Sammy Sofa

Who was ever suggesting just Cedeno as the main piece of the trade?

Break 'em down.... Murton/Cedeno/Marmol/Patterson?

That would imply the Padres were actually wanted to trade Greene. True, it's a jump, but given hi refusal to extend his contract and their desire for Murton, it does beg the question. Obviously, Murton wouldn't get the deal done alone. Maybe throw in Patterson and Cedeno as well? I'd let em have Theriot if they wanted him instead of Cedeno. And I would probably give up Gallagher too. Nobody in their right-non-Cub-Mind wants Theriot except maybe as the 11th man in an 11 man deal.

That would imply the Padres were actually wanted to trade Greene. True, it's a jump, but given hi refusal to extend his contract and their desire for Murton, it does beg the question. Obviously, Murton wouldn't get the deal done alone. Maybe throw in Patterson and Cedeno as well?

Your moms all homered in my pants last night.

There's no excuse for this if the Padres want Murton and Greene can be had. None. Forget Byrd, forget Bedard...trade for Roberts and Greene, sign Lofton, trade for Burnett. Man, I wish this was a video game and not real life.

If they are interested in Murton doesn't a deal that nets us Greene make a lot of sense? Oh man, now THIS makes sense. If we're gonna move Murton, do it for someone truly useful like Khalil, not freakin' Byrd. Please make this happen. Toss in Cedeno and another prospect if need be, but get it done.

Though it's doubtful we'd get that upgrade without giving up Hill, thus pretty much negating any upgrade.

p

Neither. The White Sox's shorts damaged the game more.

Because it confuses and frightens them as if it were demon wizardry. I keed, I keed. Maybe.

So supposedly Lou himself said at the convention that a deal for Roberts looks to be unlikely. Pass on Bedard and move on, please (unless by some miracle he can be had without giving up Pie and Hill...which seems ridiculous). If we're gonna trade, trade for a quality or at least non-suck SS.

Very descriptive blogger with a lot of information versus this post with two sentences. Unless you have anything to back up your claim, I'm gonna go ahead and continue to assume that it's true. Some of the people on BCB are claiming that the modus operandi @ HJE is to "make things up." The people at BCB tend to assume the worst of any site about the Cubs that isn't BCB.

Stop skyballing.

And you can counter it...how?

I think most of us would pick neither Kenny nor Jim as a GM if we had our way.

I hope I never see those blues on the players again.

Harry from Mac, Jurko, and Harry said he has an inside source that tells him that Roberts will be a Cub in two days. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: which two days? Two days 'til tomorrow.

What? I can name 4 superpowers in the past century alone that have caused more death than us: the Empire of Japan, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China. What millions upon millions of people has the United States been directly responsible for killing? Actualy, that's a good point, I wasn't thinking...I meant to say prior to other modern superpower, the USSR, but I screwed up. I was thinking from the viewpoint of sustained empires throughout history, a la the Persian, British, Spanish or Roman. The other two are where you run into with what I find too subjective about this. Most historians wouldn't count Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany as comparable superpowers or even empires to what we're talking about with post-WW2 America, USSR, or even other superpowers/empires throughout history. Of course, you could also argue that what we generally believe is a "superpower" didn't exist prior to 1945. If that's the case, you could even further argue that China was by no means a superpower during Mao's time and has only relatively recently reached the point where it could even be considered a superpower. That leaves the only models for superpower-dom as the USSR and the USA, in which case my more deaths point falls apart. But at the same time, is being more benign than the Soviets any great feat? The subjective part I throw out there with the deaths is how can you even accurately judge it? If our money or weapons are involved in conflict, aren't we arguably responsible for the deaths? No, you're not gonna trump Stalin's numbers, not even close, but again, does that really make us truly "benign?" I'd still argue we have easily been responsible to varying degrees for millions of deaths over the last 60+ years. Is that truly benign? We've shown no qualms with pushing other nations into conflict, or choosing sides in them and supplyin them with weapons, resources money or even military aid/advising. We've entered more international, large scale armed conflicts ourselves than any other nation or superpower since WW2. Is that really benign? Do we do a ton of good? Of course. Are we benign? In my opinion, not even close.

I'm comparing the good and the bad that superpowers in human history have contributed. I think America has done more good than bad. It's not a fact declaration but it's just my opinion on the matter. Fair enough. My argument is that in the less than 100 years we've been a superpower, we've been arguably responsible for more deaths than most, maybe all, other superpowers throughout history. To me, that alone right there keeps us from really being too benign. I disagree. My comment wasn't meant to be a statement of finality or anything such as that. It was merely a comment based upon the fact that I think the America-bashing that we see in this country and abroad is not totally in tune with the reality of the situation. And don't pretend like I'm being some ultra-nationalist whacko by saying this. I'm obviously not beyond attacking my own country's past and present. I have SUPER problems with our foreign policy decisions. We should have never even BEEN over in Afghanistan in the 80's. I don't think you're a whacko. I just don't think it's an assertion that can be made so simply.

People don't care...yet they continue to read/post in this thread.

It's my opinion. Name a superpower more benign in human history. That's what I'm talking about when this is too broad and subjective. What are we comparing? Not sure why you are on the attack on this issue. I said nothing about resting on our laurels. Didn't even come close to saying anything like that. Because declaring ourselves to be "the best superpower" seemingly implies we've reached some kind of finish line and we can declare ourselves the winner. How can we be the "most good" or "best" or "most benign" if our run isn't even done?

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is. What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all. My post had zero to do with your post. It was just a random thought. And it's a random thought that is ultimately unrealistic since the world isn't a static, non-subjective place. There's really no way you can definitevely come to a point and say we're "the most good." There's also no point in ever bothering to rest on our laurels since our goal should always to be doing better since our capacity to do good is so great, as is our capaciy to do "bad."

So what? That doesn't excuse us screwing up or making piss poor decisions that end up harming thousands or millions of people. Being "less bad" isn't something to strive for, and that's all the flipside of that statement actually is. What I just posted was about us using an entire country as a military tool against our scary supervillain enemy at the time and then just dumping them as soon as the deed was done. None of that is "benign" at all.

Yes, but I think it's lame when people (not saying you) try and make the argument that we brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because we trained these people and attempt to lay blame on this leader or that leader for doing so. You mean like blaming Reagan for the CIA's funding of the mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? I think that is a poor argument, but there is something to the notion that we shouldn't have done that. I don't necessarily believe that what we did there, in supporting those groups politically and monetarily, has directly lead to the terrorism we experience now. What we gave them they really weren't using against us until we went into Iraq. However, there is something to the notion that to some extent, our foreign policy is flawed because we are willing to sacrifice a bunch of "little picture" scenarios for "larger picture" scenarios. It's this whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well, no, not if the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. It's like when one reads stories about how elite units of our military are training insurgent groups in Iran. Sure, it'd be nice to not to have to deal with the Iranian elite, but do you really know what you're attempting to replace them with? My gripe is less with the wartime support and more with the virtual abandonment of our supposed allies almost as soon as the Soviets were gone. That's infinitely more damaging than supplying them with money ad weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets. Hell, we're almost doing it again now. By the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan was already an afterthought. Outside of a few isolated areas where we have troops, the place is still wild and unchecked, and we seemingly have zero problem leaving that way. Ooooh, their leader looks like Ben Kinglsey and he wears funny hats and he seems so nice when he comes to DC...everything must be fine! WE WON! Bah. We don't give a rat's crap about "hearts and minds."