CubColtPacer

I think Leftwich got a raw deal in Jacksonville, and I think if he does end up not playing another game in a Jaguars uniform, he'll have the opportunity to start elsewhere. He's no Joey Harrington, come on. You know, some people I was watching the Giants game with started complaining about Grossman...all I could think about was how much more confident I feel with Grossman at the helm than a Kyle Orton, Chad Hutchinson, Jonathon Quinn, etc. Some [expletive] media type person said something like: "Kyle Orton did what he was supposed to do, not lose games. Grossman can lose you games" God, I wish there was some emoticon to express my reaction to that. I'd probably take Joey Harrington over Leftwich. I think Leftwich still has a chance to resurrect his career, but it's going to be hard. Colts fans are hoping Garrard struggles big-time the next two weeks so they'll put Leftwich back in to face us. The thing with Leftwich is he's pretty immobile, and he's not very accurate with his throws. That makes it so he makes some good plays down the field, but he gives up many big plays to the defense in the form of sacks and turnovers. He doesn't make enough good plays to make up for the bad plays on a week to week basis.

Same for me: as much as it hurts, let's go Michigan and let's go USC tomorrow! I think Ohio State and USC will probably win, but the difference between the teams is so slight that the games could really turn out in just about every different way possible.

The only thing that scares me about those years? In some years, his home/away splits are decently even. In 2004 and 2006 (as you said, his 2 pretty good years), here they are 2004 Home: 7-2, 2.37 ERA Away: 7-7, 4.13 ERA 2006 Home-7-4, 2.88 ERA Away-8-6, 5.40 ERA That scares me a little bit about him.

I'd be fine with this, but it better get a true #2 starter in return if they do trade him. If they are looking at trading him now though, he must not be in their long-term plans, so I'd rather trade him this offseason if we can get good value for him rather then simply lose him next off-season.

what difference does it make? he's either going to be productive or he's not. the big thing about soriano's 2006 was his improved plate discipline. a low OBP is what kept his OPS down in previous seasons. i'm hoping he turned the corner discipline wise, b/c if he did, he at least has a chance at being worth all the money he's going to get. Then how do you explain the huge difference in production when he bats anywhere else in the lineup? That still doesn't explain his good numbers at leadoff in 2002 and 2003 though. In 02 and 03, he primarily batted leadoff and did well. In 04 and 05, he primarily did not bat leadoff and his numbers dropped. In 06, he returned to leadoff primarily and had a .956 OPS at leadoff, but only a .911 overall. It can never be conclusively proven that certain players play better in certain lineup spots, but Soriano has had a significantly higher OPS from the leadoff position then not in his career, and his leadoff numbers are significant better than his non-leadoff numbers in 4 out of the last 5 years (and the 1 year it wasn't was one of the 2 years where he had less then 100 AB's at leadoff). The middle of the order might be the best place to use Soriano's numbers, but it is probable that his numbers will drop batting later in the order.

We would have another Atlanta Hawks ownership group situation where some of the owners want to make a move, and others don't-which forces the courts to freeze our free agent signings effectively keeping the team from getting better. I'm sure we all live for that type of situation.

What would that pitching staff look like then? The same as it is likely to look like without those moves. We'd still be adding a couple of the Lilly, Padilla, etc. crew. Your payroll about 140 million then? :D Really though, that would add about 35 million to the payroll right there, which would just about put the team at close to the limit. I would love that lineup though-we'd be Yankees lite!

Here you go: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2665405

The other interesting thing that Meche isn't listed for starting pitchers, but Westbrook, Lilly and Marquis are. I guess that report that says Meche was our prime target may be a little off-which is probably good, because I like a pitcher like Lilly more among that second tier, and Marquis has just been reported as an extra pickup fighting for one of the last spots anyway.

BTW-I was looking around for some news on Drew that may have gone unreported, and I ended up looking at some Dodgers and Red Sox fan forums. Apparently, we are the only teams fans who actually want Drew. Dodgers fans are ecstatic that he opted out of that "crazy" contract as they called it, and many thought that there is no way he would get more on the market with his skills (which is crazy-I know). When the Red Sox offered him 4/44, the Red Sox fans went crazy-they wanted nothing to do with him, and couldn't believe that the team had offered him that kind of deal. Maybe we should show this all to Drew-he is very concerned about these types of things, and maybe we can show him we're the only ones who really want him and so he should come here. :D

Yes-an article the other day made reference to a Cubs trade a couple years ago (the Lee trade maybe) that was during this time where they traded a PTBNL who was then named after the Rule 5 draft.

