Backtobanks

As I stated above, the "experts" don't know squat. Ken Rosenthal (Foxsports) has the White Sox winning the World Series. Maybe you should have read the whole article. He basically made fun of the whole process and said exactly what you said that they don't know squat and it's silly to do this exercise every year. But since he has to do it he chooses the White Sox. I did read the whole article and if someone wanted to be silly he should have picked the Padres or Pirates.

My thought on Silva is enjoy it while it lasts. Anything positive from him is a plus.

As I stated above, the "experts" don't know squat. Ken Rosenthal (Foxsports) has the White Sox winning the World Series.

Good point. If someone gets tired, send them down. Only problem is that there isn't really another position player that this team just has to have on the roster. I would lean toward another IF, but just traded the only backup SS. That is true, but you have to know you have this many quality candidates going in, so you plan the roster around a 6 man pen and maybe add a FA bench bat. Or take on a Rule 5 hitter. I agree that now there's not a terrible difference in Russell v. Hoffpauir(or whoever would've gotten the spot). I'm actually fine with this approach. It's basically just as much of a crap shoot bringing up raw talent (inexperienced at the major league level) from the minors to secure bullpen roster spots as it is to sign veteran middle inning relievers to a 2 or 3 year deal, except it's way cheaper. There is no guarantee that Marmol, Marshall and Grabow will be more effective than the kids. I'm not sure I like the idea of sitting Colvin on the bench daily, considering he still has some weaknesses at the plate that need to be addressed with regular playing time. I probably would have gone with Fuld in that spot, and am assuming that it will only be a matter of time before Lou switches them up. I'm guessing it's only a temporary thing to reward his hot spring. Fuld is organizational depth. Colvin is someone they are counting on to contribute in a big way. He's going to get some playing time for the first month of the season. He'll probably play 3 times per week. But what happens if he plays 3 times/week for that first month and stays hot? we dont send him down because its not his time. It would be a great problem to have. I guarantee that if he stays hot, he will get more playing time.

As I've posted before, the "experts" don't know any more than we do. When they make predictions, it's either the favorites so they can be right or it's something outlandish so they can have some controversy. Anybody that picks the Cubs 5th is just stirring up controversy. I'm a diehard Cubs fan, but it's obvious that at this point (on paper) the Cards are the best team with the Cubs 2nd.

I was hoping the spoiler was that the PTNL was Sabathia.

I think our bullpen is about league average, if not a little better. Just the absence of Heilman and Gregg is a big boost. Looks alright to me. It's hard to predict how our bullpen is going to be due to the large number of unproven players as well as the general variability of bullpens in general from year to year We do have a lot of young arms in the bullpen, but I think there wil be a short leash on some of them and the Iowa shuttle will be used often. Also, if you don't have some young cheap arms out there, then people complain about paying too much for veterans in the pen. That's my biggest problem with going with a lot of young, internal, options. Lou has shown over his time here is much more strict with young players when they aren't performing and gives the vets more of a leash, so if a guy like Russell, Berg, or Caridad struggle early in only a few appearances they might be sent to Iowa for good or never be used in big situations again, while guys like Grabow (however bad he gets) will be given a lot more wiggle room. Now obviously the vets have more of a track record and if they struggle you can hope they get back to their averages and the young guys don't have established track records and it's not known if when they struggle if it's their true talent or just a string of bad luck or bad outings that isn't indicative of their true talent level. Regardless I have a feeling we will see a revolving door with 1-2 spots in the bullpen all year, often times dependent on Lou's free will and gut feelings over anything else. I would think Russell will be at Iowa most of the time simply because we don't need 3 lefties in the bullpen.

I think Santo would get one first.

I think our bullpen is about league average, if not a little better. Just the absence of Heilman and Gregg is a big boost. Looks alright to me. It's hard to predict how our bullpen is going to be due to the large number of unproven players as well as the general variability of bullpens in general from year to year We do have a lot of young arms in the bullpen, but I think there wil be a short leash on some of them and the Iowa shuttle will be used often. Also, if you don't have some young cheap arms out there, then people complain about paying too much for veterans in the pen.

The disappearance of Aaron Miles from that bench is a step in the right direction. Last year's bench was Miles, Gathright, Johnson, Hoffpauir, and Hill. Baker>>>>>Miles Tracy>>>>>Hoffpauir Nady>>>>>>Johnson Colvin>>>>>Gathright

The problem is that you can't go into a season waiting to see who you can scrape off of the scrap heap at the last minute. You have to start defining bullpen roles well before April.

Baker and Nady sure, but Hill is horrible, Colvin has been a pretty bad professional and Tracy has trended considerably lower the past two years. Hill isn't horrible, he's a backup catcher. I'm not sure what you expect out of a backup catcher, but look around at the other teams. Colvin may just be reaching his potential and Tracy has been injured at times which might account for his lower production. Not the greatest bench in the history of baseball, but it could be very solid.

So you would rather keep a defensive SS who can't hit?

Yeah, that's the philosphy to go through life with! And it's gotten you so far. it has gotten him far. extremely far. he not only made it to the majors, but he is getting paid tens of millions of dollars to play a sport. And just imagine all of the tens of millions of dollars it has cost him. If I made tens of millions of dollars playing a game, I wouldn't worry about how much money I could have made.

