Blue W

I don't think you can say they're horrible. They're young. They're inexperienced. But they've got some talent on that team. I think you have to say they have the second best rotation in the division if Harrang and Arroyo can just have avrage seasons and Cueto and Volquez mature as they should. Meanwhile there's some good young bats there too. Maybe not this year, but soon, the Reds are going to have to be dealt with.

As well you shouldn't. Time travel is impossible Dr. Brown and his Flux Capacitor beg to differ.

I think we all have a mental block about the Cardinals. They're really not that good. They waaaaaay overachieved last year and faded fast down the stretch. We always assume the worst out of them but I think it's based on a lifetime of experience and not the realities of their team today. Of course, that doesn't mean I'd bet against them. :-))

Does Smoltz going to the Sox make Peavy an attractive target for the Braves again? You have to believe that they thought he would come back to them.

I've been arguing for a few years now that Lee is an ideal #2 hitter, particularly if Soriano is ousted from the lead-off. Ironically, the way the current club is constructed, I look at Brian Roberts once again as the perfect compliment to this team. I would think the other way. If Soriano is in the leadoff spot, Lee makes perfect sense in that spot. If a guy like Theriot or Fontenot is leading off, I'd be afraid of Lee shattering the record for GIDPs. IF Soriano is going to continue leading off and they really want to focus on L-R lineup balance, how about somehting like this: Soriano Lee Bradley Ramirez Fontenot Soto Theriot P Fukudome Oh God, no thanks. I think I'd rather do something like this, assuming Soriano is leading off against rhs Soriano Fukudome/Fontenot Ramirez Bradley Lee Soto Fukudome/Fontenot Theriot P Against LHers Soriano Lee Bradley Ramirez Soto Miles Johnson Theriot P

Freak injury, common injury: does it matter? The bottom line is that it is statistically probable that Milton Bradley will miss a bunch of games next year. It's also entirely possible that he will miss none. I'm hoping for the later, expecting a controlled version of former (i.e he misses 30-40 games). Hopefully, those games are in the dog days and he is fine by October. It's long odds to expect a healthy Bradley. But that doesn't mean he won't make significant contributions when he's in there. Overall I like the pick up. But we still don't have a "feared" hitter in the lineup. We simply are good and deep.

I love Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Stay Classy Keeper

The Logan, That's an amazingly accurate synopsis. Do you work for Cliff Notes by any chance? Can I get a 5-6 sentence summary of War and Peace, or beter yet, the Brian Roberts Thread? Nice work.

