Backtobanks

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that. I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently. Maybe they struggle early because they are purposefully holding back as they have to pace themselves for 6+ innings and 100+ pitches instead of going balls to the wall for 15-25 pitches. I think that's the thing. A reliever can go all out because he's not throwing as many pitches (obviously). Generally a pitcher who goes from the rotation to the pen will see an improvement in stuff and velocity, but also the bullpen role is less important and impactful. I still don't think it's as likely as you think. With the modern emphasis on closers and the big money to go along with it, I would think there would be a lot of hard-throwing pitchers eager to make the switch if it was so easy.

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that. I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently.

Even if thats true, as soon as the Cubs were ready to compete again, and if they do make their way to the world series, I guarantee all the focus and money would shift right back to them, and Im not just talking Chicago. Yeah, but you're talking about at least 2-3 years of lost revenue (1 year of mediocrity and 1-2 years of semi-contention before serious contention.) Also, realize that the economy has limited the money that many corporations can spend so switching those dollars back to the Cubs after sponsoring a successful Bears/Bulls/Black Hawks team may not be easy.

Obviously, let him stay in the bullpen. Our rotation is good and deep while our bullpen is problematic and thin.

"And for the record, I really dont think that whatever happens with the Bulls, Bears, or Blackhawks has any bearing whatsoever on Ricketts offseason plans. Granted, a Labron/D Rose combo would get me back into the NBA for the first time since the Jordan era, but it would have no effect on how I feel about the Cubs". With all due respect westside, a few of us die hard Cub fans wouldn't change our feelings for the Cubs, but when the corporate money and advertising dollars go to the "hot" sports team in the city you had better believe it will affect Ricketts offseason plans. A Stanley Cup or a run at the Super Bowl or NBA Championship could switch tens of millions of dollars from the Cubs to another team.

I wonder if anyone in authority has suggested getting his eyes checked. Obviously if his vision is altered slightly it certainly could affect his strikeout rate and missing the "sweet spot" on the bat leading to outs instead of hits. It might be worth a try.

I'm not sure Ricketts is willing to wait for 2012, especially since your scenario is based on a bunch of prospects becoming solid ML starters. Counting on Colvin, Vitters, Jackson, Cashner, Diamond, Coleman, Stevens, Parker, Gaub, and a return of Guzman to be contributors in 2012 is really optimistic. Also, let's not forget the PR war going on in Chicago with a possible Stanley Cup, an improved Bear team, and possibly a Lebron James/Derrick Rose combo for the Bulls.

Let's say, for example, we trade Z's contract and let Lee and Lilly walk. That's $17 mil in savings for Z, $13 mil in savings from Lee and $12 mil in savings from Lilly. Their respective ages are 28, 34 and 34. Let's then say we sign Prince Fielder (roughly $18 mil for 5 years, say), Jorge De La Rosa (roughly $10 mil for 3 years, say) and Jose Reyes (roughly $15 mil for 4 years, say, with him or Castro playing second). Their respective ages are 26, 29 and 27. We've likely improved the current team overall and we've added about $1 million in salary. Fielder's not a guy who's going to age well, but if we give him a 5 year contract at 27, we likely have him for at least 3 productive years, probably more. De La Rosa will be 30, but has been very productive (his FIP has improved each of the past three years to 3.36 so far this year) and we could probably get him for 3-4 years and 10-12 million – a Lilly-esque bargain. Reyes would be a huge improvement over Theriot and, while he would cost more, we'd have him through his age 32-33 year and he'd bridge the gap nicely to, hopefully, Hak-Ju Lee. Now, these names are just examples and I'm not saying they'll all definitely be available, but the point is to show that we could let some older players go and bring in younger players and not have to go into a long-term rebuilding process. I'm not saying we should trade Z, but if we could free up his salary and get a decent young player (Quentin maybe), it gives us more options on building more of a long-term contender going into next season. I think Zambrano is one of those players that is better than whatever you can get for him. I saw a quote that other GMs don't think very highly of him and probably wouldn't take him unless the Cubs ate a chunk of his contract. If the Cubs had to eat part of his contract plus get minimal return for him, then in my opinion, Z's not worth trading. Whether we like it or not, if Lee gets his numbers up to respectable, he will be extended.

