davearm2

No, it did not "burn" the bullpen, completely or in any other way. Six guys were available to pitch the next day (Guzman Marmol Gregg Stevens Heilman Grabow). By your logic, any bullpen that does not have a full complement of all seven arms available every single day is "burned". Complete and utter nonsense.

Believe me, it's tedious. The fact is, folks should be praising Samardzija for saving the bullpen on Friday. Only because he ate 4 innings were the other 5 guys spared overuse. But he's one of the board's favorite whipping boys, so of course that credit isn't coming. signing bonus, ntc, gets shelled every time out... and you want me to praise him for pitching 4 innings in relief? it doesn't surprise me that you seemingly share the same man crushes as jim though, considering you're the biggest jim hendry apologist on the site. If you're going to rip a guy when he does poorly, then yes I do expect you to praise him when he does well. It's called being objective. Just because I have that capacity, doesn't mean I've got some "man crush". It just means I'm apparently more rational than you. As to the "completely burned our bullpen" comment: either you agree with that assessment, or you agree with me that it's complete nonsense. If it's the former, then you're going to have to do a helluva lot more to prove it than point out that our swing guy threw 63 pitches. If Marshall throwing 63 pitches truly does "completely burn our bullpen", then this team is in way more trouble than any of us thought. The whole premise is just laughable, frankly. If it's the latter, then your comment about Marshall is exactly what I called it: tedious nitpicking.

Believe me, it's tedious. The fact is, folks should be praising Samardzija for saving the bullpen on Friday. Only because he ate 4 innings were the other 5 guys spared overuse. But he's one of the board's favorite whipping boys, so of course that credit isn't coming.

Your tedious nitpicking is duly noted. The main point still stands. 5/7 of the bullpen should have been perfectly fine to pitch the following day, with a sixth arm (Stevens) arriving.

LOL seriously? They "burned" Samardzija... probably knowing that he'd be off until his start on Wednesday anyway. Two other guys had pretty standard one-inning appearances (Heilman, Grabow), and the entire backend got the night off (Guzman, Marmol, Gregg). i like how you leave out marshall So you believe having Marshall (a guy that most folks want to have starting anyway) throw 2 IP "completely burn(s) our bullpen"? Good luck with that argument.

LOL seriously? They "burned" Samardzija... probably knowing that he'd be off until his start on Wednesday anyway. Two other guys had pretty standard one-inning appearances (Heilman, Grabow), and the entire backend got the night off (Guzman, Marmol, Gregg).

An .850 OPS and plus defense isn't too shabby. Calling Rios an .850 OPS guy is mighty generous. He's hit that twice in 6 seasons (06 and 07). The other four, he's been .720, .702, .798, and this year .734.

I'd be curious to know if Miles was placed on waivers after the 7/31 deadline.

Hoffpauir sucks. The Cubs lived through a good deal of non-production out of Theriot before he justified the time. The Cubs absolutely can play wait and see with struggling kids. If they didn't make so many horrible mistakes with overpriced veterans they could do it more. They just choose not to. They choose not to play guys that are struggling, because they're trying to win. That goes for the kids and also the vets. In Piniella's time, plenty of older guys have fallen out of favor and gotten the boot too. This notion that there's a reluctance to play young players is just false, as my (partial) list reveals. What there is, is a a reluctance to play overmatched/struggling players that are hurting the team more than they're helping, no matter their age.

I do not understand this line of thinking. How are the Cubs not in a position where they can give guys a chance to develop into effective big league players? Where are you going to play them on a regular basis, in order for them to develop? Most of the year they have been languishing in AAA. The Pirates are configured to the point where they can take more luxuries with allowing them to go through growing pains without affecting the overall outcome of their season. In Hart's situation, he is headed back to the minors as soon as Lilly is off the DL. Ascanio had brief call ups, and didn't immediately impress Cubs brass, therefore relegating him to IA. With the Pirates, I presume he will be given a much longer leash. Just because the people who make the decisions for the Cubs haven't chosen not to try and make it work doesn't mean you can't make it work. Every team has to introduce young players to the team and let them develop. To insinuate that the Cubs aren't in a position to do that is just inaccurate. They absolutely can, they just choose not to. This is simply not true. The Cubs rely heavily on their young players -- Soto, Theriot, Marmol, Wells, Marshall, Fox, Hoffpauir, and on and on. The ones that produce, play. The ones that don't, eventually get moved because the Cubs don't have the luxury (if you can call it that) of playing wait-and-see if it's costing them ballgames.

I do not understand this line of thinking. How are the Cubs not in a position where they can give guys a chance to develop into effective big league players? This seems pretty obvious to see. Guys that are out of options but not fully developed to the point where they can be positive contributors to the bigleague club are not a good fit for a team that's trying to win now. The Cubs can't afford to give a (hypothetical) guy 30 starts if he's putting up a 6.00 ERA and 1.70 WHIP, even if they believe in a couple years he'll develop into a guy capable of giving them 30 starts of 4.00 ERA and 1.20 WHIP. It's just too damaging to this year's chances to contend. A team like the Pirates can, since this year they have no chance to contend. This was the story with Felix Pie, and possibly with Hart now, too. And now having said all that, I wonder why I bothered since I suspect you can grasp the thought process at work here just fine.

