USSoccer

I couldn't see them giving up Milledge and Pelphrey... AND Heilman. I think a lot more realistic is a combo of either Milledge&Humber or Pelphrey&Martinez. Maybe they could get a lower prospect with a pretty good ceiling like John Holdzkom too. You don't think Z is a guy that Minaya would overvalue? Also, wouldn't he get killed in the NY press by refusing to part with a reliever in order to get a front line rotation guy like Z? Also, it's not like the Mets are enamored with Milledge. put yourself in the other team's shoes... would you do that deal if you were the mets? Well...Glavine will retire eventually. Pedro is a half-season pitcher now. Your corner OF's are old. Your 1B and C are older. Your window to win a Worls Series is probably this year and next. You'd be giving up a corner OF prospect who you don't really like, and a P prospect who may or may not pan out, as well as a reliever for a 26 year old with ace stuff. It's not a no brainer, because it's a steep price, but I'd probably do it if I felt that Z was the kind of guy who could not just make you a NL contender but a threat to whoever the AL puts in the World Series, AND I thought I could resign him. I'd probably try and just give up Pelfrey and Milledge.

I couldn't see them giving up Milledge and Pelphrey... AND Heilman. I think a lot more realistic is a combo of either Milledge&Humber or Pelphrey&Martinez. Maybe they could get a lower prospect with a pretty good ceiling like John Holdzkom too. You don't think Z is a guy that Minaya would overvalue? Also, wouldn't he get killed in the NY press by refusing to part with a reliever in order to get a front line rotation guy like Z? Also, it's not like the Mets are enamored with Milledge.

Well, his option clock doesn't start until they send him back down, so if he sticks, this isn't an issue. But even if they do use up his first option in a few weeks, they will have 2008, and 2009 to use options. If Gallagher can't stick with the big club by 2010, at least in the bullpen, then how much hope is there for his future anyway? He should have a good 700-800 professional innings under his belt by then, including plenty of time at both AA and AAA. Even if you conservatively assume he goes back to AA in a month, he will have 2008 and 2009 to master AAA. I'd think he will be, at the minimum, a solid candidate for bullpen duty by 2010, making the minimum and hopefully throwing strikes. Even if he suffers setbacks along the road, they can make room. With all respect to Sean's family here, I'm not convinced that taking a guy who's a solid but not spectacular prospect and dumping him in middle relief is the best way to go. He could have used the rest of this year and part of next in the minors. If he comes up and gets beaten around in middle relief, what affect does that have on him? Not to mention you're taking a starter and putting his arm in a situation for which it's not conditioned. Our system sucks, and I don't like taking one of the better players in it and exposing him too early in his development.

So how much more damage can Jim Hendry manage to do to what's left of our farm system before he's fired by the new ownership? Seriously. There's no reason to take Gallagher and stick him in middle relief, just like there was no reason to pull Guzman from the rotation and then pitch him 8 innings in 12 days. Piniella can't manage his bullpen, and Hendry cannot manage the roster. What's going to happen in a couple years when Gallagher isn't ready yet but he's Rule V eligible? Why start his clock now and put him on the 40 man at least 1 year before he was ready for it? Cotts or Cherry or Pignatiello or Rapada all could have come up for a couple weeks if we needed a spare arm.

Milledge, Pelfrey and Heilman for Z and Howry.

Because Jim Hendry is stupid enough to rationalize signing Finley by thinking that it allows Pie to go back to AAA and get more everyday experience while simultaniously giving the ML club a veteran CF.

including Marquis himself I was in agreement with Goony, and considering we're 1/6 of the way through that 3/$21m contract, I'd say the jury is still out.

Speaking of the Mets, if the Cubs were to trade Zambrano to the Mets by the trading deadline, what would be considered a fair deal? Milledge, Pelfrey and Heilman. The Mets could have had Zito for Milledge last year, and didn't do it. I doubt they'd do that deal for Z, especially with him struggling this much. Milledge's stock is a lot lower this year than last, and Minaya didn't have the man crush he has on Zito that he has on Zambrano. Plus, after the way the Mets lost in the NLCS, there's more pressure on that team to win this season.

Speaking of the Mets, if the Cubs were to trade Zambrano to the Mets by the trading deadline, what would be considered a fair deal? Milledge, Pelfrey and Heilman.

I'm going with Hendry. No one did less with more than he did. He enabled Dusty, brought in Baker, Neifi, Blanco, wasted the minor league resources at his disposal, traded 3 players for Pierre, aquired Izturis...I could go on and on and on.

I went with Neifi. Not only was he the worst player of all the ones listed, the way he acted on the field drove me insane. Every time he walked over to the mound to say something to a pitcher I wanted to vomit.

Funny how the pen gets it done when set up properly. Amazing, right? Using players the right way? Unpossible.

I'm sure this is all speculation. McLaren will probably just drop him after these next couple matches anyway.