there you go again using the "well, baseball people say this is true s they're right" copout again. did you not read what i said? don't you always complain aobut hendry as a gm? don't you complain about soriano leading off? well if you spew garbage like that then you can never complain about any decisions any baseball exec ever makes. you can't question giving soriano 136 mil. you can't question dusty baker batting leadoff. you can't question giving juan pierre 50 million. you can't question giving barry zito 126 million. i mean, these are baseball execs that are paid millions! we're just internet message board posters! the truth is you're using that as a crutch because you've been getting destroyed every time you actually try to reason and explain your warped opinions. people keep proving you wrong over and over again and you just ignore them and then circle back to your old weak ass arguments that were proven wrong long ago. it's really old pitchers often make the last outs of innings so it's good to have theriot leading off the next inning? i always here that argument and it never makes sense. why are pitchers supposedly always making the last outs in an inning? do they suck so bad that every out they make counts as 2 or 3 outs? i don't think an out by a pitcher is the 3rd out of an inning any more often than any other hitter. really weak argument umm, because it's the media? are you seriously using the media as your argument? really? the phillies won the world series last year. guess what rollins (leadoff hitter) did in the playoffs? .237/.286/.407 yup, that's right. he had a .286 OBP in the playoffs year and they won the world series. huh? that's actually the complete opposite of what makes sense. where would you rather have a strikeout? with nobody on base (where a strikout is no different than a groundout of flyout), or with a guy at 3rd with less than 2 outs, or just guys on base in general? i think it's obvious what the answer is there. why? you're just making things up. theriot pitches per plate appearance last 3 seasons- 3.69 3.54 3.77 soriano- 3.91 3.67 3.73 did that just blow your mind? soriano has taken more pitches than theriot 2 out of the last 3 seasons and even in theriot's never-going-to-happen-again career year, he was just barely ahead of soriano. anyways, why is it more important for the leadoff guy to make the pitcher work more than any other hitter? after the first inning the leadoff guy leads off an inning no more often than any other position in the lineup. the "give the other hitters a better read on the pitcher" argument is really weak too, since after the first couple batters they'll have already done that. if getting to know the pitcher a few pitches earlier in the first inning seriously going to make a difference? right no, it's crystal clear to the people you choose to listen to...the same people who are stuck in earlier decades and haven't adjusted to how baseball is viewed and played today. the truth s that all the stuff you're talking about is old convential baseball wisdom that really is a bunch of trash. thios has been demonsrated and even proven over and over again, you just choose not to listen. you just can't fathom the idea that "leadoff hitter!" ISN'T REALLY A BIG DEAL. lineup construction is not that important. you just keep chirping about how these old school hard headed guys tell you it's true so we have to believe it. you need to think for yourself and start looking at things logically, because you're coming across as a 70 year old man who refuses to adjust and open his mind. this is evident by the way you keep ignoring everybody who explains to you how you're wrong. it's like you're afraid of the truth or something. we just led the effing league in runs despite soriano leading off, and you STILL can't except the fact that you're wrong. that literally proves your theory wrong, yet you completely ignore it because you're so stubborn. i'm all for getting on-base guys in front of your best hitters, but to make sucha big deal about a guy who leads off the first inning of a 9 inning game is completely ridiculous. there are 9 guys in a lineup who are equally important and you think the positioning of a single specific one of those guys is going to make some huge difference. it's dumb. oh, but some scouts and baseball people agree with you, so it's true. forget all the other people who agree that it's irrelevant. they don't know what they're talking about.... even if they do have proof. it's obviously doctored. also, when you keep bringing up soriano-related stuff that's irrelevant to this conversation like his late inning defense and coddling, it makes it obvious that you just hate soriano and you're going to say whatever you havew to say to make him look bad. i'm not a soriano fan at all but it's obvious you're really biased and it makes your arguments look even weaker. we're talking about the value of a leadoff hitter and you're rambling about soriano being coddled and other nonsense. give it up. it's an unhealthy obsession oh, and i'm still waiting for an explanation as to how we led the league in runs last year despite our "lack of a leadoff hitter". please explain that before you even try to say anything else. i'm not even going to read anymore of your cliche urban legend garbage until you explain that to me, and i mean explain that to me without the "they feasted on weak pitching" argument, which we've already established isn't true. first in the NL in runs scored with soriano leading off. Dexter, you nailed it.

Clearly, this team lacks "grit" and "hustle" and doesn't play the game the way it's "supposed to be played." If only we were more "scrappy" and had some "heart." Some "speedy and athletic players" would certainly make us better as well. Unfortunately, we're stuck with a collection of talented players, the likes of which I haven't seen on the North Side in my lifetime. We have a top offense and a top pitching staff, each the envy of nearly every other club in MLB. We are a playoff contender every year. And, yes, we are subject to choking once we get there. But, by all means, lets take six games over two years totally out of context and make wholesale changes.

It seems pretty obvious to me: you only get 27 outs but you have a potentially unlimmited number of bases and runs you can get. You shouldn't change the swing that you are comfortable with, the swing that got you to the major leagues, on the off chance you might bloop one over the second baseman's head. You are MORE likely to get an out that way than 1) by sticking with the swing that made you better at hitting a round ball with a round bat than 99.9 percent of the world 2) taking a walk when you don't get a good pitch to hit. Being a middle of the order type hitter is not a suicide pact. It's not all or nothing, though that's what Scarey and others are advocating. Dunn realizess this and takes the same approach to all his at bats. This has translated into a marginal BA and a great OPS. As was said before - it's not pretty but it gets the job done. Dunn isn't my first choice. But we could do a lot worse. A lot worse.

Aaron Freakin Boone!! By Tim Dierkes [December 18 at 1:55pm CST] According to MLB.com's Alyson Footer, the Astros signed third baseman Aaron Boone to a one-year deal today. Boone may get a chance to platoon with Geoff Blum at third base. Looks like the Astros aren't planning on competing this year. Their organization has turned into a joke really quickly. I've got a front row seat fro the implosion.

MLB Trade Rumors says that contract extension talks are dead. Could we trade for him? Pie, and some pitching? He could play center and we could leave Fuko in RF and use Reed to platoon with him there. We could use the money saved on not getting Bradley to sign Lowe or Sheets.

Can you imagine the grief we would take from the national pundits if we signed Sheets with Harden in the rotation as well? They would be railing on us that we didn't learn our lesson from the Wood-Prior days. And they might be right. I'd still be willing to take a chance, though. Twice bitten, never shy.

