Backtobanks

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.

The bottom line is that: 1. Hendry made a mistake in signing Bradley. 2. Bradley wasn't the reason the Cubs didn't win the NL Central. 3. Bradley didn't meet expectations on the field and complicated matters by criticizing the front office, team mates, fans, and the media. 4. The chances of the Cubs making the playoffs center around other issues (health, rebound seasons, etc.) more than Bradley-Byrd. Trading Bradley for Silva is a bad deal for the Cubs, but add on Byrd (with cash from the deal) and I think the Cubs come out ahead. I think Byrd's numbers will easily surpass Bradley's 2009 numbers.

So now the city of Chicago was the problem since he was good before he got here. I still find it amazing that some posters are still blaming the media in Chicago for his troubles. This guy has had a history of mental issues for a decade. As for the expectation of 30 HRs, how about expecting him to bat 5th, play a decent RF, and try to act civilized for a year. He ended up as a disappointment as a hitter, fielder, and civilized person.

From MLBTR: Milton Bradley told Tyler Kepner of the New York Times that "obviously, it was something with Chicago, not me." Bradley says the Cubs tried to make him a player he's not, expecting 30 home runs.

As for Lee, I think Hendry and Lee will find some room for compromise on a 2 year deal. I don't think Ramirez will exercise his option and will return. The bottom line is that if either (or both) leave, the Cubs will have a ton of money and two gigantic holes in their lineup. Being a big-market team with a new owner, I can't see the Cubs being satisfied with a couple of years of Lyle Overbay-type production at 1B just because he's LH.

All the runners would be safe because he would hop (off the bag) on every throw. :-))

When I copied and pasted it, it didn't come out lined up. I tried editing, but it still didn't line up. You can find Rosenthal's column at foxsports.com.

He thinks it's time to seperate the Yankees and the Red Sox to give the other 3 teams a chance. MODEST REALIGNMENT In this scenario, the Red Sox and Tigers switch divisions, and the Astros move to the AL West. Each league would include 15 teams rather than the current 16 and 14, requiring an inter-league series to be played at all times. AL East AL Central AL West NL East NL Central NL West Yankees Red Sox Angels Braves Cubs Dodgers Tigers White Sox Rangers Phillies Cardinals Giants Rays Twins Mariners Mets Brewers Diamondbacks Orioles Indians Athletics Marlins Reds Rockies Blue Jays Royals Astros Nationals Pirates Padres Advantages: • The Yankees and Red Sox are broken up, creating better opportunities to reach the postseason for other teams in the East: the Rays, Orioles and Blue Jays. • The Yankees and Red Sox would play each other fewer times under an unbalanced schedule, increasing the odds that each would reach the postseason — and satisfying MLB’s television partners, including FOX. • The Astros would play in the same division as the Rangers, their in-state rivals. Disadvantages • The Tigers would be sacrificial lambs for competitive balance, moving from a division without an economic super power to one that includes the Yankees. • Fans of the Yankees and Red Sox would lament the change in their historic rivalry. RADICAL REALIGNMENT The current leagues and divisions are completely torn up, with geographic rivalries receiving a greater emphasis. Each league would include 15 teams. AL Atlantic AL Great Lakes AL Pacific NL East NL Midwest NL Southwest Mets Twins Dodgers Red Sox Cubs Diamondbacks Yankees Pirates Angels Phillies Cardinals Rockies Blue Jays Indians Athletics Braves White Sox Rangers Orioles Tigers Giants Marlins Brewers Astros Nationals Reds Mariners Rays Royals Padres Advantages: • The best of the inter-league series (the regional and intra-city rivalries) would become a staple of the regular season. • The idea of playing an inter-league series at all times would be less offensive; the old league boundaries would be gone. • The Red Sox and Yankees would be split, with each inheriting a new high-revenue division rival: the Phillies would play in the Red Sox's division, the Mets in the Yankees'. Disadvantages • The historic integrity of the leagues would be lost. •Combining teams from both leagues would require MLB to either use the designated hitter for all 30 clubs or abandon it completely. • The All-Star Game would carry less meaning and likely would need to be restructured. • The two Florida teams would remain at a competitive disadvantage, playing in the same division as the Red Sox and Phillies. REVENUE REALIGNMENT Teams are grouped in greater accordance to their revenues and geographic considerations. AL Money AL Budget AL Southeast NL Great Lakes NL West NL Southwest Yankees Blue Jays Braves Cubs Dodgers Diamondbacks Mets Pirates Nationals White Sox Angels Rockies Red Sox Royals Orioles Cardinals Mariners Rangers Phillies Reds Marlins Tigers Giants Astros New Jersey A's Indians Rays Twins Brewers Padres Advantages: • Most low-revenue teams would stand a greater chance of reaching the postseason. • The big-money teams in the northeast would fight it out with one another. • New York would gain a third team, cutting into the economic might of the Yankees and Mets. Disadvantages • The historic integrity of the leagues would be lost. • Several low-revenue teams still would play in the same division as high-revenue clubs. • The postseason would be less appealing with poor teams facing the rich. • Combining teams from both leagues would require MLB to either use the designated hitter for all 30 clubs or abandon it completely.

Another important point is that bringing Castro up too soon could destroy his confidence and development. I'm sure that when the people in charge decide he's ready, he will be brought up especially since Hendry has basically told Theriot the same thing.