Rob

It is and it isn't. Personally, I'd leave Castro at SS until Lee comes up and proves he's going to be a ML caliber hitter, and then I evaluate whether a switch would do us much good. There's no reason to immediately push Castro off SS like he pushed Theriot off when he came up. Let it work itself out a bit.

I'd say it depends on what we do at 1B. We may need a 1B/3B guy.

They should feel comfortable playing DeWitt at 3B. It's his natural position. But yeah, Barney will be hopping on a plane. It's not a Hendry team without a crazy number of 2B. Barney is actually as much a SS as a 2B, right? And the Cubs now need a back up SS so how do you see bringing up Barney as meaning they will have a crazy number of 2B? I think the Cubs were going to non tender Theriot and Fontenot both in the off season anyway so whatever the minor leaguers Hendry got for them wind up doing is just a bonus. Barney is exactly what you need as a 24th or 25th man, cheap and versatile, much better than paying millions for a guy like Miles. It is a good thing if the farm system can provide guys like this to provide low cost production. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a smart move or that Barney isn't a fine choice. It's just that Hendry has a history of stockpiling people who can play 2B.

Same

They should feel comfortable playing DeWitt at 3B. It's his natural position. But yeah, Barney will be hopping on a plane. It's not a Hendry team without a crazy number of 2B.

The universe would collapse in on itself until all matter could fit inside a thimble. Which is pretty cool, because what's left of me would be floating up on what's left of Jessica Alba. Go Cubs!

I was happy when Theriot left. I was a little sad to see Lilly go. But damn am I gonna miss Fontenot.

Why leave it to chance? :flame:

I'd be willing to give up Wells, but I'd probably want a window to negotiate an extension.

Solid Move #1 - Fire Hendry Solid Move #2 - Hire new, non-dumbass GM Solid Move #3 - Hire Freddi Gonzalez Solid Move #4 - Rebuild

Draft pick

Feel free to blame the Cubs for having his overall numbers look bad this season by promoting him so quickly, surely they are to blame. But they're not in the business of making sure he winds up with a pretty stat line. They are in the business of preparing him for success in the majors as quickly as possible and his seemingly early promotion to Tennessee is the best way to make that happen. Vitters needs to learn better discretion at the plate. The longer he sees A+ level pitching, the longer it will be before he is challenged to layoff the more deceiving AA pitches. I think the Cubs are very confident in his abilities and don't need to see him put up great numbers every year to know that he'll be okay. They also believe in Vitters confidence in himself. They think Vitters doesn't need to see himself succeed in order to believe that he'll make it one day. Is it an aggressive plan they are following? Yes. But it is one they only follow with players they feel can take it and will benefit from it. The player's got to be special though. It worked with Castro. We'll see if Vitters is that kind of player as well It's not about a pretty stat line, but that's what makes a good season. I don't think you think he mastered A ball, so I won't have that argument. As for the parts I bolded, well, they just makes no sense at all. As of now the Cubs have a guy who stunk up AA and is falling like a stone in terms of his value. It makes some sense. Vitters is a special case, like it or not. He's got a very advanced hit tool, and absolutely no plate disciple whatsoever. In A ball he can pretty much put the bat on the ball at will, in large part because the pitchers are just chucking it up there and not worrying so much about hitting their spots. Vitters needs to see some more advanced pitchers capable of actually hitting their spots and changing speeds so he'll learn some plate discipline (hopefully). I think the Cubs are gambling that if he develops that discipline, everything else will fall into line quickly.

Tennessee is having a pretty nice game so far. Up 9-0 going into the bottom of the 6th. Wallach is struggling with his command early on. 3 walks in 2 innings.

You obviously care. You're the one who keeps bringing it up. Just so you know, I'm putting on back on ignore now. You can go back to pretending that tossing out more examples of bad managers from the last century is some sort of proof that Lou is not at all responsible for the troubles of this team.

Calling everyone you are afraid to confront a troll is pretty easy to see through Rob. Besides, I thought you put me on "ignore". What can I say, I'm a humanitarian. I like to give people a second chance. Doesn't seem yours is going to last. I'm surprised you haven't been banned already for calling a mod moronic. Lou being the best manager in recent history isn't something anybody is debating you on. This organization has been incompetent for most of it's history. Who gives a rat's ass how Lou compares to 100 years of crappy managers? Managers can't win ballgames, but they can sure as hell lose them. And Lou loses plenty.

Do Not Feed The Troll.

Good pitching day.

If memory serves, he's a converted position player. So the 26 thing doesn't bother me so much. But yeah, he sucks. not sure if he was a position player before being drafted, but he's been a full-time pitcher since being picked out of a community college in 2004. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/p/david-patton.shtml Apparently my memory did not serve. We should cut him.

At this point, I'm still a bit worried Aramis wont play up to his contract for the rest of its duration. If another team came along and said they'd take him off our hands, I'd have to consider it. That said, it seems we're going for it again next year, and losing him would impact the chances of that very significantly even if he doesn't earn the paycheck.

If memory serves, he's a converted position player. So the 26 thing doesn't bother me so much. But yeah, he sucks.

There's a few ways this turns out: 1.) Trade him in the offseason = Tons of very good prospects 2.) Hold onto him and the team tanks, allowing you to trade him at the deadline = Some very good prospects 3.) Hold onto him and the team stays competitive through the deadline, but tanks in august and misses the playoffs = Two comp picks 4.) Hold onto him and the team stays competitive through the deadline, follows that up with a playoff appearance = Additional money and two comp picks. Holding onto Gonzalez carries with it some risk, and doesn't seem to offer much in the way of a return. If the rest of the team were better and you could pretty much pencil yourself in for the playoffs next year, I would understand it... but the supporting cast sucks. The only way he doesn't get traded is if there's a stupid ownership mandate. Any GM worth a damn would definitely want to trade him.

Am I missing the point of this comparison? Dunn is a FA this offseason, and it makes no sense to give up prospects just to have a chance to resign him. Gonzalez will be on the trade block after this season. The rationale behind trading him was always that they were not going to be able to resign him. That underlying principle has not changed with their surprising season. They simply cannot afford to keep him. But of course Gonzalez would cost more in prospects. He's younger, cheaper, and under contract for longer. The "taste of winning" has nothing to do with it.

I'd be more excited if I didn't think the Cubs would yank him back out of the rotation when Silva comes off the DL.

At least Lake was heard from again. ? He's batting .333/.421/.727 his last ten games.

Firing Hendry after saying that would be a bad PR move, but a collapse in the second half would remedy that. If the Cubs are awful in the second half, Ricketts could easily say that recent occurences changed the situation and he is acting accordingly. At that point, it's not reneging on his word (even if it was just lip service), it's being pro-active in a changing situation. Purely PR, but you'd like to avoid PR hits if you can. Right. The statements in regards to Hendry in no way lock the Ricketts in to keeping him. No, but they do seem to indicate he's leaning towards it, which is bad enough on it's own.