Electron Blue

That was posted this morning...not here but on another forum. If that was true, I'm sure someone on this board would have picked up the story by now. I am crossing my fingers for it being false... whats the latest from cubs.com MB? They seem to make up news frequently. fixed.

If he is done, and if the Cubs fall short, this better not be used as a defense for Hendry in the offseason. Losing your star LF and 3B -- who've been the two most productive players on the team all season -- isn't a defense? It's not a "Get Out of All Criticism Free" Card. But of course it's a defense.

I could easily get by with a Pie/Murton/Patterson OF. I could care less about Floyd starting, and I actually hate Jones and Pagan, so its easy for me. Somebody mail Floyd to another continent. What...2 HRs and 4 doubles in the last two and a half months don't cut it? Its like bass fishing, you just put the line out there and watch the birds go by, then wait it out and eventually the line will pull, the lure is enticing, the water will start to sway, the birds will fly by again, and you can go home knowing your fish is out there. Thats just how veterans get out of their slumps. =D>

"worth"? has he helped the mets significantly? has he significantly cash-strapped them?

i don't like conine's chances . . .

more discussion happening on this in Baseball Discussions, under "Oh crap... is Aramis hurt?"

it would mean less PT for Murton . . . It would alos mean a better team, I'll take it. just kidding you. It certainly would be better for the team. It won't happen, though.

This is the best suggestion IMO. Yeah, it's the best we can do. But Daryl Ward hitting Cleanup? It's not good by any means. :(

it would mean less PT for Murton . . .

Perhaps Hendry was being told that there would be additional money available right up until the point that the sale was announced, at which time he was told something different, namely that no money would be available. In fact that's precisely what's widely believed to have happened. So you're saying he was a freaking moron for taking his bosses' instructions at face value. I'm saying he's a freaking moron if he couldn't put 2 and 2 together. The Cubs sale was speculated on for a long time. He had to have an idea that money may get tied up if something went down. He screwed up the team from 2003-2006, he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible and not just hoped he'd be able to fix it on the fly in July. How would've he known it would be this year? Imagine the backlash if Jim sat on his hands the last couple years waiting for the sale of the Cubs if it never happened . . .

Marginal help is great help in the current state of affairs. Can't argue with that.

Even though I don't want him here... here's a hint to avoid a Dusty or JJ "situation"... perform up to your capabilities. You'll be beloved in no time. in all fairness to jj, it seems like he is. he's just not very good. the JJ bashing goes a bit far at times. Last year he was pretty good for us. And this year, I can't see how you wouldn't think he's underperforming. No matter what his ceiling is, he's not playing near it.

He may be a cardinal . . . but good for him.

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. Are we assuming the Cubs are the highest priority team to put in a claim? From what I heard they were. The ESPN 1000 broadcast said that the Cubs put claims on 3 other players but were denyed by higher waiver teams. Stewart, however, fell to the Cubs and is available to be traded. I would really be interested to know who those other 3 were... any speculation anywhere?

Are you saying you know that Ohman has cleared waivers or that Oakland has claimed him first? I would guess his "guarentee" is not as literal as it sounds . . . FWIW, I think Ohman is still too good/cheap to pass waivers (or get to Oak.). He's making, what, less than a million? He's been rocky lately, but he's not trash by any means, especially to a team looking for a MLB bullpen arm on the cheap (i.e. a last place team).

My guess is that he'll pick up a player who can give us very marginal help, compared to whoever he replaces. And we won't give up anything that we'll seriously miss. In other words, we'll be okay -- no terrible deals -- but nothing to make us significantly better. Complete Guess.

I'll bet he tries real hard to find a new team in the offseason, but won't. And we'll only hear that he decided to retire a long time ago, knowing nothing of his attempt to stay in the game.

I've got a feeling he's been "blackballed" outside of SF already. The environment comparing SF to the rest of the league is night and day -- SF has put up with him because of the fan support, but I highly doubt another team would even consider him.

