Sammy Sofa

What the what? What supporters? Perhaps perennial Cub spin doctors would be a better term. Examples. Look around. I don't even know what I'm looking for. Please clarify.

yeah we can but how does that make us a .500 baseball team? I'm not so sure. Castro getting even better, Soto hopefully bouncing back to 2008/2010 Soto instead of just decent but mostly only tolerable Soto, Aramis not getting off to such a slow start power-wise (if he is indeed back), adding someone like Fielder or Pujols, signing a new starting pitcher and then not having two of them go down after their first starts of the year and then being replaced by a parade of hideous garbage. Sure, things have to go their way, but it's far from impossible. And even if they don't quite get over the hill next year it can still mean that 2013 can be the push that puts them over the top with more good FA available and more money coming off the books. Giving up on 2012 effectively means giving up for the foreseeable future whereas it's not like 2012 is a make or break season if they attempt to be competitive. If they make the right moves and end up back at .500 or above, great. If they make the right moves and up, say, winning 15-20 games more instead, great. Then they're still in a position to win even more the next year (and the seasons after that).

What the what? What supporters? Perhaps perennial Cub spin doctors would be a better term. Examples. Pretty much all of the ideal replacements are working for other teams at the moment, so unless you mean "during the last offseason" when you say "sooner" that really doesn't mean much of anything.

I'm pretty confident we can "gamble" on the 5th starter position somehow being covered between Wells, Cashner and McNutt.

You're really worried about the 5th starter.

I seriously doubt that. Again, we're talking about Reed Johnson. He's making less than a million bucks this year.

Because the Cubs aren't going to trade away a starting pitcher right now.

That's certainly possible. But somebody should have been. Why? He's a platoon player with chronic back problems who isn't very good defensively anymore. Didn't say teams should be falling over themselves to acquire him. But he's a nice complementary piece. Hits lefties well and is fine defensively in the corners as well as able to handle CF (though to what degree is debatable). There are guys like that all over baseball. I mean, I get your point, but the likely reality is that nobody wanted him vs. the Cubs not trying to trade him. Someone like Baker I get because he's back next year. Johnson doesn't fit into the Cubs' plans at all, so I'm sure they would have been happy to give him up if anyone was offering anything.

I like how he thinks something like Wilson/Garza/Dempster/Z/whatever is apparently barely removed from crap.

Why do you think Garza is a #3 pitcher (at best)? Add to that why he thinks Dempster is a #3 at best.

Clearly, otherwise I wouldn't keep asking.

Untwist your panties; it has nothing to do with "accepting" anything. I don't give a flying [expletive] if someone dislikes it...I was, as I plainly said, honestly curious as to what people found distracting about it since, for me, it causes me to look where I'm looking anyway (and it's what I'm looking for).

That's certainly possible. But somebody should have been. Why? He's a platoon player with chronic back problems who isn't very good defensively anymore.

You're overrating what Marshall would bring back and underselling how much Marmol's awful contract is going to negate any value for him unless the Cubs pick up too much of it. And you've just decimated your bullpen. I could see moving one of them if miraculously a good deal came along, but both? Bad idea, especially Marshall.

I'm honestly curious, since you keep saying it's distracting, but it's making you look where, presumably, you'd be looking anyway.

I'll bet nobody wanted Johnson.

I dont know. At somepoint we have to stop making excuses for Hendry whether its our opinions about too much salary or not the right players in return. Others teams in the last couple of days have gotten very solid returns on their major league talent Hendry has made one meaningless trade and on this 90 plus loss team. This one is on him. So if the Rangers didn't make a very strong offer or if they demanded we pay Marmol's entire salary, Hendry should have taken the deal anyway because other teams are making trades? I'm in favor of dealing Marmol, but only if it makes the organization better, not simply because I want to see players traded. No kidding. This blindly oblivious mindset of "other teams made deals, so the Cubs should be able to make the same deals, hurdurdur" is getting silly.

Hendry left to his own devices? The latter. With the Ricketts in play? I honestly don't know. Yes, but the Ricketts for the most part have left Hendry to his own devices. Doesn't mean much to me in terms of how I think the offseason is going to play out. I'm still pretty confident that Hendry is going to be fired at the end of the season. I'm not as confident, however, that the Ricketts will let the new guy spend his way out of crappiness like we're hoping.

