CubColtPacer

George, one or both of Hibbert/Hansbrough (hopefully only one), Rush, Stephenson/Price if the Magic wanted either, and Posey to make the salaries work, and picks as needed. Don't know if that would be enough. Although if the Magic would take Granger/Hibbert/Rush and picks, I would really like that trade. But I'm not sure the Magic would want Granger other than for PR reasons because of his age.

I don't think most IU fans said the second statement you said. They argued that phone calls even though it was a second violation didn't deserve postseason bans or huge scholarship reductions. It wasn't deserving of the major punishments and the NCAA agreed with that. What devastated IU had nothing to do with the phone calls or NCAA violations.

I so wish Howard didn't want to play in a major market. The Pacers could give the Magic pieces they would like (at least I think so, others can correct me if I'm being crazy) and could probably build a great team around Howard. It would be too risky to trade for him though with the chance he would walk in two years.

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. By what measure? Attendance or relevance? I think attendance numbers were high during the 90's and 2000's for baseball (as with a lot of sports) but I would definitely say that baseball is less relevant than 20 years ago. And a large part of the complaint is that games simply take too long without enough action to support it. And the most dynamic action in the game is due to power hitters. That only happens about once every hour and a half though in a normal game. Not nearly enough for the attention span of most people.

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. By what measure? Attendance or relevance? I think attendance numbers were high during the 90's and 2000's for baseball (as with a lot of sports) but I would definitely say that baseball is less relevant than 20 years ago. And a large part of the complaint is that games simply take too long without enough action to support it.

What's horrific about it? Sure, scoring is down which is a negative. There are shorter ballgames (through both less hits and more incentives to find pitchers who throw strikes since walks would become much more valuable for an offense). This would lead to balls being put into play more and just more action on the field. I don't know how a game filled with more Juan Pierres and Scotty Podseseseses and Michael Bourns isn't horrific. Oh, yes, more thrilling action in the field...will they ground out to SS or to 2B this time? Michael Bourn is actually a great example. He's a somewhat frustrating player to watch right now. He does a lot of exciting things. He steals lots of bases at a good percentage. He plays great defense in CF. His batting average and OBP are both above league average (so he's hardly a guy who grounds out every time). If he's on your team though, you can't enjoy all those entertaining things because you know he's not a great player because he doesn't hit for enough power (although even that is in debate depending how much you value defense). If power continues to decline around the league, Bourn starts to stand out more because you know what he does is valuable to your team winning. I would love a combination of guys like Bourn and a few great power hitters. That would be a fun league.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either. More of them? There's a handful of good fast players. Speed is absolutely worthless if you can't hit and the majority of fast players cannot hit at a major league level. That's my point. Right now you can only use the good ones. The ones who OPS 650-700 and have good speed and play good defense are bench players because they don't hit well enough to be in a starting lineup. Most of those type of players never even make the majors. If the average OPS of the league continues to go down though, those players will become more and more valuable. The fact that they can't hit much won't matter nearly as much because the rest of the league won't be hitting much either, and so teams will plug them in to use their other skills. That's only true if the replacement-level fast guys you're describing are somehow immune to the factors that are causing the league-wide decline in OPS. But if the replacement-level fast guys' OPSs are falling just like everyone else's, then their prospects haven't gotten any better. True, but those players tend to be immune to things like that just like their numbers tend to translate better from the minors to the majors or that their numbers don't swing up and down as much going from hitters leagues to pitchers leagues in the minors. Putting the ball in play and using your speed does tend to leave you immune from those sorts of effects (both positive and negative).

