CubColtPacer

Does this impact us right now in any way? Can we now make some moves that we couldn't before - or are we just a bit further along towards that goal?? It depends on what the terms of the agreement was. Ricketts still would have to get the Tribune's permission to authorize any moves. My guess is the Tribune won't authorize it, so the situation probably hasn't changed until both MLB and the courts approve the sale. There is a small chance though that Ricketts negotiated a little bit of wiggle room on the payroll that he could have during this process.

Ok, the Fuld situation first. It's basically irrelevant at this point. Fuld is leaving the team one way or the other Monday morning. There's really no way to get room for him on the roster unless you both go with only 1 backup MI (at a time that both Ramirez and Baker are injury risks) and you also send Jake Fox down to the minor leagues. Getting rid of the 12th pitcher allows you to keep one of those two but not both. An extra OF doesn't fit on this roster when the Cubs already will have 6 that can play out there. So giving him a chance to play is mostly pointless because there is no roster spot for him, and there's nothing he could do in the next 2 days to change that fact. As for Fukudome, he has stabilized his numbers in the last 9 days thanks to some of his power returning. And with Soriano, I don't think Lou will move him back just because Soriano didn't hit for a couple days. When he moved him previously, he moved him because he needed another hitter in the middle of the order. And when Soriano didn't hit the first couple of games, he moved him back in order to get his production from somewhere. This time, Lou would be moving him because of Soriano's huge slump. And if Soriano continues that slump, I think Lou would just send him closer to the bottom of the lineup until Soriano shows that he's breaking out of that slump. When he does break out of the slump, I think Lou might move him back (unless somebody else has simply dazzled in the leadoff spot which I don't expect).

Soriano has showed in other ballparks that he isn't exactly the best at battling the sun either. I don't think switching them would help.

Fuld was already in the game and is the only CF the Cubs have left. You can't really bring in Soto here.

Cutting him wouldn't be that beneficial. He's getting paid either way so cutting him would just lessen our depth some. What depth? I'm not seeing it. He's a bad player. Every time he takes an AB it's a net negative. Miles is very unlikely to be as bad as he was so far this year for the Cubs (both because of his career numbers and the fact that he has been very unlucky so far this year). If he hits like he did from 2004-2007 (there's almost no way we get his 2008 numbers) he'll definitely be better than Blanco offensively and would make it questionable which one the Cubs should keep (Miles for his below average offense and decent defense at second or Blanco's horrendous offense and great defense at second). As long as it's questionable, I'd rather keep both of them in the organization. If you cut Miles, and then Blanco gets hurt, who are you going to bring up to play SS? The Cubs don't have a lot of great options down there. Yes, Miles is a net negative. But so is every other player the Cubs would put in that spot, so the question is who is the least negative, and that might be Aaron Miles when he comes back.

Marmol got so close there to having 4 outings in a row without a walk. I would have been his longest streak of the season in that department.

That was his debut correct? Nice day for the pitchers in the minors Yes, that was his debut for Daytona. Jung gives up a bloop hit but also a strikeout and two groundouts in the first.

Carpenter is now done. 6 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 5 K, 8 GO-5 FO Just a wonderful day so far for Cubs pitching prospects. Hopefully Jung can finish the night off just as good as the rest have been.

Interesting choice of day to ask about this. Apparently Cotts had TJ surgery today and will miss the rest of the season and part of next: http://muskat.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/07/cotts_has_tommy_john_surgery.html

Like I said, I'd be fine with waiting a bit. I don't think we should be desperate at this point. But, it's highly unlikely Ricketts will be able to get the sale completed, give Hendry the ok and then Hendry work out a good deal all in the span of a month. I'd love it if that happened, but that would be a complete change from the pace the sale has taken the past 2 years. The pace of the sale is going to stop instantaneously once an agreement is signed. Hendry does not need more than a day to make a trade. He could already be in contact with Jim saying that once it gets to a certain stage, Hendry has the authorization to make a move. Maybe the sale doesn't go through until next year, maybe it's done tomorrow. It still has to go through MLB offices and probably bankruptcy court as well. MLB will be quick in getting it approved, but it's hard to tell with the courts. It certainly won't be done tomorrow.