Trading Murton at this stage is putting the cart before the horse as far as not getting rid of Barrett 1st. If they're intending on getting rid of Barrett, let Soto get the majority of the rookie growing pains while Blanco is on the roster. While Blanco's defensive skills are starting to decline (his footwork isn't as sharp and neither is his arm), his best asset to the team will be to work with Soto. He is a leader on that team and what better way to exploit that than having him work with a player with the tools to become an everyday starting C over time. I have no idea what the Cubs could get from the A's. Not too familiar with their system, but I agree with everythign you said. I couldn't come up with anything either, in the case of Barrett, I doubt they could get much for him. I assume Murton could net more, but the question is... Who does the Cubs want to get rid of more between him and Jones? That almost has to be Jones. One would think.

Do I have this straight? Lou has put terrible relievers in the worst possible position?....Which means there must be not so terrible relievers he should use more often. Who are those relievers that are not so terrible?.....Wuertz?....Demptster?...Guzman? If they are the ones you refer to, they have cost the Cubs ballgames coming out of the pen just like the terrible ones. So who are the rest that must be terrible?.....Howry?....Ohman?...Eyre? Funny thing is, Howry, Ohman and Eyre all admit they have been bad but if Piniella ignores them by not using them, the others (that may not be quite so bad) will be worn out within weeks. Doesn't leave much else. You manage to win games that are in May in May. You worry about July in July. You don't put crap relievers in just in case Wuertz and Dempster get burnt out by summertime. Seriously, how does that logic make sense to you? You're going to put bad players in games just so you don't lose games in July...thereby losing games in May? Come on.

I'm not sure how Hendry has handcuffed him. Lou knew what the roster was going to look like when he signed up. And he's been around baseball long enough to know what the CBA rules allow a team to do. Piniella blaming Hendry is Piniella trying to shift blame on everyone but him for the Cubs start. Goony is right. He knew the roster before he got here, and he should know what can or can not be done. The only mitigating factor in this is that the sale of the Trib wasn't known to Lou prior to his signing the contract, and that it's affecting roster moves. I have it on airtight authority that Piniella and one other coach were not told about the sale prior to signing despite it being finalized but unannounced. Even if this were the case, it still doesn't excuse the way Piniella has conducted himself thus far.

I'm calling a Cubs sweep against Milwaukee.

Why would the White Sox do something that would make their already bad offense worse?

Perez was worse than both. He's the worst regular player ever to play baseball.

I agree, Lou has to find a way. But the buzz is the players don't like the way he does it. I guess he can try to adapt, but I thought lou was much more mellow than advertised until he finally went nuts. Also, i think this keeps going back to the point of saying "the manager" needs to find a way, why don't the players find a way? it's easier for 1 guy who's supposed to be a leader to adapt than it is for 25 guys to adapt.

No one is saying the players don't shoulder most of the blame. They do. Where Lou comes in is that it's on him to find a way to get the most out of individual players. If the team isn't responding to his ways, he needs to find a way to get them to respond.

Lou is a major league professional manager; he shouldn't be needlessly tossing players under the bus under the guise of "accountability" and simultaniously absolving himself of accountability.

I don't get it. They played bad under the coddler that was dusty, then play bad under Lou who lights them up when they consistnatly make mental mistakes. What's the constant here? Time for the players to start earning their keep. Or, perhaps "set-in-their-ways" managers need to find a different way to get through to their team.

Managing people is managing people. It doesn't matter if the media is involved or not, but the media being a factor is another reason not to sell out your players publicly. People can talk about players being "babies" and "crying", etc, but the fact of the matter is that people generally won't respond well to a boss who passes the buck and tosses individuals under the bus whilst washing his hands of any culpability in the group failure. This is what Piniella has done. And as far as Dusty goes, it's not a black and white thing. You don't have to be one extreme or another. Believe it or not, there are better ways to get through to a group of people than one or the other. And again, people keep missing the point-it doesn't matter what style it is that he's using, it matters that it's not working. It's on him to find a way of managing that will work. The longer he keeps being obstinate, the more he's going to alienate his clubhouse.

So it is all Lou's fault that they have sucked? Your a reliever, when you get put in a game your job is to get people out regardless of the situation. Quit putting the blame on Lou for their ineffectiveness. Maybe the first couple times, but after it was apparent that Eyre and Howry couldn't be counted on in close/late situations, he ran them out there anyway, over and over. That's on him. He's the one putting the ineffective players in critical spots. So which relievers do you go with? You only have so many. It is also not Lou's decision to ship those guys out, so you have to use them at some point. Its not like there are many clearly better options, maybe 1 or 2. One idea would be to go with your effective relievers in tight situations. It's Lou's choice to go with guys who have shown that they suck at this point. Every time he goes with Eyre, or with Ohman instead of Wuertz or Howry or Guzman against a RH, it's on him. He's the one putting a LOOGY against a RH hitter, or using Eyre in a hold situation.