jersey cubs fan

Really? Miller is definitely better defensively but Barrett was better by a wide margin offensively while here and was able to play more regularly. Pitching staff was far better with Miller behind the plate. Once again, offense gets the glory but defense wins the game. So Barrett got Wood and Prior injured? In 2003 the team's ERA+ was 113. In 2004 it was 115. Basically, you are completely wrong.

The biggest difference is size. Schilling's a big ole' sombitch. Harden's kind of tiny. Curt has the type of pitcher's body that many believe is ideal for withstanding big innings. He also started his major league career as a reliever before being thrown into back-to-back 200+ inning seasons in his mid 20's, which may have contributed to his late 20's health issues. Harden has been a starter throughout his career, but health has kept him from approaching the workload that Schilling had at this age. He may go on to have the type of career Schilling had, but I don't think there's much similarity between the two.

Jeter is currently signed through 2010. It will be interesting if contract talks heat up starting this offseason. I wonder how he'd handle going into 2010 with an expiring contract. He'll be 37 in 2011 and if his skills have diminished as much as people think, I'd have to think he would contemplate retirement. Possibly. But 20 years of having the entire NY metropolitan area blow smoke up your butt could make it difficult for a man to walk away. And he's not going to be banging every 24 year old celebrity when he's an unemployed former ballplayer. Guys who just wrapped up a 200 million dollar contract aren't called "unemployed." They're called "retired." And yes, I'm jealous. Yes, but he won't be relevant, at least not enough for the hottet celebrities to spend their time with him.

Jeter is currently signed through 2010. It will be interesting if contract talks heat up starting this offseason. I wonder how he'd handle going into 2010 with an expiring contract. He'll be 37 in 2011 and if his skills have diminished as much as people think, I'd have to think he would contemplate retirement. Possibly. But 20 years of having the entire NY metropolitan area blow smoke up your butt could make it difficult for a man to walk away. And he's not going to be banging every 24 year old celebrity when he's an unemployed former ballplayer.

Jeter is currently signed through 2010. It will be interesting if contract talks heat up starting this offseason. I wonder how he'd handle going into 2010 with an expiring contract.

If there were ever a time to dip into that vast savings account of yours, that would be it. Get a suite.

He's a high impact starter that is also a tremendous question mark due to his injury history. It's not a double standard.

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.