MSG T

You called? Cubs sign Furcal and then trade Marshall, Veal/Hart, and Ceda to Marlins for Hermida and Olsen. Cubs trade Olsen, Pie, Theriot, and Hill to SD for Peavy. Furcal @ SS, Hermida in RF, and Peavy in the rotation. Knew I could count on ya. :grin:

It's hard to say how he'd do with less payroll. Before he became GM, he was a terrific minor league director, so he certainly understands the importance of developing from within and can identify young players. At the time it appeared he was, but the results were much worse than expectations. I don't think it's hard to say what he'd do with less payroll. Before they really went from high to really high he had a below .500 record with the Cubs. He also hired Dusty Baker. Fixed it.

Same thought I had. He'd look better at Petco than Wrigley, I'd think. Although last year was a good improvement over 2007, he still had some bad home/away splits.

Stupid thought, and not trying to step on b-t-b's toes here, but could a three way with FLA and SD work? I'd love to see Hermida in RF next year.

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all. Which is exactly why I brought up the CC/trade for RF vs Peavy/FA RF thought. If the combined monetary cost for both possibilities is the same, go for the one that leaves you the most talent in your system. How much payroll would either combination cost? How much would the trades cost in terms of talent? I don't think there is enough difference in talent between Peavy and CC to warrant that kind of difference in money, assuming there's only a modest payroll increase. But, how much would have to be given up to aquire Peavy? If a deal can be made without affecting their ability to make other trades later, that's another bonus. Also, would that trade force them to go FA to fill RF? Or would they have enough left to trade for a corner OF? I'll be honest, I don't know as much about the particulars as others on here, which is why I'm asking. Given the current payroll situation, I'd probably prefer Peavy and Hermida, and call it an offseason. But I doubt they have enough to get both and have anything left for a contingency like you layed out( Soto getting hurt). Which forces them to go the FA route for RF. Ibanez wouldn't be horrid, if he came relatively cheaply and short term. But the guys I'd prefer are going to cost way more money, which is why I'd prefer Hermida if possible.

BTW, I'm joking about the last part. I know they can't get both.

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades? I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine. I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now. Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO Peavy's primary cost is in players traded, and you're leaving that part out of your equation completely. Assuming getting CC is a realistic possibility, hopefully trading Marquis is part of that to clear some money, I'd prefer that to Peavy. They can then use some of those players they would have used on Peavy to go get someone to fill RF through trade, ex. Hermida. To be honest, I don't know what the comparison in cost( both money and players) is with a CC/Hermida vs a Peavy/Ibanez. Those are just examples using names I've seen thrown around on here so don't blast me. Basically what I'd like to see compared is a big FA signing/smaller trade as opposed to a smaller FA signing/big trade. If those two possibilities come out in similar costs in terms of money and talent, I'd rather they get the bigger FA. They can then use any other tradeable assets later to fill any more minor holes. If a Peavy/Ibanez type combo is markedly cheaper, and they can't increase the payroll that much, I'd prefer that deal. But in a perfect world, CC would be a Cub. Hell, why not this? #1 CC #2 Peavy #3 Harden #4 Z #5 Lilly ;)

Just asking, because I haven't looked, how much of that( Abreu's OPS) came against crappy Cubs pitching. Lighting it up at Wrigley doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. He could have built up great stats against some really bad to average staff's in the late 90's and early 00's.

If he can net us something good in return as part of a trade, seeyuh. A Fuku/Johnson platoon in CF is fine by me. Agreed. Fuku/Johnson is just fine, and in a few years time, hopefully Colvin will be ready. Pie and Marshall should be more than enough for Brian Roberts if we still want him. I'd rather they go after someone the can hit in the middle of the order. Dunn or Hermida would be just fine.

As a Cub, 1 start allowing 0 runs. 0 starts knocked out in the 2nd inning or earlier. Why are you using facts to support your argument SSR? That's not fair, and facts don't tell the story like memories and gut feelings.

