Rob

Well, if you like stability, how can you not prefer anyone to Hendry? What roster stability exists for the Cubs over the past few years? Aramis is the only position player still on the team from the postseason squad in 2003 and that was only two years ago! And I think it's a bit unfair to characterize Depo's trades in the way that you have. Yes, he traded the face of the franchise in LoDuca. But he was also a horrendously overrated player who contributed far less than was commonly perceived. I'd much rather have a GM who knows when to "sell high", even if it means having some roster instability. Let's take a look at the position players from that 2003 squad. C - Miller/Bako 1B- Karros/Simon/Choi 2B- Grudz SS - KGon 3B - ARam LF - Alou CF - CPatt/Lofton RF - Sosa Hendry had put together a group of veterans quickly coming to the end of their productive careers (Bako, Karros, Simon, Sosa) , mediocre role-players (Miller, Choi, Grudz, KGon), and young guns in ARam, and CPatt. Nobody expected anybody besides ARam and CPatt to be around more than another 3 years (expect for Sosa, possibly) I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that everybody knew what was coming. It works different in your head. Everybody knew not to get attached to Karros. But Hendry has shown an affinity for making the big trade without generating too much roster turnover in the big spots. We still have our core of young pitching. We still have CPatt. We still have ARam. And we can expect to keep those guys around for a while. I mean, honestly, do you see Hendry entertaining many trades that start off with him giving up Zambrano? I guess what I'm saying is that while I know Hendry is occassionally a roster-butcher, I prefer being able to predict the kinds of moves he's going to make a couple weeks in advance... as opposed to DePo who would be willing to trade Babe Ruth if he got what he felt was a good enough return. We have enough curses, we don't need the curse of El Toro. As for the way I characterized DePo's trades, I think we both realize it wasn't that unfair of me. There's two dimensions to baseball trades. The economics and the baseball. I'm not debating trading LoDuca wasn't a bad baseball trade at all. It was a pretty good one. The problem is if the fans don't come through those gates anymore, the Cubs stop making money. Now LoDuca is small potatoes, but can you imagine the impact on sales if after next winter Wood, Prior, and Aramis were gone and we had a bunch of no-names to show for it?

To be fair Tim, the Bradley trade pretty much fell right into his lap. The Tribe did a bad job managing the situation and put themselves in a spot where they knew they were going to have to trade Bradley for less than market value. Though granted, DePo is the one that went out and got him. My only problem with getting DePo is that I have a personal attachment to some of the people on the Cubs right now. And if there's anything that DePo has shown, it's that he's willing to get rid of anybody at any time if he thinks it might make the team a bit better. I don't want DePo coming in and getting rid of "face of the franchise" type players like LoDuca was. Aramis is the guy right now, and we might see him traded for a bevy of good prospects that would only be marginal major leaguers in the here-and-now. In other words, as a fan, I cherish having a little roster stability from year to year. It'd be nice to know I can buy a jersey and not be able to wear it anymore after 3 weeks of the new reign. And I'm an avid fan. How would the ordinary fan feel about watching a different lineup trot out there every day?

I can't believe Murton might be left in. He's not being put in a position to succeed, dude! Of course, as soon as I say this, I bet Patterson comes in to PH.

Oh god... Well, I guess Macias will be back in Cubbie blue next season...with an even larger raise.

Nomar, making sure Macias doesn't draw any attention for making the final out.

Since Nomar has hinted to being open to a position change, I'd wonder if he would be willing to take over in a super-utility role. Start him almost every day at a different position to give everybody a day off. Kinda like Jose Macias, but more playing time, and actually useful. I doubt he'd be willing to do that to himself, but the Angels managed to make good use of Chone Figgins this way.... so I'd hope the Cubs brass at least makes an attempt at talking him into it.

Maybe a conventional .344 OBP out of the leadoff spot isn't good, but that's not really indicative of Furcal's success. BP just came up with a new metric, SOB. Speed-adjusted On Base Percentage. Due to Furcal's stealing abilities and baserunning abilities, they estimate his impact to the lineup is more like having an average runner with a .370 OBP. (based on last year only) And interestingly enough, Furcal was rated the 2nd best baserunner according to EqBR (again, last year only.) While that's still not amazing, that's certainly something to think about.

