MSG T

No, it's not better than nothing. I'd rather not make a single move this offseason than sign Marlon Byrd. i guess its just me feeling like i want the cubs to make some kind of news. Evidently, you're a masochist.

This is all Cot's has on his 2011 option: Neither of the 1st 2 things happened so 2011 did not "become" a club option but rather remained a guaranteed year. Ah, thanks.

You can't complain about "best case scenarios" for this offseason. You're blaming Hendry for not getting Granderson or Halladay in one breath, but complimenting him for not trading Castro, Cashner, and Vitters in the next breath. Well in the real world, it would haven taken at least two of those guys (plus others) to get either Granderson or Halladay. As for Cameron, he would have been a nice pickup for 1 year or 2 years and less money than he signed for. He also would have been a nice pickup for the exact amount he signed for. I was thinking $6-8 mil per would be pretty good. He signed for what, $7.5 mil per? That's not too bad. A little less would be better, but the same could be said for almost anyone.

Oh, I know. As long as they were winning, they'd forget, at least until he said something stupid. Or if they started losing. But yes, they'd be filling Wrigley daily.

I'm not going to go through all 39 pages to see if it was mentioned, but in looking at the contracts the different FA signed last year, I saw something in Bradleys contract about a buyout in 2011. Basically it said even if the various option clauses kick in, they can still buyout his last year for $2 mil. Is this true, or did I read something that was a guess or fabrication? If it's true, why would they even contemplate getting rid of him for anything that even comes close to sending more to another team than they could spend this year, and then buyout his contract? If they were talking about sending over $13 mil with him, that's what this year plus a buyout would cost. Keep him this year then cut him loose if that's the case.

I'm not saying Hendry should. I'm saying that a huge chunk of Cub fans will applaud any move to get rid of Bradley, even if it's to the detriment of the team. And bringing in a Podsednik type player would be look at, by Cub fans in general, as going back to baseball as it should be played. Then they'll find some other target when all of these moves are shown to be crap, unfortunately by the Cubs being out of the race with 6 weeks left in the season.

I'm just gonna throw this out there....maybe each year is different. Maybe each year requires a different approach based on the free agent market, the demand for those players, the salaries being bandied about, the perceived quality of the players you currently have under contract, the number of holes you need to fill, and the moves that your division rivals are making. Maybe. Obviously. Given the totality of circumstances, I'd love to hear the rationale for why moving swiftly was the wrong approach last year, but conversely playing wait-and-see is the wrong approach this year. You pay attention to the market. If it is moving swiftly, you start to make deals. If it is stagnant, you wait. Especially if a FA class is particularly good or bad. In last years climate, it became obvious, rather quickly, that good deals were there to be had by waiting. That was discussed on here many times. You also don't make it known that you are targeting in on one player, or particular type of player. He's done this before, remember the Sosa debacle that has been referred to in this thread. He either jumps in way too quick, or bases everything around one move, then can't do anything because of it. Targeting one player or having to make a move before the rest of the offseason can start or screwing around with one move that's one again off again. How many times do we need to see the same story to know that it won't end well. When we're talking about keeping Milton Bradley as best case scenario, when he shouldn't have been signed in the first place, how much more proof do we need that Hendry isn't equipped for the job?

My bet is that 95% of Cubs fans would take Podsednik over Bradley in a heartbeat. Even if he cost more money and we had to pay all of Bradley's salary. Remember, there are many people who think the Cubs should just cut him. "Scotty Pods is tough and scrappy, just the kind of player we need." For Ankiel, I'd drop that to roughly 75%. And those are those stereotypical idiot Cubs fans who know nothing about baseball and go to the games just because its considere the trendy thing to do. I fully agree. I'd much rather keep Bradley and have them deal with any side effects of that then bring in either of them, or most of the other choices. However, that percentage of fan is still there and they do spend money on games, jerseys, hats and they like. I know you've been there, but go look at cubs.com for a great example of a huge chunk of the Cubs fan base. Don't forget, there are also a few, at least, sportswriters that cover the Cubs that would feel the same way.

My bet is that 95% of Cubs fans would take Podsednik over Bradley in a heartbeat. Even if he cost more money and we had to pay all of Bradley's salary. Remember, there are many people who think the Cubs should just cut him. "Scotty Pods is tough and scrappy, just the kind of player we need." For Ankiel, I'd drop that to roughly 75%.

