Hector Villanuevas Pants

Even if everything you say in your post is true, are you giving Hendry a pass? Hendry created the mess by signing him. He signed him for more money than he was worth and for more years than he should have. There were other players available that were just as talented as Bradley. Hendry didn't even talk to some of those other guys. He said from the start that Bradley was his man. Less than 1 year later, he trades him for pennies on the dollar, which now puts the entire 2010 season in jeopardy after an already failed 2009. Fine. Milton sucks as a human being. But, Milton didn't force that contract. Milton didn't put himself on the Cubs roster. Hendry did. If Milton has to go, so should Hendry. It's time for Hendry to go.

Milton Bradly could be AL MVP next year with Seattle. It doesn't matter. He wouldn't have done that with the Cubs. Did anyone watch last season? I mean it was pretty miserable, so I wouldn't blame you if you decided not to or to forget it. But, as good as Milton Bradley can be, he proved to me that he is one of the most selfish, least professional, and least mentally tough players out there. Last year he got off to a slow start, and couldn't get out of that rut. Instead of taking responsibility for his poor performance and doing everything he could to help the team win, he became a malcontent, a clubhouse cancer, and a distraction. He blamed umpires for bad calls, Piniella and the coaches for not using him property, his teammates for not being his friends, the fans being racist, the media for being the media, and anyone else he could think of but himself for his poor performance. What evidence has anyone seen that Milton Bradley has learned anything from last season and would be able to apply those lessons to being a productive player in 2010 for the Cubs? Does anyone really think that he could have come back to the Cubs next season and even been remotely successful? Does anyone really think he could have handled the pressure of the intense media scrutiny, the constant booing of the fans, the skepticism of his coaches and fellow players to have a good year? It would have been a disaster from day one of spring training and could only end even worse than it already has, likely with the Cubs waiving him and eating his whole salary. Signing Bradley was a high risk, high reward signing by Hendry that was an absolute failure. The fact that the Cubs got $6 million from Seattle should be considered a win. I don't care about Silva. He's the equivalent of a bag of baseballs (a very large bag of baseballs). I don't care what Bradley does for Seattle next year because he wouldn't have done it with the Cubs.

The words "classy" and "Milton Bradley" should never be used in the same sentence unless you are referring to a board game.

Milton Bradley is a scumbag, and I celebrate the fact that he is leaving Chicago.

I know it's fun (and easy) to bash the Cubs, but the Hawkins for Williams/Aardsma trade is a clear win for the Cubs. Hawkins was easily one of the most hated Cubs since Todd Hundley and was only getting worse. Since the trade he has done nothing in San Francisco or Baltimore. Williams had potential, but was ultimately disappointing. It would have been nice to get something for him, but realistically his attitude and performance in Iowa rendered him worthless. I still have some hope that Aardsma could be OK. I'm not sure how anyone could say that they'd rather have Hawkins and his salary rather than Williams and Aardsma. And how the Cubs spent the money saved through this trade (on Neifi and Rusch perhaps) is immaterial to this discussion.

What's up with Theriot's mustache?

Another thing to keep in mind regarding Aram's solid fielding is the absence of DLee. He hasn't had the benefit of a gold glove first baseman. I say give Aramis some credit.

Dusty is not a good manager, but not everything he says is foolish. People here have fallen in love with Murton. He has had a very mediocre season. He has been given chances. He has shown very little power and does not appear ready to start in LF. Perhaps this is all Dusty's fault, but I don't think so. Not sure why everyone disses Pagan. He has tools, and he has played well so far. Better than Murton (although in fewer games). I'm not saying he will be a great player, but why not give him a chance. Perhaps they will both turn out to be OK.

Seriously. . . I am as big a Cubs fan as they come, but they are absolutely brutal right now. I can't even bring myself to watch the games anymore knowing what is about to come. The Sox, on the other hand, are a very good team. They play the game the right way and are quite likeable. Sure their fans suck, but when I'm home I don't worry about that so much. Thus, here is my confession...lately I find that I would rather watch Sox games as opposed to Cubs games. Does that make me a bad person? Am I alone?