It's gonna take a lot more than that to stop me.

I know it's a longshot at this point, but hey... I guess that's what being a Cubs fan is all about. I've still got my Believe bracelet on... how about you guys?

Which makes me wonder why anyone would trade for Atlanta's pitchers or their pitching prospects. Other than Jason Schmidt, I'm trying to think of impact pitchers that they let go who then had success after leaving. I still remember people scratching their heads when they let go of Avery, Rocker, Milwood, etc. It will be interesting to see how the two pitchers we picked up from them in the Holla trade work out. I remember other trades we made getting some of their pitching prospects not working out --Michah Bowie, Ruben Quevedo and Andy freakin' Pratt. Besides Jason Schmidt? Paul Byrd, Jason Marquis, Kent Merker, and Odalis Perez have all had varying levels of success... with Odalis Perez easily the strongest of the bunch (and he's still plenty young) Then again, the Braves did get back Gary Sheffield for Perez, so they still spanked everybody else.

True.. Miller park is the most Futuristic Park I can think of right now. Agreed. And even at that, the slide isn't that futuristic.

Actually, I belive it is up to 12.00 now.

While I'm not going to try and argue that our defense is good, it certainly isn't as bad as people try to make it out to be. We're still 15th in the league in defensive efficiency, which puts us in the top half of the league, albeit not by much. The Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, and Marlins all trail us, and they're much better ballclubs in general. The problem lies more with our pitching and offense, rather than defensive woes.

I just don't want to see Helton this inning...

Well, it WAS Jason Lane. Didnt Jason Lane have a grand slam against Prior earlier in the year? That was Mike Lamb, I thought.

Your wish is granted. I'd fold my arms and blink, but I'm too lazy to continue the genie act.

9 for 24.

They need to skip Williams next start. They have an off day on Thrs. Just go w/ Prior on Friday. Then skip Rusch when they have an off day on Aug. 25. I don't know about that... Prior could use the extra day of rest after tonight's start.

Nice throw!

That was a nice, line drive shot... I like it.

And he's only at 77 pitches so far through seven innings...

Barrett is 28 now, you know. And he's been in the league since his cup of coffee in 98, getting into 122 games in 99, his age 22 season. Catchers are supposed to be the field generals. The job they have necessitates a deeper learning of the game than say, a left fielder. That's why you see more catchers go on to be above average managers. As such, I believe that as a player with more than 5 years of service and being put in a natural leadership position as a catcher... I honestly believe he was well within his rights to speak out the way he did. He needs to be a leader of the team, and he was trying to assume that mantle, for better or worse. Not trying to say your opinion is wrong or anything, just trying to state why I see the situation differently. It is an opinion after all, so it can't be wrong, per say.

Just a thought. A good chunk of the people who oppose a Brian Giles signing are the same ones that want Juan Pierre as he "fills the role" of a leadoff hitter. Why not make Brian Giles the leadoff hitter. They have identical career SB%, at 73.6% (though granted, Giles has to round up from 73.55% while Pierre has a solid 73.6%) Not only that, the role of the leadoff hitter is to get on base... Giles blows Pierre away in this regard ( .412 vs .355) So while Pierre might be "disruptive" on the basepaths more often, it's at the same success rate as Giles. And Pierre isn't even on as often. And if the best argument you can come up with is simply Pierre doing it more often, Giles has the extra power that more than makes up for it (even if he is regressing... which while probably true, is certainly thrown off by Petco) And perhaps unbelievably to those unversed in stats, after you factor in arm strength with range, Brian Giles has fared better defensively in center field than Pierre, with career Rate2 's of 98 and 99 (1 run per 100 games) Not that I personally advocate Giles as next year's leadoff hitter... he's certainly better than Pierre, like it or not.

Horrible as it sounds, I was hoping for CPatt to get called back up today so that we could at least keep Macias out of center field.

Well, that was another pathetic showing...