cbbryan

The Cubs have plenty of 2B.

So, the O's will do a Marlin and dump Tejada and his salary on whomever can get Bedard? If Tejada is being considered a payroll dump to the O's I'd hope Hendry is already on the phone. Bruce said that from what he's heard Tejada's contract is too much for us (unless we don't make any other big moves i'm assuming), so unless Baltimore is going to eat some we shouldn't get our hopes up. Cubs could spin him off.

So, the O's will do a Marlin and dump Tejada and his salary on whomever can get Bedard? If Tejada is being considered a payroll dump to the O's I'd hope Hendry is already on the phone.

Eyre and Hart............ Dusty would love both.

Jay Bruce is going to be a great player. I like him more then Lincecum as well. I'd also take him over Maybin, Pie, and Martinez (Mets). Cubs would never get him though.

http://www.netitor.com/photos/schools/ill/sports/m-footbl/auto_original/1205563.jpeg WOOOOO!!!! ROSE BOWL BOUND!!!!!!!!!! =D> =D> =D>

That struck me as being really funny!

No way! I'll give you that USC is more talented overall. Illinois has a quality running game with Mendenhall and a mobile QB in Juice that will help keep USC's defense off balance. I don't know if Illinois has enough to get the job done, but I don't think they'll get stomped either. My call USC 27 Illinois 24 Hanging with Washington and hanging with Georgia are two totally seperate things. Even June Jones says they're "over their heads" in this game. It may be close early, but here's the blowout your looking for! Georgia 42 Hawai'i 27 I actually like this match-up. I've watched LSU a couple times this year and have been impressed. After last years embarrasment to Florida, OSU will come prepared. I think this game stays within 7 points and I can see either team winning.

And that they (Hawai'i) was "over their heads, but would show up."

That's some mind bendingly awful logic. I agree. I mean.....wow. :lol: Are you saying a team shouldn't get credit for beating a team ranked in the top 5 in the nation? What constitutes a top 5 win? My logic is apparently flawed so please explain. I'll explain in three sentences. ND beat No. 3 Michigan at the Big House in 2005. Michigan finished 7-5. No one did or should have considered that a top 5 win. End. The stats site that as a top 5 win. It's not really hard to understand. I agree that Wisconsin isn't a top 5 program right now, but that is what they were ranked at the time they played Illinois. The fact of the matter is, Illinois beat 2 top 5 ranked teams. Whether you think those teams should have been ranked in the top 5 is another issue all together. See here's the thing, it WAS a top-5 win. It's not anymore. Now it's a win over the No. 18 team in the BCS. Just out of curiosity, what do you consider Missouri's win over Illinois to be - a win over a team that didn't have any votes at the time the teams played or the No. 13 team in the BCS? Technically, Mizzou beat an unranked team. And right now, the Illini's win over Wisconsin still counts as a top 5 team. All the arguing in the world doesn't change that.

BTW, Ticketmaster will have a "limited amount" of Rose Bowl tickets available on Tuesday at 8 AM PST. $135/ticket. I'll be online buying mine.

That's some mind bendingly awful logic. I agree. I mean.....wow. :lol: Are you saying a team shouldn't get credit for beating a team ranked in the top 5 in the nation? What constitutes a top 5 win? My logic is apparently flawed so please explain. I'll explain in three sentences. ND beat No. 3 Michigan at the Big House in 2005. Michigan finished 7-5. No one did or should have considered that a top 5 win. End. The stats site that as a top 5 win. It's not really hard to understand. I agree that Wisconsin isn't a top 5 program right now, but that is what they were ranked at the time they played Illinois. The fact of the matter is, Illinois beat 2 top 5 ranked teams. Whether you think those teams should have been ranked in the top 5 is another issue all together.

That's some mind bendingly awful logic. I agree. I mean.....wow. :lol: Are you saying a team shouldn't get credit for beating a team ranked in the top 5 in the nation? What constitutes a top 5 win? My logic is apparently flawed so please explain.

And that's exactly why Mizzou should be in over Illinois and Kansas, because we beat both of them. Case closed. This is the reason there should be a playoff. I'm an avid Illini fan, but I can see your point on Mizzou. I will say that Illinois deserves to be in. They beat two top 5 teams, one of which on the road. Erase an "illegal formation" penalty vs Iowa that cost Illinois a TD and they're Big Ten champs. They didn't beat two Top 5 teams. Wisconsin isn't even Top 15. Not anymore because they got beat. They were #5 when Illinois beat them. So, yes, they were a top 5 team.

And that's exactly why Mizzou should be in over Illinois and Kansas, because we beat both of them. Case closed. This is the reason there should be a playoff. I'm an avid Illini fan, but I can see your point on Mizzou. I will say that Illinois deserves to be in. They beat two top 5 teams, one of which on the road. Erase an "illegal formation" penalty vs Iowa that cost Illinois a TD and they're Big Ten champs.

