davearm2

"It's just one more season" is how the Cubs landed Soriano.

FWIW, I went to two of the Phillies games, and for both games I got tickets for ~ half of face value. Monday tickets I got on eBay the Thursday prior. Tuesday tickets I got same-day, using tix4cause.com.

No worries they're a contender next year

Jeff Baker's highest season OPS is .791 and his highest season WAR is 1.3. At the time of the trade, DeRosa's highest season OPS was .857 and his highest season WAR was 4.3. Both players had similar starts to their careers but DeRosa broke out with the Cubs and became a valuable everyday starter, whereas Baker is a valuable platoon guy. DeRosa's value at the time of the trade dwarfs any value Baker may ever have. I could agree with your argument about not cobbling together a mediocre team next year if we were looking at the Cubs signing Edwin Jackson, trading for Aubrey Huff and overpaying for Hiroki Kuroda. Those are all short term, low impact moves that rely on luck to win. What people on here are advocating, however, is that the Cubs go after Prince Fielder and C.J. Wilson, two of the best players in the league at their positions and guys who can help the Cubs win for the next 4-8 years by providing 5+ wins each potentially. These are long term, high impact moves that, like the Garza trade, will help the Cubs next year and long term. Signing those guys and holding on to players like Barney, Baker, and Dempster allows the Cubs to compete for 82-85+ wins next year, possibly make the playoffs, and then continue to improve the roster in 2013 and beyond. Building a consistent winner doesn't necessarily mean you have to be awful for at least one year and maybe more before getting better. We can keep the current core intact, sign a couple of long term, high impact guys to improve next year and then start filling the roster with more FA stars (Kemp perhaps) and minor leaguers to continue the improvement. All that sounds very reasonable, especially the part about the long-term, high impact moves. The Cubs will need that sort of boost just to get back to mediocre in the first year, IMO. I'd love to be wrong but that's how things look to me on paper. But refusing to trade any of the current guys in hopes that mediocre is good enough seems ill-conceived, for the very same reason that an Edwin Jackson or an Aubrey Huff isn't putting the Cubs over the top in 2012.

Jeff Baker will have modest value as a platoon/bench player on a Cubs team that has a ceiling of being mediocre. Then he'll be a free agent. If you can trade him for a lottery ticket like, say, Chris Archer or Michael Burgess, then I'd do it. Those types of guys at least have a shot at being difference-makers at some point in the future. He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut. As we speak the Cub would need a 20 or so win improvement to get to mediocre. I'd say I'm being generous. And Gorzelanny can bring back Burgess ++, DeRosa can bring back Archer ++, but yet it's asinine to think Baker could bring back a Archer/Burgess type and nothing else? Come on. Yes, the guy you yourself described as a bench/platoon player can bring back the same return as a LH starting pitcher and a starting 2B who can multiple positions. [G.O.B.]COME ON.[/G.O.B.] The Cubs made such a jump 5 years ago. You're also still seemingly hung up on the idea that a team winning less than 90 games isn't worth your time. The difference between Baker and the other two isn't nearly so great as you want to make it seem, but whatever. How about this. If the Cubs reach the postseason in 2012, I'll stop posting here. If they don't, you'll stop posting here. Deal?

Jeff Baker will have modest value as a platoon/bench player on a Cubs team that has a ceiling of being mediocre. Then he'll be a free agent. If you can trade him for a lottery ticket like, say, Chris Archer or Michael Burgess, then I'd do it. Those types of guys at least have a shot at being difference-makers at some point in the future. He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut. As we speak the Cub would need a 20 or so win improvement to get to mediocre. I'd say I'm being generous. And Gorzelanny can bring back Burgess ++, DeRosa can bring back Archer ++, but yet it's asinine to think Baker could bring back a Archer/Burgess type and nothing else? Come on.

Jeff Baker will have modest value as a platoon/bench player on a Cubs team that has a ceiling of being mediocre. Then he'll be a free agent. If you can trade him for a lottery ticket like, say, Chris Archer or Michael Burgess, then I'd do it. Those types of guys at least have a shot at being difference-makers at some point in the future.

Al Albuquerque would be fine with me.

