Blueheart05

Who would that be? Who? I've heard that many times from sportswriters and athletes. It's not new.

I never said that Overbay was a better fielder. I just said on the whole that Overbay+A-Rod is better than Lee+Nomar/Neifi/Cedeno/whoever I missed your attempt to return A-Rod to SS. I thought you were talking about getting rid of the corners all together. Just for the record, Overbay and ARod is not better than Lee and Ramirez. Well, while we're at it, let's get Cabrera, A. Jones, and Guerrero in here (if we're going to get ARod). :lol: :lol:

I would argue that a top tier everyday player is more valueable than a pitcher (even an ace). That's not an even trade in my eyes; the Cubs would have to get more. Santana only pitches onces every 5 days and the Cubs are not 1 pitcher away from a World Series Championship. Lee gets 4-5 Plate appearances and several fielding chances everyday, but Santana faces 20-25+ batters every 5 days. If they were willing to trade Santana for Lee, we'd be stupid not to. Sorry, I just don't view it that way. Lee has the opportunity to impact the game daily while Santana can only do so every 5 days. I think this all boils down to people not believing that Lee will duplicate this season. I doubt the same trade talks would be said about Pujols, Sammy (in his prime), or a host of other top tier players. Lee is not making that much money therefore trading him deteriorates the infield defensively and the team offensively. Derrek Lee is the type of player teams build around. The Cubs can solve their problems without making any changes at the infield corners. Lee also turns 30 next week and will be a free agent after next season who will likely command more than he's worth. And yes, there's plenty of reason to believe that Lee won't repeat next season, whether it's his career numbers, his regression in the second half, his lucky BABIP/LD numbers, etc. I agree that we can improve the team without trading Lee, all I'm pointing out is that it might be an opportunity to improve the team if we can get more value out of him. For example, if we were able to spin Lee for A-Rod + Cash(example only, not saying it's feasible or likely) and then make a deal for Overbay, that would be significantly better than Lee at 1B and whoever at SS. Great, now I'm going to be thinking about a deal that would work all morning. Me and my imagination making sense :x. Lee deserves to get a bigger contract and some would argue that 30 is the prime of a baseball player's career. I would also say that his increased numbers are due to more than luck, he did make some physical changes to his batting stance. His second half dip is most likely due to a combination of injury and overuse. Historically, he is someone who plays almost everyday. The Cubs will need to give him more days off next year to preserve him throughout the season... I also disagree that Overbay is a better defensive player than Lee. Overbay doesn't have Aramis, Nomar, or Todd making wayward throws that have to be scouped up routinely. I think Lee is a better defender than Helton as well.

I would argue that a top tier everyday player is more valueable than a pitcher (even an ace). That's not an even trade in my eyes; the Cubs would have to get more. Santana only pitches onces every 5 days and the Cubs are not 1 pitcher away from a World Series Championship. Lee gets 4-5 Plate appearances and several fielding chances everyday, but Santana faces 20-25+ batters every 5 days. If they were willing to trade Santana for Lee, we'd be stupid not to. Sorry, I just don't view it that way. Lee has the opportunity to impact the game daily while Santana can only do so every 5 days. I think this all boils down to people not believing that Lee will duplicate this season. I doubt the same trade talks would be said about Pujols, Sammy (in his prime), or a host of other top tier players. Lee is not making that much money therefore trading him deteriorates the infield defensively and the team offensively. Derrek Lee is the type of player teams build around. The Cubs can solve their problems without making any changes at the infield corners.

I would argue that a top tier everyday player is more valueable than a pitcher (even an ace). That's not an even trade in my eyes; the Cubs would have to get more. Santana only pitches once every 5 days and the Cubs are not 1 pitcher away from a World Series Championship.

