Backtobanks

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.

There's no way that I would trade Soto, but the Red Sox might offer a king's ransom for him.

Even with a day/night doubleheader on June 28th we must have increased our odds of winning this game. Lincecum vs. Coleman, DeWitt in the OF, Hill catching, and Johnson starting could have been really ugly.

I was happy with him last year, but I always wondered if he was going to keep it going once the pitchers adjusted to him. He really needs to be more consistent if he has any hope of even being a 4th OF. AAA might help regain some trade value if he's not going to be part of the Cubs' future.

Byrd has a 15 game hitting streak, Soriano is about the only power threat in the lineup at this point, and Fukudome is hitting .350+ And DeWitt and Baker are getting in practice in the OF. It looks like Colvin and Quade have lost confidence in his ability.

I just don't see the urgency to go for it this year. Obviously we want to win the World Series and if we have a legit shot I say take it. However, I think our chances of winning will be better over the next couple of years than they are now (even without Pujols/Prince), so if we don't get a good price on Beltran I don't think the need is there to shell out for him. I think most of us are saying that Beltran should be a possibility only if we are contending and don't have to overpay. It might be good experience for our young players to get playoff experience even if winning the WS isn't going to happen this year.

Trading Byrd is probably the route to get the biggest upgrade, but I really don't think the Mets will want either Byrd or Kosuke. With their financial troubles, adding even a reduced contract may not be an option. My bet is if they want an ML ready OF, it'd be Colvin. Even if they're not enamored by him, he's cheaper with more upside going forward than Byrd or Kosuke. Looking ahead, however, trading Byrd this season means we're guaranteed to see Colvin in RF next season. I don't see any way Kosuke comes back next year and with Byrd gone we'd have to start Colvin and hope BJax is ready to start the year. If we keep Byrd, Quade may decide to go with Jackson and let Colvin remain as the 4th OF. We'd be a better team overall next season in the latter scenario, but worse this year. I do wonder if Colvin can rebound from a what seems to be a complete loss of confidence. With DeWitt getting practice in the OF and rumors of Colvin being sent to AAA, trading Colvin for Beltran might be something to think about if the Cubs are stil in the hunt at the deadline.

The "experts" weigh in, from MLBTR: •It will be interesting to see how Carlos Beltran’s $18.5MM salary affects other teams’ interest in him midseason, as ESPN.com's Buster Olney explains. Few teams have $6MM kicking around for a two-month rental, and that’s how much will remain on Beltran’s contract at the end of July. Olney suggests the Mets could get a decent prospect for Beltran if he continues his hot hitting (the free agent to be had a three-homer game yesterday). •Matt Klaassen of FanGraphs examines Carlos Beltran's trade value and says "it is hard to imagine the Mets getting more than a couple of C prospects in return for Beltran if they send a few million dollars along."

ugh...Yes, anyone who thinks Hendry should be replaced because they are not satisfied with the results under his regime is BLINDED BY HATE! Very helpful. But at least you appreciate Tim's rational approach. It's perfectly rational to be of the opinion that the Cubs are better off entering next off-season, one in which they potentially have a large amount of money to spend, with a different GM. Tim, CCP, TT and others have given perfectly reasonable arguments against booting Hendry, but disagreeing with them doesn't make one blinded by hatred. I already stated I'd like to see him replaced, but I fully acknowledge I don't have an available, sure-fire improvement in mind. Again, it's not an "anybody but Hendry" situation, but as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread is saying it is. I don't understand why people are suggesting otherwise. If you have read all of the many threads about Hendry, I would say that there are more than a few posters who think Hendry needs to be replaced because he's the worst GM (or in the bottom 5) in baseball. When some posters can't acknowledge anything positive that he has done, I think those posters are blinded by hate. My point is that Hendry has done some good things and some not-so-good things. If you look at Hendry's record, it's not a slam dunk that he should be fired (or kept). You are correct that there isn't an available, sure-fire improvement out there.