100% in agreement with you! I don't think Pie is CPat revisited either. If the Cubs give up on Pie, he will be a GREAT player somewhere else. I for one don't want to watch Felix kill the Cubs year in and year out playing for another team.

I was going to say the same thing about Marte. They're the new "Carlos Pena" s of the world!

You may get a chance to see them in the Rose Bowl since Ohio State looks to be back in the BCS championship game.

Too bad ASU won. Would have been interesting had they lost. Illinois may have made a BCS game. I think they may only move up to 13 if Hawai'i loses. How far down do you think Missouri drops with their lose to OU? I can't imagine them dropping out of the top 10.

OK, I'll bite. Santana is obviously much better than Hill. But I'd keep Hill and pass on Santana. Assuming you can sign Santana at all, he'll cost $16-17 mil/year and the prospects you gave up to obtain him. Over the same time period Hill and those prospects (those that pan out anyway) cost a small fraction of Santana's price. Is Santana plus Pie/Murton/Colvin (whichever low cost OF you an plug in) better than Hill plus whatever OF or SS bat you can buy for $16-17 mil? Examples: [Hill + Fukudome + $5 mil.] vs [santana + Murton] [HIll + Tejada + $3 mil. - Pie or Murton/Marshall/Marmol (whatever the package is to obtain Tejada)] vs. [santana + Pie/Murton] [Hill + Crawford + $6 mil - Pie/Marmol/Cedeno] vs. [santana + Colvin/Patterson] I'd be interested if the package was something revolving around 3 or 4 of the this group: Pie, Murton, Marmol, Marshall, Patterson, Gallagher, Veal, Donaldson, & Colvin. I agree that the Twins probably insist on Hill, and I'd pass. This may be more of what I'm thinking as well. All things being equal I would probably part with Hill and Pie for Santana, but would that limit your availability to fill an offensive position? Also, I wouldn't trade Pie, or Hill for Tejada. 2-3 years ago, yes, but not today.

OH MY GOD. NO. NO. NO. NO. Do you know who Johan Santana is?! This is the best pitcher out there, period. Not the best pitcher on the trade market. Not the best pitcher who is a free agent next year. He is the best pitcher in the major leagues. The Yankees trump your offer with Phil Hughes. Marshall, Gallagher, Colvin and garbage don't get you Miguel Tejada plus all of his salary. This is just insanity. WHY would the twins do your deal? Please, I just want one reason. If trades like this got done, the league would be full of either teams with 13 AAAA-ers or teams with 5 stud pitchers and 8 elite hitters. Please. First off, I didn't say it was likely. I said it was prefered. Secondly, when Team A trades a player because they can't afford him they usually come up short on talent. Very rarely do you get all you can when teams know you have to trade the player. Granted, we are talking about Johan Santana and the likelihood of the Twins getting taken for a ride or slim to none. I don't believe that what I offered was garbage. I'm certainly not saying that any player I listed is as highly touted, or has a higher ceiling then Hughes does. That's not to say that I don't think the players I mentioned have value. And I believe that the players have more value then most here believe. If the Yankees give up Hughes, Kennedy, and Melky. They're basically giving up a possible #1 SP, #4 or 5 SP, and an average CF. While the Cubs don't have a possible #1 to give up, they could give enough SP to fill the middle/back end of a rotation (see Pierre, Juan trade) and still include young, experienced ML talent in any of Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot. Or could give up someone like Patterson, who I think will be a starter in MLB. Again, I'm not saying the Cubs could "with out a doubt" get Santana for one of these packages, I'm just saying they should explore it. There is no reason to explore this. There is no "young, experienced ML talent" in this group - (Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot) These are Yankee pipe-dreams. I thought Cubs fans were better than this. I don't think the Twins get this done with Hughes, Kennedy and Melky, let alone with guys that we don't want or need. Well, apparently that's what's being offered. So, it's that or Ellsbury and Lester from BoSox. If that's not good enough for you, or the Twins then they can keep him and lose him and get a couple picks at the end of next year. I don't think that's what the Twins want. I think they want the best value available. Hughes may be the best single player they can get, but when was the last time you saw a team drop their top 5-6 prospects to get a guy? Pipedream? The pipedream is expecting a team to give up every prospect in their system. Like I initially stated, the Twins will in no way get back equal value when trading a player like Johan Santana. It rarely happens that you get equal talent. Especially when teams know you're shopping that player. One final thing. All of Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot have experience. They have been on the ML roster, have played in games. That my friend is experience and each and every one of them is an experienced MLB player. They have no value. Since you did not specify that you would offer an experienced MLB player with no value, I felt like your trade proposal was lacking. They have no value in your opinion, which I respect. I just happen to disagree.

