Backtobanks

No one is cherry-picking stats. We're simply taking a deeper look than the three-year splits you posted. The discussion has evolved. No one is looking at this as an "either Granderson or Byrd" option. As you said, Cameron has been discussed, as well. I'm sure there are other options to consider. Personally, if Byrd was willing to take a one-year deal for $5 million or less, I wouldn't be against it. However, he's going to get more years and more money than that. As for Cameron, even if age does catch up to him offensively, he's still a much better option defensively than Byrd. How is it not "cherry-picking stats" if you're talking about his numbers only on the road? Let's not forget there are a few "hitter's parks" on the road in the NL. Personally, if Granderson wasn't going to cost us 4 top young players, I wouldn't be against it either.

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd. Seems to me that if you want to take issue with Seidman's stance on Byrd, then you have to at least address the home/road split issue. My point is that all 3 players have some negatives and the Cubs have to factor in the cost and the negatives for each to determine the best fit for the team. All things being equal, I think we all agree that we would rank them Granderson, Cameron, and then Byrd, but all things aren't equal. An issue that hasn't really been discussed is that I think there will be a lot more interest in Granderson and Cameron, which will drive up their price.

While I agree that would be good to get from CF, that's the HIGH end of what to expect from Byrd. More than likely, you'd probably get an OPS in the .770-.790 range. The one good thing I can say about him is that he hits lefties and righties pretty much equally over the course of his career. To me, he's just not the bat the Cubs need, especially for the money and contract length he wants. I agree, I would rather we sign Cameron. Offensive production would be similar, Byrd would probably hit for a higher average, while Cameron draws more BB. OPS wise they come in about the same give or take .010 points. Cameron is going to play superior defense and is apparently a great clubhouse guy. IDK what kind of guy Byrd is, I would assume with the Bradley fiasco "character" and "team chemistry" is going to play a factor in who we bring in this offseason. I would rather have Cameron for 1-2 years for $4-6 per. Than Byrd for a 2-4 year deal for around $8-10 per. I never said Byrd was my first choice for CF, but his 3-year numbers away from Arlington are .281/.328/.414/.742 (which aren't too terrible for a CF). Of course, everybody's cherry-picking stats to make their point, but let's not forget Granderson against LHP. The original discussion centered on trading blue chip prospects for Granderson or a short term deal for Byrd and my point is that depending on the costs (players, money, and years) involved, the choice might not be as obvious as expected. The same is true for Cameron. Is Cameron going to settle for as little as 1 year/$4 million? There's no way Byrd is going to get 4 years @ $10 million per.

How about expanding the Bradley-to-the-Mets deal: Mets get: Bradley, Fontenot, Berg/Stevens, Fuld Cuts get: Pagan, Castillo, Maine Cubs use Pagan as 4th OF, Castillo platoons with Baker, Maine vies for 5th starter. Mets get starting OF, use Fontenot as 2B (or platoon), Fuld becomes 4th OF, Berg/Stevens are young, cheap options to start or relieve.

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd.

If we could convince anyone that Bradley would be "happy/motivated" for any reason, GMs would be knocking on Hendry's door in droves.

I suggested this awhile ago when the rumors started about Jenks possibly being DFAed. The WS could certainly use an OF/DH with Dye and Posednick leaving and Quentin as a question mark. The discussion did bring up the Ozzie/Bradley circus, but maybe Ozzie might be the kind of manager that Bradley needs (if such a manager does exist). Would the WS go for Bradley + Berg/Stevens + $6 million for Jenks? If the WS want Fox, we can add Fox and cut the money to $4 million. I dont know if they would go for Bradley, but if Fox isnt enough, maybe they would go for Fox+Fuld, whose a younger Podsednik+one of Berg/Stevens. Maybe even Fontenot instead of Fuld. I don't necessarily want Jenks. The point of my proposal was to dump Bradley and get something of more value than Guillen, Burrell, etc. At least Jenks would have a role on the 2010 Cubs (unlike Guillen and Burrell who are DHs).

I suggested this awhile ago when the rumors started about Jenks possibly being DFAed. The WS could certainly use an OF/DH with Dye and Posednick leaving and Quentin as a question mark. The discussion did bring up the Ozzie/Bradley circus, but maybe Ozzie might be the kind of manager that Bradley needs (if such a manager does exist). Would the WS go for Bradley + Berg/Stevens + $6 million for Jenks? If the WS want Fox, we can add Fox and cut the money to $4 million.

I hope you meant "or" not "and". Marmol might be replaceable, but we don't want to create a gigantic hole at catcher.

I don't think I could do a better job of being a MLB GM than Hendry. That doesn't prevent me from thinking that he's horrible at it, is better qualified to be setting pins in a bowling alley, and should have been replaced years ago. I'm not saying I could do better than Hendry. I'd probably run the team into the ground. But I know enough about baseball to know when someone is doing a bad job. It's like when a Cubs player is having a terrible season... is he immune from criticism from us because none of us could do any better? I am saying, though, that the Cubs could most likely do a lot better than Jim Hendry, and Ricketts shouldn't let him handcuff this team any more before making the change. Even after he's gone, we'll still be feeling his influence upon this team for quite some time. He's done some good, yes, but I think those are overrated (Nomar and Lee fell into his lap, and the Pirates were in fire-sale mode with Ramirez and he was just the first guy to call them. Harden was a good deal, though. I'll give him that, but he negates that move by not even offering arbitration.) He's done more harm to this team than good, let a completely incompetent manager ruin two of the best arms this franchise has ever seen, gave out no-trade clauses like they were candy thereby severely handcuffing us in making necessary personnel moves, and giving out completely baffling contracts to players who didn't deserve it. There are worse GM's than Jim Hendry, but the fact that "the next guy might not be better" isn't a good reason to not fire him. If you suck at your job, you'd be fired, and your boss wouldn't even consider what your replacement might be like. It should be the same here. I'm always amazed that so many of you give him no credit for Nomar, Lee, and Ramirez. How come Nomar and Lee didn't "fall into" some other GM's lap? How come no other GM called the Pirates first to get Ramirez when they were having a fire sale? The reason might be that he's always on the phone trying to make a deal that makes the team better. I will agree that he has some faults (mostly in NTCs and paying too much for "fringe" players), but the Cubs have been a competitive team throughout most of his tenure. (Now we'll get all the comments about the high payroll) While we're at it, he deserves some credit for the young players who are starting to come to the ML. I've been a Cub fan for 55 years and watched them go for years without having anything close to a winning season. We'll see if the next GM is "lucky" enough to have all-stars "fall into his lap".

I don't think I could do a better job of being a MLB GM than Hendry. That doesn't prevent me from thinking that he's horrible at it, is better qualified to be setting pins in a bowling alley, and should have been replaced years ago. You're entitled to your opinion, but the only opinion that counts belongs to Ricketts and before him the Tribune Company. Apparently they have had enough confidence in him to keep him on the job and increase the payroll he has to work with. With all of the money they've spent over the years, I'm sure they could have hired a "better" GM if they weren't satisfied with his performance.

That's quite a statement without knowing who the new guy might be. Are you kidding me? Are you honestly implying we should keep Hendry because the next guy might not be any better? Really? There's been a ton of discussion about Hendry's competence and while he has many faults, the overall consensus is that he's certainly not in the bottom five. I don't think we will have to worry about after this year because he won't be extended if the Cubs don't win the WS. If the Cubs do win the WS, he will be extended and deserves to be. Whew. I was worried there. But now that I know Hendry is not in the bottom 5 GMs, I feel pretty good. The bottom line is that a lot of the "Hendry hate" comes from the fact that we're all passionate about the Cubs. I'm sure most passionate fans have an equal amount of hate for their GMs too. If the measure of a GM is winning the WS, then there's only one successful GM per year and the rest are failures. Actually everything I've read puts Hendry somewhere in the middle of the pack, but I knew if I posted that everybody would have to chime in. As I've often posted, all of us think we can do a better job than Hendry while we sit here fantasizing about trades and free agent signings.

That's quite a statement without knowing who the new guy might be. Are you kidding me? Are you honestly implying we should keep Hendry because the next guy might not be any better? Really? There's been a ton of discussion about Hendry's competence and while he has many faults, the overall consensus is that he's certainly not in the bottom five. I don't think we will have to worry about after this year because he won't be extended if the Cubs don't win the WS. If the Cubs do win the WS, he will be extended and deserves to be.

That's quite a statement without knowing who the new guy might be.

I don't remember where I saw it, but a baseball scout used the term "Hanley Ramirez" to describe Starlin Castro. I'd be careful about trading "anyone in the organization".

you misread something. next year will be the last year of his contract and he'll make 12m No, it's his signing bonus. They had deferred it until 2011, before it starts getting paid. By the looks of what was said in the original post, we'd be on the hook for all of it..... my fault, it was me that misread it. u read it as 15 mil a year from 11-15 so would the cubs definitely be on the hook for that? if so, that would be a garbage trade. millwood is terrible. so who is ready for an april rotation of zambrano/dempster/millwood/wells/marshall? ugh. we thought last offseason was ugly. i think this one is going to top that. Getting Millwood as a #4 or #5 starter is great. Don't forget that his ERA should improve by moving to the NL. When Lilly comes back, Gorz, Shark, and Marshall will provide lots of depth for the rotation. Millwood might end up being a trade chip at the deadline if one of the younger pitchers does well. The bottom line is that any deal that gets rid of Bradley and Miles in one swoop can't be all bad.

I understand your point, but that's assuming Blanco can hit well enough until Castro arrives and then hoping Castro is the real deal. Blanco, Granderson, and Fukudome could get really ugly against LHP.

I'm sure Hendry doesn't want to take a chance on the team until Blanco/Castro proves they can hit consistently at the ML level. If Marmol gets back in the groove, you would be creating quite a hole on the ML roster to protect Vitters. Theriot or Marmol in a smaller package (one other player) might be okay for Granderson, but some of the posts were suggesting a 4-player package with Theriot and/or Marmol.

That's the kind of package I was thinking of, even if we had to include another mid-level prospect. The names that were being thrown out there (Vitters, Castro, Theriot, Marmol, etc.) were too much, especially in a package of 3-4 players.

That's what my gut tells me. But otoh, there's no guarantee Castro becomes what we think he will become. Granderson is an established commodity, a good bat at a defense first position, which also happens to be a position of relative need. I would go for the bird in hand, but it could be all those years of our top prospects tanking. If I did cough him up, they wouldn't get much more. Maybe Castro/Fox/Marshall. That's my feeling as well. As mentioned above, I wouldn't want to move Castro, but since HJ Lee is in the system, I could stomach it. I could stomach trading Castro, but not for a guy as flawed as Granderson is. Stars do not become completely incompetent when facing LH pitching. He is established as a guy who cannot hit lefties. That is a very bad thing when trying to justify trading away top talent for him. If you deal your top prospects, and a guy like Castro who has rocketed up most people's lists this year, you better get back a real star, and not some limited guy like Granderson. I totally agree. When some of the supporters of this trade post that re-signing Reed Johnson (or the like) to face tough lefties would give us amazing production out of CF, they're basically admitting he needs to be platooned. Granderson is a great fit for the Cubs if he is acquired for mid-level prospects or spare parts. A package of 3-4 players like Colvin, Casner, Fox, Marshall/Gorz, Berg, Stevens, etc. are the type of players that I would put out there. If they get a better offer, sign Byrd or Cameron.

So the Angels are going to give up some good prospects to get an expensive DH? Why don't they just sign a FA like Blalock, Matsui, Huff, Vlad, Thome, Byrd, Dye, Nady, Tatis, etc. to DH for less money than Konerko ($12 million) and no prospects? Hey, I didn't make up the trade idea. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was criticizing you, just trying to point out that the deal doesn't make much sense from the Angels side. Basically the deal makes it sound like the Angels are trying to help the WS get Gonzalez.

So the Angels are going to give up some good prospects to get an expensive DH? Why don't they just sign a FA like Blalock, Matsui, Huff, Vlad, Thome, Byrd, Dye, Nady, Tatis, etc. to DH for less money than Konerko ($12 million) and no prospects?

Reading these trade proposals is making me hope we get Marlon Byrd.

From Foxsports: Tigers sending Granderson to Angels? — 11:38 a.m. Newsday's Ken Davidoff is reporting that the Tigers and Angels have discussed a trade that would send Curtis Granderson to Anaheim. If Granderson is indeed on his way out of Detroit, Orange County might be the best possible destination. Granderson has traditionally played very well at Angel Stadium, with a 1.133 OPS and eight home runs in 21 career games. Granderson has said publicly that he enjoys playing in the ballpark, because of how comfortable it is to hit and play defense there. Also, Granderson would probably welcome the chance to play alongside Torii Hunter. Granderson is not averse to playing left field and has spent some time there in the past. The two developed a mutual admiration while playing in the American League Central — Granderson for the Tigers, Hunter for the Twins. And Hunter has made his feelings about Granderson well known. "When I first met him, I knew he had good qualities, man — good character and everything," Hunter said in a 2007 interview. "We went out to eat years ago, when he first came up. We had a good conversation. You can (learn) a lot about a person by talking to him and listening to his words. And he chooses his words carefully. He's a good, quality guy. "I'm telling you: Lock him up for five, six years if you can. When he gets older, I think he's going to be hitting in the third hole. You can put money on that. As far as hitting, man, it's there. Defense, it's there. "He's a superstar." Of course, the Tigers did lock up Granderson to that long-term contract. But now economic realities have forced them to consider something that seemed inconceivable a short while ago. At this time last year, there was plenty of speculation about whether the Angels would make a push to acquire Magglio Ordonez from Detroit. What was true then remains true now: The Angels have organizational depth at catcher and the middle infield positions, areas of interest to the Tigers for 2010 and beyond; and Reagins has pitching to spare in the upper levels of his farm system.

Rogers is terrible, but I always have a problem with most of the "experts". Some of them assume that the Cubs need a CF, so they're automatically interested and the Tigers want young players, so automatically it's Castro and Vitters without doing any leg work. I swear that some of them steal ideas from NSBB.