Backtobanks

It's interesting that injuries can be used as an excuse for the Twins, but not the Cubs.

And Ricketts could simply say: "I am evaluating everyone and lets leave it that". After that, say: "Thanks, guys", and walk away. He really sounds like an idiot (whether he meant what he said or not) to use the injury card as an excuse for this horrid team. And speculation only increases that Hendry's days are numbered and then the first question (and an endless amount after that) in Hendry's next press conference is whether he thinks he'll be fired, whether he's talked to Ricketts about his job, etc. Thus making his job more tedious because he has to field even more questions about his job security. I think the earlier comment about expectations was right on. If Ricketts knew this would be a difficult year and that we'd be fighting to stay around .500 most of the year, then he made a 100% accurate statement that the biggest thing wrong with this team is injuries, because without all the injuries all at the same time this team is probably a lot closer to .500 than it is now. By answering the way he did, Ricketts showed faith in the original team that was constructed and didn't open any new cans of worms. I totally agree. Everybody knew this was going to be a difficult year and the Cubs would be a borderline .500 team. Any optimism was based on everything going right for the Cubs and going wrong for the Reds and Cards. The team has totally sucked, but all of the injuries has to be considered as the main reason this team hasn't played somewhere near expected (borderline .500, not contenders). With minor leaguers and bench players filling up 40% - 50% of the starting lineup and rotation on a daily basis, it's not surprising that they're getting their rear ends kicked daily. Isn't that kind of a pointless distinction? Either way the Cub's weren't going to contend, which is unacceptable. If they were a 80-85 win team, it gives you a direction for the future. Questions about whether Cashner can be a ML starter, whether Barney is legit, whether Ramirez has anything left, whether Colvin is ready to play regularly, whether 1 or 2 players can put them over the top, etc. could be answered and needs assessed if the Cubs had a healthy 2011.

And Ricketts could simply say: "I am evaluating everyone and lets leave it that". After that, say: "Thanks, guys", and walk away. He really sounds like an idiot (whether he meant what he said or not) to use the injury card as an excuse for this horrid team. And speculation only increases that Hendry's days are numbered and then the first question (and an endless amount after that) in Hendry's next press conference is whether he thinks he'll be fired, whether he's talked to Ricketts about his job, etc. Thus making his job more tedious because he has to field even more questions about his job security. I think the earlier comment about expectations was right on. If Ricketts knew this would be a difficult year and that we'd be fighting to stay around .500 most of the year, then he made a 100% accurate statement that the biggest thing wrong with this team is injuries, because without all the injuries all at the same time this team is probably a lot closer to .500 than it is now. By answering the way he did, Ricketts showed faith in the original team that was constructed and didn't open any new cans of worms. I totally agree. Everybody knew this was going to be a difficult year and the Cubs would be a borderline .500 team. Any optimism was based on everything going right for the Cubs and going wrong for the Reds and Cards. The team has totally sucked, but all of the injuries has to be considered as the main reason this team hasn't played somewhere near expected (borderline .500, not contenders). With minor leaguers and bench players filling up 40% - 50% of the starting lineup and rotation on a daily basis, it's not surprising that they're getting their rear ends kicked daily.

He hasn't done anything to have a lock on the job either. He's been a very pleasant surprise in a dismal season. He wasn't even mentioned as a possibility as a starter in spring training, but he completely eliminated DeWitt and DeWitt/Baker platoon as topics of discussion. There might be better options for the long-range future of the Cubs, but as of right this minute Barney is very close to being the least of the Cubs' problems.

I don't understand, should we not try LeMahieu at second because Barney is a role player and we don't have the Yankees' payroll? LeMahieu is going to be cheap for quite some time and has the ceiling to outproduce Barney by a pretty wide margin. If both hit their ceilings, LeMahieu will be the far more productive player. I don't think we should pass that up because in 4-5 years LeMahieu will be paid a lot more than Barney (if both hit their ceilings). Or am I misunderstanding your point? As for minor league numbers not translating - it's not like we're talking about an unproven rookie (LeMahieu) and a reliable, consistent veteran (Barney). Both are rookies and both are very unproven. Barney has more time in the majors and in that time he had a very productive month (.803 OPS in March/April) and a bad month (.647 OPS in May) and was awful in 30 games last year. Barney's no shoe-in to be productive at this point and doesn't have a lengthy track record to support passing on a guy who has a much higher ceiling for certainty of production. If I've got two players who have proven little to nothing in the majors, I'll take the guy with the far superior minor league numbers every time - and that player is LeMahieu. All that I'm saying is that Barney hasn't done anything to be benched in favor of an unproven rookie. If he continues to slump badly or later in the season when the Cubs raise the white flag, then give LeMahieu an extended look.

My point is that minor league numbers don't always translate in ML success (especially for the Cubs). Players like Barney (and Theriot) are role players. You can't have a superstar at every position unless you are the Yankees and are willing to have their payroll.

I'm not sure anyone would be willing to buy high on him at this point. Also, let's not give the job to LeMahieu just because he has a higher ceiling.

The way this year is going we need to hire Dr. Oz as the GM.

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us. They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500. Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing. There aren't many teams that play over .500 ball with the #4 and #5 starters pitching. I think it might be safe to say that we might have 2-3 more wins with Wells and Cashner. That was supposed to be the Cubs main strength though that their #4 and #5 starters weren't that different from their first 3. Wells especially is pretty close to the other three starters. But the pitching staff is always going to have some injuries so we can't just plug them in for a full year and project the Cubs record even though the Cubs have gone overboard a little bit so far this year. I don't know how anybody could say that Cashner wasn't that different from our first three starters since he hasn't proven anything as a starter in the ML. I agree that Wells should be considered a good #4 starter assuming he continues to pitch the way he has.

