davearm2

Again, I'm not opposed to trading any of them, especially if you're getting good young ML players back. (Although arguably at that point you have to ask what is the purpose.) What I'm opposed to is trading most of them in a series of 3-for-1 deals that leaves the Cubs with 15 prospects and no proven MLers. You say the Cubs have a crap on-field product now. Just wait and see what it looks like if this plan is followed. And I don't just mean in 2011. The fallout would very likely linger for many years.

Many of the players mentioned could be major contributors on the next contending Cubs team. That's one reason why. Another reason is because the firesale strategy usually fails. Bad teams that sell their good players for prospects tend to stay bad. The Cubs don't have many good players that will still be good when the Cubs are competitive again. Relievers are flighty enough, and someone like Marmol is a massive injury waiting to happen, so why hold on to him for 2-3 years of mediocre Cubs teams when teams who are in the hunt will be willing to pay big for a guy as effective as him even if it is just for immediate impact? Like it was pointed out, catchers don't have a terribly long shelf life, and Soto has already had injury and weight issues that are just going to pile up as he gets older. He's already near 30, so again, why keep him on for 2-3 years of mediocre Cubs baseball when someone with his skills will command a very good return for 3-4 years of being a very good offensive catcher he probably has in him? Why cling to someone like Byrd? Or Wells? Or Gorzelanny? Or Colvin? I'm not clinging to anyone, and I'd be fine trading any of the players you mention (particularly Marmol for the reasons you state). What I'm opposed to is the mindset that the Cubs ought to to trade as many of these guys as possible in some ill-fated rebuild plan.

Making guys available and listening to offers is a whole different thing than having an explicit intention to "deal Wells, Marmol, Byrd, Colvin and maybe even Soto."

Many of the players mentioned could be major contributors on the next contending Cubs team. That's one reason why. Another reason is because the firesale strategy usually fails. Bad teams that sell their good players for prospects tend to stay bad.

So I'm imagining high-level organizational meetings involving Ricketts, Hendry, Crane Kenney, etc. Do you think Ricketts opens this meeting with something like, "fellas, how are we going to win a World Series", or "fellas, how are we going to hoodwink our fans and get them to keep paying for a crap on-field product?"

You want to adopt the Pirate blueprint? Ugh. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but firesales rarely end well.

At this point Jeter needs the Yankees more than the Yankees need Jeter. The Yankees are still going to be the Yankees long after Jeter leaves or retires. Playing anywhere else, Jeter loses much of his mystique.

Huh? July would be their absolute last chance to trade him.

Understood. Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS. And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly. For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug: Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point. Sorry, but this is insane. Bradley a role player? The dude led the frickin league in OBP (.436) and OPS (.999) and received MVP votes the year before the Cubs got him. And that wasn't exactly an outlier year for him. He was damn good the year before that too (.402 OBP, .947 OPS). That type of player can't put a team over the top huh? Whatever dude. Dunn and Bradley profile differently as players, and the nature of the risk inherent in each guy is markedly different (Bradley is an oft-injured nutball; Rob laid out the red flags with Dunn), but the overall risk/reward equation is remarkably similar actually. Condemning the Cubs for the Bradley deal and then turning around and lobbying for Dunn @ 4/$56 is just sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple. Well, this is pretty hilarious. Are you Hendry's drinking buddy? Can we blame you for him thinking that was a smart big splash signing and for signing him for all the wrong reasons? Dunn's "red flags" is pretty funny, too. Amazing comparison you've got going here. You can make all the snide jokes and personal attacks you want, but the fact remains the thought process you're advocating here with Dunn is virtually the same as that the Cubs applied to Bradley two years ago. If you can't (or won't) see the parallels, that's on you.

