jersey cubs fan

Yeah, it would be worth it to me, but it doesn't mean he'd be worth his contract.

It's not even close. It's the same players that have combined to be barely an average NL lineup.

Not only did they complain about him possibly injuring himself. But they said Lou should have given Patterson or someone else an at-bat. Overall I like the Rockies announcers though! It was a very dangerous move by Lou. It wasn't about having fun. It was about sparing a short bench. They already have just 5 active players, and with Ramirez not playing, there are just 4, with 1 being a catcher. So that leaves 3 guys. I don't know why he couldn't let one of them play.

If every other team in baseball didn't put a claim in, I'd be shocked. I remember thinking a couple years ago he'd be an interesting target, but then I saw how old he was. He had a real late start to his career. It took a while for people to give him a shot. But you're right, even a small market team would have to claim him, because you could be getting a 105 or great OPS+ out of a $4m player next season.

No. He'll grind out an extension in no time.

He's a good baseball man.

He can produce in the 5 spot. It's a myth that he has only been able to hit at leadoff. He's a 5 hitter right now, and as he ages, and his legs get worse (two leg injuries already this year) it's only going to get more and more obvious.

the point of the thread is...ahh, nevermind. ](*,) My problem with the thread is... dark times? What's so dark about 'em?

That's pretty much what every team president/owner says just before firing the GM.

If he comes here, I'll be annoyed, if he stays here, I'll be pissed. Pods is exactly the type of player the Cubs need to avoid.

now would be a bad time to bump the thread where Tim talked about his concerns for Ramirez staying healthy throughout this current contract.

booze or detox

In God's name why? yes, please explain Because he's better than Jones and Floyd? I agree that he's overrated, but I'd still take him for the rest of this season. He's marginally better yes, but LLF wanted to offer up the farm for him. He's not Cabrera.

He looks like a pot head Focker. Can't imagine him turning himself in on that though. Maybe he's a glue sniffer.

Man, can't even begin to imagine the type of 3B Hendry might be looking at post deadline. Pedro Feliz?

If he is done, and if the Cubs fall short, this better not be used as a defense for Hendry in the offseason. Losing your star LF and 3B -- who've been the two most productive players on the team all season -- isn't a defense? It's not a "Get Out of All Criticism Free" Card. But of course it's a defense. This team wasn't very good with them. And that star LF didn't even come close to living up to his first year's contract.

If he is done, and if the Cubs fall short, this better not be used as a defense for Hendry in the offseason.

I can't imagine that the trib doesn't recognize the value that would be created by a successful 2007 for the Cubs team. In this case the bottom line is the projected sales price of the Cubs, and they would be idiots to only see an increase in expenses and miss the upside on the sales value of the franchise. Maybe I just answered my own question. I'm not sure the sale price would go any higher. I doubt it would actually.

Even to billionaires millions of dollars do matter. It's a negative to the bottom line. It all depends on ego too and why they purchased the team. Baseball isn't very profitable in the grand scheme of a billionaire buying a team compared to other potential ventures of similar cost. They won't lose money, but if their ego plays a role their profit margin can be reduced at the expense of competition and self-valuation (even a word?) You are totally missing the point. I'm saying that until the team is sold the bottom line does matter. After it's sold the new owner can spend all he wants... Not if that owner is running on ego, to someone who loves the sport of competition he might want the best team avail. Of course, Zell and them have to assume that is the minority and keeping lower expenses is what most want. I think you are talking about the new owners' ego. The issue is it all affects the bottom line of the current owners. Personally I'd think new owners would want to see the best team possible in 2007, becuase we've seen how much previous year's success affects the next seasons's attendance/ratings. But that's not what it's about. The trib probably doesn't feel the will get any financial benefit, or ego benefit, from spending more.

Eric Karros off Juan Acevedo. Sosa 61 and 62 for me.

According to the newspaper article (and Rotoworld), option 2 is not an option. Not sure if that's not how waivers work or not. The A's do have that option, but I think the newspaper is just assuming that Oakland won't give him away. There would really be no reason for them to do that. Other than saving a couple bucks, right. I assume that's what the paper meant as well.

Gotta be Cedeno Not if they want a backup SS on the roster. Patterson is the most redundent. They have 4 others capable of playing 2B and many others capable of playing LF. Does EPatt play Short? Also you forgot about DeRo, he plays short and I doubt you need more than one backup. DeRosa is not really a shortstop. I said he could play short. Well, you said "he plays short", not "could play". Sure, he could play in an emergency. But my guess is they'd prefer a legit backup SS.

For the long haul, I doubt it. For 2008, quite possibly. It probably depends on the timing of the sale, and how quickly they can get their own "baseball people" in line. There is a theory that McDonough is sitting pretty with the leading group. If they (Canning & Co.) buy, and keep him, there won't be a rush to overhaul the front office. They might give Jim the 2008 offseason to keep working, and then reevaluate in the spring/early season. I could see them cleaning house in November, or waiting to see what April/May looks like and either extending him or replace him. If the sale doesn't clear until January/February, then it might be too late to make a move for 2008.

Well now you're just being laughably irrational. Hendry just sat on his hands this past offseason, and made no effort to try and improve, figuring that he'd just fix things in July instead, huh? You'd be hard pressed to come up with something further from the truth than that. Of course I never said that but don't let that get in the way of your theory. Oh really? "He should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible." Aside from the fact that that's a useless throwaway line that is patently obvious and universally applicable to every GM in baseball, clearly implicit in it is that he didn't do enough in the offseason to improve the team. Of course the truth is that *the* story of baseball's offseason was the Cubs' top-to-bottom overhaul. Aside from the hiring of John McDonough as President, everything from the new manager and coaching staff, to the new LF, to the new pitchers, and on and on, was Hendry's doing. Nobody can deny that the makeover was extreme. Now if you want to argue that Hendry's plan or vision or whatever is flawed, then fine. Philosophically, you clearly see things differently than he does, as do many of us here. Just don't try and tell me that Hendry didn't do everything he could to go into 2007 with the best team *he* thought possible. That's just flat out absurd. I think what you meant to say was not, "he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible," but rather, "he should have done what I would've done." I think you are allowing your hatred for me to completely poison your ability to read what I wrote. I said "he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible and not just hoped he'd be able to fix it on the fly in July", you claim that means I accused him of sitting on his hands and made no effort to improve. I didn't say that, but believe what you want to believe. The point is people are making excuses for Jim about him having his hands tied in July. Hendry should have realized there'd be a good chance the budget would be in doubt by July, given the story at the time. Jim dug himself a hole, and he had to pull off a miracle to fix it. He didn't do enough. He had more than enough money, but he blew it on a barely above .500 team, and now come July he wants more and giving him a pass for not getting it from his bosses.

Possibly. But that's the whole point. You don't forgive a man for not getting anything in a trade on July 31 because of "unforeseen" circumstances when the whole reason why they needed improvements was because of how terrible he'd done his job the past 4 years.