What's horrific about it? Sure, scoring is down which is a negative. There are shorter ballgames (through both less hits and more incentives to find pitchers who throw strikes since walks would become much more valuable for an offense). This would lead to balls being put into play more and just more action on the field. I don't want the game to try to push towards that, but the numbers are starting to show that the game is naturally heading that way and I have no problem with that. If it does though, the contracts for hitters who can hit for immense power might get even bigger though because they will be so rare to find. Looking at the position by position numbers so far this year, just some really strange things. RF has been the best offensive position this year. Then 1B. Then a huge gap to CF. Then another decent gap until you finally get to what is considered an offensive position of LF which is tied with C. And then 3B, 2B, and SS are all clustered at the bottom. Very odd.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either. More of them? There's a handful of good fast players. Speed is absolutely worthless if you can't hit and the majority of fast players cannot hit at a major league level. That's my point. Right now you can only use the good ones. The ones who OPS 650-700 and have good speed and play good defense are bench players because they don't hit well enough to be in a starting lineup. Most of those type of players never even make the majors. If the average OPS of the league continues to go down though, those players will become more and more valuable. The fact that they can't hit much won't matter nearly as much because the rest of the league won't be hitting much either, and so teams will plug them in to use their other skills.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either.

I'm torn. I love offense and all that goes with it but I enjoy the strategy of baseball as well. I've always liked small ball and its effect on baseball even though I know that in the past 10 years it was a losing strategy. If offense depresses a little bit, then there will be more of a variance of strategies around baseball which will be interesting. You could truly start to see a running team versus a power team and have it not be a huge mismatch.

Yeah . . . but who plays third next year? Someone along the lines of Blake DeWitt, Jeff Baker, Marquez Smith, Josh Vitters, or Ryan Flaherty. Or someone else. That sounds like a big bag of suck. It might be the best there is out there though. There are only 7 qualified 3B above a .750 OPS right now (out of 20 qualified total). Whether it's the end of the steroid era or something else, something has happened to the offense in MLB. The NL OPS by year: 2006: .761 2007: .756 2008: .744 2009: .739 2010: .723 2011: .702 Plugging in a poor offensive player or two into your lineup is not nearly as devastating as it used to be because nobody is hitting around the league. And third base is one of the weaker positions offensively in baseball.

At the moment he's got a line of .216/.359/.360, it's going to take a while to make that pleasing. For a guy like Pena not necessarily. He has the potential for wild swings in his numbers because he's so much extra base hit or bust. That's why his numbers can go up 300 points like they did in 17 days in May or go down 50 points like they did just this past weekend. Whatever swing his numbers will take, they have the potential to do it very, very quickly. "At the moment" he has a low 700 OPS. That is not pleasing. It would have to be another time and place in baseball history for such numbers out of a 1B to be pleasing. Agreed, his overall numbers are not pleasing whatsoever. He didn't say that though. He implied that he was at the moment pleased with the signing. Maybe he assumes that Pena will naturally hit more home runs in the Wrigley summer and that his numbers will continue to rise because of that (which wouldn't be a terrible assumption-fly ball hitters are naturally likely to get off to bad starts in Chicago).

At the moment he's got a line of .216/.359/.360, it's going to take a while to make that pleasing. For a guy like Pena not necessarily. He has the potential for wild swings in his numbers because he's so much extra base hit or bust. That's why his numbers can go up 300 points like they did in 17 days in May or go down 50 points like they did just this past weekend. Whatever swing his numbers will take, they have the potential to do it very, very quickly.

Bruce Miles tweeted that he thinks that both Davis and Castillo may be on their way to Chicago. I dont know how many times, or if at all we'll need that 5th starter between now and when Wells returns, but better him than Russell. Wells is probably still at least 2 weeks from returning and the Cubs need a 5th starter on Saturday and then again next week.

not that much, but i think that lack of funds is as much the reason for that as any sort of growth on his part. Well, I certainly think the reliever thing is not nearly as important to Hendry as it used to be. He's signed 1 free agent reliever to a multi-year deal in the last 5 years even though in a couple of years the bullpen looked to be a possible major issue and the Cubs spent a ton of money in those years. In those 5 years, the only year I remember a theme for the offseason was after 2008.

It's apparently his groin, but he was able to finish the top of the first after tweeking it so hopefully it shouldn't keep him out for more than a handful of games. welington castillo was PH for in the third inning of a one-run game in iowa this evening, so either he's also hurt or the (chicago) cubs are expecting that he'll be needed. Sadly, Quade has killed any hope I have that he'd start Castillo over Hill. I hope I'm wrong. I'm not sure. It's not like he's shown any love for Hill-he's only started 3 out of the first 34 games. I doubt Castillo would start over Hill, but I doubt Hill gets every single start either. Probably a 70/30 split or something like that.

