Tracer Bullet

I don't think that's true. There's a stigma is certain parts of our society, sports probably being one of them. But large sections of this society don't have any such stigma. In my media health class last semester we spent a good portion of the class focused on mental health. Research indicates overall, individuals with mental health issues are perceived much less favorably than "normal" individuals. This applied for the US and at least a few other countries where studies had been conducted. Yeah, but we're talking about going to seek professional help. If anything, our society probably applauds somebody that admits to a problem and seeks to "solve" it. But people don't seek professional help unless they feel they have something to solve. And I can't believe you don't think there's a stigma in our society associated with mental health issues regardless of whether you seek help. I didn't say I don't think there's a stigma with mental health issues. I said I don't think there's a stigma in our society for people going to seek help, which was the initial claim. Plus, our society is actually more of a bunch of different types of societies, each of whom have different views toward the issue. If the issue isn't known when help is sought, I think the stigma follows. It might be less negative since help is being sought, but I think the stigma is still there. I obviously don't know your situation, but I have some experience in this stuff and you're certainly more sensitive to the stigma when it applies to you or someone close to you. I think it's pretty prevalent.

Don't. We are still paying the guy. So if we sign him, we don't have to pay anything extra? The money "paid" to him for this stint will just come out of whatever it is we're already paying him? Hmmm............ You all realize that the reason we're still paying him when he's not on our team is he was so bad that no one would take him if we didn't pay his salary, right? He hasn't done anything in the time since we last got rid of him to warrant a roster spot.

I don't think that's true. There's a stigma is certain parts of our society, sports probably being one of them. But large sections of this society don't have any such stigma. In my media health class last semester we spent a good portion of the class focused on mental health. Research indicates overall, individuals with mental health issues are perceived much less favorably than "normal" individuals. This applied for the US and at least a few other countries where studies had been conducted. Yeah, but we're talking about going to seek professional help. If anything, our society probably applauds somebody that admits to a problem and seeks to "solve" it. But people don't seek professional help unless they feel they have something to solve. And I can't believe you don't think there's a stigma in our society associated with mental health issues regardless of whether you seek help.

Well Pie is raking with a .557 OPS and Murton's just crushing the ball with .084 IsoP, so I can see why they're clearly better choices. I'm pretty indifferent between Murton and Patterson. Murton adds a little more OBP but absolutely zero power and can only play LF. Patterson has been hot and is driving the ball well while adding more versatility and some speed. 50 points of OBP is a lot. And we're missing our LF, so "can only play LF" isn't really a detriment. In addition, Patterson's versatility is useless on a team with 2 SS and 4 second basemen and 2 CF. We don't need another guy that can play any of those positions. The fact that he's LH and a "leadoff hitter" is probably all that matter to Hendry and Lou. ETA: Apparently EPatt can play LF too. Jeepers.

why

b/c Lou hates Murton like nobody's business? I don't see another rational explanation for this to happen for the 2nd time in 2 months. Lou doesn't like Murton and they want Soriano's replacement to leadoff - EPatt plays 2nd and leads off, DeRosa in LF.

The Indians are going to be more interested in Murton than Pie? This really gets to the heart of the matter though. The Indians really need more hitting than pitching, and the Cubs don't have any elite talent to trade to them in the minors. The Indians are not looking to restock a farm system like the Orioles were doing in the offseason. The Indians want guys who can be impact players, not a bunch of guys who might turn out to be serviceable players. The only way this really makes sense is if this becomes a three team trade where the Cubs move their "surplus" of young solid arms to another team for some impact position prospects to the Indians for Sabathia. But the Indians aren't a long way from contending either. So I would think they'd rather trade CC for a couple guys that can contribute now then take 2 picks which don't help their team for likely 3-4 years, at least. Given the fact that the Cubs are locked in at both corners of the OF and the IF and Soto seems like a mainstay at C, I think you could give them Hill, Pie and a couple major-league ready players (like Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher, Marshall, etc). Maybe none of them are destined for stardom, but if they're cheap with a good chance to contribute positively to the team now and for a few more years, the Indians might be interested in that so they can spend their limited dollars on real impact players in FA or another trade or something. The Cubs don't seem to, but a lot of teams value major-league ready, cheap sources of league-average production. Seems like the Indians would be one such team.

I agree with this, but I don't think Rich Hill being the centerpiece of a trade for a starter like C.C. Sabathia is a buying low on Rich Hill. Is Rich Hill at his best better than C.C. Sabathia? That is assuming that you can coaching him to being his best because this is starting look more and more like the old Rich Hill. Thought I should add that I like Rich Hill, and am hoping that he finds his mechanics because we could really use Rich Hill from last year to fill out the rotation. I'm not saying he should be the centerpiece, I'm merely pointing out that I'd target him in a trade with the Cubs if I trust my coaching staff. Though, with the Cubs, I don't think we have "centerpiece" prospects at this point. I think you could put together a package of 3/4 of our top players and it might or might not be enough. I don't think it matters which one you call the centerpiece b/c its more about quantity of good players with an outside chance of being very good than it is 1 slam dunk and 1 cast-off guy or something.

Probably b/c he was playing like crap when he went on the DL before, so it was unlikely his replacement couldn't match his .577 OPS. That doesn't really make any sense, unless you're suggesting the mental impact will play a big role. What Soriano was doing at the time of his 2 injuries is irrelevant when discussing how they'll be without him. They'll be playing with the same team they played with last time he got injured, the same team they did fine with. Are you serious? A player's performance is irrelevant as to how the team will do without him? You realize that players don't perform at the exact same level throughout the season, right?

