaper? How much money is he going to get in arbitration for the 2009 and 2010 season? The 2008 season Hill will make about 5 million less, but I question how much less he will make once he hits arbitration before the 09 season. Suppose Hill gets $3 his first season of arbitration (if he gets more than that, you're going to be very, very sorry you traded him for Carl Crawford). By that time, Crawford will have either forced you to trade him or forced you to sign an extension of more than $10 per season, possibly closer to $15 per. I don't really understand how Crawford is going to force a trade with 2 years left on his deal. He may want an extension, but he'll have to wait until during the 2010 season to get it. Under the previous CBA, veterans traded in the middle of a long term contract could demand a trade after one season with the new club. If the new team failed to trade the player, the player would be granted free agency. Traded players typically used this right to negotiate a high-dollar extension. The new CBA has done away with this, but, since Crawford signed his contract under the old CBA, he still has this right. This is why Crawford has far, far more value to the Rays than he'd have for any team trading for him and why their demands supposedly seem so out of line.

what part of hill's numbers don't look dominant? and he may be older than crawford, but he's got a lot less service time, so he's considerably cheaper. How long will Hill be considerably cheaper? How much money is he going to get in arbitration for the 2009 and 2010 season? The 2008 season Hill will make about 5 million less, but I question how much less he will make once he hits arbitration before the 09 season. Suppose Hill gets $3 his first season of arbitration (if he gets more than that, you're going to be very, very sorry you traded him for Carl Crawford). By that time, Crawford will have either forced you to trade him or forced you to sign an extension of more than $10 per season, possibly closer to $15 per.

Surely you aren't serious? You'd really want Rich Hill/Felix Pie over Matt Garza/Carl Crawford? Seriously? I mean, Hill is not dominant (and when he is, he's far from consistent), and he's older than Crawford. Crawford is a good defender, has 20HR/60 SB potential, and has gotten better every year he's been in the Majors. If I could get those two deals done, I do it without so much as a hesitation. Yes, seriously. And don't call me Shirley. You'll have Crawford for one season at a nice price, then he'll either force you to trade him or sign him to a ridiculous extension. On the other hand, you'll have Hill for several more "bargain" seasons. If we're going to entertain the idea of trading Rich Hill, try to get in the Miguel Cabrera derby.