Backtobanks

He sounds like Ryan Doumit.

Not with his contract. No argument that he is still owed alot ($36mil) but that is for this year and next, correct? The Yankees were willing to throw a boatload at Lee to sign him, and one would think Z might waive his NTC to reunite with Rothschild. the Cubs could always throw in some cash as well. I don't see the point to trade for Garza and then turn around and trade Zambrano while throwing in cash. I think the trade for Garza was made to sell tickets this year while the team is competitive (and maybe contending) and for definite contention for 2012. I suppose they might try to trade Zambrano if one of the prospects steps up and is phenomenal during the spring, but I don't see that happening.

This would be true if we had traded for a frontline starter. Unfortunately, we traded for Matt Garza. A 27-year old guy who has put up solid numbers starting for contenders over the last 4-5 years sounds like a frontline starter to me.

I totally agree. I don't like all of the comments about Garza had better step up to become an ace or else the trade is a failure. It would be great if he does, but a solid #2 or #3 starter for the next 4 or 5 years sounds good to me. Zambrano, Dempster, and Lilly were never considered "aces", but provided solid, steady pitching over the years. I would say that more than half the teams don't have a true "ace".

Not with his contract.

The NL Central is loaded with question marks and this trade moves the Cubs up to the status of "teams that could win IF". I would think that many Cub front office people are looking at a decent run in 2011 and serious contention in 2012 without saying it out loud.

All this talk of this package could have gotten us Greinke cracks me up because many of the same posters were worried about Greinke's anxiety issues when he was mentioned as a trade candidate.

Getting Greinke probably would have required a few tweaks to increase the quality, but nothing so substantial as to completely overhaul the deal. What pisses me off is that I think this is also the kind of package that could have netted Adrian Gonzalez. Maybe the Padres wanted the Red Sox prospects, I don't know. But, when you compare that package to what the Cubs gave up, again, I think a minor change or two to the Cubs' prospects to increase the overall quality would have been comparable to what the Red Sox traded for Gonzalez. Also, why do people think the NL Central will be weak this year? As far as I can tell, the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers will all roughly be the same as or better than last year, while the Pirates (yeah, yeah) should start seeing dividends from bolstering their farm system. I get the feeling that this will be a difficult division to win, even with a good team. No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

As others have pointed out, this trade can't be measured until those prospects perform in the ML. If Archer becomes the ace that some of you insist he will, then the trade sucks. If he becomes a middle reliever or blows out his arm, the trade is a phenominal success. Chirinos and Guyer will be backups and Lee is a slick fielding/no hitting middle IF.

Well, Hendry usually likes to make a splash just before the convention. I guess Pena and Wood might be enough to get the crowd excited.

I'm not saying Lee will get another multi-year contract, but his down year last year was a result of a bad thumb. Now that he's healthy combined with playing in the AL and at Camden Yards, he could surprise a lot of people.

I can't see very many people giving up a tv gig for a radio gig.

Saying that winning isn't a "priority" with professional athletes never fails to be hilariously dumb. So why sign with Baltimore? They probably have the worst chance of making the playoffs out of every team in MLB. At least the Pirates and Royals and Cubs are in bad divisions. The O's could be way better next year and still finish 4th or last. I can think of 8 million reasons to sign with Baltimore. As Rocket pointed out, it's not like the top contenders were lined up looking for a 1B. San Diego allegedly offered him. Why not take that? Better question is why the hell the Orioles would just waste that money. Even if lee puts up a .900 OPS, they'd be better off developing a young guy instead of giving a 35 year old guy 500 at bats. SD isn't going to win either and playing in SD certainly won't help his power numbers if he's interested in signing another contract next year. Camden Yards and the AL will help with the HR & RBI stats and possibly get him another contract in 2012.

Saying that winning isn't a "priority" with professional athletes never fails to be hilariously dumb. So why sign with Baltimore? They probably have the worst chance of making the playoffs out of every team in MLB. At least the Pirates and Royals and Cubs are in bad divisions. The O's could be way better next year and still finish 4th or last. I can think of 8 million reasons to sign with Baltimore. As Rocket pointed out, it's not like the top contenders were lined up looking for a 1B.

It's a pass on $1 million/1year deal. The Cubs don't have room for a hitter who can't play the field.

Maybe they're discussing Santo's old job.

I suppose it could be affected by the progress of Vitters and weighing whether to re-sign Ramirez to play 1B vs. Pena's production/cost/age.

For all of the criticism of Hendry, lets not forget that he turned these "worthless" prospects into some pretty decent ML talent via trades. What does this say about all of those highly regarded GMs that accepted these lousy prospects.

Hendry's been very good in his time in Chicago about not trading away prospects who end up being good. I think Tim's point was, just about none of the prospects Hendry has dealt have turned into good MLB players outside of Nolasco and Mitre (somewhat) in the Pierre deal. He's not one to trade away prospects on a whim. Hendry always has been a proponent of developing and playing prospects. Baker and Piniella wanted veterans to fill any holes on the team, so Hendry would accomodate them.

