Backtobanks

We'll see if Silva can keep pitching decently. It's not a surprise to me that Byrd has been doing well, but Silva I did not expect. It's so early though, I'm still bracing for bad Silva to show up. Plain and Simple: Cubs win in the Byrd for Bradley trade (using Mariner money). Anything positive out of Silva makes it really one sided. I never knew a full season was worth seven games. That's a new one. I never said that it was. Byrd will outproduce Bradley's 2009 season unless he's injured for most of the season. Add in the defense and the better attitude and we have the best of the deal. I will admit that Byrd won't compare to Bradley in negative stories and youtube videos. As I posted before, anything positive out of Silva will be a plus.

We'll see if Silva can keep pitching decently. It's not a surprise to me that Byrd has been doing well, but Silva I did not expect. It's so early though, I'm still bracing for bad Silva to show up. Plain and Simple: Cubs win in the Byrd for Bradley trade (using Mariner money). Anything positive out of Silva makes it really one sided.

If Wells couldn't play LF, we could put Byrd in LF and Wells in CF. Lots of options in the OF with Byrd able to play all 3 positions, Colvin (3), Fukudome (2), Wells (2), and Nady (2). We still only marginally (at best) get better after the trade and yet are paying more money. I don't see the value in it. You know what you have in Soriano, but Wells is the unknown (after wrist surgery). I'm not saying it would be a great trade, but at least Wells will get within 10 feet of the wall. Obviously putting "Soriano" and "great trade" in the same sentence is ridiculous. Has the wrist been bothering him his entire career? Because, if I recall correctly, he's only really had one really good season. If you're convinced Soriano will be awful for the duration of the contract, this trade could make sense for us. But I'm not convinced of that. Wells has had good numbers when compared to the other CFs. Again I'm not saying he's the second coming of Willie Mays, but he's had a decent career. Wells- .281/.330/.472/.802 - 26 HR - 95 RBI Cameron-.250/.340/.448/.788 - 23 HR - 82 RBI Hunter- .274/.330/.472/.802 - 26 HR - 95 RBI Damon- .288/.355/.438/.793 - 16HR - 76 RBI Edmonds- .284/.377/.527/.904 - 32 HR - 99 RBI Beltran- .283/.360/.496/.856 - 28 HR - 107 RBI

If Wells couldn't play LF, we could put Byrd in LF and Wells in CF. Lots of options in the OF with Byrd able to play all 3 positions, Colvin (3), Fukudome (2), Wells (2), and Nady (2). We still only marginally (at best) get better after the trade and yet are paying more money. I don't see the value in it. You know what you have in Soriano, but Wells is the unknown (after wrist surgery). I'm not saying it would be a great trade, but at least Wells will get within 10 feet of the wall. Obviously putting "Soriano" and "great trade" in the same sentence is ridiculous.

They're both signed through 2014 or eternity whichever lasts longer. :-)) For what it's worth: Soriano LF UZR/150: 5.7 Wells RF UZR/150: 6.8 (-5.7 in CF, he's never played left) I'd rather keep Soriano. No since in adding a player who's unlikely to be an improvement and take on extra money. If Wells couldn't play LF, we could put Byrd in LF and Wells in CF. Lots of options in the OF with Byrd able to play all 3 positions, Colvin (3), Fukudome (2), Wells (2), and Nady (2).

Since the Cubs have been looking at Frasor, would you expand the deal (if both players agreed because of NTCs) to include Wells for Soriano. Something along the lines of: Wells, Frasor, plus $4.5 million for Soriano plus Caridad/Berg/etc. plus another prospect (not Vitters, Castro, Casner, etc.) The $4.5 million is about half the difference between the money owed on the two contracts. Pros for Cubs: Wells would be a upgrade defensively in LF. Frasor would help the bullpen. Cubs would save money this year ($5.5 million). Cons for Cubs: Adding the worst contract in baseball for 4 more years after this season. Pros for the Jays: Saving some money and adding prospects. Cons for the Jays: Picking up a bad contract (but better than Wells'). Trading a valuable trade chip before the deadline. Obviously, the deal would have to wait until Wells and the Blue Jays cool off. I guess this kind of deal would hinge on which prospects to be included and whether the players would waive their NTC.

i think he has some anger issues AND he's bat poop crazy I hope all of the posters who wanted to just keep Bradley and act like nothing happened can see that it wasn't possible.

We have a collection of pretty crappy offensive players for the most part in the lineup. With the guys who actually have some semblance of talent (Lee, Ramirez, Byrd, Colvin) he's done a reasonably good job. All four of those guys have looked the part at the plate even if the results aren't coming yet for some. Nady has been good thus far too. Can't blame Rudy for all the ABs we're giving to guys like Theriot, Fontenot and Koyie Hill (and even the first two of those got their hits tonight). I'm a big fan of Jaramillo, but to give him credit for what Lee and ARam have done in the first 4 games is ridiculous. As for Byrd and Colvin, let's wait a month or two before we talk about any kind of difference he's made this year. I do get a kick out of lumping Colvin with the guys who have some semblance of talent while Theriot is lumped with the players lacking talent.