My guess is this is an early April Fool's Day joke played by a radio station. I heard this on the Mike North Show, and they always have something on April Fool's Day (which happens to fall on a Saturday this year).

Against right-handed pitching, it wouldn't be a terrible move to hit Jones 4th since he hits quite well against rightys. Against left-handed pitching, I wouldn't hit him at all. This is where the problem will likely come unless Hendry picks up another out fielder who hits left-handed pitching, so Jones can sit.

In order to acquire a superstar, you likely will have to give up a supestar or an elite, can't miss prospect. I don't think giving up anything short of Prior or Zambrano will land Tejada, Abreu, or Ramirez. Reason being, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston (unlike Florida, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, etc) have financial resources and pressure to win now (or at least make it seem like they are trying in Baltimore's case). The Cubs prospects are decent, but not spectacular enough to swing the deal alone for teams wanting to win now. The major league talent the Cubs are likely willing to offer is also not that good. Walker, Williams, and Patterson are not really centerpieces of a blockbuster trade. I'm not ready to give up on Prior or Zambrano, but I don't think it's realistic to think you will land a proven MVP-caliber player with an unproven Pie and/or Hill as the centerpiece. Especially when your trade partner is a team that is not desperate to cut salary.

Dude, Florida REALLY wanted to unload a lot of salary. They managed to do it and still get value in return. If Tampa REALLY wanted make these deals, they would have done something by now. Tampa has always been a horrible trade partner. They have always asked way too much for their players and they rarely get deals done. This is a sellers market, Tampa has a lot of players people want, teams (like the Cubs) have shown they are willing to overpay, yet Tampa has made no moves. Nothing seems to have changed with the new GM. These are the main reasons why assuming that Koronka and Wellemeyer will be sufficient to get Huff is absurd in my opinion.

Waaaa? What in earth would give you that impression? One of my pet peeves this offseason has people throwing out ridiculously low-ball trade scenarios and then calling Hendry an idiot for not making that deal. If Huff is traded for anything equivalent to Koronka (a mediocre to bad lefty) and Wellemeyer (an inconsistant righty bullpen arm with a bit of upside) I'll eat my shoe.

After sleeping on it, I'm still really upset about the signing, but what makes me angry is the length of the deal. If Hendry felt Jones was the best available RF, fine. I disagree, but fine. However, why 3 years? Why lock yourself into mediocrity at best for that long? I really don't care for the signing (I was hoping for someone better), but I also agree that the Cubs can still be good if the starting pitching holds up (not bloody likely, but that's the Cubs the last few years). I don't see the contract as that terrible. Sure, three years is more than I would have liked, but roughly $5M/year is not an unwieldy sum if the Cubs wanted to move Jones in year three to play Pie even if they had to eat a bit of salary.

And which team was better? The Sox had the second best record in baseball (only one game behind the Cards). They were four games better than the next three teams in the AL during the regular season (Yankees, Angles, and Red Sox). Two of the three teams they easily beat in the playoffs losing one of eight games. They then swept the World Series. To me that's a pretty convincing argument that they were the best team.

I am stupider for having just read that.

Do you understand the absurdity of this statement. Based on the history of baseball in Chicago, there is nothing simple about winning a WS.

All these sour grapes about KW being lucky are pretty embarassing. Last year the Sox were the dominant team in baseball. They went wire to wire with the best record in the AL (and for much of the season, the ML) and they swept through the playoffs losing only one game. Is that a lucky team? A lucky team would be one that rides a few hot starters for a month or so into the playoffs and almost into the WS, i.e. the 2003 Cubs. If you argue KW is lucky, one can make an equally valid argument that KW has has been really unlucky. Since he has been GM, he has had a plan (build around veteran pitching, speed, and defense) and has been very aggressive and persistent around pursuing that plan. KW has always aggressive pursued veteran pitching: see David Wells, Todd Richie, Bartolo Colon, Freddie Garcia, etc. Was it "bad luck" that Wells, Richie, and Colon didn't pan out? Who really cares. He had a plan, stuck with it, and finally it paid off in a WS. I'll take a "lucky" WS anyday.

