BigbadB

I was going to point out the same thing. What would anyone who thinks it's ridiculous to make a big deal about Selig laying down the law say if Selig made the Cubs trim the infield grass to "his" acceptable height?

Carew started his career at 2nd and moved to 1st in his later days. I'll take Carew over Alomar all day long. Carew put up those awesome numbers in the dead ball era.

*cough* Juan Marichal "*cough*

UK will be along in a moment. I'd love to have him, but I can hear Dusty now.... "What, an outfield version of Mark Bellhorn? No thanks." Of course, Michaels does hit for a better AVG than Bellhorn.

"Best offensive performers of their respective leagues" is the definition of the Hank Aaron Award. Let's see..... Lee had twice as many doubles as Jones. Of the very few categories that Jones made the top 5 in offensive categories (25 total), Jones made the list 5 times, twice finishing first (HR's and RBI's) and 5th (SLG and XBH's), then a 4th in total bases. Lee on the other hand made the top 5 list in 15 different offensive categories, and placed 1st in 9 of those. (AVG, SLG, OPS, hits, total bases, doubles, OPS+, runs created and XBH's). Lee stole 10 more bases than Jones and even equaled Jones in triples. It's not even close. Pujols should have finished runner up.

I agree. I think we're all overrating DLee's tradeability right now. There are plenty of teams right now looking at him and saying "What a tremendous year, but he better keep it up for us to have any interest." Regardless, I don't think there's anyone we could get for DLee that would be better than him without giving up something else substantial. There aren't many deals out there I would make for Lee right now. He has speed, he has power, he hits for a good average and he plays tremendous defense, which is a necessity with Nomar and Aramis on the left side of the infield. If he turns in another year like he did this past season, he won't come cheap in 2007, but I'd look to lock him up for 3 or 4 more years before the season closes. Actually, as decent as he was prior to this year, I'd consider trying to get him locked up now. He won't cost anymore next year, so lock him up and close the door on a potential hole at 1b after '06. Just to add one more tangible to Lee's resume', he's one classy guy who the rest of the team should not only respect, but emulate.

Lee for Manny? No thanks. The Cubs spend a whole lot more money, and don't get any better than the 2005 team. Depends on how much money you get from the Mets. Whether or not you improve from the 2005 team or not, Manny is a likely step up from what Lee will provide offensively next season. Just throwing it out there. Our best chance for landing an impact bat might be trading Lee + prospects for said impact bat and another quality player. Lee is an impact bat. I don't think he'll repeat his numbers, but I think he'll be a 900+ OPS hitter. That "quality player" would have to be another 900+ OPS hitter to justify a deal. This team needs to get better than they were in 2005. They couldn't take advantage of that career year by Lee, I don't see any way they'd win if they simply traded Lee for another impact bat, without acquiring a 2nd impact bat. Think of it this way. Once Giles is gone, the quality bats in the OF are nonexistent. So if the Cubs were to trade Lee and prospects for Manny and say, Milton Bradley(not a .900 OPS guy, and I have no idea of how that trade would work out), then they still have money to go out and sign Konerko to play 1B. So now they have someone who's just about Lee's equal offensively next year, plus Manny and Bradley, and the only real tradeoff is prospects plus the increase in salary. Just trying to explore all the possiblities here. First, Konerko is going to look for $50 million over 4 years and secondly, the only way he is Lee's equal is if Lee regresses to his previous career averages. I think it's much more likely Lee regresses to his career averages than him going over a 1000 OPS again. The point I'm trying to get across is that Lee has a very high perceived value, and he's really likely to not be worth that value again. I don't think you can call a guy who had a career year and only has one year remaining on his contract a very high perceived value.

Derrek Lee had a great year, but you have to put his great year into perspective with the rest of his career. Will he have another year like he did last year? Hard to say. If I consider Lee in a trade, I'm going to look at his career averages, which puts him back in the middle of the pack as far as 1b's are concerned. The other thing that has to be considered is he is only 1 year away from free agency. Would Washington trade 3 quality bats for the 1 year rights to a guy who might leave the next year via free agency? Not hardly. Because he very well could have another season next season like the one he had this past season, I'd be hard pressed to trade him unless I got something really good in return. But, that single year of free agency will scare off many potential suitors. A few years back, Arizona traded 6 everyday players for Richie Sexson with one year remaining on his contract. He signed to play with Seattle the next year. Lyle Overbay, Junior Spivey, Craig Counsell, Chad Moeller, Chris Capuano and Jorge De la Rosa. Arizona got taken to the cleaners on that one. Sexson also missed most of the year with a dislocated shoulder. I'd trade Lee to Colorado for Helton, but Colorado would have to pick up a lot of Helton's salary. That would provide some salary relief for Colorado while not losing much offensively. The Cubs then have a power lefty bat and don't give up anything defensively. That would make it easier to go after some different right handed bats for corner outfield spots. Realistically though, all you are doing is replacing 1 productive player for another and getting a guy that's locked in for more years at possibly a cheaper price than what Lee might get in free agency if he has another year like this last one (assuming Colorado picks up much of Helton's contract). We'd probably have to throw a kid or two at 'em to make Colorado pick up salary.

