abuck1220

the problem is, i don't think the cubs can get a stud rf. and that's the only way i'd feel all right w/ pierre in center.

albuquerque's gonna have a pretty solid rotation.

i've heard other people say that, and i don't understand why. won't the slow grass keep his slap hits from getting through?

LOL. I'm sitting this one out. if by 'sitting out' you mean making 10 posts.

how are you not banned? Huh? I've seen the trolling accusation thrown out various times. I commended you. Ligthen up and be positive. yeah, that's what you did.

how are you not banned?

he didn't have an argument, so it's impossible for me to twist it. his 'argument' was 'you gotta take chances'. my argument was that you didn't...there are other CF on the market and the cubs have other leadoff possibilities. he hasn't came back w/ anything for that other than 'pierre could be good again'. i'm not comparing gonzalez to pierre, i was just making an argument like he did...w/ nothing backing it up other than 'you gotta take chances'.

If Pierre returns to a .360 OBP next year and steals at a 75 percent success rate -- is that acceptable? I'm not saying he will ... just wondering what you'd think about those numbers. say he does put up those #'s. it won't matter anyway because w/o good prospects to trade w/, the cubs are going to have jones, burnitz, wilson in rf, and the team will struggle to win 85 games. then pierre bolts for 7 year deal from the yankees and the cubs have nothing to show for trading 2-3 very good prospects. so no, that wouldn't be acceptable. Wait a second, if we give up Nolasco and Pinto, we won't have "good prospects" to trade for Bradley, Wilkerson (not necessarily that I want those two in RF, but it's very possible) Kearns or another RF? I guess I didn't realize Nolasco and Pinto were our only trading chips. they're not, but i don't know if pierre + kearns is going to be good enough to win the division. if you get pierre, you have to get an elite rf, in my opinion.

And what if it's .326 like it was last year? That's the chances you have to take. At least it's about .200 points better than Patterson right? ;) why is that a chance you have to take? that makes no sense. He's posted .378, .374, and .361 too. and a .332. what's your point? yeah, he could be a decent leadoff guy, but there are only a few one year rentals that i give up the top 3 minor league arms for -- and slappy mcgee ain't one of them. and unless you're finding a way to get dunn, abreu or manny (w/o your top minor league arms, who you traded for your dreamboat, once in a lifetime, 'prototypical leadoff guy, mind you), this team isn't going anywhere next year anyway. so what's the point in giving up the farm for a guy that can help you win 81 games instead of 79? Sorry you can't comprehend my point (taking chances). Pretty simple concept. This team isn't going anywhere next year?? That's a great attitude. gee, i hope the cubs can fight through my bad attitude to win the world series next year. i don't get your point because you don't have one. all you said, was, 'you have to take chances'. and i say, no you don't. you don't hav anything to back up your 'gotta take chances' claim. should the cubs trade hill, pinto, paw, pie, nolasco and everybody in the system for alex gonzalez? no? well, you gotta take chances, and that's the extent of my argument. i win.

If Pierre returns to a .360 OBP next year and steals at a 75 percent success rate -- is that acceptable? I'm not saying he will ... just wondering what you'd think about those numbers. say he does put up those #'s. it won't matter anyway because w/o good prospects to trade w/, the cubs are going to have jones, burnitz, wilson in rf, and the team will struggle to win 85 games. then pierre bolts for 7 year deal from the yankees and the cubs have nothing to show for trading 2-3 very good prospects. so no, that wouldn't be acceptable.

whose to say that pierre will be a cub in 07?

And what if it's .326 like it was last year? That's the chances you have to take. At least it's about .200 points better than Patterson right? ;) why is that a chance you have to take? that makes no sense. He's posted .378, .374, and .361 too. and a .332. what's your point? yeah, he could be a decent leadoff guy, but there are only a few one year rentals that i give up the top 3 minor league arms for -- and slappy mcgee ain't one of them. and unless you're finding a way to get dunn, abreu or manny (w/o your top minor league arms, who you traded for your dreamboat, once in a lifetime, 'prototypical leadoff guy, mind you), this team isn't going anywhere next year anyway. so what's the point in giving up the farm for a guy that can help you win 81 games instead of 79?

the cubs don't have to be beggars, that's the thing. walker would be just as capable as a leadoff guy next year, and he won't cost the cubs half the farm.

article about baker's trip to see bradley. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051206cubsbradley,1,7310414.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines

If the A's are offering Zito for Bradley, what should Hendry offer? the a's are offering zito for bradley?

And what if it's .326 like it was last year? That's the chances you have to take. At least it's about .200 points better than Patterson right? ;) why is that a chance you have to take? that makes no sense.

good lord, no. possibly our top three minor league arms for one year of a .680 OPS? if true, i have no faith in hendry. none.

i've probably seen hill the most here (at least in the past year, when it suddenly turned on for him), and he's got great stuff. it's really not fair to say that he has one pitch...his fb is pretty good too, especially when it's paired w/ that curve. that being said, there's no way i consider him to be untouchable...and i'd guess that i'm his biggest fan here. however...the way this offseason's going, i'm not getting too excited for next year. and i'm concerned about the cubs' ability to afford a staff full of high priced arms a few years from now, and it'd be nice to have a good, cheap option like hill around.

i'll take walker, his better offensive production and reasonable contract over renteria, his inferior offensive production and long term, big $ contract.

if hendry trades walker now, it wouldn't be in keeping w/ his 'trade guys at their lowest point' philosophy. he's just trying to drag walker's value down a bit for consistency's sake.

phillips says that prior is a bigger risk than burnett because burnett's had his problems 'fixed' and prior hasn't. dumbest thing ever said on cable tv?

get him, get him, get him.

i think it goes w/o saying that i'm hill's biggest fan here. but to say he's untouchable is crazy...especially when you just forked over 5 million bucks to glendon rusch to be in front of hill on the depth chart. and because i'm hill's biggest fan, i kinda want him traded. i'm just not sure that he'll ever get a chance here. hill for wilkerson. do it.

hill for wilkerson if all it takes is bush. and if it's swingmen they're after, the cubs can offer rusch. i love hill, and i want to see him get a chance to pitch. rfk would be perfect for him and his fly ball tendencies.

you gotta wonder how much hendry really wanted bradley after last offseason's purging of bad apples. it was kinf of a pipe dream.