MSG T

No big thing. I was going to post something last night when I didn't see it here. Just happened to think to check the minor league board.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/bridge/index.php?f=3&t=56317&rb_v=viewtopic

Who do you suggest our young player be? Because if we are running Fuld/Colvin out to CF every game for the first 1/2 of the season we won't be anywhere near contention by the time the trade deadline comes around it won't matter who we trade for because we will be so far back. Well, how do you really know if you never give them a chance? If the Cardinals lose Holliday and Pineiro, I have a hard time believing they will be so far out in front in June that there is no chance of catching them. The Brewers still have pitching problems and the rest of the division is the Reds, Pirates and Astros. Acting like Mike Cameron ensures contention but Sam Fuld doesn't is silly. Another thing, if Soriano performs anywhere near his traditional numbers and Soto is more productive, they may not need as much as you think. The Cubs won 83 games last year with Ramirez missing significant time, without getting much from Soriano or Soto, withou getting much from 2nd base and had 4 starting pitchers spend time on the disabled list. Lets not act like they were a 65 win team. The whole point is simply this, why spend your entire budget before a game is played. If Cameron costs $5-8 million, maybe that money is better to be saved for a mid-season acquisition. Because the Cubs biggest problem last year was offense. Ramirez will put up good numbers assuming he's healthy, but to count on it happening all year is a bad idea. Soriano may very well rebound, but he may not. Same for Soto. Then you throw in the lack of offense at SS and 2B. Why give yourself ANOTHER position that's not productive. Will all of those happen. Probably not. But some will, so you don't paint yourself into a corner in one position if there is a very acceptable solution available. A Fuld or Colvin, or any of the other minor league possibilities, would put up bad offensive numbers. The Cubs don't need that. No one is saying to sign the guy for a 3-4 year deal. But for a short term fix, until some of those young guys are ready, Cameron is a VERY good option.

That would be great for ISU. Good location and they're projected to play Minnesota instead of some SEC team in Shreveport that would probably kill them. Crappy TV deal is the only drawback, but I can live with it. It sounds like the Fiesta/Insight are run by the same people, and they might be interested in bringing both Iowa schools there for $$$ purposes. That could potentially mean Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, and Iowa State fans all in the same city though, so they might lose money paying for riot damage. An Iowa/ISU vs Nebby/Minny tag team match would be an absolute massacre. ISU will have more fans than UN-L and the Goofers combined. Then you add 40-50,000 Hawk fans?

We may have the prospects, but we also need them. This team will need an influx of young talent to makeup for the inevitable decline and departure of the core of this team, which is already too old. If you can keep your overall prospect balance constant, or near constant, while upgrading your veteran pitching situation, that would be pretty nice. So are the Cubs "already too old", or do they need to "upgrade (their) veteran pitching situation" by swapping a 28YO for a 32YO? You'll get no argument from me that Halladay > Zambrano, but if you're truly concerned about the age of the team, then this is a big step in the wrong direction. It's increasing the age at one spot, but maintaining the prospects. Zambrano isn't young. He's got a lot of miles on his arm and has shown signs of serious wear and tear. Halladay has been a much more stable and effective pitcher. That's not a big step in the wrong direction at all. Halladay is better now and likely to be better for a few years. You upgrade the team, but at the same time you don't trade away prospects, or at least you don't take a significant net hit in prospects. I see no way this actually happens, but it would be a good thing for the Cubs if it could. The advantage of having prospects around to replace the older core is they are cheaper to employ, have room for upside, and presumably have a much larger window of time where they can be useful. Zambrano is already ridiculously expensive, he's shown a likelihood of already having passed his prime and settling into a lesser pitcher, and he may or may not have a lot of years ahead of him. Swapping him for Halladay doesn't really have any negative repercussions on the age of the core. Well I guess some clarification is needed here. Are you proposing extending Halladay once he's acquired, or just keeping him for a year and then letting him go? Because if you plan on extending him, then you've traded away a 28YO pitcher that's owed a big chunk of money through age 31 or whatever it is, and gotten back a 32YO pitcher that'll be owed over twice as much and will be signed through age 38 or 39 (6-7 years @ $20M a year is the right ballpark). Saying that doesn't have any negative repercussions on the age of the core is just flat out wrong. You've got more than twice the money tied up in an older player for more than twice the years. Now on the other hand if you're willing to trade 3 years of Zambrano for one of Halladay, that's a separate discussion altogether. Probably not one worth having, though, since a team willing to extend Halladay would outbid the Cubs in the first place. He was one of the best pitchers in baseball and just entering his prime when he signed a 3/$40 extension in 2006. What makes you think it would take 6 years at $20 mil per to extend him? Wouldn't 3 years at $45-50 mil be a significant raise and not take him into his age 38-39 seasons. Especially if an extension was part of a trade that would allow him a better chance at going to the playoffs? I'd trade Z for Halladay (using prospects acquired in Z's trade) and extend him for 3/$45-50. I would not do 6/$120 under any circumstances, but I'd also be shocked if it took anywhere close to that to extend him as part of a trade.