I'm perfectly OK going into the season with Zambrano, Harden, Dempster, Lilly and Marshall. But with Peavy on this team we're the consensus NL favorite. Now we're just consensus NL Central favorites with a big question mark about our ability to get to the second round. I know we need a bat in RF. I know we have to move Marquis. But I am really torn about whether a six for one deal was really that unreasonable given the marginal (other than vitters potential) talent involved. I'm going back and forth, but I just think those guys are replaceable. Peavy, not so much. I get both sides of this argument. But I think if they announced the deal had been done, I would have been very happy. Is that so wrong :cry:

If the ownership question is a deal breaker for Peavy over the next few years, why wouldn't it be for Bradley on a 3yr deal? That makes no sense to me. This sounds like some classic misinformation. Maybe Hendry doesn't like the deal as presented right now (maybe it is six players) and he's using the ownership issue to push Towers off his position. I just don't buy the argument that futruer ownership didn't have to be consulted for the Dempster deal and a potential Bradley deal, but they do for a Peavy deal - which is the only one of the thre where you are also shedding some salary in terms of guys like Marquis, DeRossa etc. I'll stick with Bruce, thanks.

Zambrano Smash!

I agree with most of the posters here. If it's no Peavy then we don't need to be looking at pitching other than another cheap arm in the pen. I won't be upset about not geting Peavy unless we then don't get a good bat in RF. He's great and you have to take a shot at him if you have the opportunity. But the Cubs are in the enviable position of not really needing him that badly.

I agree that they are moving Peavy, no question. But I wonder if Towers will use the Green move as negotiating leverage. (i.e. we reallly don't have to move Peavy now, so up your offer). For the record, I tend to beleive that the Cubs and Pads have come to a tentative agreement on a package and that Hendry is trying to make it work witht he payroll. Of course, i also believe that a fat white dude from the North Pole is going to squeeze down my chimney in about four weeks. Just saying....

Funny, I don't remember eveyone being up in arms about signing Fuk at the time. Hind sight is 20/20. If we had watched another team sign him for the money he got, people on this site would have been up in arms. If we hadn't made an offer to Sorianno that he couldn't refuse, people would have criticized Hendry for that as well. Marquis......a bit harder to defend.

I want Peavy more than a RFer. If we got him, I could handle Fuk in RF at least to start the season. I doubt he would be the difference between being in the hunt or not at the AS break. if he's playing badly at that time, we can make a trade at the deadline. The ownership question will be resolved by then and we mighthave alittle more flexibility. We also might be able to get a cheap rental, though I don't know who is a FA in 2010 who might fit that description. Either way, if the choice is Peavy or a RFer. I'm with Peavy all day.

I totally get the man-love for Kerry. I share it. But if the choice is Peavy for four years/$63M or Wood for one year/$9M, I think this decision is the right one. We couldn't take the risk of tying up money that could land us another ace. This is a big if, and a deal could fall through at any time for Peavy, or never come together in the first place. But Hendry had to put us in a position to have a legitimate shot at Peavy working within the budget. Unfortunately, Kerry was the price we have to pay for some flexibility right now. This is the problem with arm chair GMs: they never have to take the risks to make something great happen. They never have to make the hard decisions that could potentialy blow up in their faces. In their minds, their records are perfect and Hendry is a dolt for not following their cyber advice. They hold these beliefs despite all of the Bobby Hills and Hee Sop Chois that they were sure were players of the future - only to be proven wrong time and time again. I know, because I'm guilty of being an armchair GM myself. We all are. Where I draw the line is irrationality - as in the irrational hatred of Jim Hendry. I understood it a bit more during the Baker years, but only because I had a non-irrational hatred of Dust Bag and Hendry seemed to be allowing the toothpick to do his thinking for him. In the last couple years, it makes no sense at all. I'm not going to outline the unprecedented (since WWII) success the Cubs have enjoyed under Hendry. It's been done. I'm not going to show that Hendry's good and even great deals have far outweighed marginal mistakes. I'm not going to make claims about how it is crazy to hold Hendry accountable for two bad playoff performances, when he was the guy who built the teams that got there. I'm just going to say, happy Holidays, Jim. I'm looking forward to another great year of Cubs baseball and making the playoffs for the third straight season. I can't wait to see what you do to make us better in 2009. And to Woody: thanks for the memories. You'll always be the Kid K to me.

Given Kerry's injury history and the fact that the FA market is glutted with topnotch relievers (not to mention that the Astros are looking to trade Valverde) I think it is a distinct possibility that Kerry doesn't get a 3-year deal. he may decide to sign a one-year deal with the Cubs and test the waters again next year when there is a better market for his skills.

Considering that the yankees will probably get three of the top FA pitchers on the market, I would expect us to face Wang and Petitte on the Firday and Saturday before opening day. About two innings from each. We'll counter with Lilly and Marquis (unless he is traded before then :beg: )

Phillies over Rays in 6..........too late?