Backtobanks

Milton Bradley or Aaron Miles.

Milton Bradley! Unfortunately, it looks like the Cubs' season is dependent on him unless some money gets loosened up.

I would question how long you've been a fan of this team if you think Lou is the best thing to happen to this team.

With all of the talk about Holliday, how about Jermaine Dye? He has been a consistent slugger for most of his career and is outperforming Holliday this year. His contract is $11.5 million (Holliday's is $13.5) with a $12 million mutual option ($1 million buyout) for next year, so with the buyout the money is about the same. Ken Rosenthal doesn't think will be price (in prospects) will be very high because of the money involved. Dye's numbers this season .276/.341/.542/.883 which are pretty much in line with his career numbers.

It always seems to come back to the stupidity of trading DeRosa in the first place. DeRosa over the past 28 days: .308/.378/.508/.886 His current season OPS is .777 and rising. But he hits from the wrong side of the plate, and in the end, thats all that matters. The key is the first three words in your post. With the way the offense is going, who cares which side of the plate he hits from. As for worrying about the playoffs, let's get there first.

I repeat what I said earlier, at the trade deadline Street will get a good prospect and a mid-level prospect at best. (Remember, you're only getting a few months of Street.) So you're telling me that we trade a good prospect (Ascanio), a mid-level prospect, and Ryan Harvey for Street and Atkins? I'll take that deal.

As I've tried to point out, Atkins has negative trade value, so I don't understand why we're increasing the package to get a few months of Street and a sub-.200 hitter with a ridiculous contract.

Taking Miles would be their punishment for giving us Atkins and his contract. =D>

Actually it was a single prospect and our garbage. So it wasn't swapping veterans for veterans. It was some of their garbage, for some of our garbage, swapping out relievers with reasonably decent careers so far, with them saving money and getting a prospect. Maybe throw in another prospect if you insist. come on - the originally proposed deal was just terrible. It wasn't garbage for garbage. Atkins has been brutal for 2 months, but Street has been very good. You don't just give away closers with good numbers in the last year of their contract for Miles and Heilman. My original post suggested Miles, Heilman, and a decent prospect. Other posters have suggested adding a second prospect. If you think you're going to get better than 2 prospects, a reserve IF, and a ML reliever from another team for a very good reliever and a brutal hitter with a terrible contract at the trade deadline, you're crazy. They might get 1 good prospect and 1 decent prospect for Street and still be stuck with Atkins and his $7 million contract.

Yeah, I'd think they'd want prospects who could help them in the future as opposed to swapping veterans for veterans. I'd think they'd be interested in cutting some costs, and getting prospects, which is is what the original post already noted. Actually it was a single prospect and our garbage. So it wasn't swapping veterans for veterans. It was some of their garbage, for some of our garbage, swapping out relievers with reasonably decent careers so far, with them saving money and getting a prospect. Maybe throw in another prospect if you insist. The problem is that they can get some decent value for Street in a trade. They don't need to just dump him. They'll probably have 5-6 teams knocking on their door looking for another good reliever at midseason. And if some contender's closer goes down or is ineffective, they could most likely get a steal for a guy like that. So even if those two prospects are a good enough haul for Street (and a decent pitching prospect and a throw in prospect are not going to do it) that still leaves you with Atkins for Heilman and Miles. The analysis of that trade? Getting rid of Atkins saves the Rockies about 4.7 million as of today. Heilman would be due about 1.08 million and Miles about 1.47 million. Then you add in Miles's 2.7 million next year, and that makes this part of the trade a salary swap of 4.7 million this year for 2.55 this year and 2.7 next year. The money is a wash. So they aren't really dumping salary (because Street can always be traded to another team for value) and they aren't getting nearly enough value for Street. Plus now they have Miles already putting a small dent in next year's budget, and the Rockies have less room to pay utility players that then the Cubs do. I see no reason why the Rockies would consider that deal. So according to your numbers, Miles for Atkins saves the Rockies $.5 million salary (plus they have Miles as a reserve IF for 2010). That leaves Heilman plus a prospect for Street (and the Rockies saving > $1 million). I'm not sure what other teams would be offering for Street at the trade deadline, but I would imagine it wouldn't be more than one good prospect plus a mid-level prospect. I think it's a pretty reasonable trade for the Rockies.

From Ken Rosenthal @ Foxsports: The Rockies cannot give away third baseman Garrett Atkins. They are likely to keep first baseman Todd Helton. But right-hander Jason Marquis, closer Huston Street and outfielders Brad Hawpe and Ryan Spilborghs are among the players who could get moved. Instead of a deal centering on Atkins, how about going after Huston Street with Atkins as a throw-in. Since both have big contracts (Street - $4 million and Atkins $7 million), maybe we can dump a little bit of salary their way. Miles, Heilman, and a decent pitching prospect for Street and Atkins. The Rockies save about $3.5 million and get a reserve IF and 2 pitchers. Hopefully Atkins can perk up some until Ramirez gets back and Street can get into the 7th/8th/9th inning mix.

Ozzie has to make sure his relatives have a paycheck.