How ironic...all #21. Maybe the Cubs should retire it for Sosa, just to get it out of circulation.

I know your a fan of Harden and everything. But if 11 of your 26 starts end up lasting 5.1 innings or less you can't say it's not a problem. Especially when during those 11 starts he really only averages 4 innings. In almost half of his starts we need to use your bullpen for 4 or 5 innings, and if you don't have a strong deep pen it kills you. The guy only started 25 and 26 games last year. So you wanna give him more rest, and pay him 9m plus for what 16-20 starts? Come on seriously? Do you really not understand that you have to get better players in those spots because Harden is here? If you have starters that consistently go 6-8 innings, then you can take some chances on young pitchers or being in some scrub veteran and maybe have 2 or 3 dependable guys at the end. But if you got a guy like Harden around you need a extra dependable reliever or two. Because if those guys suck you need to pitch them alot more. Like it or not but there is a domino effect of having a guy like Harden on the pitching staff. The mix of rest he needs and the lack of long outings hurts your team. So you really gotta factor in what Harden brings to the team, the cost money wise for him, and the cost of having more dependable guys around to fill in for him. Which is another domino effect of having a guy like Harden around. Those guys could be valueable trade pieces or could be productive starters in the majors and the money used on Harden could go elsewhere. But with Harden around you need to have a few options ready to step in. Very few teams have 2 or 3 guys sitting in there pen who can start for a reason. Look I know Harden stats and I understand why people want him around. But thinking it's a no brainer that we should want Harden back at 1y at 9m or more, if he wants to come back. Isn't looking at the big picture and doesn't factor in all the downfalls of having a guy like Harden around. The problem with your argument is that the Cubs aren't going to replace him with a good starting pitcher. They are replacing him with either someone that's way worse(Edwin Jackson?)or one of those 2-3 guys capable of starting 5-10 games. The choice isn't " do we offer Harden arbitration or do we trade for Halladay (or another top quality starter)". The choice is "do we offer Harden arbitration or put Gorzelanny in the rotation". Which then has the domino effect of weakening the bullpen. By not even taking the chance of keeping Harden, the not only weaken the rotation, but also the bullpen. Gorzelanny is a perfectly acceptable, #3-5 starting pitcher, but he is by no means an effective replacement for Harden.

Maybe you don't know this but every team is only allowed 25 players on the roster, no matter who the starting pitcher is. They don't have to pay any extra people just because Harden is here. They are already onthe team and because they inist on a 12 man rotation usually guys just sit around being wasted resources. Given Harden extra rest and he'll give you 6-7+ innings of very good pitching. And it's easy to give a guy extra rest. Especially when you are going into the season with 2-3 guys in the bullpen that are very capable of spot starting 5-10 times per year.

