MPrior

30) The teams collective line will be .239/.287/.386, but, due to an extraordinary clubhouse chemistry, they will score 987 runs. Edited cause I was beat to #31.

Wouldn't that be about 102 in Canadian wins though? I doubt the Yanks or Red Sox can match that. I appreciated this.

Goin' back to the beginning of the thread, I have to admit that I'm a very bad NU alum. I had no idea so many players weren't gonna play in the bowl game. I guess I'm not keeping up as much as I should. I'll be watching anyway, though. GO NU!

Depending on Gonzalez's remaining contract, I'm pretty sure I'd do it. He's still a pretty good bat. And we need some revamping, and if all it costs is Corey Patterson, that'd be fine with me.

I was looking at it the other way. The study shows what a worthless (read: luck related/teammate dependant) stat ERA is. For relievers, at least. True. Much better for starters. They finish 90+% of their innings. And if they ARE pulled in the middle of an inning (especially in th e NL) its their own darn fault, and I hope their runners DO score! Well, except in the Cubs' starting rotation, when the only reason they got in trouble in the middle of the inning in the first place is that Dusty should have pulled them out at the end of the last one.

So Lee is likely to regress - it would be hard for anyone not to regress from a season like that. I think, though, that he will definitely not regress to his career averages. I expect him to put up a .900+ OPS next season, which is pretty much in line with what you said, PoMH.

Um, I know I'm a bit late here, but I'd just like to chime in... As a life-long fan of Tar Heel basketball, I can honestly say I appreciate all the respect that's been given UNC in this thread, but I think some people here are overevaluating them. Hansbrough is a great player who was serious star potential, but he's not there yet. And other than David Noel, who isn't as good as his averages this year suggest, the team is basically a bunch of freshmen. Good freshmen, yes, but freshmen nonetheless. They can play a good game of basketball, but they're also capable of playing some pretty bad ones, too (see their recent stomping at the hands of USC). Anyway, I guess the point is that citing them as an example of a very good team, or Hansbrough as a star is a bit premature - they should be a monster in a year or two, but right now, I don't expect that much of them. I'll be pretty happy if they get to the tournament (and REALLY happy if they make it to the second round).

David Wright and Jake Peavy. No, I didn't do any research as to Peavy's contract or anything, so I could be totally wrong, but he's still pretty cheap, and will remain so for a while, right?

COMPLETELY unrelated - but CPatterson, I love that clip of that INCREDIBLE dunk in your sig. Mostly because I HATE Duke in general, and JJ Redick in particular. Man, what a prick. Alright, I'm done.

I'm gonna go ahead and say yes - get him if the price is right. Those numbers are better than what Mench, Jones, Bradley are likely to put up. And while he's not fantastic, I do like his roughly .100 IsoD and the .350 plus OBP. And, with the exception of last year, he's hit for pretty good power. So, while he's not perfect, and ideally we'd have more production from RF, I'd definitely see if we can get a hold of him. He's a much better option than some of the other names that have been thrown around.

ooh i really like this one. Seconded.

What's the Angels' payroll situation like? I think the thing that helps the Cubs the most in this situation is that we could actually fairly easily take on his entire contract, if need be. If not for that, we wouldn't stand a chance - the Angels could so far outbid us it'd be impossible to stay in the race. EDIT: Sorry if this has been discussed before. I'm just really not in the mood to read a bazillion pages in several different threads all on one player. Ha ha. The word "bazillion" reminds me of a joke: DISCLAIMER: This is not meant to be a political statement of any kind. It's just a joke. So George Bush's administration is having a meeting. At the end of Rumsfeld's debriefing, he concludes, "...and 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in guerrilla action yesterday. George Bush exclaims "NO! That's terrible! What should we do?" Rumsfeld and the others, stunned by Bush's open display of emotion in response to the news, simply wait for an explanation. Bush, after calming himself down a bit, says, "Wait...how many is a brazillion?"

Seconded! I'm going to go against the grain and say I would not make this trade. I would be willing to part with all of those prospects for a bat that would be the centerpiece of our lineup. Tejada, however, would be the third best hitter in our lineup. Not worth it, IMO. In his MVP year, (awarded mostly because of his 131 RBIs) he had an .862 OPS. His career OPS is .815. This guy is good, not great. I think if we took that package and threw in Harvey, we could pry Miguel Cabrera away. Much younger, and would instantly be the #1 bat in our lineup. Cedeno/Cabrera>>>>Tejada/2nd tier RF This is almost certainly not true.

I'm not even sure the Marlins would make that trade. I laughed when I read this. Just thought I'd mention it. Also - I like Chad Tracy. If he can be had, it's worth trying to get him. That said, I'm also not a fan of trading away two of our best back end of the rotation options, when our rotation is so fragile and top heavy.

Maybe I'm just willing to settle, but I'd much much much rather have Trot Nixon than Kevin Mench. I'd almost certainly rather have him than Austin Kearns. And a pretty compelling case can be made over Bradley, considering that even with Trot's ugly splits against lefties, he still produces more like a corner outfielder than Bradley does. Plus, he less of an injury risk and not a headcase. All that said, I don't think Trot is the best option for this team. But he's FAR from the worst, and I would not at all be unhappy if we got him.

