jersey cubs fan

That would be interesting. Cubs seemingly have 2 guys who would be good for the #2 spot (Fukudome and Lee if his power stays in 06-07 range), 2 guys for the #5 spot (Ramirez, Soriano), 2 7th hitters (Soto, Derosa) and 2 8th hitters (Pie, Cedeno/Theriot) I think you're possibly underrating our hitters a little bit. If we truly had two 7 hitters and 2 8 hitters and no legitimate middle of the order hitter, then we would have a well below average offense, and we had an average offense last year. Ramirez and Soriano have been top 30 hitters each of the last 2 years. That at least deserves a #4 ranking for each even if it doesn't deserve a #3 (Ramirez more than Soriano). Fukudome is a #2. Lee is either a #2 or #4, but remember he has only showed a lack of power in 1 half of a season. Soto is a #6 or #7 depending on performance. DeRosa has been an average #6 hitter the last 2 years. Pie could be a #6, #7, or #8 depending on what he does this year (probably a 7 or 8). Theriot is a #8. I think we may be getting a little hung up on number designations. Ramirez and Soriano are like 5 hitters, because both have power but neither has any patience. An ideal #4 is going to OBP a lot close to .400 than either of these guys. But it doesn't mean neither could hit there (Ramirez much more so than Soriano) and have the team succeed. Lee has really only hit for great power in one year. Now that's he's recovered from the broken wrist, and shown to be back where he was most of his career, far away from an elite #3 type hitter (which he was in 2005, without question), he is an ideal 2. But it doesn't mean he can't hit 3 and have the team succeed. Part of the problem the Cubs have had in recent years, when their offense was, at its best, only average, is that they've rarely had an ideal hitter for any of their positions, aside from when Ramirez was hitting 5th, and Sosa/Lee were at their best hitting in the middle of the order. They've never had an ideal top of the order guy. They've always been missing either an ideal 3, 4, or 5 (or more than 1 of those), and they've even struggled finding "ideal" 6 hitters. Moises was never an ideal cleanup hitter, At their best they've always had guys a little out of ideal position. As long as you aren't saddled with black holes, you can still thrive as an offense on the whole without those ideal hitters. The bigger problem, of course, has just been the overall lack of OBP throughout the lineup, specifically the lack of willingness/ability to take walks. If they had more patient hitters, even if they weren't in their "ideal" spot, the offense as a whole would have been a heck of a lot better, and not just in the average years, but in the dysmal years as well. As things stand right now, this offense would rock with an ideal 3 or 4 hitter. Somebody who hit for average, OBP and power would allow them to do something like Soriano, Fukudome, Lee, Somebody, Ramirez, DeRosa, Soto, Pie (or if that somebody played CF, switch out Pie with Theriot), and really be a great offense. But they don't have that somebody, so they need to maximize what they do have and eliminate the black holes, and find a way to be a top 5 offense.

It was in the Vineline and the complete list will be in the Chicago Tribune sports section the Sunday prior to the convention. You all are excited to go and I am thrilled out of my mind not to go this year. It hasn't been the same since October 2003. The fans are different and it is oversold and packed with people. It has forced the players to hide from the fans rather than hang out in Kitty O'Sheas and talk at the end of each day's activities. Even the former players hide because the fans are different now. It used to be a lot of fun but not anymore to me. I can't imagine I would enjoy this thing. What do you mean about fans changing? Are they new fans who don't understand baseball, or are they fans that actually, like, expect the Cubs to win lots of baseball games and can't understand why they don't?

More seating is a good thing.

If it was just a rule 5 pickup it would have looked smart. But it involved trading away a very useful chip. A starting position player for a reliever is just not smart. You can't just couch it as the pursuit of pitching and therefore justify the pursuit no matter the price paid. Relievers are unreliable enough, minor league relievers are a whole different animal. Hinske was nothing special, but he put up some decent numbers during at his best.

As a non 40-man roster guy who is a long way away from ever making any money, and who seemingly turned his career around (if only a little) as a 19-year old in A ball, I could see Beane having interest. If Burke was overvalued, and therefore unattractive to Beane, because he was highly touted for physical tools and due money he probably wasn't worth at draft time, maybe now he's more properly valued. Now that he's just another low-paid prospect whose star has faded, Beane might find it attractive to get a guy like Burke thrown into a trade. Even if he doesn't envision him playing for the A's in the future, Beane knows Hendry is playing for 2008, while Oakland is not. Burke does nothing for the 2008/2009 Cubs, unless he's traded. If he's worth 35 cents, maybe Beane can get him for a quarter and trade him 2-3 years from now for a dollar.

I don't see them having interest in Veal, whose value lies in hope and promise, rather than accomplishment. Given how the Cubs seem so wishy-washy with Wuertz, who has done nothing but perform, I could see them being willing to move him (obviously with others) in the part of the package it would take to get Street. It would be a terribly innefficient use of resources, but that's what Hendry's Cubs are all about. You might as well get as much so-called assured production as you can get if you are going to run the team the way they've run it.

