Sarcastic

That's a false choice. It is a hypothetical. Not a completely accurate hypothetical, but not completely off the mark either. The Cubs were not going to get top talent that would have made them the best bet in the MLB without giving away most of the farm though.

Linebrink will not push the Brewers over the top. None of these minute changes will alter the odds in the NL by anything significant.

What were they gonna do? Trade Pie? People mad Trade Marmol? People mad Trade Murton? People mad, but not as many. I would deal all three if it won us a championship. The problem, being, of course, that there is no player out there that would guarantee the Cubs a WS, and getting the players that would make them the top team in the NL would require more than those three players.

What teams meaningfully improved themselves, really? Besides the Braves, I don't think any NL teams improved much via trades.

I don't think there was really much of an opportunity. Look at how little movement there was. I don't think there was much available at prices that weren't outrageous.

One team in our league did something meaningful. That qualifies as almost no action.

This is one of the least active trading deadlines in recent memory, not just for the Cubs, but for the whole league.

I would love to see the Cubs get one of them just to see if you stick to your word here. The smart move would be to give 5 years of premium to yourself. this board is nothing but a passing fad and will be long gone in 5 years When was NSBB started again? Back in 2002, right? As long as Tim sticks around to run this place, I think it will survive.

I would love to see the Cubs get one of them just to see if you stick to your word here. The smart move would be to give 5 years of premium to yourself.

Just for s's and giggles, who do you see us sending to the Yanks? 3-team deal? Eyre.

On the plus side, our bullpen should get plenty of time to warm up now.

I think there is a solid chance that the Cubs won't make a major deal, just because that is the way the trade market is going. I don't put any stock into what Hendry says publicly, because he pretty much has to say that in this climate.

Nothing Muskat ever says will make anything official. She doesn't have any inside info on Hendry.

Predicting a four game sweep during the third inning of game one? Are you kidding me?

Would you care to acknowledge my original point or will you concede it?

I'm not saying the pen hasn't pitched better. What I am saying is that they are not the sole, or even main, reason for the streak. The numbers the team put up before the streak should have resulted in a better record. That is the primary factor. The other was the team's luck in winning close games. The pen pitching well also helped, no doubt. But the fact remains that relievers are less valuable than starters and everyday players, for reasons you have not attempted to refute directly.

A lot of the Cubs recent winning streak was really luck, winning close games. Similarly, luck hurt their record quite a bit early in the year. Of course, you could claim that the Cubs winning close games wasn't luck, it was really the bullpen going from being the worst to being the best. The problem is, the pen was only partially responsible for all of the blown games, and the saved ones. They can only hold or blow a lead if they are given one, and the likelihood that they will do one or the other is greatly influenced by the size of the lead. It just so happens that lately, the team has had just enough to come through quite often, and the pen has been just good enough to hold leads. It can't shoulder the majority of the credit for the recent run.

the problem is far too many only look at the big picture. the game is indeed won by the team that scores more runs. the problem is, you don't take the total number of runs at the end of the year and divide by 162 to determine won-loss records. True, but run differentials do have a strong correlation with win-loss records, and no amount of grit will change that. Bullpen pitchers remain much less valuable than starters and everyday players because they have fewer chances to make an impact. That's all I'm saying.

The problem is that you aren't looking at the big picture. Can teams lose the lead while the bullpen is pitching? Yes. Does a bad bullpen mean that is more likely to happen? Yes. But a good offense and a solid rotation make it much less likely, because they mean that the team will end up with more late leads, and that said leads will be bigger more often. People only put such an importance on the pen because they happen to be the ones pitching late in the games. You can't look at when they pitch, you have to look at the overall contribution to the team. A game is won by the team that scores more runs. Individual relievers get a relatively small number of chances to impact the team's run differential. That means that they are not all that valuable, no matter what time of the game they come in to pitch. Even though they are responsible for holding or giving up the lead late in games, they make a much smaller contribution to the team than starters or everyday players because they have significantly fewer appearances. Back to the original argument. I've already said that I wouldn't trade Marmol for Dye because of his age and declining stats. But if, down the road, Marmol becomes a highly valued closer, the Cubs would be crazy not to field offers for him. Bullpen arms are vastly overrated, and they might get a nice haul for him.

I strongly disagree. A really good middle reliever is invaluable. Since the Cubs turned the season around, Marmol's stabilization of the middle relief has been a major factor. In this pitch-count and long-count age, it's also not that common to get 7 full innings even when you're winning. Having reliable relievers helps prevent your manager from going Dusty and having Prior pitch 130 pitches rather than take chances with an unreliable bullpen. As good as Marmol has been, his one or two innings of solid relief work can never make or break a game. Relievers are never invaluable. The Cubs turn around had a lot more to do with ARam coming back and Soriano going on a hot streak that Marmol pitching well. As for the pitch count issue, Marmol probably isn't going to save any star arms, no matter how good he is. That little intangible certainly has an affect, but not enough to make it a major selling point. I will agree with other arguments that a consistent, cheap reliever is rare, but while that may increase their trade value, it doesn't increase the amount of wins they contribute to the team. The bottom line is that relievers only get to pitch a limited number of innings, and that means that their value to the team is limited, much less that a starter or everyday position player.

And as has already been pointed out, three of those awful months came in 2002 and 2003, Dunn's first full years in the majors. I still don't believe that the pattern is firmly established.

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

His newfound plate discipline was always an illusion. Wish Tim had search enabled so I could just copy my old posts on this. What happened in Washington was Soriano was pitched around with men on base because the Nats lineup sucked. With DLee and Aramis in the same lineup teams have to pitch to Soriano. He doesn't walk much when that happens. If we had a more scary #2 hitter than Theriot then Soriano would walk even less. Soriano 2006: 67 total walks AB BB None On: 435 25 Runners On: 212 42 Scoring Position: 117 36 Wait, so protection matters now? I don't think his point was that Soriano was being protected by the Nationals lineup last year. It has to do with intentional walks, which increased quite a bit. That was just a round about way of saying he had been pitched around a lot.

It doesn't matter how open Griffey is to being traded to Chicago if Krivsky and Hendry can't come to an agreement on terms for the trade. So far, we haven't even heard any solid rumors showing that Hendry was serious about seeing if he could acquire Griffey. I don't like the Cubs chances of making a major deal before the deadline this year.

I doubt that Pie is the reason for Soriano's hot streaks. He is just a streaky player. He had his best year before he even met Pie. There was always the strong possibility that Soriano would regress to his career numbers. Hendry took a stupid risk. It hasn't completely backfired yet. Another hot month and he could be on top again. We'll see.