That's insane. Bradley is not likely to be an asset in a deal like this and Fox would be a last minute add-on at best. For someone like Cabrera you start with players or prospects that people actually want. And I said they probably wouldn't take it. But it would depend on how bad they want to cut payroll. Not many teams can take on that contract, and even fewer have a need at his position and can take on that contract. If they're getting into bad financial shape, and NEED the money of the books, they may listen to an offer that's not a whole lot better than that.

I know, I know, but... Start at Bradley/Fox for Cabrera. Gets a ton of future money of their books, and get them a decent bat for a couple of years. I know they probably wouldn't take it, but, not having to eat any of Bradley's contract would clear a big chunk of the money ( for the Cubs)for Cabrera this year, then with the money coming off next year, they're in better shape. They may want some really good prospects, but with that contract, they'll be limited in what they can get if they want it all of the books. Plus, he's young and good. Not the best contract, but even at the years and dollars, it's nowhere near as bad as a Soriano/Wells contract.

I know, I know, but... Start at Bradley/Fox for Cabrera. Gets a ton of future money of their books, and get them a decent bat for a couple of years. I know they probably wouldn't take it, but, not having to eat any of Bradley's contract would clear a big chunk of the money ( for the Cubs)for Cabrera this year, then with the money coming off next year, they're in better shape. They may want some really good prospects, but with that contract, they'll be limited in what they can get if they want it all of the books. Plus, he's young and good. Not the best contract, but even at the years and dollars, it's nowhere near as bad as a Soriano/Wells contract.

Well that didn't last long.

Iowa with the lead!!!

Even being tied at half, I realize that there is a very, very small chance we win this game. But still... WOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Getting Pittsburgh's pick would have been really nice.

That's probably a bit overstating it. For example, the last 2 world champions have both had left-handed middle relievers who were on multi-year deals for just as much money (it's difficult to find good contract information in one place for teams before that). It doesn't make it right to do, but it's certainly not something that just teams like the Cubs do. However, that only eases the sting slightly. On the surface of just Grabow living up to his contract, it's a below average but not awful move. When you consider the Cubs were in the ideal position to risk letting him leave though, it becomes much, much worse. They had the potential for picks, the ability to minimize risk by giving him just 1 guaranteed year, and no desperation if he left due to the candidates who would be replacing him. Unfortunately, they didn't see it that way. The situation you describe, where it was perfect for them to offer arbitration, it what makes it so maddening. If he was the only LH relief candidate in Chicago or the upper minors, it wouldn't look as bad. But when they have at least 3 other players that could step in and take his spot... ](*,)

A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo? Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so. A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either. How much better? Castillo's numbers as a LH vs RHP have been all over the place, and he hasn't been particularly good for a few years now. Castillo was decent against RHP(as a LH) this past season, but was worse than Fontenot(2009) the previous two years. And Baker has been better against LHP than Castillo. Fontenot has shown at least some ability against RHP. Plus he costs WAY less than Castillo. Even if you figure 100% pay increases for both Baker and Fontenot, they would combine to make less than a third of what Castillo will get paid. Then add in that both Baker and Fontenot were much better defensively, at 2B, than Castillo this year. I'm not convinced that Castillo would be better, at best it would be a break even situation, but even if he is, would he be worth spending 3x as much at 2B. A .319 .411 line vs RH's is "just decent"? Fontenot is an unknown still at this point, he had a completely miserable year last year, and there really isnt much track record to go on with him. Hes had good minor league seasons, and shown a little promise in split time also, but he was given the job last year, and tanked. Depending on the money situation, Id bet on Castillo/Baker platoon being more productive than a Baker/Fontenot platton. In an ideal world we would just keep Bradley, but Castillo would be a pretty decent return for Bradley, in my opinion. I like Castillo/Baker in the 2 hole in front of Lee, Aram, Sori, alot more than Baker/Fontenot. Fontenot seemed completely lost last year, and no one knows if its because the book is out on him, or what. Castillo's numbers were better than Fontenot's last year(vs RHP), but $5.5 mil worth. I don't want the Cubs to trade for a $6 mil per year platoon 2B that won't outperform the guy they have that makes $.5 mil. When you consider they'll eat at least some of Bradley's contract the next two years, it amounts to even more. If Castillo could come in and outperform a Baker/Font platoon on his own, starting 150 games, I'd be all over it. But he won't, especially if defense is figured in. Fontenot is better at 2B than Castillo, but a pretty good margin, and Baker is better than Font. Considering Baker is much better offensively(vs LHP) and Fontenot is even, or very close to even, vs RHP, and adding in defense and cost, Castillo would be bad.

