Sammy Sofa

The Cubs placed him waivers because there was no room for him and because he was a wholly unremarkable player. That you're talking like they should have gone out of their way to hold on to him or trade him is absurd. And yes, baseball players are typically inconsistent. McGehee is noticeably inconsistent even with that in mind. His 2009 numbers look decent, but he mostly benefited from only starting 85 games and from the aforementioned insane, unsustainable months. He was a nice surprise for the Brewers, and sure, it would have been nice to have had him for when Aramis went down, but at the time he was claimed there was nowhere to put him and no real pressing argument to try and hold on to him. And I have no idea why you keep talking like Wells should be benched now.

A long time? They still had Lee last year.

You seriously don't think an incorrect outcome hurts the game? Sure, baseball will go on as it always has, but you don't think the players and the fans deserve the correct outcome on the field? What if it would be the Cubs screwed out of a playoff game on a hilariously bad call? Would you still feel the same way? Blown calls hurt the integrity of the game. Sure, not as much as like steroids or the Black Sox scandal or the color barrier, but it's still something that can be done away with if possible. I really will never understand the opposition to ensuring the correct outcome is called on the field. No, I seriously don't.

Oh.

Why? He entertains me.

Insanity?

No, because we have no idea what the 2012 Cubs are going to look like. I'll give you my answer when pitchers and catchers report.

Wells has sucked this year but everyone (fans, media and Hendry) would rather worry about Zambrano calling out the team, Zambrano being unhappy about being taken out the game last night, etc. There seems to be accountability for certain players but not all players. I bet you have argued with many posters about not choosing stats from certain months to make a point, but that is what you are doing. Bottom line is McGehee had a much better year in 2010 than you are giving him credit for. Does that mean I think he is great? No. But it is funny that the Cubs let him go for nothing and the Brewers got good production from a minimum salary guy while the Cubs had a cast of average to below average players fill in for Ramirez when he was on the DL. Well, it's pretty clear you have zero understanding as to how he ended up on the Brewers if you're going to look at as "they let him go for nothing." Please, explain to us your version of those events. And yes, he's been a very inconsistent player. And I'm absolutely baffled as to what you expect to be done about Wells. You want him raked over the coals? He's been bad, people recognize that he's bad. What else do you want?

Jeff Baker will have modest value as a platoon/bench player on a Cubs team that has a ceiling of being mediocre. Then he'll be a free agent. If you can trade him for a lottery ticket like, say, Chris Archer or Michael Burgess, then I'd do it. Those types of guys at least have a shot at being difference-makers at some point in the future. He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut. As we speak the Cub would need a 20 or so win improvement to get to mediocre. I'd say I'm being generous. And Gorzelanny can bring back Burgess ++, DeRosa can bring back Archer ++, but yet it's asinine to think Baker could bring back a Archer/Burgess type and nothing else? Come on. Yes, the guy you yourself described as a bench/platoon player can bring back the same return as a LH starting pitcher and a starting 2B who can multiple positions. [G.O.B.]COME ON.[/G.O.B.] The Cubs made such a jump 5 years ago. You're also still seemingly hung up on the idea that a team winning less than 90 games isn't worth your time.

Again, you're assuming teams would be willing to give up younger players. There's nothing "wrong" with teams not willing to do that; that's just the reality given what Kosuke is projected to bring to a team he is traded to.

You're assuming that the other team involved would be willing to give up younger prospects.

What kind of "scrutiny" are you talking about? You're talking like he should be benched or sent to the minors. And how the [expletive] does he sound "entitled?" And McGehee is not impressive at all. He's a very inconsistent player whose 2009 numbers are skewed by him playing out of his mind in September and June (April and August in 2010). He's been useful to the Brewers because he's been cheap, but his fluctuations seem to have caught up to him and he's absolutely brutal this year.

Jeff Baker will have modest value as a platoon/bench player on a Cubs team that has a ceiling of being mediocre. Then he'll be a free agent. If you can trade him for a lottery ticket like, say, Chris Archer or Michael Burgess, then I'd do it. Those types of guys at least have a shot at being difference-makers at some point in the future. He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut.