I think your guess at Hendry's thinking is probably accurate, but still doesnt excuse the fact that Loretta, Belliard, Kennedy, Aurilia, and Giles (through trade) are probably all better alternatives to DeRosa and will most likely get similar salaries, especially considering the fact that there are not 5 other teams in need of second basemen. Not to mention that all of the options I listed (except Belliard) are better options at the top of the order, which supposedly is such a concern of Hendry's. The only thing that DeRosa has over those players is outfield experience and my opinion on that is whoopdeefreakindoo. I don't necessarily know why all those players are better alternatives to DeRosa unless you think that his hitting style means absolutely nothing to his success. I submit that it does mean something, but that he had a career year to go on top of that. Even if he splits the difference between his previous numbers and last year, he still will have a better season then Loretta has in each of his last 2 years. He will beat Giles's last year numbers, and he will be better then either of Kennedy's last two years. He would beat Belliard's year last year-the only one who he wouldn't beat the numbers of last year would be Aurilia. Add to that DeRosa'a versatility allowing for some creative bench options (for example, DeRosa playing third on Ramirez's days off allowing Theriot to play second instead of having to go out and get a bench player specifically to backup third), and it would seem to suggest that DeRosa could be and probably is more valuable then about all of those players. He doesn't have to perform up to what he did last year to justify the contract-all he has to do is put up between a 730-760 OPS, and he'll be an average second baseman (yes, their average is that low-for example, 4 of the 5 guys you mentioned had below a .730 OPS last year) making about average salary with the added versatility. Any more than that is simply a bonus that will make him worth more than his contract.

Not really-I don't mind a clubhouse issue when the player is very productive. When it's simply a bench player like Nevin though, the problems in the clubhouse simply aren't worth the extra production he would give you over another bench player.

A large portion of the problem with the DeRosa deal is the fact that Hendry thinks it's a good idea for him to come be our second baseman. It might be-it's not like second basemen hit well anyway. The median qualified second baseman last year had a .744 OPS. For DeRosa to acheive that, he can drop 70 points from last year. Even with last year probably being a career year, his new batting approach will probably make him an average second baseman or better.

that cuts both ways. you can use it to discredit Hendry, but you also have to use the fact that he was able to get the deal done and hence consummate the trade as something that he should be credited for. Not trying to use it for either purpose, it's relevant to what was being discussed though. so is what I said though. I think saying he only got Lee because of Baltimore's failings is giving half the story. somehow, someway, he succeeded where other GMs failed. the same goes for Aramis. sure, any team could have landed him in a salary dump. but LA, Seattle, Philly, and the Yankees all could have used a third baseman in the stretch run in 2003, yet none of them swung the deal. I'm nearly out of defending the guy, but like many things baseball, the bashing goes to illogical extremes. Just remember also that the consensus around baseball was that the Cubs should go out and get Lowell, not Ramirez during the summer of 2003. That wouldn't have worked out well for us at all. Hendry's opponents should have no need to try to downgrade his sucesses. They are there, and he did have several successful moves early-besides, there is plenty of ammo for his failures recently anyway that can be used that there really is no need to try to downgrade his success stories. I think most people would agree that the offseasons before 2005 and 2006 were not good to say the least. For some, the good work he did in 2003 and into the season in 2004 still gives him a little bit of grace going into this offseason (although for people like me who has some grace for him, one more terrible offseason and that is completely out the window). Others think those two offseasons should be enough to get him fired. I guess we'll see if some faith is restored in him by all in the next couple months, or if more people join the fire him camp.

Haha, that's really quite pathetic. And considering all the talk radio hosts over the last 10 months falsely calling the Fiesta Bowl of last year a "beatdown" even though the game was in doubt until the very end, you'd think this guy would at least call in to one of THOSE shows, rather than worry about a game that was pretty much over in the 2nd quarter. What would you call last years OSU/ND game then if it wasn't a beat down? 617-348 total yards including a 275-62 rushing advantage. Troy Smith threw for over 300 yards and Pittman ran for over 100. Plus OSU turned the ball over twice and ND didn't at all. One of those turnovers was a Troy Smith fumble at the ND 9 yard line. The score of that game should have been much worse than it was. At the least it should be called a very convincing victory. I would probably call it a convincing victory-but OSU had a 3rd and 12 late in the 4th quarter up by 7, and Troy Smith was wrapped up by a Notre Dame defender for a sure sack to put the Notre Dame offense on the field to try to tie the game (and the Notre Dame offense had scored a TD on their previous drive), and then Ohio State had another 3rd and long deep in their own territory where almost the same thing happened. When your QB has to make two great 3rd and long plays with less than 5 minutes to go to make sure that there isn't an OT, it isn't a beatdown.

