Backtobanks

You beat me to the punch. I do think Schmidt has to be the #1 offseason target, but I think they need to trade for or sign another starting pitcher for #4 unless one of the kids really shows something in August and September. Let the kids battle it out for #5. As for an OF slugger, Sheffield might be the answer for 1 year, but a trade package of Murton/Pie plus Hill/Guzman/Marshall/Marmol plus lower prospects might pry loose a younger power-hitting OF. If Murton isn't traded, he should platoon with Jones. For the Cubs to compete in 2007, obviously DLee and Prior would have to return to form, ARam would have to stay, and Pierre and Barrett would have to hit like they've been hitting lately. Add some players to the bench and you might be pleasantly surprized at the results. Not exactly the 1927 Yankees, but a team that could compete in the NL Central. Andy MacPhail couldn't have said it better himself. "Could compete in the NL Central." Oh boy, for only $100 million? The last time I looked the NL Central is where the Cubs reside and winning the division (or Wild Card) has to be a first step. They certainly won't be the favorites in a weak division, but if you get into the playoffs anything can happen.

You beat me to the punch. I do think Schmidt has to be the #1 offseason target, but I think they need to trade for or sign another starting pitcher for #4 unless one of the kids really shows something in August and September. Let the kids battle it out for #5. As for an OF slugger, Sheffield might be the answer for 1 year, but a trade package of Murton/Pie plus Hill/Guzman/Marshall/Marmol plus lower prospects might pry loose a younger power-hitting OF. If Murton isn't traded, he should platoon with Jones. For the Cubs to compete in 2007, obviously DLee and Prior would have to return to form, ARam would have to stay, and Pierre and Barrett would have to hit like they've been hitting lately. Add some players to the bench and you might be pleasantly surprized at the results. Not exactly the 1927 Yankees, but a team that could compete in the NL Central.

The White Sox won with small ball and the Cubs will try to win with Little League ball.

I don't remember where I saw it, but there were rumors of Hendry trying to broker a 3-way deal with Maddux going to the Dodgers for Izturis and Izituris plus prospects going to the Orioles for Tejada. Unfortunately, the Tejada part of the trade didn't happen.

Let me get this straight, we trade Walker so Perez can play 2B and we trade Maddux so Izturis can play SS. We now have a great defensive middle IF, but the problem is that we gave up the pitcher who forces ground balls. We now have pitchers in the rotation who give up fly balls to our weak-armed outfielders. Thank God, Perez and Izturis will provide enough offense to overcome our pitching problems.

Everyone knows that the 40 year old Maddux isn't the Cy Young Maddux, but he has shown that he can still pull one of those Maddux-like games out of the hat. His last start was against a good offensive team (Cardinals) and he had them mystified. You put Maddux in a pitcher's park with a decent bullpen and offense and it wouldn't surprize me to see him win 6 or 7 more games this year. I think he is as good or better than most #4 or #5 starters in the league. Unfortunately, the Cubs usually had to count on him to be the #2 starter.

Of course they'll retire 42 -- it's already been done by MLB (Jackie Robinson). I have a question, How come Mariano Rivera wears #42? Was he "grandfathered in" because he already had the number?

See my suggestion in the other topic "How About These 2 Trades?"

Well, first I would have to become Cubs GM.

Assuming that ARam is going to opt out of his contract at the end of the season: Trade 1- Dempster plus ??? (Novoa/prospect) to Texas for Blalock. (There have been rumors of Blalock for Lidge). Trade 2- ARam plus ???? to the Angels for Santana & Aybar. (The Orioles turned down Santana & Aybar for Tejada). I think both of these trades are possible and reasonable and would give the Cubs a young, left-handed, power-hitting 3B, a young starting pitcher with some experience, and a young middle IF for 2B. Howry & Eyre can close for the rest of this season and possibly Marmol can be groomed as closer for next year. Thoughts???????

thats about what the Cubs offered Mr. Furcal. Free agents can ask for whatever they want, but I think Lugo and Carlos Lee are going to get less than what they want. Both of these guys might get some decent money, but I'm not sure they will get 4 or 5 year contracts.

wow!! I agree with that. But I have a feeling Maddux will be gone within the next 48 hrs. and it may be to an AL team. That makes no sense. He has the chance to say no, and he seems to have a major dislike for the AL. Why would he allow himself to be traded to the AL? i never heard him say he dislikes the AL What 40 year old pitcher would want to start over in the AL. He has a complete "book" on most NL batters.