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him. I think "if" was the operative word. He wasn't saying that we should trade Lee, just that if one had to be traded, Lee would net more in return. I understand the difference and still think its a gross overstatement. Walker is a nice offensive player but not someone you build a team around. Contrary to popular belief, I suspect the chances are high that Walker is gone by the deadline (while a trade of any kind for Lee is highly unlikely.) Look at it this way; Lawton, Hollandsworth, and Walker all cleared waivers for the Cubs. We all know what happened with the other two... I would say that is not contrary to popular belief according to the chicago sportswriters, unfortunately. Just because he cleared waivers doesnt necessarily mean he will be traded though. I meant the popular belief of NSBB Sportwriters and sports radio alike seem to agree that Walker will be traded. You're right, clearing waivers in and of itself doesn't mean that a player will be traded however, a noticeable trend has emerged with respect to the Cubs trading players that cleared waivers... We'll know soon enough.

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him. I think "if" was the operative word. He wasn't saying that we should trade Lee, just that if one had to be traded, Lee would net more in return. I understand the difference and still think its a gross overstatement. Walker is a nice offensive player but not someone you build a team around. Contrary to popular belief, I suspect the chances are high that Walker is gone by the deadline (while a trade of any kind for Lee is highly unlikely.) Look at it this way; Lawton, Hollandsworth, and Walker all cleared waivers for the Cubs. We all know what happened with the other two...

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him. but nobody said we had to trade an infielder thats like saying that if you have to shoot either a dog or a cat, and you shoot a cat, it means you want to shoot a cat. It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. The love for Walker is beyond bizarre. Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year). LOL, I guess I'm the only one that thought these posts had something to do with trading Lee over Walker.

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him.

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee. Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season. One man's inflated value is another man's coming into his own... This year aside, Lee has been a consistent 30/98 man which is still far more productive than Walker. Besides, getting rid of Lee would cause BOTH an offensive and defensive deficiency. Offensively last year Walker had an 820 OPS and Lee had 860 OPS. At even money Id take an 820 OPS from my second baseman over an 860 OPS from my firstbaseman. Of course Lee was making 4 times what Walker made. Now, Walker had 250 less ABs and is average defensively with Lee being gold glove caliber. They both are great production/value but projecting the future, I would put Lee at around 950 OPS and not expect him to put up numbers over 1100. Lee had already played 1000 games before this year, im not saying its a fluke year, but i wouldnt say hes coming into his own. Only time will tell if he is coming into his own; 2006 will answer this question to a large degree. Also, you can't compare 2004 stats for Walker and Lee. Walker was injured for part of the year while Lee played, per usual, just about everyday. Walker is one dimensional compared to Lee. I like Todd but the idea that we should keep him and see what we can get for Lee doesn't make sense to me, especially with the number of other holes to fill on the team. This club needs to improve it's defense not destroy it.

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. The love for Walker is beyond bizarre. Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year). You can't make the team better by weakening its core. Even if you think his offensive outbreak is a one year deal, it's hard to argue against Derrek Lee as one of the best defensive 1B in the league. The Cubs infield defense would suffer no matter what they could get for him in a trade.

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee. Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season. One man's inflated value is another man's coming into his own... This year aside, Lee has been a consistent 30/98 man which is still far more productive than Walker. Besides, getting rid of Lee would cause BOTH an offensive and defensive deficiency.

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

A player can't be promoted back for 10 days since his demotion, and Matt hadn't finished his 10 days when McClain was promoted. Also, theoretically, Scott can play 3B. Matt will be back when rosters expand. i fully understand the 10 day rule. i am questioning the foresight of management. Garciaparra is playing third, so i fail to see your point... besides, there's always Macias... What foresight? How could they have predicted Aramis was going to get hurt? And it was better for Murton to be demoted and actually get ABs - it became obvious Dusty wasn't going to start Murton too much. Yeah< i know about Macias, which is why I said "theoretically." the 'foresight' i am referring to is the long anticipated roster move for Wood. that move aside, Sep. 1st is rapidly approaching. Cedeno was brought up as 'a precaution'. Murton has been getting the shaft. debate that fact... I dont think you're looking at the big picture. it's obvious that the Cubs were shopping Hollandsworth. As a result, he was starting in LF after Lawton was traded. Murton would have just been riding the bench in the interim... Hollandsworth has now been traded and Murton will be back in the MLs tomorrow. I'm sure that he will get the bulk of the playing time in LF so that Baker and Hendry can get a good look at him.