First off, I think you have to wonder who the Cubs have that he'd be interested in. What type of prospects do they have that have been putting up solid minor league numbers at age appropriate levels. I imagine Beane also would be looking for somebody who could throw him some solid innings in 2008, because while it's fine to go young and play for the future, you don't want to get into a situation where 8 or 9 guys are needed to fill out the rotation over the year. Guys like Gallagher, Hart, Marshall, Cedeno, Patterson and Wuertz might be of interest to Beane. I'm not sure Murton, who is a year off from making arbitration money, is somebody he would like, unless he feels he can turn around and trade Matt in a year for significantly more than he paid for him. Given how the Cubs seem to be undervaluing Murton, that may be possible. It's possible Beane could hold some value in a guy like Chirinos. What are Matt Craig and Jake Fox's status? Neither is a blue chipper, but both may be able to put up decent major league numbers for a bit of time (and therefore possibly increase their trade value down the line). Kevin Hart and Mark Holliman may be of interest. I also wonder if he'd have any interest in Kyler Burke.

http://www.winterjade.com/delectation/archives/delectation/102204.ppq.04-thumb.jpg or http://www.bunrab.com/dailyfeed/dailyfeed_images_jan-07/df07_01-08_steak.jpg

He may not have to. If the Cubs like what they see in ST, they could try and work out a deal with the Twins. It it comes down to that, hopefully we do a better job than the last time we were faced with this type of situation. IIRC, we ended up coughing up Eric Hinske to Billy Beane for a guy that ended up doing nothing for us. Didn't they trade Hinske for Cairo?

I doubt Billy Beane much cares what type of pitcher BA thinks a guy will be.

It seems to me like he was most interested in good prospects who were not going to be making arbitration money until a few years after the opening of the new stadium. He seemed to target guys who weren't necessarily "major league ready", which indicates to me he believes the market for major league ready prospects is overvalued. In other words, a B- prospect whom everybody believes can pitch in the majors next year may be valued at X. And he's going to make the major league minimum today, plus start his option/arbitration clocks. While a B+ prospect whom everybody believes is a year away may be valued at X-Y, so he'd rather take the slightly better guy who is a little further away and likely to cost significantly less over the next 4-5 years.

I don't understand the thinking behind not letting him hit #3 because he's new but letting him hit 2 or 4.

They are tanking 2008, and looking at back to back top 12 draft picks as they head to their new stadium. I wonder if the owners will have any interest in paying for that top talent, or if they are going to have to only go after signable guys.

You can't wait, but you aren't going anyway? What can't you wait for?

I'm more interested in the OBP and OPS+ anyway, which suggests the guy is very good and worthy of a 3 B prospects. None of those guys was close to contributing to the White Sox. It wasn't Pie, Soto and Gallagher. It's lower level pitching prospects and a bat that hasn't done much. I wouldn't mind (as long as the team stood a reasonable chance to contend now).

All well and good, but unless he's gonna break his arm and spend the season on the DL, picking him was pointless if he won't be effective for a few more years. If he spends the season on the DL, he'd just have to stick with the big league squad next season. If you can stash a player away on your roster and he turns into something good, I don't see how it's pointless. I think the point was the Cubs can't stash a guy who might become effective in a few years. Could be decent in a few years suggests he will suck in the meantime. Unless you don't mind losing 80-90 games, or have a great enough staff that one hack at the back isn't an issue, you can't really hide stiffs for a year. The guy has to be useful immediately, or get injured and then be useful immediately after that, in order for the Cubs to keep him.

For a while there, Hendry was on the same plan. Not to the level that St. Louis has in the last 2 years. In comparison, Hendry only dabbled in the rehab game. His preferred form of acquisition was the generic, overpay mediocre free agents thing.

Duncan likes his journeyman rehab projects.

are you serious? why? On one hand, the structure of MLB, combined with the financial advantage the Cubs have over the competition, should allow them to maintain a contending team year in and year out. On the other hand, the absurd contracts Jim Hendry has handed out could lead to serious trouble in a couple of years. I think they have a windown in 2008/2009, but I think they can reopen one right after that one closes, if the new owner hires smart people to run the baseball team.

It looks like Billy got some especially young guys without any service time, which I'm guessing he valued in part of this trade.

Nice get by White Sox. But I wonder what Oakland got in return. I have to guess Kenny had to give up a lot, desperate for major league caliber OF help. Oakland must be playing for 2010 and beyond right now.

As the VP of minor league personel (or something like that), I think he qualifies as an executive. And I'd say that would be meaningfuly. Not necessarily bad either.

If it's an executive, whose affiliation with the Cubs was due to Tribune ownership, I don't care. If it's somebody who matters in the baseball operations side, I do.

He already left once the Trib went private.

Yay, the more the merrier. Although I assume it'll be somebody like Crane Kenney going to greener pastures.