Obviously the Cubs are nowhere near the point of selling right now and might not consider themselves sellers at the deadline either, but we could solve a lot of the Yankees' problems and take some of those great prospects (starting with Montero) off their hands. From MLBTR: •GM Brian Cashman told George A. King III of The New York Post that he isn't getting any calls about trades just yet. "I am not getting calls," said Cashman. "We have the farm system and money, but no calls ... The headache stuff is available. The quality stuff is not available." •Within the article, King notes that the team could look for upgrades at DH, in right field, and for the pitching staff. He says the Astros "will listen" to offers for Brett Myers, but the Yankees "don't have a match." King speculates that Carlos Beltran, Michael Cuddyer, and Vladimir Guerrero could be potential trade targets. Fukudome in RF, Ramirez/Soriano at DH, Dempster in the rotation, and Grabow in the bullpen.

The Cubs are 19-14 in games started by their original starting 5. It's the sacks of crap we've ran out there otherwise that have sabotaged us. They showed a stat on WGN at the beginning of the game that said the Cubs are 3-12 when Russell, Coleman and Davis start and those three have an ERA over 8 when they start. So even if the Cubs could have gone 8-7 in those starts, they'd be 27-21 right now and in second place, 1.5 out of first. 5-10 in those starts would put them at .500. Going 8-7 with 3 horrendous pitchers is asking alot. Even if we had Wells and Cashner, its far from a guarantee that we would have. Lets face it, its not like this is Cain and Lincecum were missing. There aren't many teams that play over .500 ball with the #4 and #5 starters pitching. I think it might be safe to say that we might have 2-3 more wins with Wells and Cashner.

The last time I looked Lincecum, Halladay, and Sabathia weren't available.

Exactly. No one says anyone has to put themselves in harm's way in sports. It's human nature and competitiveness. Guys are going to get hurt if they continue risky behavior. You can't outlaw contact in all sports. If someone doesn't want to risk injury for 1 game in May, they don't have to. Goodell is trying to eliminate contact in the NFL.

He would fit right in with the Cubs.

How crazy is it that I don't think it's quite over yet. Get healthy, get lucky, get hot, and we could still squeak out this awful division. There's 71% of the season remaining, so of course it's possible if they get lucky and hot. But their crappy division leader still has the 3rd best winning percentage among the leaders. They already have 4 teams to jump and are on pace for a 90 loss season. The Cubs need to win at a 90 win pace the rest of the way just to get to 85 wins. STL has to play to 1 game under .500 the rest of the way to get 85. It's a huge uphill battle and they already went into the season needing nearly everything to go right to contend. Somebody has to pitch (and play) for the rest of the season. It could get real ugly if the Cubs sell Ramirez, Dempster, and Pena at the deadline.

I could only hear part of this story. Anyone mind telling me how this happened? He got called up by the Orioles in early August. Later in August the O's were playing a continued game (against the WS I think) from April and he got a hit in that game. The official box score of the game has the April date, so he got a hit at least 3 months before he was called up.

Great story from Len last night about Montanez getting a hit in the ML 3 months before he got called up.

But other than that everybody is fine. :lol:

I'm not sure what the Twins might want for Cuddyer, but let's not go overboard about what a great player he is. The players he is most similar to at age 31 are Troy O'Leary, Aaron Rowand, Milton Bradley, and Bernard Gilkey. Add in that he would be owed about $5 million for a 3-month rental and I don't see too many teams offering "decent" prospects.

Don't forget that a player's value is depreciated over time and becomes a tax write-off for the owner.

cuddyer is a pretty good player who's versatile; why are they just going to dump him for nothing? He is a pretty good player, versatile, and makes $10.5 million. Obviously the Twins might get better prospects if they throw in some money.

From MLBTR: Twins May Explore Kevin Slowey Trade By Tim Dierkes [May 23 at 10:57am CST] The Kevin Slowey relief experiment has ended, and a change of scenery appears to be in order. The 27-year-old control artist told Twins manager Ron Gardenhire he was having a hard time as a reliever, according to La Velle E. Neal III of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Slowey is headed back to Triple-A to get stretched out as a starter, but Gardenhire implied on ESPN 1500 that the right thing is to find the righty a starting opportunity with another club. Some team has a chance to buy low on Slowey, though, since he is capable of a sub-4.00 ERA. Slowey is earning $2.7MM this year, and is under team control through 2013 as an arbitration eligible player. Given how the 2011 season has gone so far, his 2012 raise should be limited. Since the Twins will be selling soon, maybe we can give them some salary relief and plug a couple of holes at the same time. How about Cuddyer and Slowey for a package built around Colvin, Grabow (to help with the money issue), and young pitching (Stevens, Berg, Maine, Coleman, etc.). The additional cost to the Cubs would be the prorated share of $8.4 million (app. $5.5 million now). Slowey can be the #5 starter while Cuddyer can provide some power while playing RF/1B/PH. Both Cuddyer and Grabow come off the books after this year.

These two guys aren't idiots. Neither one is going to take anything less than 7-8 years unless Pujols continues to struggle and takes a 1-year to rebuild his worth. Both of them realize that this is their last big payday.

Obviously it depends on the cost/years. If Pujols is $300 million/10 years and Prince is for $170 million/8 years, it gets to be a tough decision. Of course that's the maximum Pujols will get while Prince could get more than what I mentioned. Also, if Pujols continues to have a down year, all of the numbers mentioned could change dramatically.