Josh Beckett: November 24, 2005: Traded by the Florida Marlins with Mike Lowell and Guillermo Mota to the Boston Red Sox for Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Harvey Garcia, and Jesus Delgado (minors). While Hanley Ramirez is a heckuva SS and Anibal Sanchez has shown great stuff, but been injured. Is this the type of deal that is value for value?

Curt Schilling: July 29, 1988: Traded by the Boston Red Sox with Brady Anderson to the Baltimore Orioles for Mike Boddicker. January 10, 1991: Traded by the Baltimore Orioles with Steve Finley and Pete Harnisch to the Houston Astros for Glenn Davis. April 2, 1992: Traded by the Houston Astros to the Philadelphia Phillies for Jason Grimsley. July 26, 2000: Traded by the Philadelphia Phillies to the Arizona Diamondbacks for Omar Daal, Nelson Figueroa, Travis Lee, and Vicente Padilla. November 28, 2003: Traded by the Arizona Diamondbacks to the Boston Red Sox for Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon, Jorge de la Rosa, and Michael Goss (minors).

Randy Johnson: May 25, 1989: Traded by the Montreal Expos with Gene Harris and Brian Holman to the Seattle Mariners for a player to be named later and Mark Langston. The Seattle Mariners sent Mike Campbell (July 31, 1989) to the Montreal Expos to complete the trade. July 31, 1998: Traded by the Seattle Mariners to the Houston Astros for a player to be named later, Freddy Garcia, and Carlos Guillen. The Houston Astros sent John Halama (October 1, 1998) to the Seattle Mariners to complete the trade. October 28, 1998: Granted Free Agency. December 10, 1998: Signed as a Free Agent with the Arizona Diamondbacks. January 11, 2005: Traded by the Arizona Diamondbacks to the New York Yankees for Javier Vazquez, Brad Halsey, Dioner Navarro, and cash. January 9, 2007: Traded by the New York Yankees with cash to the Arizona Diamondbacks for Alberto Gonzalez, Ross Ohlendorf, Luis Vizcaino, and Steven Jackson (minors).

OH MY GOD. NO. NO. NO. NO. Do you know who Johan Santana is?! This is the best pitcher out there, period. Not the best pitcher on the trade market. Not the best pitcher who is a free agent next year. He is the best pitcher in the major leagues. The Yankees trump your offer with Phil Hughes. Marshall, Gallagher, Colvin and garbage don't get you Miguel Tejada plus all of his salary. This is just insanity. WHY would the twins do your deal? Please, I just want one reason. If trades like this got done, the league would be full of either teams with 13 AAAA-ers or teams with 5 stud pitchers and 8 elite hitters. Please. First off, I didn't say it was likely. I said it was prefered. Secondly, when Team A trades a player because they can't afford him they usually come up short on talent. Very rarely do you get all you can when teams know you have to trade the player. Granted, we are talking about Johan Santana and the likelihood of the Twins getting taken for a ride or slim to none. I don't believe that what I offered was garbage. I'm certainly not saying that any player I listed is as highly touted, or has a higher ceiling then Hughes does. That's not to say that I don't think the players I mentioned have value. And I believe that the players have more value then most here believe. If the Yankees give up Hughes, Kennedy, and Melky. They're basically giving up a possible #1 SP, #4 or 5 SP, and an average CF. While the Cubs don't have a possible #1 to give up, they could give enough SP to fill the middle/back end of a rotation (see Pierre, Juan trade) and still include young, experienced ML talent in any of Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot. Or could give up someone like Patterson, who I think will be a starter in MLB. Again, I'm not saying the Cubs could "with out a doubt" get Santana for one of these packages, I'm just saying they should explore it. There is no reason to explore this. There is no "young, experienced ML talent" in this group - (Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot) These are Yankee pipe-dreams. I thought Cubs fans were better than this. I don't think the Twins get this done with Hughes, Kennedy and Melky, let alone with guys that we don't want or need. Well, apparently that's what's being offered. So, it's that or Ellsbury and Lester from BoSox. If that's not good enough for you, or the Twins then they can keep him and lose him and get a couple picks at the end of next year. I don't think that's what the Twins want. I think they want the best value available. Hughes may be the best single player they can get, but when was the last time you saw a team drop their top 5-6 prospects to get a guy? Pipedream? The pipedream is expecting a team to give up every prospect in their system. Like I initially stated, the Twins will in no way get back equal value when trading a player like Johan Santana. It rarely happens that you get equal talent. Especially when teams know you're shopping that player. One final thing. All of Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot have experience. They have been on the ML roster, have played in games. That my friend is experience and each and every one of them is an experienced MLB player.