Caryatid

I don't think its a real proposed deal, but if you wouldn't do that deal in an instant, I think you're crazy.

I'm starting this thread so that people can just advocate for their player-why he should be picked up. I'd like to see everyone who's interested in this idea to NOT shoot down someone else's choice, but instead advocate for a player you believe would help this team. Might be a bit of a change of pace, and, to be honest, I don't really know who the Cubs should pick up and I'd be interested in seeing some possibilities. EDIT: So as not to confuse the topic of the thread.

I think it's because those 2 are doing the game today, so it's focused towards Sox fans since Cub fans in Chicago or with EI can see it on CSN. They did show Cubs comebacks, though (and actually ended it with a Cubs comeback win-that'll be good for at least 4-5 calls into sportstradio about how "everybody favors the Cubs."). And they did have Johnny Miller's call for the Cubs walk-off-walk from ESPN. Its entirely possible its a coincidence-I just thought it was weird.

Did anyone notice that, in the "comeback retrospective," NONE of the games were announced by Chip and Steve, and all the games were announced by Hawk and DJ? Is it just coincidence that all the games were announced by the Sox guys, or did 'GN decide to go to that much of an extreme to not have Chip/Stone on the air again?

sorry...didn't know i had to show my work. exactly. and they were both very good at it. thus, not a failure. um...no. 1996 Tucson PCL 25 Hou AAA 6 2 3.28 12 12 1 0 74.0 62 32 27 33 86 7.54 --- 4.01 10.46 1.28 1996 AAA-Tucson 6 2 3.28 12 12 1 1 0 74.0 62 32 27 2 6 33 86 the 7.54 was his h/9, which, you guessed it...is very good! right. and he was good at it. thus, not a failure. last season as a starter... 1999 A-Piedmont 12 8 3.35 26 26 4 1 0 161.0 130 67 60 10 7 53 149 he still had great numbers (other than era) and two good seasons as a starter. You're right about Wagner-Imisread it. my bad. As far as Guardado goes, he had a 6.18, 8.47, and 5.12 ERA in his starts at the big league level, was sent back down as a starter and had a 4.83 ERA at AAA. That's good? Turnbow had a 5 ERA at Rookie ball, and 3.35 at A ball, which, taken together, is mediocre at best. Look, you made an incorrect statement: "not many effective relievers were failed starters." I pointed out that, of the 31 closers in baseball right now, at LEAST 11 were failed starters at some level. I didn't realize daring to prove the statement wrong with make you go to such lengths to defend what seems to be an indefensible and minor point. Unless you want to debate the definition of the word "many" (sounds a little like discussing the definition of the word "is"), I'm happy with the points I made, and you can feel free to have the last word. I'm guessing that's what this is all about anyway...

Yep-they need a complete overhaul of their entire talent evaluation structure. They're giving Dempster 5 mil per, so its not being cheap-its just being stupid.

Wow...for many of them, you just wrote "wrong." Nothing like backing it with evidence. You sure told me... Guardado was a full-time starter in both the minors and majors through 95. Chris Ray was a full-time starter through 2004. Billy Wagner had an ERA of 7.54 at AAA in 1996, which caused him to be moved to...you guessed it! The bullpen. Derrick Turnbow started over 40 games in the minors. F-Rod had an ERA of 5.38 in 20 starts in 2001 right before he was switched to reliever. I'd call that a failure. ALL were starters who, for whatever reason, were determined by their team to be failures as starters and became relievers.

I believe that is exactly the point. Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers? If you'll note the quote I was responding to... abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters." But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response. now list all the failed starters who also failed as reliever. that task may take a while b/c that list is 8 billion people long. That's fine. But its also correct that many failed starters have become effective relievers. It was an accurate statement. fine. compared to the number of failed starters that have become, say, astronauts, there are "many" failed starters who have become effective relievers. but compared to the number of failed starters who have not become effective relievers, i wouldn't say that "many" failed starters have become effective relievers. You just switched the syntax of your original statement in an attempt to change its meaning. You originally stated "not many effective relievers were failed starters." Now, you say "not many failed starters have become effective relievers." Those are two different things. Your first statement was wrong, and your second one is not.

I believe that is exactly the point. Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers? If you'll note the quote I was responding to... abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters." But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response. now list all the failed starters who also failed as reliever. that task may take a while b/c that list is 8 billion people long. That's fine. But its also correct that many failed starters have become effective relievers. It was an accurate statement.

I believe that is exactly the point. Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers? If you'll note the quote I was responding to... abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters." But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response.

I believe that is exactly the point.