I was never into this "anxiety issues" game, but I'll play along. Grienke will be a good fit for Milwaukee unless he's pitching in Chicago, NY, LA, or in a tight divisional race, or in the playoffs/World Series. In other words, he was a good fit in the small market of KC because they didn't play many games that mattered.

Archer and McNutt were 21 and 20, respectively, last season. That's pretty young. They each put up pretty incredible numbers last season at a very young age. You can't possibly know what they are going to do over the next 6-7 seasons. Grienke is 27. We do know what he did over the last 6-7 years. Some good, some great, some not so good. You might be right that Archer and McNutt will never be as good as Grienke is now. There's a chance you're wrong. Obviously, I'd take that chance if it were a straight up one-for-one deal to get Grienke, but it's likely going to take 3 or four top prospects to get him and I'd rather sit back and see what Cashner, Archer and McNutt can do along with Brett Jackson and Hak-Ju Lee. I disagree simply because Grienke is a top pitcher at 27 and should be very good for quite a few more years (assuming we can re-sign him). Let them pick from 3-5 players from a list of Archer/McNutt (one of them), Gorzelanny, Mateo, Russell, Berg, Coleman, Maine, Stevens, Castillo/Chirinos, Guyer, Vitters, Adduci, Snider, Fuld, etc. There are a few players on that list that are pretty good prospects, but none that are irreplacable. But at what price financially? If Archer, McNutt and Cashner (or one of their other prospects) can be 3 of the 5 starters for the Cubs the next several seasons, think of the money that will be available to sign someone like Pujols for example. But if we keep trading our young prospects for older more expensive ones, we never get that window. Yeah, because pitching prospects are sure things. J.K. Ryu, Angel Guzman, Bobby Brownlie all became superstars. Don't forget the guy with perfect mechanics - Mark Prior.

Archer and McNutt were 21 and 20, respectively, last season. That's pretty young. They each put up pretty incredible numbers last season at a very young age. You can't possibly know what they are going to do over the next 6-7 seasons. Grienke is 27. We do know what he did over the last 6-7 years. Some good, some great, some not so good. You might be right that Archer and McNutt will never be as good as Grienke is now. There's a chance you're wrong. Obviously, I'd take that chance if it were a straight up one-for-one deal to get Grienke, but it's likely going to take 3 or four top prospects to get him and I'd rather sit back and see what Cashner, Archer and McNutt can do along with Brett Jackson and Hak-Ju Lee. I disagree simply because Grienke is a top pitcher at 27 and should be very good for quite a few more years (assuming we can re-sign him). Let them pick from 3-5 players from a list of Archer/McNutt (one of them), Gorzelanny, Mateo, Russell, Berg, Coleman, Maine, Stevens, Castillo/Chirinos, Guyer, Vitters, Adduci, Snider, Fuld, etc. There are a few players on that list that are pretty good prospects, but none that are irreplacable. But at what price financially? If Archer, McNutt and Cashner (or one of their other prospects) can be 3 of the 5 starters for the Cubs the next several seasons, think of the money that will be available to sign someone like Pujols for example. But if we keep trading our young prospects for older more expensive ones, we never get that window. That's a big "IF".

I've read more than once in this thread that Wood was coming home to retire a Cub and now I'm reading "personal services contract" after he is retired. Is his arm at the end of the line now, or are we looking at getting wonderful deals year after year until he eventually does say enough is enough. Basically, I'm curious what he has left in the tank since he's a few generations behind Jamie Moyer. I'm sure the "personal services contract" was a gentleman's agreement because of the hometown discount.

Archer and McNutt were 21 and 20, respectively, last season. That's pretty young. They each put up pretty incredible numbers last season at a very young age. You can't possibly know what they are going to do over the next 6-7 seasons. Grienke is 27. We do know what he did over the last 6-7 years. Some good, some great, some not so good. You might be right that Archer and McNutt will never be as good as Grienke is now. There's a chance you're wrong. Obviously, I'd take that chance if it were a straight up one-for-one deal to get Grienke, but it's likely going to take 3 or four top prospects to get him and I'd rather sit back and see what Cashner, Archer and McNutt can do along with Brett Jackson and Hak-Ju Lee. I disagree simply because Grienke is a top pitcher at 27 and should be very good for quite a few more years (assuming we can re-sign him). Let them pick from 3-5 players from a list of Archer/McNutt (one of them), Gorzelanny, Mateo, Russell, Berg, Coleman, Maine, Stevens, Castillo/Chirinos, Guyer, Vitters, Adduci, Snider, Fuld, etc. There are a few players on that list that are pretty good prospects, but none that are irreplacable.

I don't know how he's throwing (I don't think he's pitching in any Winter leagues this year), but he is a non-roster invitee to spring training. Link If Guzman can come back anywhere near 09 form, we might have one of the best bullpens in baseball.