Sammy Sofa

"Moran" is an old joke here.

There's no way the Yankees give up A-Rod's offense for just pitching, especially damaged goods like Prior. He couldn't just come back healthy next year for this to work...he'd need to at least be back at his 2003 level.

It would be glorious if Murton magically ended up in the #2 slot. Boy, thank Christ Fox assumes that the entire east coast gives a rat's butt about the Yankees and Red Sox. I was worried I might forget about them playing!

There's not a single player out there this winter that's better than Ramirez. I'd take a combo of D-Lee/C-Lee/Soriano/Barrett most games of the year over D-Lee/Aramis/Barrett (on a catcher's schedule). Aramis is better in every way than either of those 2 players. Why not just sign one of them and keep Aramis? Regardless, you can't trade Aramis now anyway. The latter: I know, this is all hypothetical. The former: I think the 2 combined would be better, more productive and more consistent than Aramis. I also think they'd be able to hold up if another big hitter goes down for an extended period of time. Sadly, I don't think the Cubs can hope for any significant improvement unless they sign both players, or 2 players along their lines. Hendry has created a sucking black hole of offense between 2nd base and SS and the OF has so little power between the corner spots it's not even funny. I think RF could be salvaged next year with a Murton/Jones platoon, but LF needs to the big boost desperately. Murton is not the answer there at this point. I'd sign a big bat for LF longterm, let Murt platoon in RF with Jacque, and then he takes over RF fulltime when Jacque is gone. Hopefully his power has developed enough at that point. By then you'd have Big Bat TBNL in left, Pie in CF and Murton in RF. The problem with picking up 2 players along these lines is it doesn't leave much money to fix up the starting rotation. Hence why I'd be willing to have traded Aramis.

There's not a single player out there this winter that's better than Ramirez. I'd take a combo of D-Lee/C-Lee/Soriano/Barrett most games of the year over D-Lee/Aramis/Barrett (on a catcher's schedule).

I wouldn't want Barrett in the OF, but I wouldn't be opposed to putting him at 3rd to replace Aramis. I'm still thinking trading him wouldn't hurt if you do such a switch...with Maddux and Ramirez gone and Wood either gone or back at a discount, that frees up a lot of money for the Cubs to hopefully get out there and fix some holes.

But when is he going to get the playing time needed to get back into the swing of things, pun intended? Sitting him and having him do nothing except practice can be adverse, too.

O'Malley might show a little something and be valuable for a trade. Miller might show he has some gas left in the tank and could be had next year on the cheap as a starter or for bullpen work. I can't imagine O'Malley getting more than 3 starts...he's probably gone as soon as Marshall is ready to go. Miller cost a bit of cash, so why not see if any of it can pay off? If he takes up slot, you've got Z taking another...I'd give the other 3 to Hill, Guzman and Marshall. Send Mateo and Marmol back down to get some work. They're too raw at this point.

if o'malley gets starts at hill's expense, i may quit the cubs. I'd guess Marmol or Mateo would get bumped before Hill at this point.

None of those players broke their wrist, something that directly affects how fast you can swing a bat and in turn your mechanics. Besides, we have 3 1B on the roster in Nevin, Mabry, and Lee. I just don't understand why you'd let him play one more meaningless month. It's not meaningless...he needs to play at least some of the time to help work his wrist back to being in fighting shape. Sitting around not playing and only having batting practice and tossing the ball around is not the same as actually stepping up for a real game. I'd understand giving him some minor league starts first or giving him every other or third game off or something along those lines, but totally shutting him down makes zero sense. It's not like he's a pitcher.

I think it was explained quite well already -- ARod was the superior player at that position. Pretty simple, actually. If you think the hatred for aRod is bad now, imagine if he had taken Jeter's position. So what? That organization holds a ton of sway over the media in NY. If Jeter was the consumate team player and captain he's purported to be, he'd have publically handed over the SS position because it was what was best for the Yankees, and then you have no controversy. It just doesn't work like that man. It just doesn't. Do you give your corner office spot to the new guy because he went to a great college and was on the dean's list? It just doesn't work like that! So A-Rod was a rookie and only had his minor league numbers when he came to the Yankees? Because that's the only way that anaology even comes close to working.

um, 1945? That was in response to Scott saying we've had it "longterm"...yeah, no WS since '45, but '03 and '04 were not mediocre years. My debate with him is whether or not Dusty needs to go, and letting him slide and going nuts over the team having some empty winning streaks that might keep him around isn't explained away by "longterm mediocrity." I will not settle for crap with a bow on top.

You're assuming dusty will be back not me. long term mediocrity or short term, meaningless victory scrambles? We've already have long term mediocrity!! Don't see your pont. We've had mediocrity since the end of 2004. I guarentee you, if the Cubs somehow reached or got within spitting distance of .500, Dusty would be back. Hendry doesn't effectively admit mistakes by firing a manager unless he absolutely has to, and getting near or to .500 gives him his out, and he'd take it in a heartbeat. "Meanlingless victory scrambles," besides sounded like the worst meal at Denny's ever, is how I'd look at any kind of random, fluke push to .500 at this point. It accomplishes nothing productive, longterm or meaningful. It would be an empty non-victory that would likely hurt this team more than helping it, given who is running the show. It falsely convices them they have a decent team they can just tweek a little to win instead of one riddled with serious holes that needs some genuine rebuilding.

The Cubs suckiness blew out Gameday...what happened after they got Rolen out after the wild Marmol throw? Screw you, Gameday. Nevermind.

Marmol's a spaz.

Scott, you post one of these threads every time the Cubs inexplicably do a little bit of good, and then they proceed to toss it all right back in the toilet. You're killing the Cubs, Scott.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAH!!!

Miracuously getting back to .500 would make Dusty coming back and probably getting a multi-year extension a lock. That's not a good thing no matter how you try and spin it. Winning like crazy at this point most likely will actually hurt the Cubs in the long run. You have to weigh which you prefer...long term mediocrity or short term, meaningless victory scrambles.

Why do that if he's not showing that that needs to be done? Prior, I understand that thinking since he's showing to be almost constantly hurt. Lee is just working back from one injury and he's going to have to play sometime.

There's trouble in paradise.

And that's how we got the mess where people think there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

Sarcasm or not, I'm in the camp of in any sport, defense wins championships. Defense in football, basketball, soccer, etc. means preventing the other team from scoring. In baseball, that's overwhelmingly the task of the pitching staff, not the guys behind them. Defense in baseball doesn't compare to defense in other sports and is a relatively small factor in keeping the other team from crossing home. exactly. defense (as in preventing the other team from scoring) is very important in baseball. but actual fielding makes up a very small % of defense. Plus, like I said, the defensive performance in those sports, and in hockey, can lead to your team scoring within seconds.

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down. As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up. Heh...I agree with you, but I know the Red Sox sure don't right now. yep, the "red sox pitchers suck now because varitek is hurt" line is 2006's 16th best BS baseball story that analysts can bring up to sound smart! Well, I don't think it's just the pitchers, and I think the whole thing is the exception to the rule, too.

Statistically? Why not?

Michael Barrett's .924 OPS is much more valuable to this team than his ability to tell a pitcher to calm down. As for calling a game, unless the pitch selection is coming from the dugout, a pitcher has the ability to shake his catcher off. The pitcher is the one that should know what he wants to throw in a certain situation and where he wants to throw it. Blaming catchers for calling a bad game is an excuse used by pitchers that don't want to admit they screwed up. Heh...I agree with you, but I know the Red Sox sure don't right now.