davearm2

...and somewhere Mark Prior softly weeps.

I simply disagree with this. Trading Theriot is not the makings of a fire sale or a "sad sack" team. I understand that the Cubs are presenting the idea that they are a "win now" team, but the reality is that they're not a win now team. They're a "maybe we'll win if our old team doesn't have another off-year or gets hit with injuries and if this crappy division stays healthy." The reality is that the Cubs are not in any kind of situation where they NEED to keep Theriot because of the small margin of wins he might give them vs. a Barney/Blanco platoon. I agree, it would be helpful if Theriot could be part of a package that got the Cubs a player that could impact them since there is a a decent chance they could contend despite their halfassed construction, but it is in no way a necessity that trading Theriot would have to mean a return of a player who could be plugged into the team right away. The Cubs are at a crossroads with the contracts that are coming up this year and the next and I would not mind at all if Ricketts' rhetoric about building for the future meant that players like Theriot were moved for prospects. Look let's make this real simple. Do you think the Cubs have a legitimate chance to contend in 2010? Yes or no. If the answer is yes, then the notion of making a deal that costs you ~3 wins is just flat out ludicrous. If the answer is no, then a) you're more pessimistic than most, and b) Theriot should be well down the Cubs' trade "to-do" list.

If that's the way they looked at it, then they're dumber than I thought. You still have 2nd-5th round money to work with to sign that 1st round pick if that's the way you look at it, but more importantly, draft budget should never be something the Cubs worry about. Is this guy the best player? Yes. OK, draft him. End of discussion. They're not the Royals or Pirates. Perhaps. I think the thought process going in was that they were going to spend first-round money on Samardzija, but not have to draft him until the 5th. Say what you will about what their budget should be, but that plan had ramifications for what they could spend on their actual first-rounder. That, in turn, of course limited who they could select with the pick.

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that. Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road. However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now. This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless. How many games do you think Theriot is over Blanco/Barney? If I had to put a number on it, I'd say three. I agree that this whole debate is pointless because Hendry/Cubs are not going to trade Theriot. I do believe though that a player who probably is at the peek of his trade value right now should not be considered untouchable if at the most he worth is 3 wins this season. If good value can be had in a trade it should be considered. Theriot's not worth 3 wins at the most. The expected value I threw out is 3. Could be higher though. Anyway if they'd get a guy back in the deal that offsets the wins lost, then that's one thing. If it's just for prospects with zero impact in 2010, then that's something else. The former is obviously more plausible.

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that. Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road. However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now. This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless. How many games do you think Theriot is over Blanco/Barney? If I had to put a number on it, I'd say three.

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that. Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road. However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now. This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless.

I agree, but that wasn't the point. That was exactly what Nuts&Gum advocated.

Compared to what? If you think Castro would blow Blanco/Barney out of the water, then you're seriously overrating his abilities at this point in his career. Mojo's point is that in the scenario of trading Theriot for prospects there's still no need to call up Castro to play shortstop. Compared to Theriot. Look if Castro isn't ready, then you don't trade Theriot. It's that simple. This scenario that has Theriot traded, Castro left in the minors, and the starting SS job turned over to Blanco or Barney is just goofy for a team in the Cubs' position. Never going to happen, nor should it.

Giving Castro more time in the minors even if Theriot is traded is not the same thing as "fold[ing] up their tents." No, making Blanco or Barney your everyday SS is.

You'd have to make the argument, but it's completely bogus. He was overdrafted and has played almost exactly as expected for a physically good player with a horrible approach at the plate. This overdrafted stuff really misses the point. In 2006 the Cubs had picks in the 1st and 5th rounds, but none in the 2nd 3rd or 4th. So what they did was take their "first rounder" in the 5th (Samardzija), and they went with an extremely signable, below-slot pick in the 1st (Colvin) knowing that if they did it the other way, Colvin wouldn't have lasted to the 5th. Now if there was a better player that would've signed for the same $$$ Colvin took, then that's a discussion we can have. But the Cubs didn't necessarily take Colvin thinking he was the #13 player in that draft.

So if Castro tears the cover off the ball in AAA then you'd work him in as a utility IF?

This isn't remotely accurate. The Cubs got paid $5M (IIRC) to take Silva off of the Mariners' hands.

Well I suppose "great things" is a subjective term, but the folks running the team certainly are planning around fielding a contender this year. Suggesting the Cubs should just fold up their tents before things even get started is pessimistic in the extreme. Heck we're not Baltimore or KC here.

I bet they never thought about it that way.