Is it possible as far as it is legal? Of course. Will it happen? No way-Coletti basically called him out after he opted out, and burned every bridge the Dodgers had left.

Probably not a whole lot. They were willing to let him go for free off waivers a couple years ago. I think there could be a big difference now though. They've won a World Series since then, which makes it harder to trade some of the key components of that for little beause of the P.R. move. Also, his contract is not for nearly as many years now, which means they are in a completely different financial setting then they were 3 years ago. I'm not sure it has to be to the level of his talent, but it will take a person or two they really want in order to acquire Manny.

Last time I heard (which was a while ago) Glendon would have to be on blood thinners for 6 to 12 months-while on those blood thinners, if he got hit by a baseball off a bat it would be potentially fatal.

That might make more sense. They are talking though that they are going to get one of the Meche/Padilla/Lilly group-that's 1. Then they are going to add Marquis on top of that-that's 2. Of course, they are going to get their other starter through a trade. As for bats, they are trying to sign Soriano-that's number 3. After that, they are rumored to be signing another outfielder to give some time off to both Jones and Murton-if this person is a B, that's number 4. So that's 4 right there, and DeRosa makes 5, and Ramirez possibly makes 6. I haven't heard of differentiation between A's and B's as far as the quota goes-anybody have anymore info?

Is it just me, or does anybody else wonder if the quota system is actually enforced? For example, we have DeRosa as a signing, and possibly Ramirez. The team is looking to add at least 2 starters through free agency (3 overall is their plan) and 2 bats-that's probably going to be 4 extra A/B signings, and that's exactly what they've been quoted as hopeful to do that. If they do all that, then they will be above the supposed quota-nobody in MLB is talking about that at all though, and the Cubs don't seem to be worried about it either. So, does anybody wonder if it actually is an enforced rule or not?

It's their close games-8 of their 9 games have been 8 point or less games, and they have won 5 of those games. The other game? They got drilled 41-0 by Jacksonville, which is a big reason their stats are farther down then they probably should be. They have simply managed to play at exactly the level of their opponents every game. They did it against the Colts (with the help of an onside kick recovered, multiple 4th down conversions, and a kickoff return for a TD) and the Colts just barely survived. I don't think the Bears will have much problem with the Jets-the Jets rely on their short to intermediate passing game to survive, and I can see the Bears just completely shutting that down. I think it will be a Bears blowout unless the Jets find the way they have all season to make some sort of crazy play to stay in it.

Honestly, I'm more concerned with what contract he will get. If it's low, okay, it's not a bad gamble. It just seems guys that sign early in the FA process, don't sign for low dollars. I would agree with that, but the fact that the Cubs are considering him their third acquisition and their "bonus" starter seems to indicate that the contract would not be astronomical.

are you shameless or what? the yahoo site is not a ranking of players. you managed to leave out this little bit of information from the Fox article. the site you posted a few pages back wouldn't have happened to be mlbtraderumors, now would it? I believe the FoxSports article is talking about how DeRosa would be worth 8-10 million a year if he could sustain it-which he would if he could do that, but the great likelihood is that he won't be able to do as much as he did last year. So that point stands, as they only projected to have him make 4 a year. When looking back through the yahoo site, I did realize it wasn't a ranking of players. Sorry-but the point remains, because DeRosa was listed in the third tier of free agents, and Helms was listed among the leftovers. A higher tier is going to receive more money. As far as the site I listed a few pages ago, no it was not mlbtraderumors, as I stayed away from that site.

You think Soto would do better than Blanco regardless of the cost? How is that? Soto is very likely to hit less than Blanco does-even if Blanco regresses signficantly from his career year last year, Soto still only had a 739 OPS in Triple A, and looked lost at the plate in his very limited major league at-bats. If he played for the Cubs next year, I bet he wouldn't get above a .600 OPS. Do you think he's defensively better than Blanco? I doubt that as well. I can see why it can be argued that Soto for cheap is better than Blanco value wise, but I see no way that he's simply the better player.