For the year or for the game? I'd probably bet on 1-2-3 either way but it would be close. Soto being 8th is the only issue I have with this particular lineup. Just the game. I do like Kosuke at the top of the order, though. Byrd and Barney up there are still kinda barf. Byrd is hot right now so I have no problem with him up there. Barney hasn't been great lately. With Byrd hitting so many singles this year, I wouldn't have minded him 2, move one of Soriano/Soto up to 3, and drop Barney to 8th. That would have been a really good lineup.

For the year or for the game? I'd probably bet on 1-2-3 either way but it would be close. Soto being 8th is the only issue I have with this particular lineup.

Is LeMahieu a pretty safe bet to play in the majors at this point? It's pretty obvious at this point that he has elite line drive abilities. His strikeouts are good but not great but yet he still hasn't hit less than .314 at any stop. I also like to see that ISOP double early on this season especially when there is a reason for it (he supposedly gained weight at Camp Colvin). Is his biggest concern the fact that he might have to be moved to 3rd base where his skill set might not be valued as much as if he was at 2nd? It almost feels like he has to at least make the majors as a backup at this point-that contact tool is not likely to get much worse between AA and the majors.

Vitters Brett Jackson, too. I'd be shocked if the Cubs went "off the radar" with this pick. There is too much elite talent available at the top of the draft for them to make a surprise pick like Colvin or Simpson. Dylan Bundy is a machine. He is up to 147 K's and 5 walks on the season. I know it's just HS hitters, but those are crazy numbers. If we can come out of this draft with Bundy or Starling I would be thrilled. I wouldn't exactly be disappointed with Jed Bradley, Bauer, or Gray but one of those high schoolers would be my preference if Rendon and Cole go 1-2, as expected. Jackson was hated by most of the board (for good reasons at the time) but everyone expected him to go to the Cubs in 2009. In fact, people were rooting for him to go off the board with every pick because they were so sure the Cubs would pick him. Vitters was not a surprise but some wanted Wieters. Cashner wasn't a huge surprise but wasn't well liked until there were signs that the Cubs were serious about trying him as a starter. Colvin and Simpson were huge surprises.

I know. Seriously. What happened to this supposed mid-90s heat? Well, this is the Cubs explanation (and apparently they weren't happy at all when they saw him last week): How much of that is 1) the real cause for his velocity drop and 2) temporary, I have no idea.

Who's argued that in this thread? Several people. Can you name one or two of them and give posts that state that position? Because I haven't seen them. tim and cubcoltpacer appear to doing so in painfully obvious fashion I don't think I've said once in this thread that Hendry should be given an extension. All I've said is that Hendry has done several things that I like in the last couple years and if he was given an extension I have many reasons to believe he'll be better than he was in the past. But I've also said I wouldn't be upset if they fired him because they could bring somebody in who could also make those moves. Although I am a bit scared by Wilken leaving because I think he has done very good things for this farm system which is a big reason why the Cubs are in pretty good shape like they are right now. It's still less than 5 years after Wilken's first draft and the Cubs have 6 players who were drafted by Wilken and 1 who was signed internationally after Wilken took over. That's pretty solid especially since two of those players have All-Star ceilings. Plus Wilken draftees (or signed internationally under his watch) have been used as major pieces in two major trades on the major league level already.

We also should throw in here too that according to reports, firing Hendry means replacing the entire front office-including Wilken.

Maybe. He has a $14 million player option for 2012. If he ends up having another good season, he may refuse the option to look for a 3/30 or 3/39 type deal. If Demp exercises the option, then we're pretty much stuck with the rotation unless we trade someone out of there. Which is fine IMO. I wouldn't mind having the same rotation back next year especially if Cashner and Wells come back and pitch well. My biggest worry for the offseason is what Hendry does for 3B. Otherwise, I see a very nice plan coming together and the Cubs are really starting to be in good shape for the future. Soriano staying pretty good for the next year or two would be a nice bonus.