Sammy Sofa

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.

Man, I don't even know if this team even cracks the top 10 of worst teams I've seen in my lifetime. I'm sure as [expletive] not going to be thinking it after they lose 2-0 to Greinke. You delicate flowers are acting like they just got shut down by someone's batting practice pitcher.

Soft-tossing middle reliever. As good as he is, the Cubs aren't likely to get enough of a return because he isn't a proven closer to justify trading him. In short you're proposing trading him just for the sake of trading him. If the ideal deal is out there, but again, there's zero reason for the Cubs to be in fire sale mode. As bad as they are they can easily compete again next year, and trading Byrd likely leaves a very large hole in the OF that can't be filled until 2012 since Fukudome will also be gone and potentially you're going to have to deal with a useless Soriano. See Marshall. A useful player, but ultimately too limited (in this case by actually ability, or the lack thereof when it comes to hitting righties, as opposed to lack of a reputation). No reason not to trade him if the right deal is there...but it's very unlikely to be there. Give the Cubs' questions at 2B and potentially at 3B he likely holds much more value on the team than via a low-level trade. Wait, what? I was probably the biggest Barney basher here, but he's turned out to be useful, young and cheap. Why ship him off when he's all of those things and the Cubs have no obvious answer at 2B? A Baker/Barney platoon at 2B next year has the very real shot of being very productive AND cost-effective. You'd be creating another hole in the rotation. Cashner and Wells both have big question marks right now, so subtracting a good pitcher from the rotation without an obvious replacement isn't a good idea. Yes, there's McNutt, but as we've seen this year you don't go shedding your pitching options just because you can. Besides, Dempster's player's option and his price tag likely preclude the Cubs getting a decent return short of them picking up too much of the tab.

It's OK; you're apparently only 8 so there's a lot on your mind.

Wait, what? The only reported instance of the bold part of your post is this Yankees rumor, and we have no idea what the details are. What's far more likely than your theory is that Cubs offered to pay a lot of the money owed for him in exchange for someone like Montero and the Yankees said no. The Cubs "eating big bucks" when it comes to trading Zambrano almost certainly means they're looking to get a good return. You're conflating trading him with dumping Soriano.

And even dumber fans.

Because it's not blocking anything important? I don't know, maybe I'm just used to it, but I'm not sure what it's preventing you from seeing.

You're blaming Bud Selig... ...for the umpiring "system"... ...that was established well before he was even born. ... Let's ponder that one for a brief moment, shall we?

The more money the Cubs offer the more they likely want back in return in terms of a prospect or prospects. Zambrano is in that middle ground of not being worth the money he's being paid, but also not worth the level of prospects the Cubs would expect if they pick up a big chunk or most of his salary (especially moving from the NL Central to the AL East). I find it difficult to believe that you honestly think the Yankees wouldn't take him if the Cubs were essentially offering to pick up a big part of the tab and not wanting much in return. That's exactly what I believe. I believe the Cubs don't even want any great or good prospects back from the Yanks and are still willing to pay a lot of his salary. I believe the Yanks don't want him because they view him as a declining pitcher and a headache, both of which may or may not be confirmed by the pitching coach that worked with him for years. Whether we would want them to or not, I think the Cubs just want to get rid of him and start purging themselves of the players they feel are becoming stale in Chicago. I'm sorry, but this is just absurd. Rothschild is an excellent pitching coach, but he'd have to be a [expletive] prophet to talk the Yankees out of trading inconsequential parts for Zambrano AND the Cubs picking up a ton of his contract. Even factoring in a decline he's still young enough and has shown enough talent even throughout various times of this very season for a team to pass on a deal that heavily in their favor. He'd basically have to be a threat to murdering someone in terms of being a "headache" for a team to not take such a sweet deal...which is why it's tremendously unlikely that's not what happened.

Baker can actually really help us next year, especially in a platoon at third if we don't bring Aramis back. I agree that saying what Hendry did and then appearing desperate to dump Z doesn't make any sense. Yep, Baker can help the Cubs finish 5th again. He is a BENCH player, none of them are so valuable that they can't be traded if a team like Boston wants to give up a young player. Stellar logic. In your sweaty hurry to slam Baker as merely being a "BENCH player" you effectively torpedo your own argument that he can be traded for anyone of significance.

Marshall wouldn't net you those kind of pieces. Ramirez could, but he won't allow himself to be traded. And thus, here we are. Though really, those reason for a team like the Cubs to ever go into full rebuilding mode (which is effectively giving up for the foreseeable future). The fact that people here think that is unavoidable or even ideal is just baffling to me. The Cubs can easily both build for the future AND contend next year with a team capable of both taking advantage of a weak division and decent enough to challenge the arguably or obviously better teams in a short playoff series.