Backtobanks

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.

The question is, what good offensive bat can we get this year? Especially if the Baker trade confirms that Hendry is committed to Fontenot at second base? There have been several names mentioned in threads/posts, some that realistically might be had in a trade that involved Wells. The Pirates have always been a good trade partner w/the Cubs and are already selling off pieces. F. Sanchez would be a good/smart target. The problem with acquiring a second baseman, though, is that Hendry appears to be committed to Fontenot at second base. He's a lefty. Enuff said.

Not sure if that was joking or serious. The INTERNET needs a sarcasm detector. But just in case it's not joking, I have to disagree. If there is one player I don't think we'll ever see on a PED list, it's Pujols. Which is sad, because that would legitimately make him the greatest hitter since Ruth. And I'd hate for that guy to be a Cardinal. Let me put it this way. Either Pujols is and has always been clean as a whistle. Or he's incredibly stupid after doing that Sports Illustrated cover. Imagine the backlash there would be if he wound up being exposed as a cheater. Hate to say it, but I think he's just that damn good. I think Pujols is damn good, but so was Barry Bonds before he started taking PEDs. I hate to say it, but I would be surprised if Pujols is clean. That's why the rest of the names need to be released and a lifetime ban should be put on players from now on. Having said that, I do think MLB will have to acknowledge the Steroid Era and allow players in the HOF. It's kind of ridiculous to have a HOF displaying the greats of history with no players acknowledged in a certain 20 year period. The bottom line is that as the drugs improve, so do the masking agents and the drug testing. Can we ever trust any record in baseball again? I think a good analogy is when the public found out about the lies during Viet Nam and we stopped believing anything the government tells us since then because we know it's all a pack of lies.

Cubs lead all of ML baseball in versatility. Looking at our position players, only Lee, ARam, and Soto are "stuck" in one position. There's on old saying that seems to fit the Cubs' players this year: "Jack of all trades, master of none."

1.Cubs send Fontenot, Cotts, Heilman, Prospect to Pirates for Sanchez and Grabow. 2.Cubs send Harden to Rockies for Seth Smith plus prospect. Cubs add salary in 2009 with Sanchez and Grabow (app. $4.5 million) but subtract app. $4.3 million by trading Harden, Cotts, Heilman. Pirates dump salary and get younger at 2B, LHRP, and with prospect. Rockies get dominant SP in Harden. Cubs: 1. Sanchez takes over at 2B repacing Fontenot. 2. Smith gets a lot of playing time in all 3 OF positions and pinch hitting offering power, average, and youth. 3. Grabow replaces Marshall in bullpen and Marshall goes to the rotation replacing Harden. 4. Guzman is set to return in bullpen to replace Heilman.

NTC

Bradley has been as good as Hoff this year and the safe money is on Bradley being the better hitter the rest of the way. Fox has been very good to this point, but what if he regresses? I'd say it's more likely than Bradley improving. Smith would be very interesting, but what are we giving up for him? What's the Rockies' incentive to trade a young, cheap for a long time, productive outfielder? Smith is listed as their 5th OF, so I would think a decent package of prospects would get their interest. I would think they'd look to part ways with Hawpe or Spilborghs before Smith. Hawpe is 30 and Spilborghs is 29, while Smith is 26. Hawpe is also expensive ($7.5 in 2010 and $10 million club option in 2011). Spilborghs has more service time (just over 2 years) so he'll get expensive before Smith will. I could see them shipping off Hawpe if they fall out of contention, but otherwise I don't think they'd move an outfielder without pretty good compensation. And would that compensation be worth it for a guy who's had one terrific year (this year)? I brought up Smith because he's LH and seems to have decent power numbers while still being young. Do you think the Rockies would go for a deal involving Harden plus prospects for Hawpe?

Not unless the Cubs eat about $75 million.

Bradley has been as good as Hoff this year and the safe money is on Bradley being the better hitter the rest of the way. Fox has been very good to this point, but what if he regresses? I'd say it's more likely than Bradley improving. Smith would be very interesting, but what are we giving up for him? What's the Rockies' incentive to trade a young, cheap for a long time, productive outfielder? Smith is listed as their 5th OF, so I would think a decent package of prospects would get their interest.

The problem is, Castillo will be 35 before his contract runs out. He likely won't have much of the value he currently has now by then. And he's not as valuable as Bradley right now. Feliciano makes the trade a bit more interesting, but I still don't think I'd do it. It wouldn't begin to free up enough money for any kind of impact bat. We'd free up $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011. I think you underestimate the effect of saving $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011, Harden and Gregg (app. $12 million) coming off the books in 2010, and new ownership ready to spend some new money (hopefully). $3 million isn't going to make much of an impact on anything. It's certainly not enough to downgrade the talent on our roster like a Castillo for Bradley swap would. We're not going to get much significant for Bradley, I agree, but I don't see the benefit in saving enough money for one decent player and downgrading the talent on our roster at the same time. If you're looking at the deal as a straight Castillo for Bradley deal, it certainly is a downgrade in talent. The savings in money, the production of Seth Smith/Hoff/Fox in RF, and the addition by subtraction of all the drama that Bradley brings to the team could make it worthwhile.