I understand the salary relief issue, but I can't see Ricketts spending all that money on the Cubs and then go into a rebuilding mode for 3-4 years, especially with the Black Hawks going for the Stanley Cup, the Bulls rumored to be after LeBron, and the new offensive-minded Martz coaching the Bears. I don't know for sure that I'd do either of those moves (I'd have to look more closely at Quentin), but trading Z for salary relief doesn't mean we're going into a 3-4 year rebuilding mode. Actually, getting relief from Z, Lee and Lilly's salaries might actually help us contend within the next 2 years since we'd be able to go after some high-salary players (somebody like Fielder). So we're going to dump salary just to pour it back into some other long term/high price FA? Players like Fielder and Cliff Lee are going to cost you $30 million or more per year for 4-5 years, so then you're locked into old, expensive players that will have reduced production. Plus Fielder has the type of body that won't age well. you think cliff lee and prince fielder are going to get 30 million a year? I meant together. Actually they will probably get more than $30 million per year together.

I understand the salary relief issue, but I can't see Ricketts spending all that money on the Cubs and then go into a rebuilding mode for 3-4 years, especially with the Black Hawks going for the Stanley Cup, the Bulls rumored to be after LeBron, and the new offensive-minded Martz coaching the Bears. I don't know for sure that I'd do either of those moves (I'd have to look more closely at Quentin), but trading Z for salary relief doesn't mean we're going into a 3-4 year rebuilding mode. Actually, getting relief from Z, Lee and Lilly's salaries might actually help us contend within the next 2 years since we'd be able to go after some high-salary players (somebody like Fielder). So we're going to dump salary just to pour it back into some other long term/high price FA? Players like Fielder and Cliff Lee are going to cost you $30 million or more per year for 4-5 years, so then you're locked into old, expensive players that will have reduced production. Plus Fielder has the type of body that won't age well.

I understand the salary relief issue, but I can't see Ricketts spending all that money on the Cubs and then go into a rebuilding mode for 3-4 years, especially with the Black Hawks going for the Stanley Cup, the Bulls rumored to be after LeBron, and the new offensive-minded Martz coaching the Bears.

I know his contract is bloated and he's been underperforming, but I thought the answers to these 2 questions were pretty insulting to Zambrano. From MLBTR Chat: [Comment From MaxMax: ] Would either the yanks or cubs consider a deal built around a Javy Vasquez/Carlos Zambrano swap? Wednesday May 19, 2010 2:28 Max 2:28 I imagine the Cubs would immediately pull the trigger, while the Yankees would not consider it. [Comment From GuestGuest: ] Would you trade Carlos Zambrano for Carlos Quentin? Wednesday May 19, 2010 2:42 Guest 2:42 Cubs don't need OFs, but I'd probably do it anyway. Z's contract - it's a huge burden. If you could dump it Alex Rios style you'd probably want to.

I don't think the Cubs will have a "fire sale" because many of their veterans have next-to-unmovable contracts. Secondly, the NL Central is weak and the Cubs probably won't be too far out to give up on the season. They have sucked as bad as I can remember this year and they're still only 5 1/2 games out with over 3/4 of the season to go. This is with ARam hitting like Aaron Miles, DLee struggling, and the "Ace of the rotation" doing a mediocre job out of the bullpen.

I certainly agree with #30.

I guess I'm just not sure why you need to "go deeper" than W/L. Isn't that the bottom line? His job is to put together teams that win. His record is barely over .500. End of story, IMO. Every team has injuries. One can even excuse one bad year because of injuries, but it's been 7-8 years now. In that time, there's really only been one team that was very good (2008). In fact, that's the only team that won more than 90 games. He's out of excuses. Every team that has had the number and severity of injuries that the Cubs have had has had poor seasons. I'd like to see what the Cards could do without Carpeter, Wainwright, and Pujols for a couple of months. Look at the injuries the Mets have had causing them to have horrible seasons.

One interesting statistic that I saw. The Cubs had 6 winning seasons in the last decade for the first time since the 1930's. Doesn't mean he's a great GM, but he deserves some credit for that.