No speed at the top so it ain't gunna work. If you don't believe me ask Dusty. Okay, let Murton and Beltran bat 1/2. I'd be fine with that too.

I'd do it. I wanted them to get him last year. They can definitely afford him now. I'd love to see what he can do in the NL central for a whole year. Sign Giles and trade for Beltran and I think you could get away with going with Cedeno AND Murton. Walker Giles Lee Beltran Ramirez Murton Cedeno Barrett If Murton is still putting up .360+ OBP, move him up to second slot and slide everyone down one, which als breaks up all the righties at the bottom of the line up.

I'd trade Hill before others figure out he has only one ML quality pitch, even as good as it is. With his major problem being HR allowed, perhaps he would be better suited to Dodger Stadium. How do you figure he has a major problem with HR allowed? I can't find what he did in the minors this year, but he never had more than 9 in a season coming into 2005. Coming into 2005, he'd given up 14 in over 200 innings of work. He gave up 3 as a Cub this year. Too small of a sampling to get any kind of a read on him. From what I can see, Hill gave up 23 HR this year. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/H/rich-hill.shtml I've always thought his two problems were control and HR allowed. Looks to me like his first real problem with HR's was this year. Here's a guy who bounced from High A, AA, AAA and the majors. I'd give him a little more time to settle in before branding him with a HR problem. Also, his walks are not great, but put them together with his hits allowed, and I'll take it. Not a bad WHIP at all this year (excluding his major league stats).

I'd trade Hill before others figure out he has only one ML quality pitch, even as good as it is. With his major problem being HR allowed, perhaps he would be better suited to Dodger Stadium. How do you figure he has a major problem with HR allowed? I can't find what he did in the minors this year, but he never had more than 9 in a season coming into 2005. Coming into 2005, he'd given up 14 in over 200 innings of work. He gave up 3 as a Cub this year. Too small of a sampling to get any kind of a read on him.

This quote is one that bugs me as a Cubs fan. I firmly believe in my heart that a part of the Cubs ineptitude at winning any WS lies at the feet of all of us fans who continue to financially support the franchise despite the ultimate success we desire. There's a fine line imho between rooting for and supporting "your" team as a fan, and blind loyalty. Because baseball and in this case specifically the Chicago Cubs are very obviously run as a business, we (fans) are essentially the customers. As customers of other businesses, we often feel at a loss to control any aspect of our supplier's lives - however the truth is that as customers we have the ULTIMATE power in that we can choose tell our suppliers that as much as we may like them and value them, we simply can't justify continuing to do business with them if they don't drastically improve their product. Filling the stands ever year at Wrigley Field despite the record or successes of the Cub team is simply telling your supplier that no matter what the quality of the product, we're gonna keep buying it blindly year after year - in this day and age of baseball as a business, if I'm the ownership and I have stockholders to answer to, I take advantage of the unique position that puts me in and I make just enough effort to keep those seats filled and I don't care one whit whether my product quality is really improved or not. The only other option I have available to me as an owner/supplier is to invest in a "business manager" who is very skilled at consistently producing a quality product with a limited budget and I fear that those folks are very few and far between, and much of it ends up being a luck factors as much as anything else. I consider myself a fan of the Chicago Cubs, but unltil they provide me with a product that I feel they are capable of providing, I won't "invest" in that company - I can be a fan by reading about them in the news or following their games online - I won't spend money at their ballpark and just take whatever they give me as a consumer. I could see this argument if the Cubs were only spending 50m on the team. They spent 100m on the team last year, which was top 5 in baseball. Be upset with the people who make the decisions on plays on the team, but don't be upset with the ownership that gives the decision makers plenty of cash to put what should be a top 5 team on the field.

Yanks don't have much to offer for Bradley.

Do you feel better when you remember that BBB is californian? Actually, transplanted Illinoisian. It's probably easier just to say "alien". IMB, you can think it's silly all you wish. I can guarantee that I think some of your beliefs are silly as well, and I don't even know what they all are. The other night, one of my clients was acting quite belligerent for no apparent reason. Yelling, screaming and being the biggest nuisance possible. Ruined everyone's night. She got a DUI that night on her way home after she crashed her car. Coincidence? Sure. It's probably not karma. But, is there anything wrong with hoping that justice eventually prevails where it was originally missing? For Bostonians last year, could you have mapped it out more beautifully than it happened. The Yankees were within one out of going to the World Series. One out and up in the series 3-0.

Nah, that's not it.