Understood. Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS. And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly. For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug: Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point. Sorry, but this is insane. Bradley a role player? The dude led the frickin league in OBP (.436) and OPS (.999) and received MVP votes the year before the Cubs got him. And that wasn't exactly an outlier year for him. He was damn good the year before that too (.402 OBP, .947 OPS). That type of player can't put a team over the top huh? Whatever dude. Dunn and Bradley profile differently as players, and the nature of the risk inherent in each guy is markedly different (Bradley is an oft-injured nutball; Rob laid out the red flags with Dunn), but the overall risk/reward equation is remarkably similar actually. Condemning the Cubs for the Bradley deal and then turning around and lobbying for Dunn @ 4/$56 is just sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Understood. Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS. And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly. For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug:

If we were Adam Dunn away from being a dominant team that could win 90-95 and seriously challenge for the World Series, that'd be different. But with or without Dunn we're a borderline playoff team. Our chances of making the playoffs are better with him obviously, but the likely reward simply isn't worth the risk of having 1-2 years of bad Dunn + really bad Soriano. This is the rationale that seemed to be applied to the Milton Bradley signing. Just sayin' This is a really, really ridiculous take on this. The year before signing Milton Bradley, the Cubs had the best record in the NL, but a (perceived) weakness in the middle of the lineup that (allegedly) cost them in October. The "one player away from WS contender" mentality was in full effect that offseason. They saw Bradley as the missing piece, and so they went out on a limb to get him. So how is that so different than the bolded reasoning offered above? Or different at all?

If we were Adam Dunn away from being a dominant team that could win 90-95 and seriously challenge for the World Series, that'd be different. But with or without Dunn we're a borderline playoff team. Our chances of making the playoffs are better with him obviously, but the likely reward simply isn't worth the risk of having 1-2 years of bad Dunn + really bad Soriano. This is the rationale that seemed to be applied to the Milton Bradley signing. Just sayin'

I don't like the idea of signing a bad contract just to sign somebody. We do have a hole at first base, but giving out too many years and too much money to Dunn is not the answer. I'd much rather see us give a good contract to Nick Johnson and re-asses next year than to be saddled with another contract that could go bad for us while Soriano is still on the books. Amen. A prototype DH gets a big deal that's aggressive in both length and dollars, and yet somehow that's evidence that the Cubs are hopeless and the owner is clueless? Get a grip, folks.

Ellsbury looks like Carl Crawford minus about 40 SLG points.

:good: Such a mindless circumstance: 1. don't get picked off 2. any ball in play, hustle to 2b and stop on the bag 3. DON'T GET PICKED OFF

He is a bench player in that he has filled that role in the past. His play this past two seasons suggests he's more than that to the right teams. Yep I'm thinking of the Pirates, Orioles, Royals...

Amusing that this post came immediately after the one listing the Cubs' failed expensive "big name" hires. The Cubs provide a pretty compelling case study that spending on coaches is neither prudent nor successful.

They sell ham. Or more specifically, they pack ham before it's sold.

The team is "Nippon Ham". The team's nickname is "Fighters". Like Green Bay Packers.

DeWitt is an upgrade over Theriot. The key to whether the trade was good is how the two prospects develop. If they become good major leaguers, it was a good deal. If they flame out, it was a poor trade. And so far, as has been said, the Bradley for Silva deal has had good results. The trade may have been a bad idea, but it's worked out so far. not really. They've got a fat heartcase on their hands that can't be counted on for anything but almost has to be given a spot. The Cubs could have DFA'd Silva the day after the trade and still won to the tune of $5M saved. Whatever production they get from Silva on the field is just gravy. And last year they got some, for sure. Next year, who knows, but regardless they've clearly come out ahead.

Feel sorry for him why? He made his own bed. If he was satisfied with being great rather than obsessed with being the best (and specifically focused on one-upping Sosa and McGwire), his HOF ticket would've been guaranteed.

Holy hyperbole Batman! A guy taking that quantity of legal supplements would be in the ER daily.

I'll go with the one that's still active. Although I was tempted to say the one in NYC ;)

That doesn't fit Hendry's reputation at all. Pretty much universally, players have great things to say about him and how he treats/treated them.