Every GM has made bad trades, not nearly as many have acquired talent like Lee, Ramirez, Lofton, Harden, Nomar, Karros and Grudz for guys who have done little in the majors. With the exceptions of the Maddux and Pierre trades, Hendry's bad trades have consisted of trading decent to solid bullpen guys (Cruz, Wuertz) for players who didn't turn out. Those are bad trades, but are overshadowed by the very good trades. Like TT said, I'm not arguing that Hendry has been great. I'm not even defending Hendry in any way. I think it's time for a new GM. I just don't see what the big deal is about discussing good trades he's made and how, overall, he's good at pulling off trades. That's exactly my point. It's not the end of the world if he's fired, but it bothers me that posters just can't look at both sides of a discussion. Also, be careful what you wish for. Everyone wanted Baker gone and most thought Piniella was a great hire. Now we have threads on firing Lou because he's an idiot.

Now that a few of you want to use my name in your posts, you should at least accurately point out my position. Hendry has some positives (more good trades than bad) and some negatives (giving too much money/years to FA). He deserves blame for a team that has many veterans with unmovable contracts, but he deserves some credit for building teams over the years that won the division or were competitive. An important positive is that he hired Rothschild and Jaramillo as coaches. He has played an important part in rebuilding the farm system. He has been unlucky in having a high number of injured stars (Prior, Wood, Aram, DLee, etc.) over the years. If you want to use only wins and losses as a tool to grade him then he probably should be fired, but I think Ricketts might go a little deeper than W/L. My point has always been that it's real easy for all of us "pretend GMs" to criticize every move he makes (or doesn't make) without having all of the necessary information. I think he's respected by many people in baseball and if he's fired, he will have a job very soon afterward.

You should be banned for saying anything positive about Hendry even though the "trade" of Bradley for Silva plus Byrd has to be the most one-sided trade in decades. Lol you are a piece of work I'm glad you understand my point of blaming Hendry for everything that's wrong, but not giving him credit for what turns out right.

You should be banned for saying anything positive about Hendry even though the "trade" of Bradley for Silva plus Byrd has to be the most one-sided trade in decades. through 5 weeks Silva plus Byrd have won more games for the Cubs in 5 weeks than Bradley did all year.

You should be banned for saying anything positive about Hendry even though the "trade" of Bradley for Silva plus Byrd has to be the most one-sided trade in decades.

Just a thought - I wonder if anybody on the Cubs suggested ARam get his eyes checked. His struggles might be corrected by checking his eyesight.

I totally agree with you. If the Cubs play .538 ball the rest of the way they end up 84-78 and have a decent shot at the Wild Card. Now I agree that they have sucked this season, but you can't tell me that they can't play .538 ball assuming ARam and DLee start hitting. ARam might have a "down" year, but he's not going to stay in "Aaron Miles land" the whole season.

It would be nice to use one of them in appropriate situations when your starter is clearly gassed and the other team's best hitter is coming up. Yeah, I kept waiting for Bob to say, "I told you so." There are reports that Brenley was sent to the ER after the game because of a severed tongue. :rotfl:

Somebody ought to insist that ARam start working with Jaramillo or spend some time on the bench. I understand these ML hitters think they can work it out themselves, but it certainly wouldn't hurt at this point to start taking some advice. ARam is working with Rudy. Seems the media that jumped all over that story about Aramis refusing help was, well, dead wrong. The story in the Tribune made it sound like Jaramillo was protecting ARam. Rudy took the high road by saying he has to convince established hitters to come to him because they think they can work it out by themselves. Jaramillo even said in the article "he has to win him over". That doesn't sound like ARam is really working full time with Jaramillo like he should be. Don't let Kaplan convince you of this. Aramis literally has millions of dollars at stake here. You can be sure he's doing everything he can to break out of the slump. For Kaplan and others to make it sound like he doesn't care...they're just trying to build controversy and traffic. Paul Sullivan wrote the Tribune article. I don't have any inside information, but I'm sure a lot of hitters can be stubborn about seeking help and Jaramillo's quote about having to "convince" and "win over" some hitters certainly made it sound like ARam might not be seeking his advice at this point.