nolanwood

.261 OBP .281 SLG .542 OPS

Vlad will definitely be in the HOF.

I'd rather stay far away from Arroyo. Also, what happened to Dempster?

Winfield was a pitcher and OF in college, and led his team to the College World Series Semi-Finals. An injury to his pitching shoulder his junior or senior year led him to focus on his hitting. Winfield never pitched in MLB.

I'd take Rowand in a heartbeat!! It's gonna take more than a pitching prospect and Scott Eyre, though...

That's what I thought as well....2 different curveballs, occasionally dropping down, and varied fastball speeds. I think his biggest problem is location - seems like alot of curveballs have hung over the heart of the plate lately.

We're screwed if two-pitch-Rich can't bounce back after the break...

The three left situation has worked to our benefit against some teams...

Great vid!! I enjoyed it!!

My thoughts exactly...

We need Dempster in the bullpen, regardless of his closer status. Even if Marmol is lights out in his absence, Dempster should regain his closer role until he proves he is unworthy. His name and the starting rotation should never again be mentioned. I like the three lefty setup we currently have, although I wouldn't mind seeing Marshall & Hill separated - but it's been successful thus far.

Actually, wouldn't that be Jake Peavy?

He hasn't been producing much on the DL :lol: He was also useless until the end of May...

My thoughts exactly. Mine as well. You don't give up one of the top pitchers in baseball for propects coming to an organization whose player development is sketchy at best. I haven't heard a single prospect trade idea that makes sense and improves the Cubs more than keeping Z. If you're talking about swapping him for A-rod or another equal value bat, it's a different story. Trading Zambrano for a ML ready SS that can and will hit, and will be under our control for a long time makes all kinds of sense. Brandon Wood? Sign me up. Is it a little bit of a gamble? Sure, there is no such thing as a "can't miss prospect" but its also a gamble to go into negotiations with a player in an open market with a bunch of teams that are desperate for starting pitching. Id rather have years of offensive production and a guy at SS that looks like he's going to be an all-star than lose Zambrano for nothing. Which is more likely to happen Wood becoming great or Zambrano signing with someone else? My money is on Wood. Interesting you mention Wood, as I was considering throwing in a dig on Wood in my prior post. I can't logically come to a conclusion that the addition of Brandon Wood at SS and the removal of Z in our rotation is going to make this team any better - also add the fact that Z will be replaced by someone significantly worse and we likely won't see an ace in our staff again for awhile. "Wood is still struggling at Triple-A Salt Lake, hitting .225/.324/.396 with 55 strikeouts in 182 at-bats." If it appears Z is gonna hit free agency, then you HAVE to deal him. However, I'd prefer to lock him up.

My thoughts exactly. Mine as well. You don't give up one of the top pitchers in baseball for propects coming to an organization whose player development is sketchy at best. I haven't heard a single prospect trade idea that makes sense and improves the Cubs more than keeping Z. If you're talking about swapping him for A-rod or another equal value bat, it's a different story.

Rosenthal HAS turned into Gammons II... There's no way Buehrle goes to the Brewers, it makes zero sense. They've actually got a log jam of quality starters, why do they need another? I, too, am curious why nobody mentions Griffey's salary is deferred?

Who takes the SP spot if Marshall gets traded? I don't think we have anyone who can keep us in a ballgame every 5th start - even with the addition of Griffey's bat in the lineup.

I was thinking the same thing. It's the new sample size. jesus, what? do you even know what hyperbole means? Um yes, but I'm guessing you don't understand what I'm talking about. Hyperbole has been used a lot as a catch all by people complaining about others complaining about the trade. It's been used inappropriately as well. Similarly, sample size has been used ad nauseum and inappropriately at times on this board. I thought your remark was pretty straightforward the first time...

Is hyperbole the word of choice in this thread?

While I'll agree that I'm glad he's gone, you can't trade a player with his offensive ability just for the sake of it. Not on this team, anyway. We're not good enough offensively to do that. I maintain that I hope there's a follow up move here that upgrades our RF or SS situation. +1 We're gonna miss that bat in this lineup and we'll now be relying on a plethora of backup and inexperienced catchers.

Trading Marshall for Griffey is absurd. Marshall has proven he can be a solid 4-5 pitcher. At the moment, he's pitching like a 1-2. We don't have anybody that could even keep us in a game every 5 days, let alone pitch at the level Marshall has done since he was called up. He was rock solid for us the first part of last year, and it's possible that when he started the downhill slide it was due to the injury or dead arm. I think our rotation now is very serviceable, and if we want any shot of contending for the remainder of the season we're gonna need quality starts from our 5th starter as well - something Miller or Cotts are uncapable of providing. Griffey's bat would look great in our lineup, but it's almost a guarantee that he'd have a season ending injury the moment he put on a Cubs uniform. Now, if you're talking about unloading Jockstrap + misc., I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, do we REALLY need another outfielder?

puke Even Hendry could spend 20 million better than that....

He should already be all-star bound. His #'s rank him in the top 5 pitchers in the NL

Well thank you for taking the time to present your reasons. This is a philosophical choice here: do you want to try and be .500 and win a crappy division and most likely be a first round elimination (lets face the fact that the cardinals were extraordinarily lucky) or do you want to build a team that will dominate a crappy division for years? I choose B. While I agree that this is unlikely to happen due to the lame-duck GM, the money spent and other factors, the move would make perfect sense to build a winning team. And this is where we agree, 100%. Yes, I'd rather build a team that will dominate for years, and not a fluke. But with Hendry at the wheel, I prefer the "get it done now" approach, cause that's about all he can do - spend $$$. Plus, I'd be terrified to discover what kinda prospects we'd get in return for Lee - keeping in mind the guy operating the transaction thinks Neifi Perez and Izturis are good. I tend to agree with you there - this is probably not realistic either given that Hendry's career legacy is probably entirely dependent on this year. That doesn't make the idea stupid though. Unforunately, it does make the idea stupid given that Hendry would be the one pulling the trigger at the moment. Gimme a competent GM and the idea is genius.

The Cardinals last year were not a good team either....and our division this year appears even worse than last year.