I think the point is that anybody can have a successful firesale in a weak free agent market. The fact that they were in a position where they had to in the first place is a pretty hefty indictment of the organization. Secondly, I don't think anybody who makes their team worse for at least the next two years deserves an "outstanding" and a gold star. That said, the Marlins DID achieve what they set out to do. So if you ask me, they get a B-. And that grade will never go up. They achieved what they wanted, but what they wanted was both easy to accomplish and not entirely desireable. The Mets, on the other hand, have done a hell of a job. Yes, they've paid big money for big names, but they've addressed their needs with proven producers at the highest level. They got a middle-of-the-order 1B in Delgado without giving up Heilman or Milledge, got LoDuca who isn't great but is certainly acceptable as a catcher, and better than what they had, and Wagner, while he is overpaid, WILL close games for them. And he will do it well. They got what they needed. The reason people don't like the Cubs overpaying is because, usually, Hendry overpays for stuff he doesn't really need (Neifi, Rusch?) or players who aren't the best options out there, but still cost just as much (Eyre, Howry, Pierre).

This could be because I'm not a religious person, or it could just be because I'm not crazy, but I honestly don't give a rat's heiny (yes, heiny). Christmas was originally a pagan holiday anyway, and a lot of people who celebrate it (even Christians) don't really treat it like a religious holiday. So my feeling is, if you're in a position of power and doing mass mailings (a la GWB), "Happy Holidays" is the way to go, just because many of the people who he's sending it to may not celebrate Christmas. And in my mind, the "I don't celebrate Christmas, and you should be respectful of my beliefs/holiday/whatever" is a far more legitimate gripe than the "Saying 'happy holidays' takes away from Christmas" one, which is complete BS. If you're just writing personal cards, whatever you and the people you're sending them to feel is appropriate is fine.

I put didn't like it, but it's a pretty mild distaste. I like both Nolasco and Pinto, and thought we overpaid, especially considering there were better options that likely could have been had for less. But all in all, it is a significant upgrade, and it does address a fairly big need. So - eh. I guess. I would mind it less if I knew Hendry had exhausted the other possibilities first.

Alrighty. Let's look at it this way: Who do we have at SS next year, as of right now? Cedeno (I refuse to believe that Neifi will play). What kind of line do you think he'll put up? I say something like .270/.320/.400. Not too shabby, not too great. What would Tejada put up? .300/.350/.500. A significant upgrade. .30 points in OBP, .100 in slugging. But we'd have to gut our farm system and take on a big, if reasonable, contract to get him. Now. Who do we have in RF next year, as of right now? Nobody. Nobody will put up a line of .000/.000/.000. Or, if you like, John Mabry, who, if starting in RF all year, would put up a line of .210/.260/.370 or the like. So what would Milton Bradley put up? .275/.350/.440. Not extraordinary, but pretty strong. But it IS an enormous upgrade over what we've got now (.90 points in OBP, .70 slugging), and it wouldn't cost very much at all in terms of prospects or cash. So which do you take: the significant but not extraordinary upgrade at SS that costs your farm system and 40 million dollars? Or the huge upgrade in RF that costs a solid but not premium prospect or two and maybe 5 million dollars? And before you say "both," consider what that would do to our farm system as well as our big league rotation and our payroll, and if it could even be done. Tejada just isn't worth "any four prospects," as some people have suggested.

Uh, don't these guys have to be on the 25-man all year? There is no way this happens. They must be trying to trade them or something. Someone please enlighten me.

I'm pretty sure no one here demands a perfect leadoff hitter with all of the stats you just mentioned. In fact, I think several of us are skeptical of the value of even looking for someone who will be your "leadoff hitter." What I'd rather do, and I know some people here feel the same way, is find good players to field each position, and then organize your lineup once you've got that. As far as evaluating a leadoff hitter, I'd like someone who can consistently get on base at a .350 or better clip, and who doesn't get caught stealing very often. Whether this means having a very good steal % or just not trying to steal very often is irrelevant to me. Ideally, I'd also like them to hit the occasional double or triple.

IsoD for some key players on our team: DLee: .083 ARam: .056 Barrett: .069 Murton: .065 Neifi (ugh): .024 Corey: .039 - and I'd like to point out that even this is artificially inflated because no one was throwing him anything anywhere near the strike zone, cause they knew he'd swing at it. Walker: .050. So yes, Walker was a little down from his career norms this past year, but certainly not that bad, especially in the context of this team. Secondly, he's fairly consistent. Since his first full season, he's had the following OBP each year: .372 .343 .355 .361 .349 .353 .333 .352 .355 Other than 2003 (the .333 year), he's been remarkably consistent, even though his OBP is somewhat reliant upon his average. I'd take him.

I've always like Loretta (NU grad and all). Good pickup for the Red Sox. But who's gonna catch Tim Wakefield?

Incredible.

So have we figured out what the actual trade is yet?