I disagree Vance Rich Hill. I don't see Hill being the centerpiece, seeing as they have three Top 10 prospects that are lefties (Lofgren, Laffey, and Huff) plus not counting Sabathia, the Indians have two other lefties in their rotation in Cliff Lee and Jeremy Sowers. They only reason why they would want Hill, is if they could flip say someone like Sowers to another team for a bat. Not to mention, Hill has very little trade value. So, if the Indians were to want a lefty pitcher in the deal, IMO, they would ask for Sean Marshall over Rich Hill. With that said, as much as I want CC, I don't know if we are a good fit for a trade, unless Hendry can pull a third team into the discussion, ala "The Nomar trade." Rich Hill seems like a real good buy low guy for a team that has confidence in its coaching. Get him, get his mechanics back to pre-Lou tweaks, and you have a great shot at a real good pitcher. And if the Indians do that and don't want him in their system, it's easy to trade him once you've fixed his mechanics. If I'm the Indians, I want Hill in the deal. Indians don't strike me as a team that's concerned with having too many lefties - they want good pitchers, regardless of handedness.

I don't like scenarios that give a tinkerer more chances to tinker. Chasing the hot hand is a pretty risky strategy.

Probably b/c he was playing like crap when he went on the DL before, so it was unlikely his replacement couldn't match his .577 OPS.

This particular quote loses a little in the translation

Why would you want Cedeno in against LHP? Far as I know, he still has crazy reverse splits, albeit in a really small sample size this year.

I hope not. It would make no sense for either party.

I think they trust Hoffpauir enough to make sure that Ward is completely 100% before he comes back. From what I read now, he basically is at the level he was before the latest injury. His back is ok, but his leg still bothers him, so pretty much the only thing he could do is hit. They are sending him to Arizona to hopefully get his leg better so when he does come back, he's not so limited. This is what Lou had to say about the DH: It looks like the Cubs will face 5 right-handers and 1 left-hander during these first 6 inter-league games (Kazmir being the one left-hander). He didn't mention using the DH to get rest for the one position player that it would benefit most?

You wouldn't play baseball for $1.5m?

I thought he sprained his finger. Is it much worse than earlier reports?

I just broke the 16-16 tie. Are foul balls really that important to adults?

It linked to the wrong video. Click on the link again and find the video that says "Crisp exchange words with Maddon" that is 2:48 long. It's the second slide in the video. Wow. What Crisp did was bull. That slide was ridiculous with intent to injure Iwamura. IMO the ump should have thrown him out. Especially after the way he stalked off proving his intention. Then the yelling F you twice at someone else. Those add up to an automatic ejection in my book. If I was on the Rays I would thrown at his head and done it again the next time he comes up. Simply put what he did was bush league and no one (the league, or other team, or his team) should put up with it. I can't think of a single thing that's happened on the field in the last 25 years that would warrant throwing 1, let alone 2, fastballs at a guy's melon. The slide was bush-league and Shields was right to drill him in the hip, but to suggest he should aim for his head is crazy. Once you try to hurt one of my teammates you become fair game. In most sports its that way. You try to hurt my teammate I'm going to hurt you. You see it in football, hockey, basketball, soccer .. etc. In baseball its you try to hurt my teammate I'll give you a little bruise. You can give someone a little bruise (and a lot more) without aiming at someone's head. When you go for the head you risk killing them, or hurting them so badly that they can never play again (Juan Encarnacion). No, aiming for the head is never justified, period. and neither is kicking your legs up at a guys knees while sliding because he made a good defensive play your last time up. If I was on the Red Sox I would tell Crisp to stop being a j-hole. The way he struted and everything he did does nothing to help the team. You're talking about potentially ending a guy's career, if not killing someone. You're either really dense or just trying to sound like tough guy.

It linked to the wrong video. Click on the link again and find the video that says "Crisp exchange words with Maddon" that is 2:48 long. It's the second slide in the video. Wow. What Crisp did was bull. That slide was ridiculous with intent to injure Iwamura. IMO the ump should have thrown him out. Especially after the way he stalked off proving his intention. Then the yelling F you twice at someone else. Those add up to an automatic ejection in my book. If I was on the Rays I would thrown at his head and done it again the next time he comes up. Simply put what he did was bush league and no one (the league, or other team, or his team) should put up with it. I can't think of a single thing that's happened on the field in the last 25 years that would warrant throwing 1, let alone 2, fastballs at a guy's melon. The slide was bush-league and Shields was right to drill him in the hip, but to suggest he should aim for his head is crazy.

While I agree with your point, what portion, if any, does the relative flame-out of that group have to do with the Cubs inability to develop players? If another team had the same stock of young arms, wouldn't they be wise to trade some for a lower risk that was close to ML-ready if they thought they were close to competing on the assumption that they'd have a good chance of developing at least 1 of the remaining guys? I know young pitchers are real high risk, but it doesn't seem wise for a team with a very limited budget to hold a bunch of them until they know which one will be great, which will be ok, and which will suck or be injured. I'm not necessarily saying the Rays are that team or at that point, but more of a general question.

Beltran, Burrell, BJ Upton. I'd still make the deal for Pence. You're not giving anything up and he's probably a keeper or at least in the discussion.

If you can replace Lyon with Capps, I'm not sure I see a downside to the 2nd trade. I'm pretty high on Pence anyway, but doesn't sound like you'd lose much, if anything, in giving up Lyon. Who's your other OF if Pence and Markakis would compete for Util?

who did we take?