The whole point of that (now eliminated) rule is to save veteran players on multiyear deals from having to play several of those seasons someplace they don't want to be. I can't imagine it applies to guys that have a NTC and choose to waive it, as Peavy did.

Hendry's biggest flaw, IMO, is overpaying for middling relievers and bench players. I could definitely see Hendry extending Grabow to some kind of a 3 year deal worth 3+ mil per. I think he's actually learned his lesson with those after the Howry/Eyre fiasco. Not to mention that he would have a tough time finding the money to give to relievers for the next few years because of all the other bad contracts. But, I actually hope that's some other GM's problem, because it's time for Hendry to go. I don't think Hendry's learned a lesson so much as he's seen that as far as the bullpen goes, he can get ML production from guys in the system. I'd bet that if the guys coming up were crapping the bed with regularity, then he'd be right back out there on the FA market with his checkbook open.

I think he had better worry about making the playoffs first. Actually, the Cubs have needed another lefty in the bullpen since Cotts imploded. Gorzelanny and Marshall add a lot of depth to the starting rotation in case of injuries, poor performance, or team matchups. Also, don't forget the impact of this trade on the future. If Grabow doesn't meet expectations, he could net the Cubs 2 draft picks. Marshall and Gorzelanny could step right in as possible starters if Harden isn't resigned. Who's going to sign Grabow if they have to sacrifice 2 picks to get him? The better question is, why would the Cubs offer Grabow arbitration if he doesn't meet expectations?

I dunno. You gotta figure acquiring Hernandez would require a massive overpay. If someone in our division wants to be in the habit of making trades that are lopsided in the other team's favor, then let them, I say.

Yes, but that was on a minor league contract, so it wasn't an option. Now that he's been added to the 40-man roster he'd have to use an option to be sent down, and he doesn't have one. Therefore he'd have to clear waivers in order to be sent down.Honest question: do we need to be concerned that Blanco would be claimed on waivers? I know he's endeared himself to Cub fans, but is the rest of the league hot after a good glove/no hit utility IF?

What's the incentive for the Rockies to trade him? He's young, cheap and has a decent amount of potential (at least). The reason the Cubs took him in the Rule V is probably because the Rockies didn't want to part with him. Huh? The Rockies can't trade someone they don't have the rights to. The Rockies chose to part with Patton rather than commit a roster spot to him (or risk parting with him anyway, which is what happened).

Why go through that much trouble? Cant they just make a deal with the Rockies(or is it the Reds?) so they dont have to go through all that? I doubt hed cost too much in return. No, they can't just make a deal with the Rockies. Patton would have to be put through waivers first. Only if nobody claimed him would we have to cut a deal with the Rox to keep him.

And in fact I've read speculation that Sanchez would pass through waivers, meaning the other 29 teams wouldn't take him for free, either. (Now whether that speculation is actually correct is another matter.)

Of course this leaves open the possibility that assistant GMs from the two clubs had talks about Milton...

Well this seems easy enough: "Jim, any truth to the rumors that you're talking with Team X about Player Y?" Hendry: "No." Translation: No "Jim, any truth to the rumors that you're talking with Team X about Player Y?" Hendry: "We're always talking with other teams, looking to find ways to improve our ballclub." Translation: Yes Now if all someone has to do is pick up a telephone and call, then we're going to need your number, Jimbo. ;)

In one of the 43,928 Halladay rumors was a blurb that the Twins had inquired, only to be told by Toronto that they weren't on Halladay's list. So I think at this point Ricciardi and co. have a firm grasp on where Halladay would agree (or has agreed) to be traded.

The trade was trash for trash. It's not like Fields and Wise are anything special either. Right, thus my point. It's a weird trade that at this point doesn't look beneficial to either team. Kotday was DFA'd, so the BoSox were just trying to get anything for him My thought exactly. Now instead of paying Kotsay to play for whatever team he signs with after being released, the BoSox will pay him to play for the WS, and get Anderson essentially for nothing.

It shouldn't matter. You are either getting a good deal or a bad deal. What the fans know before or after a trade is made should have no bearing on whether the deal gets done or not. It's absolutely ridiculous. And if you really don't like it, do what others have suggested and keep the talks more private. Is it NSBB or GRB's fault that you had 75 some odd people in the war room listening to trade talks and now you don't know who leaked the info? I think not. But, if you really want to come off looking like an absolute idiot, be sure to let the whole world know that you canceled the deal for the sole reason that everyone already knew about it beforehand, and not because it wasn't going to help the team. :thumbsup: C'mon now. You're too bright to think that's what really happened. Like TT said, it's way more likely the deal didn't get done because Towers was asking for the sun and the moon, and finally Hendry told him to stick it.

Hendry has always hated seeing his guys' names revealed in trade rumors. This is nothing new.