Edit. Jeff, do you know when they start counting the 90 days that a Rule 5 player has to be on the roster? Is it when rosters have to be sent in or the first day of the season? Either way, if they wanted to DL Patton, within a few days from now they could do that and already have satisfied the entire length of time of the Rule 5 stipulations. They could DL him until early August, then send him on a rehab assignment until September 1st, and then bring him back up when rosters expand and have no problems. It's 90 days active right? Wouldn't that be opening day? It probably is Opening Day. I guess it wouldn't matter anyway..90 days from Opening Day happens to line up exactly when Ramirez is coming back anyway, so the Cubs will have that option at any point during these series of roster moves. I would definitely agree that it's unlikely.

Edit. Jeff, do you know when they start counting the 90 days that a Rule 5 player has to be on the roster? Is it when rosters have to be sent in or the first day of the season? Either way, if they wanted to DL Patton, within a few days from now they could do that and already have satisfied the entire length of time of the Rule 5 stipulations. They could DL him until early August, then send him on a rehab assignment until September 1st, and then bring him back up when rosters expand and have no problems.

That's not at all what I see. He said they toyed with it in May, and he'll check back again now. Odds are, if they stuck with him through June, they will stick with him for as long as they need. That fact that they considered it earlier in the year means the possibility exists. How likely it is, however, I don't know. I can understand what he's saying though. At the time that they considered it, Patton had pitched very badly and they still had to keep him on the roster for another 4 1/2 months. Now Patton is coming off a month where he pitched well and they have only 3 months left to keep him. They're much less likely to want to get rid of him now.

Because Miles isn't on the roster right now. One of Blanco, Fox, or Patton has to go when Ramirez comes back to get the roster back to 25. Now if you want to DFA Miles before he comes back so 2 of those players don't have to be gone, that's another story. But one of those guys will have to leave regardless.

Bruce posted this in the comments section of his blog. Blanco will be the one to stay when Ramirez comes back IMO because the Cubs see him as the only backup SS on the roster (while Miles is still on the DL), which is why Fox will be squeezed out once again.

Milton Bradley has acted like he cares He has? People who don't care don't scream at umps when calls go against them, excitedly flip their bat when they walk, or smash water coolers or throw their helmets when they do poorly. Whatever has been ailing Bradley this season, having passion is certainly not a problem for him. But is it passion for the team or passion for his own benefit? As the person after me said, he gets excited when game winners by others are hit, which has to be excitement for the team. Also, people who are looking out for their own benefit don't usually celebrate walks in the way Bradley does. Also his walk rate goes up with runners on..what selfish player would let that happen? If he were selfish, he'd want to always want to drive in the run himself. Not to mention that most of the time, especially for middle of the order hitters, Bradley benefiting is the same as the Cubs benefiting. What is he actually doing that harms the Cubs but helps himself? There's no evidence that I know of that would indicate that he has been selfish whatsoever with the Cubs.

Milton Bradley has acted like he cares He has? People who don't care don't scream at umps when calls go against them, excitedly flip their bat when they walk, or smash water coolers or throw their helmets when they do poorly. Whatever has been ailing Bradley this season, having passion is certainly not a problem for him.

Baker would have cost too much in the offseason. The Rockies were asking a high price for him because several teams were after him. Him getting hurt once again this season, the emergence of some Rockies youngsters, and the fact that he's out of options is the only reason he's available cheaply now.

