jersey cubs fan

I love the kid.

Yes, but Fontenot would probably not put up those numbers as a starter. It always amuses me that NSBB favorites (i.e. Murton) are obviously impacted negatively by not playing better every day (and thus their numbers should be ignored), but players that are competing with NSBB (i.e. Fontenot with Cedeno) would obviously falter if given a chance to play everyday. Yeah, that was dumb. Fontenot competes with NSBB? I like Fontenot, and Cedeno. Try knowing what you are talking about before you post.

I think Zambrano's injury may have prevented that. But it's been difficult considering how well he's pitched. After a string of 100+ outings, he's gone 71, 91, 103, with the last outing coming on 5 days rest. Hopefully he gets some rest after the break.

I don't think there's much risk (other than normal risk) of letting him go Saturday, on 5 days rest. Then if he pitches game 3 after the break that's an additional 7 days rest, and if they insert Marshall/Lieber somewhere in there, his next outing can be on 5 or more days rest.

Sorry, but that sort of thinking, in and of itself, is very high risk. You cannot simply ignore the longterm ramifications just because some people have a 100 year itch. Yes, they are trying to win now, as well they should. But in doing so they've put themselves in an interesting situation for the future. The next owner is going to have to approve substantial increases in payroll, otherwise they are going to lose Dempster and Wood, and will need to rely on Harden staying healthy next year. They will once again have fewer trading chips to find what they need, and will have fewer internal options, including nobody on the roster who could reasonably fill-in for Fukudome or Soriano if they go down (a job Murton could have filled).

I think this topic should be discussed more. They need to be creative with Harden. Somebody jokingly suggested trading for him and putting him on the DL before this all went down. With the 4-day break coming up and 3 off days in August, I'd like to see them mix in some rest for him by going with Marshall and Marquis, and possibly even a Lieber start against a team he might match up with (Houston or Washington perhaps). I'd have Lilly and Zambrano take the first two starts after the break, then possibly throw Marquis in game three to push both Dempster and Harden back. Call Marshall back up in late July and give him a start in AZ or againt FLA.

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been. I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday. They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk. The difference in salary this year isn't that much - didn't I see that Harden is only owed about $2m the rest of this year? And next's year's contract is team option; we go to arb if we don't pick up the option. If he's hurt so much we don't pick up the option, how much is he getting in arb? I think we'll just have to disagree on whether the risk is really that high. The risk that Harden gets injured is certainly high. But Murton had EPatt had almost no place at all on this team this year or in the near future (unless EPatt overtook everyone else to start at 2B, but the Cubs didn't seem to think he could play there anymore). Gallagher clearly would, but is he that much better than Gaudin and/or Marshall, in terms of value this year and next? Certainly those guys have value, but with CC traded, there weren't many other possible targets. Hendry got one of the most talented pitchers in the league, with a big injury history, while giving up only 1 guy with a real chance to contribute now or in the near future. And he picked up a good insurance policy if the main piece does get hurt. The total risk, in terms of damage to the Cubs ability to win games this year and next, is minimal. But that's not the only risk. When evaluating a trade, what risk are you concerned about beyond the team's ability to win now and in the future? You said near future. The Cubs gave up assets for a highly talented by injury prone player. They no longer have those assets to deal if they need something else. Their season doesn't hinge on Harden's shoulder, but it's high risk nonetheless. They were going to trade for somebody at sometime, and they chose a guy who might not make it through July. As I said before, I'm completely fine with that. I like the go for it mentality. But it's still risky.

Crossed the line? Are they making dead mother jokes? 9/11 cracks? Is it just one giant Aristocrats sketch? as told by Bob Saget It's more like "going to be fun when Harden hits the DL and all the Cub fans start crying" kind of comments. So just like many Cubs fans and Sheets comments?

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been. I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday. They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk. The difference in salary this year isn't that much - didn't I see that Harden is only owed about $2m the rest of this year? And next's year's contract is team option; we go to arb if we don't pick up the option. If he's hurt so much we don't pick up the option, how much is he getting in arb? I think we'll just have to disagree on whether the risk is really that high. The risk that Harden gets injured is certainly high. But Murton had EPatt had almost no place at all on this team this year or in the near future (unless EPatt overtook everyone else to start at 2B, but the Cubs didn't seem to think he could play there anymore). Gallagher clearly would, but is he that much better than Gaudin and/or Marshall, in terms of value this year and next? Certainly those guys have value, but with CC traded, there weren't many other possible targets. Hendry got one of the most talented pitchers in the league, with a big injury history, while giving up only 1 guy with a real chance to contribute now or in the near future. And he picked up a good insurance policy if the main piece does get hurt. The total risk, in terms of damage to the Cubs ability to win games this year and next, is minimal. But that's not the only risk.