Depends on who you are playing. When I was in 6th grade, we played a basketball team that was more than twice our size. Big and clumsy. We were tiny and they met us at half court during lay up drills before the game and joked "where's your center?" It was obvious they had no respect for us as they laughed and joked before the game even started. We ran a full court press on them in the first half and "if" they could get off an inbounds pass that we didn't steal, they couldn't get across the half court line. We were up on them by over 30 at the half. Me and another guy (pressing guards on defense) had more than 30 points in lay ups alone. They weren't laughing at our size anymore. But, nothing would have pleased us more than to continue the full court pressure the entire game and win by an incredibly lopsided score and embarrass the hell out of them so that we could joke later "our center couldn't fit through the door, so he had to stay home". The coach didn't see it that way and not only called off the press, but sat us for the 2nd half.

Why do we help the Mets at all? They didn't help us last year. I'd work a deal for Floyd, or possibly even Cameron, but not both. But, if we work a deal for either of those guys, it needs to be a good deal. I can't see taking on all of these guys salaries unless the cost to get them is minimal. They outbid us for Beltran. They toyed with Hendry all offseason last year before bowing out so late in the game that Hendry basically had to give Sosa away. Now we want to help them dump salary so that they can go out and get elite players? I don't think so.

Got..... a sense of humor? Obviously not.

Karma is real.

Maybe it's just another goofy superstition, but in my business I see it all the time. People who take advantage of a situation end up having it bite them in the butt. Why doesn't this happen in baseball? When a guy takes 1st base (Dye) knowing the ball never touched him, the next guy is supposed to ground out to end the inning. Sure, Houston came back to tie the game, but that just set up what would turn into an even uglier defeat in the bottom of the 9th. Hope lost twice. When an umpire makes a horrible call (Eddings), the Angels whole world isn't supposed to unravel. Something good is supposed to happen to turn everything back in their favor. When some dufus reaches out to catch a ball (no need to mention names) and doesn't let the play unfold, good things are supposed to happen to the unfortunate team (Cubs). When Don Denkinger made the wrong call at 1st base in 1985, St. Louis' world wasn't supposed to completely unravel. Where's the Karma? Is there any Karma in baseball?

He's also had zero good full seasons. I'm well aware of that. That's why he's not necessarily high on my priority list. I'll stand by my original plan of signing Giles, Lofton, and bringing back Walker and Nomar.

The Milton Bradley train is starting to run out of control when people suggest Bradley would be the ideal 4 hitter for the Cubs next year. He's a career .269/.350/.426 hitter. He's outperformed that number in 2 of the last 3 years, but the only one that was close to a full year he was in-line with his career numbers. I'm fine with Bradley on this team, but he's a 2 hitter at best, and probably more like a 6 hitter. I was just saying that if you had Furcal and Castillo already, I wouldn't see a problem with a guy like that hitting 4th. The last 3 years, he's hit .421/.362/.350 OBP (the last two as a Dodger), 19 HR's in 516 at bats in 2004 and 13 in 283 at bats in 2005 (as a Dodger). If you didn't have those other two guys, I'd stick him at the top. But I don't see a problem with a 25 HR guy hitting 4th with a .370 OBP when you would have Aramis and Murton hitting right behind him. What kind of power would that translate to if he didn't play his last two seasons at Dodger Stadium? His road numbers in 2005 were .309/.367/.494. If ESPN would fix their links, I could dig up his 2004 road splits. He also has some very nice day time stats.

something tells me that Saenz is not the answer for our bullpen. How would you know? Have you ever seen him pitch? :D

Assuming this trade happens. The Cubs still have 18 million available. Use 9 of that to sign Furcal to a 4/36 million deal. Finally trade Cedeno and Mitre (who is out of options) to the Nationals for Guillen. Here's my line-up: SS Furcal 2b Castillo 1b Lee 3b Ramirez CF Bradley RF Guillen LF Murton C Barrett That's a pretty formidible line-up with a nice mixture of OBP, power and speed. It ought to be pretty good defensively as well. The rotation shapes out to be: 1. Zambrano 2. Prior 3. Wood 4. Maddux 5. Lowe There's some innings eaters there and Jerome Williams is around for depth or trade bait. The bullpen is a little trickier Dempster is the closer, and I'd pencil in Ohman, Wuertz, Hill and Novoa. You could fill the last spot with Williams or look to JVB or Wellemeyer. Personally, I'd use some of my last available cash to sign Dotel as a set-up man. After giving up Cedeno in a trade, the bench will need some work. I'd keep Hairston around for bench duty and try to bring in an OF like Grieve. I'd use Greenberg there as well. Blanco handles the catching duties on the bench and I'd look to get Branyan or Sweeney if possible. Theriot or Fontenot might be useful on the bench and I'd likely give Sing a look as well in spring training. Isn't having Bradley, Furcal, Castillo a little bit of over kill? Its like having three leadoff hitters. I would go the cheaper route and take a shot again with Nomar at short on the cheap. Use the left over cash on the bullpen and bench. Dotel should be a project but I wouldn't rely on him right off the bat , they should pursue a big time set up man. Nope. Bradley is better suited hitting 2nd or 3rd. Actually, he'd be ideal hitting 4th with his ability to switch hit if you had guys like Furcal and Castillo hitting 1st and 2nd. He has 25 HR power, speed, patience and a good AVG. to go along with his good OBP.