Do most ticket-buying fans even know who Jim Hendry is? Based on my trips to Wrigley, I'm guessing not. Of course they do. Hendry is a well-known scapegoat courtesy of even the hackiest sports radio schlubs, local sports journalists and the hellbeast David Kaplan. Hell, he's brought up all the time by and Len & Bob and Ron/Keith & Pat. A Cubs fan would have to be in a coma or dead to not know who he is.

It's pretty easy to tell. It's not like there are a ton of examples of candidates for president or GM positions who openly slam the current "administration" of the team that's potentially going to hire them.

Because these guys apparently aren't really all that valuable to the Cubs, yet can somehow net returns that will obviously help them win at least 90 games a season. SCIENCE.

Yep. He always says the right things after the game so his continued sucking gets overlooked. Explain. And please confirm that you apparently think McGehee is good. This is two games now where you've talked about him that way, going so far as to call him "Casey Ruth."

Jesus Christ, calm down. What mythical GM WOULDN'T be hyping up how many home runs Colvin hit?

What? Why is it pointless? Kosuke was gone after this year regardless.

I hope so too, but I heard the interview and it seemed like a genuine answer. As opposed to what? Was he flat-out asked about Hendry? Yes, he was asked specifically about whether he would see Hendry as his General Manager if he were in a President-type position with the Cubs and he said something to the effect of he would "see no reason not to keep Hendry" as the GM and went on to praise Hendry for his knowledge and past success. It wasn't the typical "we would have to assess the situation and determine what is best for the future of the team" type answer. That's not necessarily the "typical" answer you think it is. That's the typical answer you often get from someone already in place in an organization that's going to be making decisions about someone's future. That's not the typical answer from someone who is just a reported candidate for a position and hasn't even gotten the job yet. It would be pretty arrogant and bush league if he was giving the typical "I'm the boss and have to be diplomatic" answer when he's not even the boss yet.

I hope so too, but I heard the interview and it seemed like a genuine answer. As opposed to what? Was he flat-out asked about Hendry?

But AA is far from a necessity and the Cubs will likely reproduce his equivalent themselves. And the Cubs have to fill potentially both 2B AND 3B next year and Baker would be a big part of both. This is where the "90 wins or bust" mentality is shown to be faulty, when you have a real shout at bouncing back and being competitive next year, but you're willing to trade away a guy who can help the team simply so you can have someone who might be on a 90-win team down the line (but it's debatable whether or not he'd have anything to do with it). Hell, AA emphasizes the flaws in this, since he's not even with the team the Cubs traded him to for Baker. I'm pretty confident that Jeff Baker will have more value to the Cubs next year than anyone he can net in return would ever have for the Cubs at any point in their careers.

I think the Milton Bradley mention earlier is apt because it reminds us THAT MULTIPLE TEAMS HAVE TAKEN A CHANCE ON MILTON [expletive] BRADLEY. That should be the first thing on anyone's mind when they start thinking, "the Cubs can't trade Zambrano regardless of what they ask for or pay because NO team wants to take on a headcase like him!"

Well, the problem is those are the guys that usually get the FO jobs across MLB, so prepare to be disappointed.

But those aren't the pieces to do what you're suggesting. And all you're going to get is a very minimal, likely inconsequential return seemingly just because you don't think the Cubs can win 90 games next year (which isn't a necessity, and it's not like if they don't win 90 games next year it's a lost cause and they won't for the foreseeable future, but whatever). You conflating Hendry's rhetoric with the reality of them simply not netting enough in return to justify moving them given that that they do actually provide value to the Cubs. Some of Hendry's "untouchables" are indeed inexplicable when it comes to receiving that distinction, but in a roundabout way he's actually right. Guys like Marshall and Baker are effectively "untouchable" because they're not going to net you nearly the return you want to offset the loss in what they contribute to the team even just over the next year. Dempster and Z are effectively "untouchable" because of their contract situations and, again, the return you'd get almost certainly wouldn't offset what you'd be losing for next year AND likely wouldn't amount to much of anything at all. Yes, I'm saying that even just one more year of Zambrano and Dempster is more valuable to the Cubs than eating a bunch of [expletive] to move them when the optimal return is probably a fringe-y reliever or utility player who lingers for maybe a couple of seasons. Basically your distinction of "will they be on the Cubs next 90 win team" is too arbitrary to really mean anything, and moving all of the guys you listed (with Byrd being the only realistic exception) would do little to to nothing to allow the Cubs to create a 90-win team in terms of resources they don't already have available to them starting after this season.