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might. A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo? Defensively yea it would probably be better, but how can you say it would be better offensively? Mike Fontenot was horrible last year, and is no guarantee to improve on that, whereas Castillo has been about as consistent as you can be over the last 12 years or so. A Castillo/Baker platoon is basically guaranteed to be better offensively than Baker/Fontenot. And its not like Fontenot is some defensive whiz out there at 2nd base either. How much better? Castillo's numbers as a LH vs RHP have been all over the place, and he hasn't been particularly good for a few years now. Castillo was decent against RHP(as a LH) this past season, but was worse than Fontenot(2009) the previous two years. And Baker has been better against LHP than Castillo. Fontenot has shown at least some ability against RHP. Plus he costs WAY less than Castillo. Even if you figure 100% pay increases for both Baker and Fontenot, they would combine to make less than a third of what Castillo will get paid. Then add in that both Baker and Fontenot were much better defensively, at 2B, than Castillo this year. I'm not convinced that Castillo would be better, at best it would be a break even situation, but even if he is, would he be worth spending 3x as much at 2B.

What monkey wrote this sentence? I think its pretty obvious that this part-time Naples resident and cofounder of Esmark, Inc., a Chicago based company, simply has the first name "Neither". Well, then its strange that Neither Bouchard was immediately available for comment but the article didn't include it. Maybe his comment was also"no comment"? If not, I got nothin'

I would have no problem with Castillo playing second base here next season. I think he only has one more year left on his contract. He had a nice bounce back season as a lot of intellegent baseball minds thought he might. A Baker/Fontenot platoon would be better, offensively and defensively, than Castillo. And since they are both already on the roster, why waste more money on Castillo?

Not trying to nitpick, but Alf was a Cub for 2 years, he was a major leaguer for 11. That shouldn't diminish your argument, which I fully agree with.

I'm sorry you find it embarrassing. I'm also sorry I factor in actual results of how many runs a guy allowed to score in the innings he pitched. I saw all the fangraph stats and I saw his WHIP, and the walks per inning and strike out stats. But none of that tells me why Grabow has gotten such good results when it comes to letting runs score two years in a row. Baseball is a game played by humans not computers, so there's human factors in things. I don't buy that Grabow just got lucky two years in a row. Or understand if he allows so many guys on base. Then why does he not do it when he comes into games with guys on base? So find this or that embarrassing or call me names all you want. There's no perfect stat systems in baseball and no perfect way to say why something was successful or not. So until then I'm sometimes gonna factor in results even if some stats say to disgard those results. I know alot of people on this board are set in there ways when it comes to some stats, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it. Keep in mind, when he comes into a game with men on base, then allows guys to get on, he isn't charged with those runs, the guy he relieved is.

Honest question, because I don't remember, was Sully the one floating the MB-Vernon Wells rumor that was shot down a few days later. Or am I confusing my crappy Cubs reporters( excluding Bruce M).

That's kind of what I was thinking. He talks about how great Acosta was, then mentions Larry almost in an "on the other side of the coin" type statement. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it looked like an odd way to put it.

If it looks to cost even close to what Tigers fans are expecting, I'd rather just sign Cameron. His performance will be close to Granderson, won't cost anything in terms of prospects and can be had for a short term deal (ex. 1 year/2nd year club option) instead of the increasingly expensive long term deal Granderson has. If he could be had for cheap, prospect wise, I'd prefer Granderson, but he's not worth the deals getting thrown around right now. Vitters, Castro AND one of the Jacksons? Give me Cameron instead.