It would indicate which managers are more likely to be listed as "guy I don't want to play for" among free agents. The bottom line is that free agents can deal with any manager as long as their GM pays them the most money. Girardi is probably considered "a guy I don't want to play for", but that didn't stop Sabathia, Texiera, and Burnett.

Obviously Bradley has the potential to be better than Castillo, which is why I included Feliciano in the original post. I'm not crazy about getting a 33-year old 2B with no power, but you're crazy if you think you're going to dump Bradley (and his contract) and get back something significant. I do think Bradley will start hitting, but figuring in his injury potential, his mental health/attitude issues, and his salary for the next 2 1/2 years makes this kind of deal tempting. Also, tied to this deal was picking up Seth Smith from the Rockies to play in RF. I was tempted to try to figure out a deal involving Harden (plus prospects) for Hawpe, but I'm not sure that's workable. It wouldn't begin to free up enough money for any kind of impact bat. We'd free up $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011. I think you underestimate the effect of saving $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011, Harden and Gregg (app. $12 million) coming off the books in 2010, and new ownership ready to spend some new money (hopefully).

Not an actual rumor, just a blog by Joel Sherman from the NY Post: Here is a trade to think about. But before we go there, I will say I HAVE HEARD THIS NOWHERE. This is just me throwing something out for discussion on this site. If you were both teams - the Mets and Cubs - would you trade Luis Castillo for Milton Bradley? This has some kinship with whether the Jets should sign Plaxico Burress or not. Because Bradley has been a very talented player who cannot stay out of trouble. This is not a fair trade talent wise; Bradley is much more talented. But the Cubs are paying him $5 million this year, $9 million next year and his $12 million 2011 option kicks in as long as Bradley avoids serious injury (which is no certainty with the health-troubled Bradley). But the likelihood is that the Cubs would save $9 million between 2010-11, which is not insignificant considering only the Yankees have more obligated in future pay than the Cubs, who also are in the midst of selling the team. In addition, the Cubs have to see now that it was a mistake to believe Bradley could bring the lefty diversity their lineup craved while staying mostly out of trouble (He is hitting .196 as a lefty batter). Bradley, to date, has played poorly, had conflicts with umpires and manager Lou Piniella. He is a walking timebomb. There is just too much risk with Bradley for me, if I ran the Mets. But they are desperate. Bradley is signed for the same period, the next 2 1-2 years as Castillo. If you believe he is not washed up at 31, then you believe he is much better than the .238/five-homer man he has been so far for the Cubs. He is a switch-hitter with power and patience at his best. If he is right, it might not be that far into the future that you would have three dynamic switch-hitters (Bradley, Beltran and Reyes) in the lineup. Again, I think the risk is too great because Bradley simply does not know how to control his temper and stay out of disputes. But for a team as hungry for some impact hitting as the Mets, there is a tempting side to this. If the deal was something like Castillo plus Feliciano for Bradley, would you do it? I certainly would consider it if we could tie that deal together with a prospects for Seth Smith deal with the Rockies.

57% of the 15,000 votes there are pro- waiving Z I'm sure alot of that is a knee-jerk reaction to the team playing poorly and Z acting stupid. I could see growing tired of his antics and floating his name out in the trade discussions, but giving him away for nothing is ridiculous.

Before he started using he was a 68 pound weakling. He put on 30 pounds of pure muscle. :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

So was Freel.

I've posted many times stating that the Cubs won't be sellers for a variety of reasons (mostly the mediocrity of the NL Central), but if the money situation is as tight as it seems, I could see trading Harden to a pitching-desperate team for a bat that would help both teams. Assuming the bat is making $10-12 million, the trade would end up costing < $2.5 million for the rest of the year.

Everyone wants to blame somebody for this disaster called the 2009 Chicago Cubs, but what needs to happen to salvage this season. Posters are screaming for a big trade, but it has become rather obvious that Hendry doesn't have the resources ($$$) to swing a big deal. The bottom line is that either the players have to pull their collective heads out of their rear ends or Lou is going to have to get off his rear end and raise some hell. If the players on this team produced at 90% of their potential, the Cubs would win the division. You can see that this team needs a fire lit under them and no one outside of the dugout can do that. That might be what they miss the most about Wood and DeRosa. This team is playing like they expect to lose. Quiet leaders like Lee, Lilly, serene Lou, mellow Rothschild, and calm Trammell aren't what this team needs right now.