CubColtPacer

So do I. In fact I remember the thing that was repeated was that the Cubs were interested in him as a player but didn't see him as a right fielder and were unwilling to move Soriano from left. Dunn according to a couple sources also wanted to come to the Cubs over anybody else in that offseason.

It should be noted also that the club option for 2012 becomes guaranteed if Ramirez is traded. So anyone trading for him would know that if Ramirez does well he might opt out and if he does poorly or gets hurt they're on the hook for over 30 million over the next 2 seasons.

Lilly doesn't want to be traded, therefore he will serve up meatballs today. Lilly doesnt have a NTC, does he? In such case, suck it up, Ted. You can go pretty much anywhere after the season. He has a limited NTC. He can reject trades to 10 teams.

That's very true. Emotionally, I don't see how this core could compete. It's hard to see how 2-3 changes could dramatically change this team. But when looking at players position by position it's harder to ignore that could very well be the case. Right now the Cubs are weak going forward in the positions that have the most offense this year by a long shot (1B, RF). They are strong in the positions that are weak offensively (C, SS, likely 3B next year). And due to Lou, they have also been really bad at 2B. (BTW, for the other positions the Cubs should be better than most at LF and CF which neither have been highly offensive positions this year). But that's an advantage to them. They are weak at the strongest offensive position in the game which makes it easy to have a huge upgrade there. And they were so ridiculously weak at 2B that it makes it easy to upgrade there as well. And they don't have to try to find an upgrade for the positions where there is so little available talent.

Sorry. Meant to say that Ramirez will now likely stay with the Cubs (which is why I included him in the core for next year) and had a typo.

At the end of 2009, it looked like the 2010 offseason would be the official disaster point for the team. The three main consistent cogs Lee, Ramirez, and Lilly would all either be leaving or signed to bad contracts well past their useful point. That would leave a horrible core of players and a lot of money already spent. But is that true anymore? Look at who is dooming the 2010 team: Derrek Lee: .244/.333/.387 Ryan Theriot: .273/.311/.307 Aramis Ramirez: .219/.277/.414 Xavier Nady: .221/.291/.343 Jeff Baker: .246/.289/.397 Carlos Zambrano: 5.66 ERA in 55 2/3 innings Koyie Hill: .213/.253/.281 assorted relievers Lee is likely gone. Theriot could very well be gone either now or as a non-tender. Nady will be gone. Baker might be gone. Z will likely still be with the Cubs although they'll do their hardest to move them. It's hard to know what they'll do with Hill. And Ramirez will now likely stay with the Cubs and he's the likeliest to bounce back of all of them for a few reasons. And who are the Cubs losing that is good? Ted Lilly. And he's had a 4.07 ERA this year which is good but isn't the incredibly hard to replace that his 2009 numbers would have been. The players who are likely to come back happen to be all the ones producing while last year they were all the ones with big question marks. The 2010 year has been a disappointment but it could have been a lot worse. If Lee, Ramirez, and Lilly had been carrying this team while the others had struggled like last year than the future would have been horrible. Instead, the players who will be here longterm have been the bright spots. And a terrible year also might push Theriot out of the door who most people had in their terrible core projections for 2011 and beyond. So how good is the Cubs core now after you subtract the players that are leaving? If you were given a team of Soriano, Byrd, Fukudome/Colvin, Ramirez, Castro, Fontenot, ??, Soto, Dempster, Wells, Gorzelanny, Silva, ??, Marmol, Marshall, and Cashner either in the rotation or in the bullpen, how much would need to be added to make that team good?

.636 OPS is the last 30 days? His OPS in June was .780 and so far in July it is .727. Granted it is not as good as the 1.034 OPS he put up in May or the .965 OPS he put up in April, but I think it would be unrealistic to think that he wasn't going to have a slump all year long. Slump, or hitting as expected? It's probably not hitting as expected. He's had below average BABIP's in June and July and Colvin is a good bet to have an average BABIP or better. He has an ISOP of .250 for June and .214 for July so his major asset is still plenty there. Of course those below average BABIP's of course have also just offset and helped normalize what had been a very high BABIP in April/May. He's still hitting over his head a little bit with the HR/FB percentage needing to come down further (it has already come a few points from its peak). His BABIP is normal now and is being helped a little bit by the last month or two actually inching down his strikeout percentage. He still appears to be on track to be within 25 points either way of the 800 OPS mark at the end of the year and maybe a little more if he can continue to slowly cut out some strikeouts.

The games were decreasing on WGN steadily anyway, but I do think the fact that the Trib is gone accounts for the stark drop in games this year. I think there were 70-some WGN games in recent years and this year there are under 60. It looks like it was 60 regular season games last year and 63 the year before.

Still an average OPS. For a 20 year old rookie SS? Of the 40 SS's with at least 100 PA's, Castro has the 5th best BA, 6th best OBP, 7th best SLG, and the 5th best OPS. He is 70 points of OPS above the NL average at SS and 79 points over the MLB average. STILL AN AVERAGE OPS. Sadly, I'd bet that if the average Cubs fan was polled as to who they were excited more, Colvin or Castro, Colvin would probably have the lead. I don't think it's that sad really. Colvin has spent most of his time in the top of the order while Castro has been at the bottom most of the time. Colvin has probably provided more wow moments that stick into fan's heads with how long his home runs have gone. And it's not like Colvin is Ryan O'Malley out there...he is a legitimate prospect having a very good season. Obviously Castro is the one to be more excited about because of age and position, but I don't think it's a problem if any fan wanted to say Colvin. They are both good prospects who have shown both good tools and good production while in the major leagues. Neither one has had a whole lot of extra luck in the majors. To ask people to dig into minor league numbers to find out which one might have a better chance of sustaining their play is IMO unrealistic.