How is that measured? What's included in that? I'm not familiar with that statistic. It uses WPA(win probability added, the basis for those graphs you'll see linked around here a lot.) tOPS+ is his OPS+ relative to his career OPS+ WPA as a stat definitely has its flaws, but as a means of identifying leveraged situations, it's pretty good. So he's better in high leverage situations, but not by a lot (?). How does that compare to people like Pujols? Pujols: Hi- 119(tOPS+) Med- 92 Lo- 99 Bonds: Hi- 99 Med- 105 Lo- 95 ARod: Hi- 102 Med- 99 Lo- 100 Dunn( just forfun) Hi- 105 Med- 96 Lo- 102 Ortiz( cause he's known as clutch): Hi- 111 Med- 95 Lo- 100 Jeter( same as Ortiz) Hi- 103 Med- 106 Lo- 94 Most players, as was said earlier, put up numbers in pressure "clutch" situations pretty close to what their career averages are. Of the ones I listed, other than Ortiz and Jeter based on who came to mind first, the only huge outlier was Pujols high leverage tOPS+. Of course he's a great hitter( in looking at his measurable stats) regardless of the situation.

How is that measured? What's included in that? I'm not familiar with that statistic. It uses WPA(win probability added, the basis for those graphs you'll see linked around here a lot.) tOPS+ is his OPS+ relative to his career OPS+ WPA as a stat definitely has its flaws, but as a means of identifying leveraged situations, it's pretty good. So he's better in high leverage situations, but not by a lot (?). How does that compare to people like Pujols? Pujols: Hi- 119(tOPS+) Med- 92 Lo- 99 Bonds: Hi- 99 Med- 105 Lo- 95 ARod: Hi- 102 Med- 99 Lo- 100 Dunn( just forfun) Hi- 105 Med- 96 Lo- 102 Ortiz( cause he's known as clutch): Hi- 111 Med- 95 Lo- 100 Jeter( same as Ortiz) Hi- 103 Med- 106 Lo- 94 Most players, as was said earlier, put up numbers in pressure "clutch" situations pretty close to what their career averages are. Of the ones I listed, other than Ortiz and Jeter based on who came to mind first, the only huge outlier was Pujols high leverage tOPS+. Of course he's a great hitter( in looking at his measurable stats) regardless of the situation.

Adrian Gonzalez? I can't believe they have a chance, but wow, that would be fantastic. Oh, wait. That's Phil Rogers. Nevermind.

This thread is now complete. Thanks OMC, Lou is my all-time favorite player. The only non-Cub team related baseball item I have is a throwback #4 Yankees jersey. It even has the old style mid-length sleeves.

What about SS? What about CF when Edmonds goes down or if he doesn't perform as his bat speed keeps decreasing? How are you going to move Soriano? How is Soriano hurting this team? Last time I checked, the numbers Ryan Theriot put up in 2008 were outstanding. I would not consider SS a weakness at all. Nobody questioned the bat speed of Barry Bonds at age 38 and beyond. So I would say until Edmonds STOPS putting up numbers, he shouldn't be considered "done". I am not saying Reed Johnson can replace Soriano. I'm saying whatever star outfielder we acquired in this process could. Then, Johnson would be replacing Kosuke essentially except flip-flopping in the outfield. The reason I hate Soriano is because he goes through long streaks where he fails to make any contact with the baseball, and I don't consider that acceptable. He makes up his mind about whether or not he's going to swing before the pitch is even thrown, and no matter how far off the plate it is, he'll still wave at it. First, Theriot's numbers were not outstanding. He had the 8th best OPS of NL SS, behind such sluggers as Cristian Guzman and Yunel Escobar. A 93 OPS+ is below average, granted slightly below, but still below. Second, Bonds was a freak of science, and already one of the best players ever, at the age of 38. While Edmonds had a great career, nobody compared him to Bonds( even off the juice). And the fact that his numbers have dropped the last few years, up until an incredible June and July this year, does not bode well for the future. Third, while I agree that they should be looking for another corner OF, it shouldn't be to replace Soriano, it should be, at a minimum, to force Kosuke to CF( where he could platoon with Johnson). You do realize that of everyone on the team that had 300 PA( roughly 50% playing time) or higher, Soriano was their second best hitter, behind ARam.

