Sammy Sofa

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.

I would hope/assume he's being diplomatic. It's not like he's going to be talking about cleaning house at this point.

Really? People hating umpires isn't anything new, and neither are blown/controversial calls. How are either actually detrimental to the game?

Nope. That's exactly what it's saying, which implies the Cubs are either not offering to pick up enough of the tab or or asking for too much in return.

But you DO want to trade them just to trade them. You've yet to make a convincing argument that any of them could net the return you seem to think they could, and you're still ignoring holes created because you're convinced the Cubs can't compete next year. Let's go one by one again: Yes, it's possible they might replace their production with the three mentioned...but you're trading two cheap and effective players that can help the Cubs right now. There's absolutely no need to move Baker and Barney because, again, they aren't going to command the return you think they would. They're in the middle ground where their value is apparent for the Cubs, but that doesn't mean their value is necessarily the same on the open market. Whether you like it or not it would just be trading them to trade them. With the kind of spending the Cubs are hopefully going to be doing, they're the type of cost-effective players the Cubs need to be utilizing, not casting off likely for a negative return simply because they're there. See above. Just because you can trade someone doesn't men you should. Marshall is an excellent reliever, but his trade value is greatly diminished due to him being a soft-tossing middle reliever without closing experience. Guys like that simply don't much command much. The difference in the return for Marshall and Russell would likely be negligible. Again, he's in the middle ground of being valuable for the Cubs, but not enough of a name to command anything of significance on the open market to justify trading him. Likely another case of trading just for the sake of trading. Regardless of the trade next year, Kosuke was almost certainly going to be gone. That creates a hole in the OF that needs to be filled, hopefully just for next year. Byrd is a cheap, useful player who, while not ideal for a corner OF spot, could fill that hole serviceably for the final year of his deal while Jackson comes up to play CF. Look, like I said, if someone is knocking down the Cubs' door with a great offer for Byrd, they should take it, but he DOES actually hold significant value for the Cubs next year so, again, trading him just to trade him isn't automatically the smart move. The Cubs can afford Wilson without trading Dempster. Dempster is also very difficult to trade due to his expensive player's option and the perception that he's declining due to his ERA. Trading him ultimately creates a significant hole in an already shaky rotation and downgrades the team for next year, so what do you think the Cubs are going to get with his value as low as it is and their need for a starting pitcher of his ability? Again, like Byrd, if someone was offering a great deal for him, fine, but unlike Byrd, that's even less likely to happen. You need to look at this from the perspective that the Cubs can very realistically compete next year with the right offseason moves. Most of the trades you're listing actually set them back from being able to do that while also providing minimal return.

It's common sense. I'm sorry, but if the Cubs are willing to eat a ton of his contract and inexplicably aren't asking for much in return you wouldn't be getting no interest. It's a ridiculous to conclusion to think that's happening. Again, there's nothing in the article that even hints that the Cubs aren't getting interest if they're picking up a bunch of the tab and not looking for much in return. There's likely not much interest in Zambrano in regards to, one: the Cubs not picking up much or any of his contract, or two: the Cubs picking up a lot of his contract but wanting something good in return. If you honestly think teams are passing on Zambrano because the Cubs are offering to pay for a lot of his salary AND aren't asking for much in return, well, I don't know what to tell you. That's a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Zambrano's probably still owed, what, like $26 million? Let's say "big money" means the Cubs are willing to pick up $12-16 million of that. They're also inexplicably not asking much in return beyond a couple fringe-y or long shot prospects at the most. You're really telling me that NO team out there is going to have interest in such a bizarrely lopsided deal and want to take a chance on him?

I have no idea why you would think I wasn't saying "since the first" as he was saying in regards to the Cubs. Since the first inning of Tuesday's game the Brewers have scored 2 runs (though technically in 2 fewer innings since, y'know, they won at home).

The article suggest nothing contrary to the post you quoted. Read it again.

He's not "mediocre" enough that teams left and right would be passing on the Cubs picking up a good chunk of the money owed to him. That's the point I was responding to.

Actually, they haven't scored since Aramis hit the 2 run homer in the first inning. 17 innings of 0's. And the Brewers have scored a whopping 2 runs in the same time frame.

What? Why does it "need to be feast or famine?" That doesn't even make any sense.

Wait, is the attendance even still dropping? I mean, it could be, but based on the home games I've seen recently the stands seem a lot more filled than they did earlier in the season.

But that's something that actually keeps me from wallowing in misery. If they were expected to do so much better, then there's a decent chance they WILL do better next season since so many key players will be back and they have the money to add some big additions.

I do see your point, and I'm willing to concede that I am foolish to think nobody would just take Z. Fair enough. I think the main thing in this is we don't know how much of his contract the Cubs are offering to absorb. It's likely not much if they're getting refusals. Or they've just made him available and they targeting the Yankees because of someone they wanted in return and we've yet to hear who else might be willing to offer what.

Yeah, that's definitely in my top 3, and it might be the "winner." At the very least I get to watch Garza and Castro this year, plus I'm invested in seeing how guys like Aramis, Byrd, Barney, Zambrano, Dempster and Soto do since there's a very good chance they can help this team next year. That 2006 team was just a dead end outside of Barrett and Aramis. Yeah, Lee was there, but the injury made it like he all but wasn't. God, what an awful year. That said, 2006 actually gives me hope for 2011. As horrendous as that team was, they were able to have a huge bounceback the next year with the right moves. It's like the brutality of 2006 and the unexpected relative awesomeness (YES, I KNOW THEY DIDN'T WIN 90 GAMES, GOONEY) of 2007 makes this seem a lot more tolerable.

But now you're describing something different. You're right, most teams probably don't want to give up a good prospect or prospects for him, even if the Cubs are picking up a lot of the bill. He's good, but he's in that middle ground of not being good enough to "merit" such a return. Even with the Cubs picking up a lot of his contract there'd still be big expectations around him, much like you get Cubs fans thinking "ace or bust with him" because of his reputation and his contract. But what you were describing before, that teams are turning down the Cubs paying a ton of his contract AND not asking for much in return...well, no, that seems very, very unlikely. I doubt there's a team out there that wouldn't jump on such a deal.