I've been worried about the Cubs hanging on to all of these prize prospects too long and then they lose their trade value when they get a few opportunities and then fail at them. I'm starting to think that about Pie. I know he's still very young, but Hendry has refused to discuss Hill, Guzman, Pie, etc. in the past and so far none of them are coming close to the potential they have shown. Also, many posters want to trade everyone on the team for the top prospects of other teams, but the same may be true of their prospects. Prospects are simply prospects until they prove something in the majors.

I would think the Dodgers will be sellers now instead of buyers. I can't see a reason for them to want Maddux now that they're sinking fast.

I've been saying all along that I didn't understand the "untouchable" label that Hendry put on Hill in spring training. Back then everyone acted like he was the second coming of Sandy Koufax. I just wonder who the Cubs could have acquired for a package with Hill in it last off season.

And noone in this thread has said anything about giving him away for nothing, we are just saying it is something that should be explored if you can get the right deal, how hard of a concept is that to grasp? Of course, the key words are "if you can get the right deal". Whether it is "the right deal" is what makes all of this speculation so much fun. Also, everyone's opinion of "the right deal" is different and we all worry about the only opinion that counts.....Hendry's.

If those are true, the White Sox could really be in trouble.

Just what the Cubs need, a 1B that they just sent to AAA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cubs have a 1B.

Prior and Wood aren't Santana and Liriano. At their best they're close. At their best, they were close.

Amen! Add to that the fact that he hasn't been pitching that well lately. Dempster has always had too many walks as a closer and there was no place to put Lo Duca if he continued his lack of control. You can tell if a relief pitcher (especially a closer) is on or off by watching the first 2 batters. I advocated for years that you have others warming up when you bring in any relief pitcher (including the closer). If that hurts their ego, so be it.

Let's wait until after the trade deadline before we give him a kick in the head.

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move. I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C. You probably don't get it because you're not reading the reasoning. Nobody is advocating trading Barrett or Aramis for "decent prospects or even a veteran OF". Barrett's value is at an all-time high and a deal should be explored if that deal makes the team better overall, plugging other holes as well as finding a suitable replacement behind the plate. If dealing Barrett and getting that talent in return takes this offense from pathetic to tolerable, that's a huge step in the right direction. Aramis should be dealt if there's strong evidence that he will opt out of his contract and go elsewhere. Losing him for nothing would be dumber than any trade we could make. Having said that, there is nobody within the entire Cubs organization that should be 100% off limits. There is nobody in baseball that should be considered untouchable. Any player should be available for the right price. I worry about some posters wanting to make trades just for the sake of making a trade. A lot of these top prospects mentioned make us drool at the thought of getting them, but let's not forget that they're still "prospects". I agree that nobody is untouchable, but it would take a real knock-your-socks-off deal for me to trade Barrett or ARam.

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move. I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C.

Well, if your comment about stat geeks wasn't intended to attack other posters on this board, I don't understand the point, but whatever. As for Walker and Soriano, this year, Soriano has been better. The 2 previous years, Walker was. The 2 years before that? Soriano was better - he had 2 really good years in '02 and '03 (esp 02). But, as others have said, Soriano's contract is based on hype & potential, which he is matching with performance this year. He wasn't doing that in '04 and '05. As for whether Texas would have traded Soriano for Walker last year, I don't know. Do you? Since Hendry worked overtime trying to deal Walker and he really wanted Soriano, I would think that the Rangers would have laughed in Hendry's face at an offer of only Walker. Again the knowledgable people in baseball have traded away Walker and have trouble finding a full time position for him while Soriano has been desired by many of the same people over the years. Can't all be based on hype and potential, but mediocre production.

Troll much? As I posted about 2 pages ago, just b/c people use stats to compare players doesn't mean they don't watch games. Show me one post that says that Walker is having a better 2006 season than Soriano. Just one. Go ahead, I'll wait. Having any luck? I'll give you a few more minutes. Ok, I think that's enough time. No one is arguing that. What people are arguing (quite convincingly) is that Walker was the better player in '04 and '05. I'm sorry if that doesn't jive with your views, based on watching some games and some highlights, but it's true. First, No I don't troll at all. I have no problem looking at stats, but saying Walker was the better player over Soriano during 2004 & 2005 is something that a stats geek would say. I'm not arrogant enough to say I know more than baseball scouts, coaches, and managers who have spent their lives in baseball. Obviously, Soriano was considered a top player and an All Star while Walker has been offered around the league and rejected in trade proposals. There's a reason Soriano is making $10 million and Walker makes $2.5 million. Not every manager and GM is an idiot (excluding Baker & Hendry). To sum it up, Soriano brings more to a team than Walker and we all know it's not his defense. Do you think that Texas would have traded Soriano for Walker even up at the end of last year?