Whew! I'm glad you're not a pessimist.

The reality of the discussion does not revolve only around those two points. You're trying to frame it like the Cubs are actually a "win now" team when in reality they're just selling the "win now" message with a very underwhelming team. The Cubs very easily could eat the SS production of Blanco/Castro if it's part of a process to make the team better in the long run while shaking off as many overrated and overpaid (or soon to be overpaid) players as possible. I actually agree that them trading Theriot is unlikely since, like trading DeRosa, it would be perceived as a negative move by most of the media and too many of the fans regardless of the return because while this team is only a "contender" because the division is so bad, the perception still exists that they should be winning it and if they don't then you're just going to see the same scramble to blame and make excuses as last year. The wild card in all of this is how smart Ricketts is and how much he's willing to accept in terms of negative publicity this early in the ownership game if it means making decisions that are good for the club in the long run. There's absolutely nothing "delusional" with the idea of trading Theriot to make the team stronger in the future given how piss-poor and old the team is made up right now. But how many teams are willing to give up 1-2 top prospects for a 30-year old SS with no power, little range, and a weak arm. So if Ricketts is going to take a PR hit, weaken the current team, and receive serious prospects to improve the team in the future, Theriot would be pretty low on the trade list. If Theriot is as low an impact player as you suggest, then trading him shouldn't impact the big league team, right? You seem to want it both ways. He sucks when talking about trade value, but he's invaluable to a contending team like the Cubs and so they shouldn't even think about a trade. Actually, I don't have a problem with Theriot, but it seems like a bunch of posters are guilty of what you're saying about me (he sucks, but we can get something good for him). Theriot is a decent, league-average SS who seems to be the best option (right now) and would not bring back enough to justify trading him.

The reality of the discussion does not revolve only around those two points. You're trying to frame it like the Cubs are actually a "win now" team when in reality they're just selling the "win now" message with a very underwhelming team. The Cubs very easily could eat the SS production of Blanco/Castro if it's part of a process to make the team better in the long run while shaking off as many overrated and overpaid (or soon to be overpaid) players as possible. I actually agree that them trading Theriot is unlikely since, like trading DeRosa, it would be perceived as a negative move by most of the media and too many of the fans regardless of the return because while this team is only a "contender" because the division is so bad, the perception still exists that they should be winning it and if they don't then you're just going to see the same scramble to blame and make excuses as last year. The wild card in all of this is how smart Ricketts is and how much he's willing to accept in terms of negative publicity this early in the ownership game if it means making decisions that are good for the club in the long run. There's absolutely nothing "delusional" with the idea of trading Theriot to make the team stronger in the future given how piss-poor and old the team is made up right now. But how many teams are willing to give up 1-2 top prospects for a 30-year old SS with no power, little range, and a weak arm. So if Ricketts is going to take a PR hit, weaken the current team, and receive serious prospects to improve the team in the future, Theriot would be pretty low on the trade list.

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around: 1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team. 2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS). Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

A this in return. I don't particularly understand the sentiment that the season is over on March 19th, either. Obviously, you consider each scenario in the context with which you come across it. Trade talk involving anyone on the Cubs roster is just hypothetical babble at this point.[/quote] Trade talk about anyone on the roster isn't necessarily babble, but Theriot trade talk certainly is. The Cubs won't even think about trading Theriot until next offseason. If by some chance Castro makes the Cubs and is very successful, Theriot moves over to 2B. The only way the Cubs would trade Theriot this season would be if Castro shines and Fontenot/Baker put up great numbers at 2B during the regular season.

fixed

They don't have to do such a thing, but there's pretty much no chance they would trade Theriot and not callup Castro. There's pretty much no chance they would trade Theriot period.

No, it was a mistake in and of itself. No, it was compounding a mistake by trying to correct it. Hendry had no option but to try to correct the mistake unless you are one of the posters who think that Bradley could have stayed with the Cubs and everything would work out fine. :pig: Obviously there was no good way out of the Bradley mess, but essentially getting Byrd plus a throw-away pitcher (Silva) was about the best we could hope for. I think Byrd's 2010 production will run circles around Bradley's 2009 production.

This is great... This guy gets booed a BUTTLOAD and it looks like he doesn't let that bother him. Way to go Sori... You did suck last year, but you're alright in my book. At least he can handle the pressure or bitch about it or complain or blame it on other things... yeah now if only the general manager would say things like "move on, 2010 is here" and we could be done with this crap. it would also be nice if soriano would hit as well as bradley did last year. Soriano was playing on one leg much of the season, while Bradley doesn't have much of an excuse except everyone hates him.

They say that Vitters, if he reaches his potential, will have the kind of bat that they would make room for somewhere. They could keep Ramirez at 3rd and put Vitters in LF, RF or first. They could also move Ramirez to first and put Vitters at 3rd. We won't have a problem if Vitters and some of these other youngsters reach their potential, but we haven't been very lucky with position players reaching their potential.

Actually if you eliminate the 1B who are HR hitters, but most likely unavailable it brings your average line way down. I would assume that Pujols (47), Fielder (46), Howard (45), Tex (39), Cabrera (34), and Morneau (30) won't be available. That leaves possible acquistions at Gonzalez (40), Pena (39), or Dunn (38) or a gigantic dropp-off player.