That is not at all the likelihood. 10 more days is much more likely to help than not help. It's 10 more days, but only 6 more games. They are going to cut short potential rehab time by a week and a half just to get him in 4 or 5 more games. That's your opinion and it's all based on where exactly Ramirez is in his rehab. How long do you think it is before his rehab wouldn't help him at all? Because he is going to reach that point in recovering from his injury. You build the strength you can, but it's still going to have problems because it's still broken. Personally, I believe that taking batting practice consistently shows that he's there. If you believe he's not, how long do you think it will take to get there? 10 days? 20? A month? I don't want Ramirez coming back with any higher chance of reinjuring the shoulder just for a few games in the middle of the year. I don't believe that's the case here though. I think his chances would be just as high in 10 days as it will be now so holding him out would be absolutely pointless.

I'd think it would improve things, probably not fix them entirely, but make them better. The point is he could get 10 more days of rest but only miss 6 games. You'd have to imagine he's going to get a few of those days off anyway, so you are eliminating 10 more days of rehab to maybe get him into 4 or 5 more games. I don't think they make that decision if they are a game back, which says to me that it's the wrong decision. That quote doesn't tell you anything though. Ramirez could get another 2 months of rest and the shoulder would still be sore. Rest and rehab will only take the shoulder so far, and we have no idea if he has reached the point where it's as good as it's going to get. The only clue that we have is that he's been able to consistently practice without any setbacks, and that is a clue that it already is at that point. The likelihood is that 10 more days of rest would do absolutely nothing for Ramirez. The only thing that would probably help him now is surgery, and he's not going to get that until after the year.

Vitters moving quickly and Ramirez exercising his opt out clause could make it happen. I'm not sure if you would qualify Ramirez declining his option as a disaster though.

Ascanio has been struggling quite a bit in his last 7 outings (4 2/3 IP, 8 H, 3 ER, 5 BB, 6 K) but I didn't quite expect him to get sent down yet. I guess they got tired of having no 7th inning guy with Guzman down and Ascanio struggling and so decided to try Samardzija once again.

Most of the time PTBNL's have nothing to do with how the major league player performs after the trade. Sometimes the PTBNL is already known at time of trade but simply can't be traded yet for some reason or another, and at other times the PTBNL is chosen from a list that was decided on at the time of trade. It's rare to have a situation like the Cubs have with Rich Hill where the player received is tied to how well he pitches. It's usually only done with players like Hill who are talented but have fallen on very hard times. I don't think DeRosa's AB's or his performance with the Cardinals will have anything to do with what quality of PTBNL the Indians get back. oh...we are still missing a player in the hill trade? Yes. We haven't received anybody in that deal yet. The deal will have to be finished with either a player or cash in the next little over a month (August 2nd). Since Hill has already made 8 starts for the Orioles, my guess is that the Cubs will get their pick of the better of the two lists of players.

Most of the time PTBNL's have nothing to do with how the major league player performs after the trade. Sometimes the PTBNL is already known at time of trade but simply can't be traded yet for some reason or another, and at other times the PTBNL is chosen from a list that was decided on at the time of trade. It's rare to have a situation like the Cubs have with Rich Hill where the player received is tied to how well he pitches. It's usually only done with players like Hill who are talented but have fallen on very hard times. I don't think DeRosa's AB's or his performance with the Cardinals will have anything to do with what quality of PTBNL the Indians get back.

Obviously they have the right to do it. I'm just not sure they should. Clearly the league agrees with you, though. So the NFL should not have the right to suspend players who commit serious violations of the law? The NFLPA would disagree with you. Sorry, that was pretty poor wording on my part. They have the right, and I have no problem with them having that right. In this particular instance, with Vick having already been in jail for a lengthy amount of time, I'm not sure there's a lot of justice being served by further preventing him from resuming his career. I wasn't meaning that they shouldn't have that right...I just don't necessarily think they should be exercising that right in this case. It might not be justice to Vick. I'm not sure how to accurately assess that question. However, the league has its own interests to protect. In this instance, that might mean keeping Vick out of the league if it's fair or not. It's far riskier to the NFL's future profits to reinstate him..a much bigger chance for prolonged outrage and distraction that way than if they just keep him away.