Knee-jerk much? The two moves won't do anything of the sort. It would be MUCH worse if Marshall were relegated to his previous LOOGY role as he wouldn't be stretched out once Marquis starts to royally suck again. Chillll ETA: There was really no doubt in my mind that Marquis would keep his job over Marshall. Obviously, Marshall as the #5 is a much better option, but given the choice between the two probable outcomes, I'll take this one 8 days a week These were pretty much the points I was trying to make with my last post. For whatever reason they will not send Marquis to the pen regardless of how poorly he pitches. It's frustrating, but we just have to deal with it. If Marquis was pitching poorly enough, they'd do something about it. Unfortunately he's in that middle zone right now. Not good enough to make you feel good about being in the rotation, not poor enough to eat a lot of money for. If Hill comes up near the end of the August, they'd probably send Marquis to the pen then because of the roster expansion in September. And this time sending Marquis to the pen wouldn't have done much good. They had to demote somebody. This reminds me a lot of the Jacque Jones situation last year. It's not good business to eat several million dollars every time you have a roster crunch unless you have a player that's simply killing your ballclub. Marquis doesn't fall under that category. If it be July 31st or the offseason, they'll get somebody to take on that last year of that deal, throw in 1-2 million, and have 7 more million to play around with next season. 4.78era isn't exactly good and it's only a matter of time until he hits the 5era mark. He needs to go. CCP made that point. He's not good, he's also not abysmal. Guys simply don't get release with that kind of contract and this kind of performance. It's not good, but it's not back breaking bad either. It's inconsistent, and by and large poor. But with Harden's health and Gallagher gone, they are going to want to keep all the warm bodies they can.

Crossed the line? Are they making dead mother jokes? 9/11 cracks? Is it just one giant Aristocrats sketch?

Yes, but Fontenot would probably not put up those numbers as a starter.

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been. I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday. They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk.

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us. Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few. Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true. Oh geez louise, are you kidding me? The national media adores the Cubs, by and large. And they would love to see them go to, if not win, the world series. Some people just realize it's a tremendous risk that may or may not pay off.

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

:D

ooooooo make another quick

He's on his way to Mesa, so he'll at least begin there. It probably depends on whether or not they have him starting or relieving. If he's a starter, it's going to take him a while to acclimate. If he goes to a bullpen, he could probably skip to as high as Peoria pretty soon.

Len and Bob asked him and he said he didn't think he got enough of it. He was surprised it went. oh okay... i didn't think that could be it because it was like 15 rows deep. it's not like the wind was blowing out either. either way, soto is the freakin man. He also said he thought the wind must have picked up while it was in the air. I think he just thought he hit a deep fly out. It was really high and took forever to land. But it was long gone and probably not at all wind aided.

I didnt even know he was on the 40 man. If he is get rid of him! They do have an extra spot right now, so they aren't desperate for his. At the very least they should put him on the 60-day, he's already been gone for about 55.

Len and Bob asked him and he said he didn't think he got enough of it. He was surprised it went.

Don't make that comparison, though. Yes, both were steals. Both were good trades. But in the end, the Lakers lost in the finals. This was not a steal. Rich Harden is damaged goods who may or may not make 10-15 starts the rest of the year. It's a risk, one that GMs aren't going to get the motherload in return for.

It's Beane's job to do the best he can for the Oakland A's. If Rich Harden was a 200 IP pitcher every year he could afford to hold out for the highest offer until July 31. He saved his financially questionable team lots of money this year, and erased any risk of losing Harden between now and the break. Could he have held out for more, probably. But how much more? I doubt a lot. People keep talking about other teams that have so much more to offer, without thinking about the fact that very rarely do those higher rated prospects actually get packaged in deals. He got a dirt cheap starting pitcher who can start in the majors the rest of the year and be under their control for years. Are the Yankees or Boston offering them that this year? The Yankees weren't offering pitching prospects for Sabathia or Santana, they weren't going to offer them for Harden. Gallagher is a legit prospect that people strangely undervalue. He's got a 2-3 ceiling, and he is already showing a tremendous likelihood of reaching his ceiling, or at least get close to it. He also got 2 guys who are capable of starting on good teams, and a very solid catching prospect. He got exactly what he was capable of getting for Rich Harden. He wasn't going to get much more if he waited, and he could have gotten nothing if he did.

I think part of the motivation was he wanted to trade Harden now, and not give setbacks a chance to scuttle getting anything.

That his name is pronounced Go Dan. Not to steal Vance's thunder, but I think it's pronounced Geaux Dan. Not in 'Merica it ain't.