Well as I've said already, I don't think the Cubs' focus should be on cobbling together an 82-85 win team, if everything goes right, and hope that's good enough in the NLC. That's what you're advocating. What I'm advocating is, do what it takes to build a 90+ win team, even if that means taking a small step back in 2012. So the question is a fairly basic one. Look at every name on that list, and ask yourself whether you can imagine that player being a significant contributor (starter) on the Cubs' next 90+ win team. Barney, Baker -- will never be significant, but could be useful as bench pieces. Dempster, Marshall, Byrd, Z, Ramirez -- would have to be re-signed to extensions, since 90+ wins isn't happening in 2012. If you don't want to commit the years and/or dollars needed to keep these guys beyond 2012, then the prudent thing to do is to trade them, provided of course that decent offers are out there. So don't trade them just to trade them, but also don't be making them untouchable either (which Hendry appears to be doing, and you are supporting) in hopes of competing in 2012 with a mediocre team. Aim higher than that.

Interesting that so many folks want the Cubs a) to sell high, and b) not spend $$$ on middle relievers since their production tends to be volatile. Yet trading Marshall is off-limits.

Soft-tossing middle reliever. As good as he is, the Cubs aren't likely to get enough of a return because he isn't a proven closer to justify trading him. In short you're proposing trading him just for the sake of trading him. If the ideal deal is out there, but again, there's zero reason for the Cubs to be in fire sale mode. As bad as they are they can easily compete again next year, and trading Byrd likely leaves a very large hole in the OF that can't be filled until 2012 since Fukudome will also be gone and potentially you're going to have to deal with a useless Soriano. See Marshall. A useful player, but ultimately too limited (in this case by actually ability, or the lack thereof when it comes to hitting righties, as opposed to lack of a reputation). No reason not to trade him if the right deal is there...but it's very unlikely to be there. Give the Cubs' questions at 2B and potentially at 3B he likely holds much more value on the team than via a low-level trade. Wait, what? I was probably the biggest Barney basher here, but he's turned out to be useful, young and cheap. Why ship him off when he's all of those things and the Cubs have no obvious answer at 2B? A Baker/Barney platoon at 2B next year has the very real shot of being very productive AND cost-effective. You'd be creating another hole in the rotation. Cashner and Wells both have big question marks right now, so subtracting a good pitcher from the rotation without an obvious replacement isn't a good idea. Yes, there's McNutt, but as we've seen this year you don't go shedding your pitching options just because you can. Besides, Dempster's player's option and his price tag likely preclude the Cubs getting a decent return short of them picking up too much of the tab. All of the guys I mentioned are fairly easily replaced with internal options. The one that isn't (Dempster) would free up money to get a great (and younger) replacement through free agency. Baker and Barney = DeWitt, LeMahieu, Flaherty Marshall = Russell and the other lefties in AAA Byrd = Jackson Dempster = CJ Wilson for example I don't want these guys traded just for the sake of trading them, and it should go without saying that if decent offers aren't out there, then you hold. But what we're hearing is that Hendry is making none of these guys available. Who knows if that really is true, but if so, I disagree with the approach. Specifically, I don't want the focus to be on cobbling together a mediocre team that might win a crappy division with a little luck. The focus should be on building a team that can dominate any division (short of the ALE), even if it takes more than a year to accomplish and involves some far-sighted trades that create a mini-youth movement in 2012.

Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Signing a 28 year old first baseman who's one of the best hitters in the game and a 31 year old pitcher who has less mileage on his arm than the vast majority of 30+ guys is building a longterm contender. Pick up those two fill in young stars like Castro and Soto and solid young players like Jackson, McNutt, Szczur, Whitenack, etc., coming up and you have the makings of an extremely good team going forward long term. And at the same time adding Fielder and Wilson gives us the tools to be competitive next year as well. Tearing the current team apart and eliminating any chance of contending for 2-3 years is pointless for a team that can win as soon as next year, while at the same time bringing in the pieces to be serious contenders long term. I'm in favor of the Cubs paying out for an elite free agent or two, since as you mentioned, those are longterm propositions. I still don't like their chances in 2012 though. That's why I don't agree with making the guys with one year left untouchable, if there are solid offers out there. Ramirez made Ramirez untouchable. If he's in next years plans, I'm OK with that. Forget Ramirez then. He's just one of several in this situation. Marshall Byrd Baker Barney Dempster etc.

Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Signing a 28 year old first baseman who's one of the best hitters in the game and a 31 year old pitcher who has less mileage on his arm than the vast majority of 30+ guys is building a longterm contender. Pick up those two fill in young stars like Castro and Soto and solid young players like Jackson, McNutt, Szczur, Whitenack, etc., coming up and you have the makings of an extremely good team going forward long term. And at the same time adding Fielder and Wilson gives us the tools to be competitive next year as well. Tearing the current team apart and eliminating any chance of contending for 2-3 years is pointless for a team that can win as soon as next year, while at the same time bringing in the pieces to be serious contenders long term. I'm in favor of the Cubs paying out for an elite free agent or two, since as you mentioned, those are longterm propositions. I still don't like their chances in 2012 though. That's why I don't agree with making the guys with one year left untouchable, if there are solid offers out there.

So sign the 28 year old Fielder. The point is we can have that kind of superstar player again if we're willing to pay them and a combo of Fielder/Wilson without giving away Zambrano makes this team a contender in a really horrid division. It should tell you something about where this team is, when the strongest argument in favor of the Cubs potentially contending next year is that they play in a really horrid division. You never hear "well the Cubs' pitching is terrific" or "the heart of the order is killer" or "look at all the young players entering their prime". It's always, "they might suck less than everyone else". How about focusing on building a team that can contend in any division, even if the process takes more than a year and involves trading a Marshall or a Ramirez for pieces that will be more valuable in the longterm.

I prefer games that don't involve Hawk being within five miles of a microphone. I prefer games that don't involve the White Sox.

This would be really dumb. Probably so, but just the same, the term stale pretty much nails it IMO. This core of players has tried, and failed. By now, building around a different core sounds pretty appealing.

This is so stupid. Hendry had been here for a decade of disappointment. Not two years. This organization has performed as poorly as possible given the resources spent. Soriano sucks and is overpaid today, not jus two year from now. Hendry has been horrible and keeping him is a stupid idea. "Decade of disappointment"? I agree Hendry needs to go, but the Cubs' last decade has been the most successful one in any of our lifetimes.

I've seen Lou Montanez listed as one of the guys the Cubs take instead. Which ignores that he fits the mold laid out in the OP pretty darn well (once highly-rated flameout that's still relatively young). So in the end it's all hindsight.

Neither was written to be stupid. They're written to be whimsical. You're the one equating whimsical with stupid. Which in turn makes you come off as stuffy and a killjoy. HTH

Some people here are really good at zinging me. They're often creative, hilarious, and/or scathing. You're not one of those people, FYI. In fact seeing you trying to slam me is kinda like watching Soriano whiff at a slider in the dirt: so pathetic it's funny.

Haha yes if you're looking down your nose at folks goofing around and having fun at a wedding, then you're stuffy. My advice would be, next time stay home and replay William and Kate on the DVR, and pretend you're royalty too. Or better yet, move to England and become a cricket fan. You couldn't have missed the point any more than you did Is that my fault or yours? It seems like you're probably being critical of both Go Cubs Go and the Chicken Dance. But it's far from clear from your post.

Haha yes if you're looking down your nose at folks goofing around and having fun at a wedding, then you're stuffy. My advice would be, next time stay home and replay William and Kate on the DVR, and pretend you're royalty too. Or better yet, move to England and become a cricket fan.

Pie may be the worst-case scenario, but the larger point is you suffer through a whole lot of Felix Pie's before you stumble into a gem. Most flameouts stayed flamed-out.

The people complaining about "Go Cubs Go" being cheesy and terrible or whatever clearly don't get it. It was never meant to be some complex and brilliant timeless masterpiece, people. It was meant to be whimsical and fun and, yes, even cheesy. Mission accomplished. If you're too stuffy and bourgeois to enjoy something so uncultured for what it is, then what are you doing at a baseball game in the first place. Go to the opera or the art institute instead.

That's great that his defense is more than fine. The point is, it could be much better than fine simply with more effort. Imagine a guy is hitting .300 without watching a second of video, but could boost that up to .330 if he spent 30 minutes a day studying pitchers. Are you going to be satisfied with the .300, since that's more than fine too? That's a faulty point and comparison. The "more effort part" you want in the field is likely going to impact his defense negatively since he has limited ability as an OF. Having a 35-year-old non-OF who is wary about injuring his legs again bust his ass and try to make trickier catchers on the fly or diving and leaping for balls isn't going to end well. I don't know why you think it's as a simple as "he just needs to try harder," because it's not. The "more effort" you want is going to reduce his defensive ability because it's going to increase and further expose the flaws in his defensive game. Your theory that trying harder and playing at something closer to full speed would somehow make Soriano worse in the field sounds bat[expletive] crazy. But apparently that's just me.