Neifi did not clear waivers so don't expect him to go anywhere.

Thank goodness I knew some playoff bound team would covet Holla.

The tease is over. Cubs lose 9-6

A player can't be promoted back for 10 days since his demotion, and Matt hadn't finished his 10 days when McClain was promoted. Also, theoretically, Scott can play 3B. Matt will be back when rosters expand. i fully understand the 10 day rule. i am questioning the foresight of management. Garciaparra is playing third, so i fail to see your point... besides, there's always Macias... Matt will be back with the team tomorrow.

A player can't be promoted back for 10 days since his demotion, and Matt hadn't finished his 10 days when McClain was promoted. Also, theoretically, Scott can play 3B. Matt will be back when rosters expand. McClain can also play 1B and is suppose to be Lee's backup. Murton will be activated to take Wood's spot on the roster. Murton will be with the team tomorrow: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050829&content_id=1188797&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

I hope Hendry trades him. Agreed but does that mean Hairston is our everyday second baseman next year? I was being sarcastic. It would be a waste of resources for the Cubs to trade him and make another hole on the team. Hairston isn't healthy enough to play everyday. I dont know... Walker has a great bat but his defense (along with Nomar and Aramis) is shaky at best. He also has limited range. If the Cubs have the opportunity to get a more defensive oriented infield (at short and second) then I think they should move in that direction. This team has to improve defensively. Improving IF defense is all well and good, but the offense is easily the biggest weakness of this team. Walker brings more to this team in his offense than he takes away with his defense - trading him away and creating another hole would be counter-intuitive. Only 4 more solo HRs to tie the game, guys! I'm not so certain that Walker's offense has outweighed his lack of defensive prowess especially when you consider he was disabled for part of the season. The Cubs need to strengthen their infield defense; they are near the bottom in DP's and high on the list of errors. All that results in extra outs and extra pitches. Having said that, I agree that the team lacks offense therefore, it behooves Hendry to find a legitimate LF (and possibly a new RF if Burny doesn't return). I'd much rather have a less powerful infield if they are steady defensively. Walker is the third best offensive player on the team, there likely is no one available who will provide as good offense at second as Todd can. The Cubs defense is above average by most metrics, their offense not so much. The reason the Cubs are so low in DPs is because they have many strikeout pitchers, giving them fewer opportunities to turn DPs. Add to that, Todd Walker has a cheap option, and it really would be a bad move by the Cubs to trade away a cheap, good option for next season. Burnitz better not be back next year. I understand the strikeout pitcher argument however, I also know that Walker has been one of the worst (if not the worst) defensive second baseman in the league especially as it relates to turning DPs. Perhaps its an issue of perception. Personally, I can think of a few games off the top of my head where Walker's defense cost the Cubs the game. On the other hand, I don't remember him singlehandedly contributing to many wins. Williamson serves up the solo shot. 9-5

Yeah, Hendry said he'd be available tonight. I'd actually like to see him one last time before he's shut down. one question...why? Because he's been exciting out of the bullpen. yes he is, but it just seems very stupid to me why a guy would pitch not even 2 days before he has surgery. He better not be out there for the 9th... I understand the jist of your point but Wood can still pitch he just can't get up to 50-60 pitches without pain. His season has officially ended now that he's being pinch hit for. 8-5 Cubs trying to rally!

Very efficient 1-2-3 inning for Wood

Yeah, Hendry said he'd be available tonight. I'd actually like to see him one last time before he's shut down. one question...why? Because he's been exciting out of the bullpen.

Yeah, Hendry said he'd be available tonight. I'd actually like to see him one last time before he's shut down.

No doubt someone would take him if he could be had at a VERY low price. IMO whatever junk we could get for Holla is not worth wasting AB's on him. I'm not sure what you mean by wasting AB's. The deadline is in 2 days and the Cubs are only playing for pride at the moment. They better try and get what they can by showcasing as many players as possible...