Quote: "Why do I have to be happy with the Cubs for settling for mediocrity? As a long time Cubs fan, I want to see them win a World Series. I don't feel like excusing them for sucking just because they've done it so often in the past." Didn't the Marlins win the WS with Pierre as their leadoff guy?

Geez, I love how easy it is to label proven major league talent "not very good," yet place our mid-level minor league talent on such a high pedestal. Juan Pierre may not be the next coming of Ricky Henderson, but he's not that bad. He has posted an OBP over .360 two of the last three years. He's a proven lead-off man who played on a world series winning team. Most importantly, he fits the mold of what Dusty considers the ideal lead-off guy. Thus Dusty will bat him there. Consistancy at the top of the line-up is huge. Marginal cost? You assume comparable players were available for lesser cost or better players for equal cost. I don't know that to be the case. What about marginal benefit? How much will Pierre help us in the next couple seasons vesus Pinto/Nolasco/Mitre? What about replacement cost? Who is more difficult and costly to replace, a proven major leage lead-off guy or three middling prospects that, in the unlikely event that they max out would be #3/4 starters at best, but who likely would have trouble cracking the rotation anyway? Opportunity cost? What was the opportunity cost of not trading a whole host of prospects in the past 3-4 years when they actually had value? What was the opportunity cost of not trading Juan Cruz earlier? By acquiring Juan Pierre the Cubs do not necessarily miss out on acquiring other NSBB favorites like Bradley or Wilkerson. These guys can still play RF.

Make the deal. The Cubs' biggest need this off-season is at leadoff. Like him or not, Pierre is a proven lead-off guy who played on a world series team. In two of the previous three seasons he has posted an OBP over .360. He had a down year last season, but is only 28. He still has some good years left. Most importantly, he is the kind of leadoff guy Dusty wants. There will be certainty at the top of the order. I don't think Pinto and Nolasco are a particularly high price. Let's be real, they are two mid-level prospects at best. They are the type of prospects we like to over-value because it make us feel better about the farm system. They may turn out to be OK major league players, but it's not realistic to think that you can always trade crap and get something decent in return. It's time to make a move. If this is it, fine. Getting Pierre does not preclude picking up Bradley or Wilkerson or another outfielder as RF is still a need.

>Why does it matter only for the NL? As others have said before, there's: > >A-Rod >Jeter >Tejada >Peralta(if he can repeat his numbers) >F. Lopez(ditto Peralta) >Young(if he can repeat his splits) >Then there's quite a dropoff to Furcal, Renteria, and the like. That's why >he's second tier. And how much did Renteria get last year? And how much are A-Rod, Jeter, and Tejada paid (the last three don't count becuase, as you stated, they have not had repeated success are are not on the market)? Thus, $8-10 million for Furcal seems about right for a "second tier" SS.

He also mentioned that the first team to add the 5th year probably gets him. I say do it, he is still young. I disagree. Furcal is a 2nd tier SS and I'd rather not have him much longer once Hendry and Dusty are sent packing. :twisted: I could deal with 4/38M, but that's probably not an offer he accepts. Would you list the "top tier" SS in the NL then please! Also, list there availablity via free agency or trade! Thanks! Why does it matter only for the NL? As others have said before, there's: A-Rod Jeter Tejada Peralta(if he can repeat his numbers) F. Lopez(ditto Peralta) Young(if he can repeat his splits) Then there's quite a dropoff to Furcal, Renteria, and the like. That's why he's second tier. And how much did Renteria get last year? And how much are A-Rod, Jeter, and Tejada paid (the last three don't count becuase, as you stated, have not had repeated success)? Thus, $8-10 million for Furcal seems about right for a "second tier" SS.

The Cubs have always valued speed at the top of the line-up (see the Patterson experiment). It's OBP that they've lacked. I don't think you can credit the targeting of Pierre to the Sox winning the WS. I think it has more to do with the disaster that was the 1-2 spots in the line-up last season.