The following were failed starters at the MLB level before moving to closer: Eric Gagne Joe Nathan Brad Lidge Jason Isringhausen Tom Gordon Ryan Dempster Bob Wickman Mariano Rivera These players were failed starters in the minors (minimum 2 seasons as starter) who were moved to closer: Bobby Jenks Derrick Turnbow Billy Wagner Chris Ray Eddie Guardado Brian Fuentes Francisco Rodriguez

He writes: Everyone would accuse them of just trying to increase revenues, which, last time I checked, had zero effect on what they decide to do for the team. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE ADMITS THAT the ballpark would remain filled. I swear, every time I read the "ask Paul" segment, I wonder how these people get their jobs.

I hate the fact that the excuses never stop. I hate the fact that he is the manager. I hate the fact that most reporters are more than willing to just accept his garbage and not challenge him one bit. Most of all, I hate the fact that this jerk is making me root against my favortie team just so he can be removed from it.

If the Cubs banked all of their World Series hopes on 1 every 5th day pitcher, then they should be fired for banking all their hopes on 1 every 5th day pitcher. This team is not in the toilet because of Mark Prior. If he isn't worth anything to the Cubs and therefore tradeable for whatever they can get for him, what exactly makes him worth anything to any other team for them to be dumb enough to offer something for him? Simple question. I'm not saying trade him today but very soon. There are a lot of stupid GMs in baseball and Mark Prior is a name player. Now I said stupid, not completely brain dead. I don't have access to what value players have because I'm not a GM. Based on the stupid trades I've seen before, I think if Prior were to put a few really good games together, you could find a team that would give you a very useful player in return for him this year. Now, if that stretch of very good games does come and the trade presents itself, I'd take it. If you don't make that trade, you have to be prepared to wait until his free agency and see what he's done. If you do that, he could leave the team as a free agent if he's good, resign or never have recovered and be useless. I think that's one heck of a gamble to make. We're already assuming he would stay here if he does recover, and even then we don't know if he ever will recover. There's so many variables involved that it just doesn't seem smart to me to take that risk. If they did, of course I would hope that it would work out even though I wouldn't think it would. In an ESPN.com article dated about three weeks ago, an anonymous GM was quoted as saying the only thing you could get from Prior right now is a "B" prospect. Couple that with Hendry's inability to judge minor league talent, Prior's cost and the fact that he's tied up until '08, and there's no reason to trade him now. There should be some sort of rule a GM follows that says "with very few exceptions, if a player is 'hot' and under 30, don't trade him in season. If a player is 'hot' and over thirty, deal him July 1st."

Let's not forget that he's got the best taste in music of any baseball guy (or 61 year old) out there. http://www.rounder.com/?id=album.php&catalog_id=6862 Get well, Mr. Gammons.

The "old boy network" has spoken...

I'm not sure I could have respect for Murton's defense in left even if Nevin sits down indian style and soils himself before each batter-the difference between horrific and bad isn't a big deal to me.

In other words, until the first inning of his first start in LF. I think there are plenty of reasons not to like Nevin over Murton (age, etc.), but I don't think defense is one. Murton is a hack out there (as is Nevin), and LF defense is relatively overrated anyway. That said, I still would rather have Murton out there b/c the season is over anyway.

Its a long-term thing. Of course, one year is not going to make a huge difference in the collective allegiances to teams in the city. But if the Cubs continue to show no ability to put together a talented team or show accountability for those in positions of authority who make decisions (the re-signing of Baker would be an example) and the Sox continue to show success not only on the field but throughout the system, young people who are getting their first exposure to baseball are going to gravitate towards them. Its not going to happen overnight, but it will happen. The Cubs have not always been the favorites in Chicago-that title has ebbed and flowed over the years. The Cubs don't have a monopoly here.

Fixed! Fixed.

Interjecting once again- With the money saved on Wood and Maddux next year, you could sign both Schmidt and Zito to 12 million per year deals.

I don't necessarily think they're doing this consciously (because it would be absolutely abhorrent), but if I'm Hendry/Baker, then its a no-lose situation for me: 1. Lee comes back, team does well, I get to say "I told you so." 2. Lee comes back, team doesn't do well, I can say he wasn't ready and wanted to come back too soon. Its not like Baker isn't always willing to throw players under the bus. 3. Lee comes back, gets reinjured, I've got a built-in injury excuse. Again.

See my posts above. If there's nothing to hope for, then we might as well just not follow the team anymore.

Just for the record, you could add both Zito and Schmidt for $12 million per each and only add a million to the total payroll (accounting for the loss of Wood's 13 and Maddux's 9).