What the what? What supporters?

Hendry left to his own devices? The latter. With the Ricketts in play? I honestly don't know.

That would leave us with an outfield that could potentially have nobody with an OPS over .800. We're not competing with a team like that because the rest of the team probably won't be good enough to overcome that. Either Byrd stays in center while Jackson improves in AAA, or you trade Byrd because he's our most marketable trade piece right now, unless Hendry is getting offered garbage for him. And that could be a real possibility right now. Teams obviously know that Hendry's job is on the chopping block, and they could be trying to take advantage of a potentially desperate GM. I'm not saying Byrd in RF is ideal, but it might be the best solution to just hold down the fort until you can beef up RF via FA for 2013 so you're not stuck overpaying for some crappy 1-year-rental. And again, it's not like the Cubs can't trade him next year, too.

I know even you are not this dense. Yes, trading Byrd creates a hole in the lineup, especially if the Cubs are trying to maximize their spending dollars for next year. Byrd is a useful, productive player. He's only making $6.5 million next year. The OF FA class is uninspiring to say the least. If the Cubs are smart they should be keeping their eye towards having Jackson in CF and either Kemp or Ethier in RF in 2013. That means you've fortunately got a relatively cheap, productive OF in Byrd to help hold things down out in there over the next year, and that's important if they hope to compete since they have the big question mark of RF in the meantime. Trading Byrd now just creates another question that really can't be filled well for next year if he's gone. Plus it's not like they need to trade him now. If they end up sucking again next year they can just trade him then. This isn't a do or die scenario. And way to rag on his numbers like he didn't miss a ton of games this year because he was hit in the [expletive] face. Brilliant. And this justifies trading Baker...how? The organization values him because he's useful, and he is. Again, question marks at potentially both 2B and 3B next year. Baker's abilities against lefties and being able to play both spots makes him valuable to the Cubs as a bench and platoon player. On the flipside, his skills are limited to the point that he's not going to net much of anything in return. There's no pressing need to trade him now since, like Byrd, he can just be traded for a likely meaningless return next year instead of this year. Nobody is expecting them to come back next year with the exact same team. Don't be ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm surprised at the amount of people thinking this was some diabolical action on Holliday's part. He was trying to take Castro out, but like Truffle said, he was just really bad at it. Nail him in the back once if they feel they must, but anything more is just overkill. It's like people have never seen Holliday play before; outside of what he can do with the bat he's a clubfooted oaf out there.

I don't know why people don't understand how keeping Byrd is a good idea. Moving him creates a big hole in the lineup that the Cubs can't fill without spending more money on an unimpressive FA OF class. The only candidate to replace him is Jackson, but the ideal situation is that ultimately he comes up and mans center while Byrd shifts over to RF for the final year of his very, very affordable contract. And why in God's name does Baker keep coming up? I can understand why other teams would want him, but I can also guarantee that they're offering garbage for him. It's easy to see why he's more valuable to the Cubs given the questions they potentially have at both 2B and 3B next season given how well he hits lefties than just trading him off for squat. Baker is what he is; if the Cubs are garbage again next year they can move him for a similar return before the deadline then. Same with Byrd. Pena is a different story, since he's only signed through this year, but hey, if they're only being offered lousy deals then it's easily worth it to gamble on the comp pick. The bottom line is that the Cubs' poor teambuilding during Hendry's tenure have left them with a bad team where the guys you can move aren't going to net you much in return (Baker, Fukudome, Pena) and the guys you arguably should move or wish you could move you need next year (Aramis, Dempster, Byrd, Baker again). That's the fallout of having a bad FO.

Well, they potentially have Huff signed through 2013 (at least until 2012, and getting $10 million a year), and he was steadily improving over May and June from April...but then July was a regression. They're also paying $14 million for Beltran for the rest of this year, so they're likely not going to give up much of anything for Pena unless the Cubs are effectively picking up the tab. Lincecum is arb. eligible after this season and Cain's deal is up after 2012 so I'm sure that's in the back of their minds, too.