Rob

Saito too.

What makes people think this? Matt Murton deserves a shot but Sam Fuld doesn't. Not necessarily you, but this is where people who rely mostly on stats lose credibility in my opinion. They argue Fuld should not be given a chance because you can't rely on a small sample size of success last year and his minor league stats don't suggest he will be a good player at the major league level. Meanwhile, a guy who has bounced around organizations doesn't get the shot "he deserves". The great Billy Beane had no use for Murton. Why? It may have something to do with his lack of defensive ability and his hitting does not overcome his bad defense. Beane could have had Murton again but instead chose Jake Fox. Interesting. On the other hand, Fuld plays good defense, has better speed and has shown an ability to get on base at the major league level but most people here don't want to give him a chance. I'm not necessarily advocating Fuld for CF, I'm just trying to point out the double standard that exists. I am the single biggest defender of Sam Fuld on this board, being on the record as preferring him to a number of other options including names like Brad Hawpe and Jermaine Dye. Oh, and the Fox versus Murton comparison is silly. Fox isn't being acquired to play in the field, which Murton had to do. And Murton isn't a bad defender. He's just not a good one. Same for his offense... not good, but not bad either.

Good for him. It was becoming painfully apparent that he was never going to get the shot he deserves here.

If he's willing to pitch in middle relief (with a chance at a swingman role) at or around league minimum, that's a great idea. But he'll want to start, or at least have a significant role in a bullpen. And he'll want to be paid a few million bucks for it. Pass.

By the numbers, he's certainly got the qualifications. But the Balco stuff and his generally antagonistic relationship with the media will likely keep him out.

Further destroying the use of wins as a stat, lets look at the starts in which Zambrano didn't get a win. How many games do you see on that list where Carlos pitched badly and it likely cost the Cubs the game? I count three... His first two starts off the DL at the end of August, and his last start on Sept 30.

What exactly is it that you think this HOF argument proves? That wins matter? Or that they're valued by sportswriters? And how is it proving a point to look at a pitcher nobody is debating was good, only to point at one minor number in their stats and say "this is why they're good"? It only proves that you think that's why they're good. You haven't made a cogent argument yet, but you carry yourself as though you're teaching all us whippersnappers a thing or two about baseball, by golly. It'd be comical if it weren't so sad.

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement. I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric. Age is the most important metric when you're giving multi-year contracts to guys on the wrong side of 30. Stop making things up.

I think it's more likely because of an injury, but that's the crux of it, yeah. The Cubs may have gone 16-10 during that month Soto was out, but it was in no way because Hill did his job anywhere near acceptably well. He's exposed quickly when given too much time. As such, provided the cost is cheap enough, I wouldn't be opposed to acquiring a more reliable backup.

Agreed judging pitchers value by season-season wins is going to give you very mixed results on how good a pitcher actually is. However I do think wins can be used, to a point, for judging the value/effectiveness of a pitcher over a whole career. Along with all the other things like whip, era+, k/9, h/9, etc. No, you can't. The assumption that Wins might mean something in the long run is based on the idea that a pitcher is likely to be on an equal number of bad teams and good teams. Careers just aren't long enough to make that assumption, especially considering how long a team has control over a player when they break into the league. There are numerous, better metrics to use in evaluating a player. I'd barely even bother to gloss over wins when trying to judge a player's worth.

In 1987 Nolan Ryan pitched 211.3 innings (good for 9th in the league). He did this with an ERA a quarter of run lower than anybody else in the league, and he lead the league in strikeouts. He allowed the second fewest HR/9. Had the highest K/BB ratio in the league. He allowed the fewest H/9. Despite all of this, he went 8 - 16 and lead the league in losses. W-L record is a joke and says a hell of a lot more about the team than it does about the pitcher. Anybody who still uses it to judge a pitcher's worth in this day and age needs to be taken out back and put out of their misery Old Yeller style.

why would he? Because Hill isn't very good?

I keep getting the feeling we're going to trade for Burrell and get hosed both there and when we have to flip him.

Okay, help me out here because I obviously don't understand intangibles. How exactly is having a PED user on the team just fine, but having an [expletive] (who hasn't broken any rules) isn't? I like Mike Cameron. He's a hell of a baseball player. But for all those people trying to justify letting Bradley go on some sort of moral grounds, it seems like your logic train jumped the tracks if you're okay with acquiring Cameron to replace him.

I would never give a player who is so reliant upon his speed for value a 4 year deal... especially a speed player over 30. One badly pulled hamstring and you've got no value left.

Winning ballgames is what sells the tickets. The fans will always find players to dump the "face of the franchise" label onto. OK so suggest a trade that allows the Tigers to win more ballgames in 2010. Why is 2010 the only year that matters? Even the Mayan apocalypse crazies believe there'll be 2011 and 2012 baseball seasons.

If the Cubs still like Fontenot better than Baker, it's because he's still the better bet for 2010.

You would be wrong. No, I'm not. Edit: Stupid swear filter ruined the other part of what I wanted to say, so allow me to rephrase. You aren't smart enough to be dismissive of others opinions... especially without giving reasons why. You merely come off as an ass.

Only in a very technical sense. The Cubs were offered that cash for their draft slot (which they didn't plan to use). They didn't have any idea who they were going to draft for the Reds until minutes before the draft.

J.P. Blevins and Mike Wuertz Cubs have given up Damien Miller, Jerry Blevins, Mike Wuertz, Rob Bowen, Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson, Josh Donaldson and Matt Murton In return they've gotten Rich Harden, Michael Barrett, Jason Kendall, Chad Gaudin, Richie Robnett, and Justin Sellers. I'd say Hendry is whupping Beane's ass right now.

I totally agree with you, but we have to be careful saying something good about Hendry around here. Hendry has lots of faults, but trading is probably his single biggest strength...... It certainly is... but only when he chooses the right attributes to be focusing on. Nolasco, Pinto, and Mitre for one year of Juan frickin Pierre will forever haunt me.

Looking at what we got back, I'm willing to give this trade a big ole thumbs up. And not that it was ever particularly likely he'd end up our starter at 1B next season anyways, but I'm very interested to see how the Cubs decide to handle the situation there after this season.

Miles trade edited in. Still waiting on contract details for Grabow.

Winning ballgames is what sells the tickets. The fans will always find players to dump the "face of the franchise" label onto.

Im interested in him, but not if Castro or Vitters are necessary to make the trade work. Id also rather keep Cashner and Jackson, but if one of them are needed to make the deal, Id be OK with it. Detroit reportedly want major league ready players. Between Fox, Fuld, Colvin, Marshall, Gorzalanny, Samardzjia, and StevensI really think we can make something happen, and wed also probably have to kick them a solid prospect like Burke, Lee, Carpenter, Castillo, Archer, or Dolis. I don't think there is much of a chance the Cubs can get Granderson without giving up any of Castro/Vitters/Cashner/Jackson . Grandersons decent, but fairly expensive, and the Tigers want to cut costs. Id offer: Jake Fox 1 of Fuld or Colvin 1 of Gorzalanny/Marshall/Shark any 1 prospect besides Vitters, Castro, Jackson, or Cashner Thats a major league ready platoon or 4th outfielder, a DH, a #4 or 5 starter and solid prospect. If they accept, good. if not, we move on. This is bat [expletive] crazy.