July 4 1973. The only thing I remembered was the Santo HR. I still have the ticket stubs. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN197307040.shtml

I posted this in another thread. It only covers the Dodgers and Cubs in the 2nd half, so it will only be a teaser. Sorry.

Unless I counted wrong, they were 15-11 against teams with winning records the second half, and 3-0 in Sept. Other than one series against the Pirates, they played the whole month of Sept against the NL west, and only 3 of those games were against the D-Backs( the only other NL West above .500). The Cubs were 27-21 vs teams with a winning record in the second half( 23 more games than the Dodgers), and 11-10 in Sept, despite having clinched prior to their last two series. The Cubs have played a much tougher schedule, at least in the second half. I didn't look at the first half. Does that all mean much, I doubt it. But there is an obvious difference in schedule strength. So they played 3 games against winning teams in Sept? Wow. Yep. And AZ finished at 82-80. Dodgers record vs each team in Sept: vs. SD 7-2 vs. AZ 3-0 vs. COL 2-1 vs. PIT 3-1 vs. SF 2-4 The Cubs played one team( CIN) in Sept that is worse that the Dodgers best opponent from the same month. AZ finished behind NYM, PHI, MIL, STL and HOU in the overall NL standings. In fact, the Dodgers finished behind all of those teams also. Keep in mind, with their current record, the Dodgers would finish 5th in the Central, despite playing an easier second half schedule than the Cubs, Brew, Cards or Stros.

Unless I counted wrong, they were 15-11 against teams with winning records the second half, and 3-0 in Sept. Other than one series against the Pirates, they played the whole month of Sept against the NL west, and only 3 of those games were against the D-Backs( the only other NL West above .500). The Cubs were 27-21 vs teams with a winning record in the second half( 23 more games than the Dodgers), and 11-10 in Sept, despite having clinched prior to their last two series. The Cubs have played a much tougher schedule, at least in the second half. I didn't look at the first half. Does that all mean much, I doubt it. But there is an obvious difference in schedule strength.

This is me thinking out loud, but would it make sense, assuming Harden starts game 2, to piggyback Marshall with him? Get Harden through 5, maybe 6( depending on his pitch count), then let Marshall finish it, or at least get to Wood. I know there could be trouble with either of them at some point during the game, but just as a basic plan? They'd be off the next day, they'd still have Cotts( as a LHP) and could use Marquis as long relief, if needed, in game 3, then Marshall could go again after that, if needed.

There's no way anybody would be so stupid to assume that it would be okay to schedule both make up games, Cubs/Astros and Cubs/Mets on Monday, is there? A day night double header type of thing? Bud Selig to the press- We'll have to look at all possible options in dealing with this situation, one that benefits all of the teams involved as much as possible. Bud's brain- We could have the Cubs play in HOU at 10 am, then fly to NY and play at 7:30 pm against the Mets at Shea. Oh, and tell them they have to use all of their regulars in both. Integrity of the game, mention that, integrity of the game. Then the WC playoff can be a day/night double header, first game in MIL, then on to NY. Or better yet, bring the Mets to MIL and play both games there.

Nightmare scenario? Cubs/Mets get rained out. Most of Mets/Fish get rained out. After the conclusion of Mets/Fish series(played after Sunday), Brewers are a 1/2 game up in the WC over both the Mets and Astros, forcing the Cubs to go to HOU to play one game(good luck I-Cubs), then to NY to play another( good luck I-Cubs). After all that have a 3-way tie for the WC, forcing a playoff, which I have no clue how the scenarios work so... ex: Hou plays at MIL, winner goes to NY. Cubs/Phils/Dodgers wait around until they know who they're playing. Start the NLDS on Wednesday( even Bud's not THAT stupid). I hope to God it doesn't happen, but in a sick twisted way, Bud deserves it.

What's sad, is that lineup looks better than some we threw out there in '06. I know where you're coming from though.

Nothing personal against all those that have tickets this weekend, but I want them to clinch tomorrow. Then they can set up the playoff rotation and get some guys extra rest. Like was said, the sooner the better.

While you could easily come up with a better team from all the all time greats, what's sad is that there are people that wouldn't want this team, playing as the Cubs, because of these guys being D-Bags.