The mark of God.

wow, I wouldn't

No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you I'm not about to embrace the okayness. I'm moderately pleased with what has transpired so far. I'm ecstatic that they have a chance. I'm not ecstatic that this is all we've got. Surprisingly, I can't disagree with a thing there.

You're changing my main point around. The fact that this is better than we've seen in a while is a bonus -- not the main reason to enjoy it. Like I said, that reason works for some, but not others. The term is a semantic, I suppose. I'm talking about a playoff run -- that's what I'll call it henceforth. And on the year-to-year scale, that's the point of playing out the season: For six month to be in contention, and to be on top on the last day. That's why it's worth being excited about -- it's the whole point of the sport, and the Cubs are right in the thick of it. Throw out the bad division talk, that's beside the point. What "marketing department" is telling you to be excited by our current situation? Once again, forget okayness, and think "involved in a playoff run in August." Agreed, but when the game comes on tonight -- and every day the rest of 2007 -- this fact means jacksquat, so I treat it as such. I gotta go to work for now, though. (just so you know I'm not dodging future responses ;))

This makes no sense to me. Sports are different now? We can't expect our favorite teams to win a lot of games in order to be defined as great? I mean that dynasties are on the way out. You defined great as winning 90+ games and contending year-in, year-out. Parity is on the rise and dynasties are a more-or-less a thing of the past. Not even dynasties are the issue, though, teams don't too frequently fit your description. It happens, sure, but not often enough to be the standard for accepting the results. I'm not asking the Cubs to win the WS every year. Oakland, NYY, BOS, ATL have all shown it's possible to win a ton of games and contend every year. You are right, as far as the NFL is concerned. But NBA is still dominated by the same teams over and over. MLB too. Regardless, there's no reason why the 2003-2007 Cubs couldn't have ammassed 3-4 90+ win seasons and been in the playoffs multiple times. Hell, just one 95 win season should have been attainable. But no, the "contend within the division" strategy has left us in a cycle of mediocrity highlighted by occasional brilliant failure. Win 95 games and the division two years in a row, and you'll have accomplished something worthy of praise. That would be great. This okayness nonsense is a joke. I'll concede that the MLB is different from the NFL in this respect, but we're drifting from the point of the argument: satisfaction with this year's team. I think that's the point, no? I wouldn't be pleased with the last ten years of Cubs baseball, with an historical perspective. Maybe we could/should have been great earlier this decade. Maybe we should be better right now. But how does this historical perspective affect your view of this 2007 team day-in, day-out? Especially considering the player turnover season to season, it seems odd to temper your satisfaction with this year's team based on how other players have historically done in similar uniforms, in the same stadium. The ownership and front office, granted, has been considerably more constant over the years. I'm with you there -- the moves have not been made to turn this into an elite team. But do we root for front office? Do people buy suits with MacPhail's name stitched on the back? They put together the team, but it's the team I'm a fan of. And the team is on track to contend the rest of the year. Heck, if we can go 32-18 the rest of the year and make it to the playoffs, the 2007 Cubs will be great. You can be frustrated about the direction of the team and disappointed by the past, but why does that keep you from embracing a pennant run this year? (notice I substituted "okayness" with "a pennant run this year." Same point being made, but you may like the wordage better...)

This makes no sense to me. Sports are different now? We can't expect our favorite teams to win a lot of games in order to be defined as great? I mean that dynasties are on the way out. You defined great as winning 90+ games and contending year-in, year-out. Parity is on the rise and dynasties are a more-or-less a thing of the past. Not even dynasties are the issue, though, teams don't too frequently fit your description. It happens, sure, but not often enough to be the standard for accepting the results.

just for fun, name your 12 A dozen was just an offhand comment to dismiss Murton's claim that Bonds as the greatest player, I'd certainly put Barroid in the top 10, but I'll play along. In no order, Ruth, Williams, Mays, Cobb, Musial, Clemens, Aaron, W. Johnson, Gehrig, Koufax, Matthewson, Hornsby, Speaker offhand comments to dismiss other posters' claims is exactly what this board needs less of. sir, yes sir! there at least a dozen better ways to respond than that. AT LEAST. ;)