Soriano is the epitome of a streaky hitter. He does have a bad approach and mechanics and when you put those together with the leg injury for much of the season you get the kind of year he had in 2009. I don't expect 40 HR, but I do expect a rebound season with his age factored in.

I don't get this reasoning. There's no reason why we should see a large improvement in hitting. It's possible, but I wouldn't count on it. The default position for Cubs' lineups is weak. They have several weaknesses still, and their best hitters are old. Discounting a lack of production last year due to injuries to oft-injured players is no way to justify the statement that the offense should be better. The middle infield is weak. Catcher is a big question. Soto is no lock to make a significant step forward, and the backup C is as bad a hitter as you can find in baseball. Marlon Byrd was a huge bust until arriving in Texas in his last 20's. , and he took a step back in his third season there when he played his most time. The bench is not particularly strong. There's one guy who can be considered an asset, but he's coming off major surgery. Everybody but Aramis Ramirez is capable of playing a full season while being fairly unproductive. They've all done it at various points of their careers, and not just in weird age 23 seasons or anything like that. They've got a bunch of 33/34 year old players who don't have a consistent track record of tremendous success. Expecting those players to be better simply because they were at some point earlier in their career is delusional. It might happen. But there's a really good chance it does not happen. There's no "should" about it when it comes to major improvements in the offense. Jaramillo might not be a miracle worker, but he certainly could help players like Fontenot, Soto, Baker, Soriano, and Colvin assuming they will listen to him and follow his advice. An improvement by Soto and Fontenot/Baker with the exchange of Bradley for Byrd along with some health from ARam and Soriano would be a tremendous improvement in the offense.

First, I would think he might be a middle-rounder, because nobody is going to waste a #1-3 round pick on him. As Jersey posted, 2 years at the minimum ($400,000) before a chance to earn decent money at 30 years old. Also, don't forget most NFL money isn't guaranteed. Personally, I would think he would need to catch on with a semi-pro or arena football team and impress somebody enough to give him a decent contract. I think he will stick to baseball.

He might end up being a starting corner OF in the majors, but first he would need to prove it before trading our starters to give him the job. Explain to me how you can prove you are a starting corner OF in the majors when you are always on the bench because of someone else having the starting job? Like I said before posts like this are dumb. There is no way to know if someone is good enough to be a starter unless you have him start a significant period of time. Some guys do great in small doses in platoons but then wear down and suck when playing everyday. Some guys are the opposite. Either way you don't know what will happen until he starts. Your philosophy is great if you are the Padres, Royals, or Padres, but not when you play in a major market and have a contending team.

His contract only runs through 2011, and he only makes a couple million a year right now. Once his contract is up, and assuming the Cubs don't pick up options, I believe he will be arbitration eligible only, and not a free agent (unless turning down the options automatically makes him a free agent). So, after 2011, he'll be in his mid 20's and potentially done with baseball, or at least done making big money in baseball. If he works at it he could get a 5-6 year NFL career and double what he's made so far in baseball. So he will be 27 years old and not having played football for 5 years, he's going to get into football shape and find some GM to sign him and pay him big money have have a 5-6 year NFL career. :pig: :pig: :pig:

He might end up being a starting corner OF in the majors, but first he would need to prove it before trading our starters to give him the job.

Nobody is going to give you anything for Colvin because he had a great spring.

Why would he go back to football when he's making good money and has a NTC.

I wonder if Ricketts kept his receipt. =D>

While I agree that Colvin should get as much playing time as possible while he seems to be on a roll, you don't bench anybody cause a prospect had a hot spring.

More evidence about the ignorance of the "experts".

More evidence about "experts" knowing squat. Phil Rogers' Power Rankings in today's Tribune put the Cubs at #19. The Padres are #20. :-k

I disagree. He's a receiver, not a QB. He could easily go back to playing football at a high school level. Fixed

Especially if he takes his contract with him.

I can't stand this type of crap. They can't prove themselves as long as they can't play. You can't prove yourself to be viable at the MLB level when you only play 1 out of 5 games. I don't prefer to see either prospect starting right now but at some point you have to put them in and see if they sink or swim. I think next year is that year. That's the problem when you are a "contending" team. Next year could very well be that year assuming Colvin and Castro get a decent taste of ML pitching and look like they can handle it. It could be an interesting year with 2010 results, possible FAs leaving, and the advancement of young prospects (Caridad, Berg, Wallace, Castro, Colvin, Cashner, etc.).

As I stated above, the "experts" don't know squat. Ken Rosenthal (Foxsports) has the White Sox winning the World Series. What's so outrageous about that? If he picked them to win the AL Central, that's not outrageous. If he picked them to win the WS, it is outrageous. Restating it doesn't really answer why it's outrageous. Outrageous is picking a team that is counting on an everyday lineup that includes Juan Pierre, Mark Kotsay, Andruw Jones, Alex Rios, Mark Teahen, and Alexi Ramirez. Is that a better answer?

With Holliday and Bay unavailable, I would think Fuld would be the next best option. =D>