Still an average OPS. For a 20 year old rookie SS? Of the 40 SS's with at least 100 PA's, Castro has the 5th best BA, 6th best OBP, 7th best SLG, and the 5th best OPS. He is 70 points of OPS above the NL average at SS and 79 points over the MLB average.

Do NTCs apply to waiver claims, though? It sounds like they do from this discussion about the Rios deal (this comment is posted by Will Carroll): http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1362

This could be an interesting paragraph...from the Baltimore Sun:

I agree. He's brutal. Where is Bob? He's watching his son play in Daytona. He's supposed to be back on Monday.

Bruce's blog today included this nice news:

He may very well do that since Lou tends to like partial-year splits for some reason and Halladay has a pretty big left/right platoon split this year. Whether he does that or not though, it's just nice to see Soto as the unquestioned starter again. He's started 11 out of the last 12.

The Cubs reportedly make somewhere around 10-15 million more per year on the games they broadcast on CSN than they would if they were all on WGN. In addition, there is still the somewhat confirmed thought that the Cubs actually have to pay a substantial amount of money per game in order to put games on a superstation that breaks into other teams broadcast areas. It's a huge source of revenue that the Cubs have a hard time ignoring even though it may cause them to have a smaller fanbase in the future.

Rush is potentially available. It would probably have to be a 3 team trade as the Pacers are really looking for a PG. They would almost certainly give up Rush in order to get one.

He's had 5 innings or more in every one of his starts and only allowed 6 runs once and 5 twice. He's given up at least 2 runs in now 13 of his last 14 starts but he's pitched deep into ballgames and never had the disaster start which has allowed his ERA to remain low.

With any other GM I'd feel confident in getting value for Lilly, but I'm prepared for something like an Omar Infante + PTBNL. Not a big Hendry fan here but I do not think that is fair or accurate. I think Hedry normally does fine making trades, but the last time he was in this situation they traded Maddux for Izturis, so there may be some cause for concern. Hendry then made some sort of weird comment after the trade about not wanting prospects or something (I don't remember exactly). I don't think Hendry said that. One source said that the Dodgers were offering prospects and Hendry refused. Another source said that the Dodgers were refusing to offer prospects and Hendry agreed to take Izturis instead at the very last minute. I would definitely agree that Hendry trading away established players has not been as good as his trading for established players. The 06 trading deadline is the only one we've really seen the Cubs sell and he had 1 good trade (Walker/Ceda), 1 terrible trade (Maddux/Izturis) and a couple inconsequential trades (Williamson and Nevin were also traded for little). Since then the Cubs have had dumped a few established players (Jones, Marquis, Bradley) and traded one for value (DeRosa). It's hard to say what will happen with Lilly because the Cubs have never really sold a pitcher like him before. But it's likely that the players the Cubs do get will not be liked initially because if the Cubs have any pattern they tend to get raw players who haven't figured it out yet (which is what happened in both of the Walker and DeRosa deals that worked out well).

Why? Because he had to go to another team to get his Pippen/Shaq? Whatever anyone's opinion of Pippen, he was never a top-4 player in the entire league like Dwyane Wade is. At best, LBJ and Wade are 1A and 1B. And for that matter, Shaq is a poor comparison too, because he was The Man on those first 3 Lakers teams, not Kobe. Pippen was one of about 10 active players named to the top 50 players in NBA history. He was seen very highly during his playing days.

So If Jordon in his prime went to play with Isiah, Magic, or Bird you wouldn't have a problem with it? Great players have their own team and identity. It's like Bird joining Magic in their prime. I can't say I would care at all. LeBron's legacy isn't tarnished by Cleveland's inability to put a second star on the team with him. Right. It's tarnished because Lebron had to pair up with another great in their prime to get a ring. What greats do that? Kobe forced Shaq out because he wanted to be in charge of his own team. Create his own legacy. Sorry, if you don't understand that but people and players respect that. So forcing another player out and hurting your chances at a title to feed your own ego is worthy of respect. Demanding a trade because your team hasn't acquired enough talent is worthy of respect. But signing with a team and taking less money to have the best chance at championships makes you lose respect? The NBA is a messed up league if that is all true. Everything has been turned upside down.

If they were in a 3rd party city, yes...it would be completely different. If he was 30, not 25 and wanted to win it would be completely different. If Wade and Bosh were not top 10 players in the league it would be different. So basically LeBron is a villain for not being arrogant enough to not want all the credit by being the undisputed leader. It's not like him, Wade, and Bosh are going to change what they do on the basketball court just because they are in Miami rather than some other city. It's only who the public gives credit to that will change. So LeBron's legacy is diminished, but do we really want individual players making decisions about what will be best for their legacy?

Who had him arriving in 2010? That was incredibly dumb. BA did after the 2008 season.

If LeBron, Wade, and Bosh had formed a team out in the middle of nowhere that none of them were connected to before, does that still make LeBron a villan? Or is it just the fact that he went to a city where Wade happened to be there already?

Nah. He's really young for AA and has had stretches of dominance at Peoria and Daytona. His status as a prospect took a hit this year, but to call him a bust would be quite premature. Didn't that status take a hit last year? I thought he was considered a top 40-50 guy early in his career but then after stupidly being promoted to Daytona too early and then not hitting at all for a couple months most people bumped him down lists. He dropped from 51st in 2009 to 70th in 2010. That's in large part to the fact that they thought he would be a quick mover in 2009 (they had his ETA in 2010) and by next year they moved his ETA back to 2012. Sickels had Vitters as a B+ in 09 and a B+ again in 2010 (although he said he was borderline to possibly be a B) So he dropped a little bit after last year but not much.