SweetZombieJesus

Doing his job is bad for the game? Silly

And Porcello will be better than both? Your point?

Sam Fuld might be de-rostered too. I could see someone claiming Fuld. Not as much for Fox or Harben. Remember when Hendry deemed Fuld "untouchable"? I still say it was part of his master plan to try and get other teams interested in an otherwise useless prospect. I do http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/Halman/Cubs/untouchables.jpg Do I get a cookie?

I'm sure Selig and Reinsdorf feel the same way :roll: It's not in their best interests if Cubs become a yankees/red sox level team. It's better served they become more of a dodgers type

No more drafting from Notre Dame imo. (ok this has a little to do with the fact that I hate the place) How bout not drafting guys who off of TJ surgery who's was just OK at best even when he was healthy. Aaron Heilman and Brad Lidge he was not.

Plus he wasn't even a pitcher in HS.

I never understood the Sam Fuld hype. His stats were never anywhere near impressive. His resume is limited to 2 web gems. and a AFL MVP trophy :roll:

Shark has no value to other teams. He has a NTC how many times does it need to be said?

Maddux is fine for postseason insurance/fifth starter reasons Maddux is not better than any of the options we currently have for those purposes. Except if we make a deal for a frontline starter one of those said guys is likely not going to still be here (gallagher)

Maddux is fine for postseason insurance/fifth starter reasons

Cubs don't match up poorly with a Burnett deal. Though that could end up as a disaster in its own way I guess. He can be had for peanuts Why does everybody keep assuming that? What motivation does Toronto have to trade him if it's for "peanuts"? That doesn't make sense to me. uh he's owed at least 24 million if he stays and doesn't opt out which will likely happen if he continues to be a submediocrity in toronto.

Yeah Maddux would be terrible if he was the big acquistion. However, Let's say the Jays, A's or Tribe wants Gallagher. Since Hill has no signs of turning it around I wouldn't mind having Maddux back as a #5 and possible playoff #4 if a injury or Dempster's fairy dust wears off.

I got nothing really to say http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/Halman/Steinbrennersimpson.jpg

Maybe because I'm a 13 year old at heart #35 made me chuckle

Yup

could he be made a PTBNL though? Not that wieters was my number one choice *cough* Porcello *cough*

Team leader in homers and walks. I'll take that. and walks and said team had #2 pick. Yeah but he's terrible. Theriotesque

I don't know what's a bigger overreaction. Flaherty or Josh Donaldson last year.

You misspoke. It's Vitters who is the nonprospect. His wrist "tendonitis" is just a smokescreen to limit his plummeting value.

question regarding Hamilton wasn't the next Carlos Beltran on the roster as our 5th OF? I mean yes he was a switch hitter. But you can at least take a flyer on him if hamilton hits well in ST as Pagan was no great shakes. They could trade him at the end of ST and pick up a arm or something or keep pagan.

maddux, glavine, and johnson are 100% 1st ballot no question. the other 3 probably get in a year or 2 later. though it's a crime if any of them (with the possible exception of schilling) don't make it right away. I don't see how Glavine ranks ahead of the others. He's not in Maddux's or the Unit's class. i agree. but 300 wins = first ballot in the minds of sportswriters. If that's the case, then sportswriters are very narrow-minded. Don't they realize that a pitcher's W/L record is mostly out of their control? Generally speaking it's going to even out over the course of a guy's career. I completely agree on not judging how good a player is over a single season by how many wins he got but if a player gets or approaches 300 wins, in this day and age, he's at least a good pitcher. You don't luck into getting 15-20 wins per year for 15+ years. One or two years, sure, but not for a career. Obviously there are better measures for evaluating how good a pitcher was but with 250-300 wins, I don't think you can just dismiss that like you can for a single season. What if he loses 290? It's just a pet peeve of mine that not only do people overemphasize W/L record, but they always refer to pitchers by how many wins they are capable of in a season, while ignoring the losses. A 15 game winner is a 15 game winner whether he went 15-16 or 15-6. A record of 16-14 is given more respect than somebody who only wins 11 but goes 11-3. It makes no sense. How many pitchers have 290 or more losses? Even if said pitcher goes .500 in a career 600 decisions is a absolute ton in this era when 30-35 starts a year are the norm.

Silly Rabbit, Sam Fuld is untouchable more like Rich Hill, Felix Pie and Ronny Cedeno for Yuniesky Betancourt.

Supposedly power potential type guy with questionable contact skills and hasn't hit at any level at all. He looks like a poor man's Ryan Harvey

The cubs are a lock to draft that SS from UCLA. Because he's toolsy and has no patience.

Silly rabbit, The cubs don't develop hitters. :wink: