Backtobanks

And I'll only agree to a trade to the Cubs. :) i heard from a source in toronto that halladay was singing "go cubs go" in a bar with his buddies. a trade appears imminent. Are you sure he wasn't singing "No Cubs No" instead.

There's no way anybody is going to take Wells unless the Jays pick up at least half of his contract. Rios is a possibility, but I would think the Jays would be better off trading Halladay and Rios seperately since Rios has "some" trade value. Unless Toronto takes back a bad contract. If the deal were for Halladay only, we have no chance at landing him. Involving Soriano for Wells or Rios with additional massaging I think we actually could be one of the better fits in the league here. I wonder if Vernon Wells is fixable, and if Hendry would be willing to part with Soriano. I also think Jake Fox is best suited in the AL, and his and Randy Wells values are probably about as high as they're going to get. If we could swing something while holding onto Fox (maybe send Hoff instead?), I wouldn't mind letting Fox and Wells duke it out for LF playing time. The mileage on Halladay's arm is a small concern however. But, I think there's a fit between the Cubs and Jays on this. Don't know if it'll ever happen though. The Jays taking on a bad contract (Soriano) makes no sense. The point of trading off one of the best pitchers in baseball is to rebuild with a boatload of good prospects. Basically your dealing Soriano for Vernon Wells, so you would still have to come up with 3-4 top prospects for Halladay. Soriano and Wells are probably two of the most untradeable players in baseball because of their contracts.

There's no way anybody is going to take Wells unless the Jays pick up at least half of his contract. Rios is a possibility, but I would think the Jays would be better off trading Halladay and Rios seperately since Rios has "some" trade value. Of course Toronto would have to eat some of that contract of Wells, but it still doesn't mean that they would likely play teams off of each other. The only problem including Wells/Rios is that eliminates teams on the cheap (which helps the Cubs since including Wells/Rios would likely eliminate Mil. and STL). Rios doesn't have a trade market now without Tor. taking on some of his contract as well. Rios is still young and his numbers are pretty good if he is considered a CF. His numbers don't look great as a corner OF. The Jays might have to eat some of his contract, but not too much. He's signed for $9.7 next year and then for the next 4 years he's in the $12 - $12.5 range. In his final year he'll be 32 years old.

There's no way anybody is going to take Wells unless the Jays pick up at least half of his contract. Rios is a possibility, but I would think the Jays would be better off trading Halladay and Rios seperately since Rios has "some" trade value.

Vernon Wells' contract makes Soriano's look great. One site stated that it's the worst contract in baseball. Now if you made that Alex Rios instead of Vernon Wells, it might get interesting from this side (but not from the Canadian side).

Lou said Geo could be out for as long as a month. And then the guy we acquire will be an improvement over Koyie or we could keep three catchers (if the new guy is good enough) and use one as a pinch hitter. The latter might limit our options too much, though. So they can survive without their best hitter for 2 months and no legit backup, but they can't survive without Soto for a month without going out and acquiring a "real backup" catcher? The Cubs proved that you can throw anybody (Fontenot and Fox) in at 3B, but catching is different. Of course they didn't exactly replace ARam offensively though.

You have to bring in another catcher because having Fox as a backup catcher eliminates him as our RH power off the bench. (Managers don't like using their 2nd catcher to pinch hit in case of an injury.) It seems like we've been playing with a 23 or 24 man roster all season with injuries and players not being used (Patton).

If true, moneterily, the only NL teams I could see swinging it are the Phillies, Mets, and maybe the Dodgers. Wells contract is a mess and a half and I cant see the Cards or Brewers having the finances for it. Pretty much. If taking Wells is a condition for getting Halladay, the Cards and Crew can just forget it. Wells' contract is massively back loaded. Vernon just isn't that good, and that contract could really cripple a mid/small market teams financial flexibility. Asking a team to take that on might be asking too much, IMO. I'm sure Wells won't be a condition to a Halladay deal simply because you've now made Halladay's trade value diminish immensely. No team is going to take on an extra $100 million for 1 1/2 years of Halladay. The only way this would work is for the Jays to take back a bad contract (less than Wells) and get prospects, which would be pointless. There would be a better chance if they made Rios a condition in a Halladay deal, but it still wouldn't be very likely. Keep in mind, the Jays dont need to deal Halladay, but they're taking offers. They know a lot of the interested parties, such as Angels, Dodgers, Mets, and Phillies have money to spare. This might make the injury depleted Mets a pretty good fit, not only would they have the best 1-2 pitching combo since Maddux and Glavine but they also get an outfielder who might be able to refind himself on a new team. Even the desperate Mets wouldn't be crazy enough to take Wells with Halladay. They already have hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in future years to Rodriguez, Beltran, Perez, Wright, Castillo, Reyes, and Santana. Most of those contracts are terrible already and paying another $100 million for an aging, rapidly-declining OF just to acquire 1 1/2 years of Halladay is ridiculous.

If true, moneterily, the only NL teams I could see swinging it are the Phillies, Mets, and maybe the Dodgers. Wells contract is a mess and a half and I cant see the Cards or Brewers having the finances for it. Pretty much. If taking Wells is a condition for getting Halladay, the Cards and Crew can just forget it. Wells' contract is massively back loaded. Vernon just isn't that good, and that contract could really cripple a mid/small market teams financial flexibility. Asking a team to take that on might be asking too much, IMO. I'm sure Wells won't be a condition to a Halladay deal simply because you've now made Halladay's trade value diminish immensely. No team is going to take on an extra $100 million for 1 1/2 years of Halladay. The only way this would work is for the Jays to take back a bad contract (less than Wells) and get prospects, which would be pointless. There would be a better chance if they made Rios a condition in a Halladay deal, but it still wouldn't be very likely.

If we only had an owner that could okay such a deal.

At least invite him over to throw for you or offer him a minor league deal.

4 prospects for Placido Polanco???????

How about this trade: Ricketts and Utay for Cuban. \:D/

I think he prefers the smaller market, just seems to have that kind of personality. I wonder if the Rangers would consider trying for him. They certainly have the prospects for him, and would put them as the clear front runner in the West. I just don't know if they are willing to part with their prospects. I do think Nolan Ryan would like to have a legit #1 over Millwood should they make the playoffs. Rangers can't afford a big hit in the payroll department.

Rumors have it that Joe Beimel is available. He would look good as another lefty in the pen. How about Hart for Beimel. If we have to, we can throw in a low prospect.

I vaguely remember hearing something about them thinking he plays SS lazily. The ESPN guys were talking about it during last night's broadcast. Apparently, he has some issues with laziness, taking direction from coaches, and actually showing up on time. But he certainly looked great once the game started.

If only Patton was available. =D> =D> =D>

This has been discussed ad nauseum: 1. Lee has NTC and Padres don't have money to pay him. 2. SD has stated that Gonzalez is not available at any price. 3. As you stated, Wells will either have little value or be invaluable because of Harden leaving. 4. Guzman will basically be an "untouchable" because of his progress in the pen and Gregg becoming a FA.

As much as I'd love to have Yunel Escobar, he's not expensive contract-wise so I can't imagine they'd give him up for just prospects. We'll have to come up with some kind of a legit ML bat to give them and we're not exactly overflowing with them. Three-Team Trade Alert How about sending the prospects to Oakland, Holliday goes to the Braves, Escobar comes to the Cubs. I'm not sure of what Oakland might want, but Hoff or Fox, Blanco, and some pitching might start the conversation. We might have to throw a prospect to the Braves too.

Indians DFA Matt Herges By Mike Axisa [July 3 at 10:51pm CST] Dennis Manoloff of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Indians designated veteran reliever Matt Herges for assignment following tonight's game. The move freed up a roster spot for the recently acquired Winston Abreu. Herges had been effective for the Tribe, pitching to a 3.55 ERA in 25.1 innings, allowing fewer hits than innings pitched. He might be worth picking up at the league minimum. I'm sure somebody will grab him.

Figgins would be great for our roster which is filled with players who play multiple positions. I posted before that only Lee, ARam, and Soto are 1-position players.

The problem is that I think Hendry and Lou will be satisfied with a Fontenot/Baker platoon. On paper, it looks great. Then again, on paper the Cubs would be leading the NL Central by 25 games. Also, I'd love to get Sanchez, but nobody seems to be sure of the situation with money.

It's a great low-key move by Hendry, but I'm not ready to order my WS tickets because of this move.

1. As excited as I"m sure the Pirates would be to get a 25th man, the worst LHRP in the major leagues, and a terrible 30 something middle reliever, I think that prospect would have to be one hell of a player to get Sanchez alone, let alone Sanchez AND Grabow. 2. Wouldn't the Cubs be able to get a bit more for Harden than the Rockies 5th outfielder? I think you are wrong in what it would take to get Sanchez. He is good, but he is being paid $6.2 million and in these tough economic times, not many teams can afford that. I would be surprised if they could get more than 1 good prospect and 1 decent prospect for him. Getting a ML-ready, young, cheap 2B (Fontenot) and a decent prospect would probably be enough. Grabow will probably get 1 decent prospect. Meanwhile, the Pirate team is hurting for pitching and are in the process of going young (again). The point of the two deals being done simultaneously was to try to neutralize the money situation. Harden (1/2 year) for Smith and a prospect (long term) isn't as one-sided as it sounds and would be necessary unless Hendry wins the lottery. So according to your own logic - to get Sanchez and Grabow, it would take 1 "good" prospect and 2 "decent" prospects (I disagree, but let's go with that). So to fill out your named requirements, you are sending an unnamed prospect, Fontenot (a back-up utility "prospect" who turns 30 in a week), Heilman (a 30 year-old middle relief pitcher who hasn't been labeled a "prospect" in about 4 years now), and Cotts (the best part about him is the fact he won't turn 30 until next spring). I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Calling Fontenot a backup utility player is pretty inaccurate since he was considered a "starter" on the team most people considered the best team in the NL (on paper). I would assume he certainly would be a starter on the Pirates who haven't had a winning season in 15 years. While I agree about Cotts, a change of location might help him. As for Heilman, the Pirates could use him or flip him to another team for a prospect. The last player I said that about (Marquis) has turned out to be a pretty good deal for the Rockies already and when they trade him for prospects. The value of the unnamed prospect might be the biggest point of contention. I would think we should get an answer about Grabow because he most likely will be traded this month to somebody. Sanchez may not get traded now, but he probably will be during the offseason. He might get more in return in December, but he will be making $8 million next year (club option) which won't help his trade value.

1. As excited as I"m sure the Pirates would be to get a 25th man, the worst LHRP in the major leagues, and a terrible 30 something middle reliever, I think that prospect would have to be one hell of a player to get Sanchez alone, let alone Sanchez AND Grabow. 2. Wouldn't the Cubs be able to get a bit more for Harden than the Rockies 5th outfielder? I think you are wrong in what it would take to get Sanchez. He is good, but he is being paid $6.2 million and in these tough economic times, not many teams can afford that. I would be surprised if they could get more than 1 good prospect and 1 decent prospect for him. Getting a ML-ready, young, cheap 2B (Fontenot) and a decent prospect would probably be enough. Grabow will probably get 1 decent prospect. Meanwhile, the Pirate team is hurting for pitching and are in the process of going young (again). The point of the two deals being done simultaneously was to try to neutralize the money situation. Harden (1/2 year) for Smith and a prospect (long term) isn't as one-sided as it sounds and would be necessary unless Hendry wins the lottery.