I could never have done it without such a committed and diligent stalker as you, Tim.

I'm replying to a direct quote from your embedded post. How can you possibly deny saying it? (red goes with red, blue goes with blue in case you need the assistance of color coding to interpret) Red: check the context. The quote I was responding to from SSR: "Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff." That's called hyperbole, so I responded in kind. Blue: I've addressed. Bradley situation is unique inasmuch as the reason for the trade is behind-the-scenes stuff. Nowhere have I suggested that a blanket policy of not critiquing moves is appropriate. Red: so you admit you were just being pompous. fine Blue: Yes, you've sorta addressed it. But you're still treating it as an absolute, which is ridiculous and is what everyone is calling you on. LOL you certainly have a fascinating view of the world Tim. By your logic, about 98% of this board is pompous. I guess I fit right in. As for the topic at hand (Bradley), ridiculous would be to neglect to treat the situation as a special case, which is all I'm suggesting.

I'm replying to a direct quote from your embedded post. How can you possibly deny saying it? (red goes with red, blue goes with blue in case you need the assistance of color coding to interpret) Red: check the context. The quote I was responding to from SSR: "Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff." That's called hyperbole, so I responded in kind. Blue: I've addressed. Bradley situation is unique inasmuch as the reason for the trade is behind-the-scenes stuff. Nowhere have I suggested that a blanket policy of not critiquing moves is appropriate.

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation. I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley. Irony much? I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it. But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do. Show me where I said anything close to this. If I had, then your little rant would've been understandable. But as it is you've simply misconstrued what I've said. For someone that is accusing others about making inaccurate statements about your position, you really should re-read your first quoted post here. I've never, ever heard anyone here claim they "know everything about baseball" and every single person here would strongly say they don't. Also, based on what I remember you say about your background, you understand that people have to make decisions all the time with an incomplete set of information. To say that nobody has any business spouting off on what Hendry should or shouldn't have done with Bradley is to say that nobody should ever comment on any move made by any professional sports team they are a fan of since they don't have equivalent information. That is a completely ridiculous position to take. Also, as a quick aside, we do have a "clue" about what was going on in the clubhouse based on the reports from the media and quotes from Cubs players themselves. More nonsense that doesn't resemble any position I've staked. Hey if you want to rip on Hendry for the Aaron Miles fiasco, or for giving Soriano way too much money for way too many years, then knock yourselves out. In those situations, the statistics really do tell the story... or at least the majority of it. With Bradley, statistics had little or nothing to do with why he was traded. As we all know he was traded for off-the-field reasons. The gravity of those circumstances, the posters here (myself included) have no reliable way of judging.

Every Cubs fan I know in person (i.e. not people on this board) had the exact same thing to say about the Bradley/Silva trade: "I'm just glad he's gone." Most people don't want to think about the other stuff. They just don't really care, or want to be told why (I think) they should. Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff. Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation. I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley. Irony much? I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it. But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do. Show me where I said anything close to this. If I had, then your little rant would've been understandable. But as it is you've simply misconstrued what I've said.

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous. This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics. It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it. Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing. As I said, what we're discussing here can't be boiled down to statistics, as much as we may wish it could. "Not everything that counts, can be counted" -- Albert Einstein Let me ask you this. Can Jackie Robinson's impact on baseball be determined by statistics? So if the bad chemistry of Bradley isn't shown in the on-field performance, where is it on display? And why should I care? That's not what I said. The idea would be, the bad chemistry of Bradley impacts on-field performance in ways that can't be measured easily, if at all. That's obviously much different than there being no impact.

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous. This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics. It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it. Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing. As I said, what we're discussing here can't be boiled down to statistics, as much as we may wish it could. "Not everything that counts, can be counted" -- Albert Einstein Let me ask you this. Can Jackie Robinson's impact on baseball be determined by statistics?

Wrong. The Cubs can release Silva and come out millions ahead. And that may very well be what they do at the end of ST.

I disagree that almost all posters here realized Bradley had to go. The most vocal ones think he should have been kept, fences mended, suck it up guys, etc. Bradley for Silva is a bad, bad trade from a purely statistical perspective, sure, but it ignores all of the other factors in play. Which other GMs obviously didn't.

The Cubs rolled the dice on a high-risk, high-reward player, and lost. It's really that simple. It's open to debate whether the Cubs should have taken that gamble in the first place. What seems silly to me to debate is how the aftermath should have been handled, for the reasons I've stated already.

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous. This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics. It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.