Banedon

Detroit is speculating that it's Rapada. "Leyland stopped short of disclosing the traded player, but speculation is centered on Clay Rapada, who is 6-2 with a 3.74 ERA at Triple-A Iowa." link Rapada is on the 40-man, which means he'd have to clear waivers to be traded. Pretty doubtful that a cheap lefty reliever with decent numbers makes it through waivers. Which is why they made it a PTBNL deal so that they could trade them Rapada after the year. Personally, if it's a Cubs left-hander currently on the 40 man roster like Leyland said, then I don't really care if it is Eyre, Ohman, Cotts, or Rapada. They each have a small bit of value, but none of them have particularly great value now or in the future. The PTBNL has to go to Detroit by Oct 15th though.

Welllll....there may be a need....but just not because of pythagenport... :P

Slightly off topic, but I'll be at tomorrow night's Chiefs game. It'll be my son's first baseball game. He'll probably sleep through the vast majority of it. :D

And he will start Thursday...bye bye Al Alburquerque! I also irrationally hate certain 21-year old Dominican kids on the basis of 11 appearances. Theres never any hatred. But he gave us no chance to win and get in the playoffs and thats what we are playing for. He was way overmatched at this level and always "hurt" The only thing they are playing for is possibly developing into future major league baseball players. Getting Peoria to the playoffs is pretty meaningless. Your post makes no sense at all. You can't possibly believe that minor league players don't want to win, and make it to the playoffs at every level? This conversation has nothing to do with what the players want. It's about the organization and whether they're more interested in developing players or making the playoffs in the minors. And even if we were talking about the players, I can't imagine a single one of them that wouldn't rather make the big leagues than play in the minor league playoffs.

resign for an awful '99/'08 What a great comparison. It's been a good deal, and Kendall has done a good job, but I'm afraid of the re-signing.

Damn good? $100m and we're barely over .500, and he's been damn good? Or we could be the White Sox? Over 100m and in last place? Since others have pointed out the flaws in the rest of your post, I'll point out the flaws in this part... No one is saying that things couldn't be worse. They absolutely could...Dusty Baker has shown us that light. But the response was about Hendry being "damn good"...when the truth is he's been just ok. He made some good deals, he made some bad ones...and he made some that had plusses and minuses. But there's nothing to show that he's been damn good. The Cubs could win the division just because we suck the least. That doesn't mean that Hendry spent the money had efficiently. All that said, as long as Monroe is just used as a bat off the bench, this deal is ok. Nothing huge.

same guy Yeah I see that now...that's why I was initially confused. I guess reading carefully instead of skimming has benefits.

There was a thread on this somewhere already...funny stuff. EDIT: Nevermind...I'm thinking of the guy that sued Vick.

So....non-fiction.

Fine...so playing Murton won't help this year...but it might help next...or the year after that. I guess I feel like we're getting on some crappy plane, and there's only two seats left. They're both just as semi-comfortable...both recline only half of about what they should...but one is newer and has some better upholstry. When all else is the same, why would you sit in the older, beat up, and maybe slightly lumpier chair?

I can't believe you really need an explanation, it's fairly simple. Matt Murton was productive last year, and Floyd was not. Given their ages, it could be expected to see improvement in Murton, and not Floyd. Seriously, you didn't need that explained. What I needed explained is why you think Murton's .782 OPS v. RHP "was productive" but Floyd's .765 OPS v. RHP "was not productive." Unless, in your view, the line at which a player becomes "productive" falls between a .765 and .782 OPS. The difference is, you're using splits against RHP only. Once you factor in what each player does against LHP, Murton is clearly the better option. Not to mention the fact that he's far more likely to improve on that than Floyd is at this point. There's is no dispute - at all - that Murton is the better option against LHP. None. Zippo. The question is who should play against RHP. Murton and Floyd have basically been indistinguishable against RHP over the last two years. That's a fact. And while it's true that Murton is likely to get better over the next few years and Floyd is absolutely going to get worse, it's an open question who is likely to produce at a higher clip over the last 6 weeks. And in any event, they both suck. For the sake of argument...if they're both identical...and we agree Murton is more likely to get better...why is there a debate? There's no benefit to playing Cliff. At least in playing Murton you get him some experience.

I read this CNN article this morning and found this part interesting: I'm completely opposite. I much prefer fiction to non-fiction. Because I don't want to list a huge number of book categories, I'll leave it just with the two options...and one for a middle ground. Which do you prefer most of the time?

I guess the question that no one has answered is....why take the chance? What is the benefit of bringing him up in September? He's already played in Spring Training with the major league club, so he's met the guys. He's had his struggles in the minor leagues, and clearly is not ready to help the major league club. The only things that can happen here appear to be negative. Like I said before, it's all risk and no reward. What's the plus side? And I just don't buy the "He's played under big star pressure before". Lots of athletes have played under big spotlight pressure in college and failed in the pros.

Wasn't there one on a basketball court where someone proposed to a cheerleader and she turned him down? Here ya go...the second video I think is it. (I can't see the video here at work, but it sounds right.) http://blogs.chron.com/tmi/2007/01/keep_it_private_romeo_1.html

Yeah...I'm gonna say staged.

Well here's another message board discussion with the same "Did Ankiel do coke" questioning going on... It sounds more like a local rumor than anything else.

To be fair, Gaetti had a good season with the Cubs, and was pretty good during his Twins days.

Jim Hendry. He perfectly symbolizes the "not as good as they think" feel of the Cubs.

Vick took the deal. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/20/vick/index.html

Language. Oh you're a mod now? Cool. you better watch it if you wanna stick around Alright John Wayne. Seriously. Take a deep breath and calm down. Calling other posters names is against the guidelines too.

Language. Oh you're a mod now? Cool. I am.

This is the last language warning in this thread. Watch it.

Watch the language.

Replayed. It wasn't suspended.

do you really think this could have a negative effect, though? I don't see it. I think it just feeds the irrational and unhealthy fan attention to the situation. The guy has a long way to go before he'll be able to help the team. Yet with the huge contract, unjustified promotion already this year, and a potential call-up, fans are going to be expecting him to start next year in Wrigley and be good. We've already seen how little patience people have with other young players, there's no need to throw-in the added burden of expectations that a September call-up would bring. but no negative effect on Jeff's development or roster status/clock? That's what I think of when I hear a prospect is "rushed." Maybe it won't...but why take the chance? I just don't see what the benefit is to bringing him up. All risk and no reward from my point of view.