jersey cubs fan

Hank's 2007 was a health issue. He was fairly consistent in 2005, 2006, and 2008. Bako has been consistently worse the past few years. It's not a matter of giving either guy an additionaly 200 AB's, it's getting the most you can out of the 150 or so PA a backup to Geo should get in a season. And Blanco is a better bet to give you more.

Isn't he essentially only a backup 1B at this point? I don't see the point in Millar. His attitude wasn't nearly as important as his team's ridiculous production. Yeah, he is pretty much a backup 1B. Knowing how you think (and a lot of people here), its hard to believe that someone's attitude or clubhouse presence had a difference in the play of a team. But if it was possible, if any team could use a boost like the Red Sox allegedly benefited from, its probably the Cubs with their history and recent postseason success. A) We don't have a Yankees. B) Boston won because as often as they were good, it was bound to happen. C) If there's a team in the NL that needs some sort of mental boost, it's much more likely to be the Mets than the Cubs. That team has blown divisions two years in a row in glorious fashion. D) If Millar was any good, I'd be perfectly fine adding him in hopes that there was some sort of intangible mental benefit on the side. However, he's not any good, and he plays a position (RH backup 1B) that the Cubs really have no need for.

Isn't he essentially only a backup 1B at this point? I don't see the point in Millar. His attitude wasn't nearly as important as his team's ridiculous production.

It's a significant difference. One is bad, one is horrendous. It's absurd to accept any level of light hitting from a catcher just because all backups are supposed to be light hitting.

Miles for now. But as I've said a bunch of times, I can't see Lou dealing with only 1 backup MI.

and blanco signed with a team that's going to give him a chance to play more. comparing bako to blanco is silly; he wasn't going to come back. How is it silly to compare a player signed to fill a position this year that was filled by a different player the year before? because it wasnt a matter of choosing blanco or bako? Regardless of Blanco's purported reasoning for choosing SD (it was stated early in the offseason that the Cubs had no intention of bringing him back, add in the left handed thing and it stands to reason they were as big a part of it as he was), it's up to the GM to field the best team he can, and improve upon your team. The fact is he signed a bad backup catcher who is significantly worse than the guy they had last year. That's not good.

and blanco signed with a team that's going to give him a chance to play more. comparing bako to blanco is silly; he wasn't going to come back. How is it silly to compare a player signed to fill a position this year that was filled by a different player the year before?

OPS+ in 2008, Blanco had an 83, Bako had 62. That's a significant difference.

there are varying degrees of light hitting backup catchers. Bako is the worst of the worst. Blanco actually provided something with the bat. he's definitely not, but if it makes you feel better to say that then power to you. There may be somebody out there worse, but there's no doubt he's significantly worse than Blanco, which is the point. It's incredibly stupid to just accept any level of non-hitting from a backup catcher because they all fit the category of light hitting.

there are varying degrees of light hitting backup catchers. Bako is the worst of the worst. Blanco actually provided something with the bat.

Blanco has been significantly better than Bako Fontenot won't be on the bench as much, and Miles is a downgrade. Gathwright doesn't replace Pie, he wasn't there last year. And Hoffpauier isn't going to make the team with only 1 infield backup. And we have no idea if Bradley will outproduce what Edmonds did last year.

Nonsense. Worrying about losing a pick is overblown. It's happened from time to time, but it hasn't come close to keeping salaries down. Virtually any player worthy of a big free agent deal is signed regardless of whether that team loses a pick. The economy this season has brought a renewerd concern about fiscal responsibility on the part of teams, but this is a first. Every year the Latroy Hawkins of the world are signed without concern about losing a pick.

google "shocker" (aka Shock her)

The Boston Red Sox? David Ortiz. he reportedly was a part of the group that wanted Manny out really? never heard that. where did you read that? Don't recall exactly, but it was reported at the time that Ortiz actually was in the group that talked to management about their problems with Manny. They supposedly voted or something, and he agreed Manny needed to go.

The Boston Red Sox? David Ortiz. he reportedly was a part of the group that wanted Manny out

What does should have to do with anything? Some of these players are likely living in a pre-2008 world, and the teams are operating in a post-2008 world, where throwing away millions on less than ideal players is extremely risky. Until guys are ready to drop their demands, they are going to struggle to find a bidder.

If Heilman or Gaudin are taking up too much of that 400 IP, it could very easily be a big problem. I didn't include Samardzija in that list, because I don't think he'll be pitching unless he's pitching really well.

Reminds me of the classic and underrated, "Real Genius": "Ok, lets just take a step fwd. Now take a step back. Now take a step fwd., and back....and now we cha-cha!!" Real Genius is awesome!!! Did you know the singer is the lead singer from the band Survivor? How did you transition from talking about a great movie, Real Genius, to the real men of genius commercials?

embarrassing that I'm pointing out how stupid it is to get riled up over calling a 19 year old 19? Or pointing out that saying he was 19 last year in no way shape or form insinuates that he will be 20 in spring training? no, not at all

Agreed. A whole lot of offseason maneuvering to be worse than they were last year. Way to work them phones, Jim! I find it funny that people are agreeing with that. I guess if you think negative stuff first, it does seem not as good. I could easily say the bench can be just as good as last year, with adding another bench player. The rotation had even more question marks a year ago, and almost every teams rotation has question marks. Plus you only factor in, possible regression, without considering possible improvement. Having Soriano for another 30-40 plus games also offsets alot of the extra AB's Fontenot got last year. But hey if it makes people feel better thinking things are more likely to go wrong then work out. I'm sure last season people were saying even worse things about the team, and most were dead wrong. Odds are the Cubs will have at least 3 starters who make 30 plus starts, and even if some guys regress, other guys will have better years then last season. When you have a team as talented as this team, things tend to even out. Rarely do good teams have everything just go wrong due to injuries and major player regession. This team has four good starters, with good depth, that most teams would love to have. Alot of teams would be happy with Gaudin/Heilman or Marshall as their number 5, and would be fine with one of those other guys filling in. It also has 7 hitters who could have 350 plus OBP guys, and 5 hitters who could be 850-900 plus OPS guys, and a bunch of very talented hard throwers in the bullpen. How many teams have what we have? Especially in the NL, so we can try to compare the current roster to last year, and whatever but it doesn't really work out that way. If people would just stop comparing to last year or whatever and just look at the roster, it's pretty damn good. Seriously, can you read? How is summing them up as probably the best team in the division a whole bunch of negative stuff? The Cubs had a hell of a lot of things go their way last year. There's not a lot of room for improvement from within, so I was hoping they'd use this offseason, and offseason when they appear to be one of very few teams actually increasing payroll, to improve the team. To me, it doesn't look like they've improved the team, instead, I think they are a little worse than they were last year. I still expect them to win the division, maybe even more easily than last year. And since it doesn't make any sense to me to just assume they are going to add better players from what they got, I'm basing this off of what they look like right now.

remember when Hendry signed Neifi after San Fran cut him? Does Uribe have a free agent clause if he's not called up by a certain date?

That's it? That's the requirement?

I'm not so sure it's scenery that will fix Hill, as much as it may be time. It's virtually assured that he won't do it with the Cubs because of the way contracts work. If he ever does figure it out, it will be somewhere else a year or so from now, and change of scenery will be the accepted reason.

No it doesn't. It implies that he'll be 20 by July, instead of when he actually turns 20, in August. you are intentionally missing the entire point of this conversation I don't think you know what you're talking about.