If Soriano goes on one of his hot streaks during October he could carry a team to a World Series title. i can't imagine a playoff pitching staff being stupid enough to let soriano beat them that many times I can't imagine pitching staffs that throw him strikes in his first at bat or pitching staffs that throw strikes to Zambrano either.

Marmol is still the best arm , no question. He just needs to get his confidence in his stuff back. When hes thowing strikes, he makes even the best hitters look lost. He might benefit from a few innings of mop up duty. Marmol needs to find his release point. His release point is so inconsistent, it's ridiculous.

For the umteenth time, the playoffs are a crapshoot. While the Cubs haven't looked good all year, things have been improving. Fontenot, Bradley, and Soto are all better than they have shown this year. Ramirez has shown his importance to this lineup by his absence. Finally, Soriano is the epitome of a streak hitter and if he gets hot during the playoffs, he could carry the team alone. That explains the playoffs, whichever team is hot at that time wins.

Then they need to seriously and realistically re-evaluate what their goals are this season. Offense seems to be the main thing they need to improve for the rest of this season, though even if they do that there's still the bullpen to potentially blow too many games. It very well might come down that a big trade of any kind simply is not the the smart thing to do. I don't think a big trade is going to happen to help the offense. Fontenot has improved some lately and each day that goes by puts us closer to ARam's return. As long as the Cubs keep their head above .500 and no team starts running away with the NL Central, I think Hendry will wait it out and save his trade chips for Peavy.

I hear that the Indians are nearing the selling mode. How about we offer the 3 pitchers we got for DeRosa to them for DeRosa and Vizcaino.

If that's what he wants to do, that's great, but there aren't too many people that are going to retire in their early 30's who can still earn $20 million per year. Taking 1 or 2 years off would certainly jeopardize his earning ability when he comes back.

I'll believe it when he says no to some team offering him a $100 million + contract.

Holliday in left and Soriano at second would make more sense than Fox at third, but no, ultimately I don't want that. Much like with Fox, I think the severe downgrade defensively would mostly overcome whatever offensive gains we would make. Plus, I think Holliday will be rather expensive prospect-wise. Yeah, with 5+ teams interested he won't be cheap.

LA County: 10M Orange County: 3M San Bernardino County: 2M Riverside County: 2M Ventura County: .8M that's around 18M in the LA Metro area NY Metro has around 18.7M Maybe everything is a small market compared to NY. But having lived in NY, Chicago and California, Chicago is the biggest sports town. The Cubs have a huge fan base, arguably the most popular franchise in the city. It's true that the Cubs have been mismanaged in the past and that led to bad teams. But the fact is that the Tribune has been bad for the team. As Cub fans, we have all been putting money in the pockets of the Tribune for years. It's really telling how the sale has been hung up by this. In the past 2-3 years, the Cubs have actually started spending money. And even that's with the bad TV and radio deals. The Yankees own their own media outlet and have money to burn. The Cubs have been owned by one. Enough said. The Tribune has been essentially money laundering for all these years. If we had decent owners in the past 20 years, we might have a WS by now. Personally, I definitely feel ripped off. That's not arguable at all. It's the Bears, and it's not even close. Yeah, the lead story on the sports pages right now is the Bears' mini-camp. It's even worse when they get to training camp.

Something like Hart alone seems about right to me. Atkins has been pitiful and is being paid a lot of money. Now if they're going to pick up a big chunk of his conract, maybe they should get a second player.

But there's no guarantee Fox can hit. When you're looking at defense that bad, it's especially hard not having any idea whether the kid can hit major league pitching or not. Soriano and Holliday will (should) both produce offensively at a high rate to at least partially offset the terrible defense. We don't know that about Fox. But we won't know unless Fox is given a chance. I agree that Holliday should produce, but he didn't produce anything earlier this season (he seems to be coming out of it now). I guess my point revolves around the cost of acquiring Holliday. If we can get him for fringe prospects, then I would be okay.

If we can get him cheaply, then get him. Right now, starting pitching isn't a problem and it doesn't appear to be too big of a problem next year either (Wells, Marshall, Atkins, etc.). The fact that he's signed for 4 more years could be considered a blessing or a curse, since people have pointed out his throwing motion could lead to injury. Also, he's signed for 4 more years, but not at a bargain-basement salary. Adding his salary to Zambrano, Lee, Soriano, Bradley, Dempster, etc. might cause payroll problems in the near future. So if he falls into our lap at a decent price, I'm all for it.

When I've seen the rumors, that's what would happen. Holliday in left and Soriano to 2B. I know Sori would be awful at 2B, but man would it help our offense. I posted in another discussion that putting Fox at 3B might not be any worse than Soriano at 2B defensively. While I agree that Fox isn't a ML 3B, Soriano has proven that he's not a ML 2B. In any case, using Fox wouldn't cost us the prospects that trading for Holliday would. At least Soriano has played 2B at a major league level. From everything Ive heard, Fox at 3rd would be just as bad as William Perry there. I would hate to see Fox play 3B regularly, but it might be worth it not to give up any top prospects for Holiday and to watch Soriano play 2B. When we're talking bad defense, don't forget that a 2B gets about 70% more total chances than a 3B. If we can get Holliday without giving up top prospects, then I might be okay with it.