Much like the 2008 Cubs, the Cards playoff epic fail was a team effort. Hollidays drop was just a memorable moment. Just like the Red Sox and Buckner. The Red Sox were moments away from securing a World Series victory. The Cardinals were close to tying the NLDS 1-1. I hate to even mention the moment, but the ground ball through Durham's legs seems a more accurate description. Yeah he made an error at a critical moment, but there were many other things that added to the Cubs losing that series. Like Jim Frey not taking Sutcliffe out earlier or Steve F'in Garvey.

BTW, I all for not expanding and playing a full round robin, even if it means fewer OOC games.

Incredible. If they bring in a good team(say Pitt), I agree. Putting Iowa in the tougher division sucks. 4 crappy teams in the lower division and only 2 in the upper really sucks.

You've only read part of it before. I think parts of the Harden arbitration thread got infected and morphed into this one.

Which is a big difference then being in the rotation on a regular schedule every five days. Then having guys like Gorzelanny and Marshall having to go back and forth from the bullpen. It's not easy if you pitch in the pen for a month or two, then go out and start 4 or 5 games in a row. Again people aren't paying attention to the human factors involved in this thing and just looking at stats. Marshall has done fine in that exact type of situation in the past. Moving either to the rotation full-time makes the pitching staff worse.

Safe bet is going a little far, but that would be possible. Still ask your self who pitches in those other 10-16 starts? What does it do to your bullpen when Harden leaves the game in the 3rd or 4th inning? Stop just looking at Harden numbers and thinking would be worth it, and consider what it does to your team. Who pitches in those other 10-16 starts? Hm. Dunno. But they're going to pitch in all 30+ now. As I said in the last argument over Harden. They aren't going to go out and get a Halladay or someone else who is good to replace Harden. They are going to use Marshall or Gorz or Shark, the same guys who would have picked up those other 10-15 starts that Harden wouldn't make. In effect, they're going to replace a #1-2 type pitcher with a back of the rotation pitcher. The Cubs pitching staff will be worse because of it.

It's also unfortunate that Ryan Theriot can't hit like Hanley Ramirez. To be fair, there was a time when Soriano was a passable second baseman, there's never going to be a time when Theriot hits like Hanley. What if Hanley loses his arm in a chainsaw accident? One arm Hanley>>>>Theriot.

what the [expletive] does this even mean? and it was alone as a paragraph Jeter's ambassadorship is worth about 15 wins. Didn't you know that? And him saying "Good job tonight, guys" adds another 10-12. i understood the sucking off of jeter, i just don't understand why granderson would come in and be the "leader and ambassador" of the team. Maybe he figures that Granderson being a nice guy and getting along with the media is the key to the Cubs winning 100 games next season.

what the [expletive] does this even mean? and it was alone as a paragraph Jeter's ambassadorship is worth about 15 wins. Didn't you know that? And him saying "Good job tonight, guys" adds another 10-12.

I know it's not the be-all end-all of stats, but fansgraphs had him at 7.0 and 10.5(UZR/150) in 2004-5. Last year he was at -12.0 and -9.3 in 2008. For comparison, Fontenot was at 18.1 in 2008 and 5.5 last year. So yeah, Castillo seems to have gone in the crapper defensively. To be fair though, hasn't he been dinged up quite a bit the last couple of years? He played 142 games last year, but only 87 in 2008. Could have something to do with it, but not sure.

Probably because they don't HAVE to trade him, especially for someone that will make the team worse?

Generally, you'd think a pitcher would get better going from Minnesota to Seattle, given the home parks. Silva went to crap when he got to Seattle, not that he was great before, so who knows. I'd rather not take the chance though.

Id like Cameron. I guess I could live with Byrd, although Id really rather get something better. However, if we trade Bradley for peanuts, and turn around and sign Scott freaking Podsednik, whose basically an older, injury prone Sam Fuld, I think its high time we all pool our money, buy the Cubs, and fire Jim Hendry immediately. Scotty Poddy? Brilliant! Umm, the other thread just had a report from Rosenthal that the Cubs are looking into Pods. Can we just fire Hendry now?

Maybe by random buffoons but they've been shot down by beat reporters. And I definitley don't remember any 24-72 hour claims a month ago. I remember "leads" by Wittenmeyer, Kaplan and the like saying things like "the Cubs are hopeful to get something done in the next 72 hours" or "we should see things moving in the next 24-48 hours". So yeah, buffoons is pretty accurate. I wasn't talking about actual releases from the Cubs. And yes, most have been shot down later that same day.

Haven't we been seeing time-frames of 24-72 hours til the deal is done(talking in general) since the World Series?

Of course they would.