Brett

this. I missed this earlier. Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word. 50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated. That's a pretty condescending view of your potential viewers. It's not a matter of reading more than one word, it's remembering which Bleacher "random noun" site is completely worthless. Considering how meaningless either site is to any one person in the grand scheme of things, it's not wise to put the onus on the reader to remember which one is which if you want to build and solidify your brand. agreed. it sucks that you have to do it, but you have to do it. as terrible as bleacher report it, it's definitely a bigger name than you, and wishing people who know nothing of you would differentiate doesn't make it so. While I appreciate your thoughts (sincerely - this is giving me some valuable food for thought), I disagree - and definitely disagree that anything I said condescends potential readers (I'm criticizing anyone who reads "Bleacher Nation" as "Bleacher Report" when posted somewhere on the web - I don't think that's an unfair or condescending criticism. It's just a criticism). The naming overlap is unfortunate, but I deal with it as best I can, day by day - changing the site's name now would, in my best estimation, do more harm than good. If "Bleacher Report" were a Chicago Cubs blog, I'd be in 100% agreement.

this. I missed this earlier. Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word. 50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated. "Why should I change when he's the one who sucks?" I mean... yeah. Kind of.

this. I missed this earlier. Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word. 50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

Can't imagine Red Sox fans would be thrilled to learn that the "compensation" they're getting for Epstein isn't Castro or Garza or Jackson or McNutt or even Carpenter or Lake ... it's the upgrade from Sandy Alomar, Jr. to Dale Sveum! Hooray! The Sawx need to be able to sell the compensation thing in one of two ways to their fans (because that's the most important stakeholder in the whole thing - it's always been about PR): (1) look at this shiny prospect or two that we got! They're great!, or (2) Big bad Bud Selig screwed us out of a fair return, and this pretty good prospect is all we got. In my mind, the "letting the Red Sox get the manager of their choice" thing never made much sense. Cherington said it was a non-issue last evening anyway.

I'm shocked at the level of aversion to dealing Soto - a guy who will be 29, who has tremendous value as one of the few offensive catchers in baseball who can also catch a good game, who may not be here for the time period the Cubs will be competitive (or, will be in his 30s), and whom the Cubs can at least try to replace internally. Soto is just behind Marmol on my list of current players the Cubs whom, based on their actual value and theoretical replaceability internally, should strongly consider trading. It sounds like I'm in the minority on Soto.

I'm not sure I understand your point. All of those players are legitimate MLB talents with the possible exception of Jackson, who simply has not yet had the chance to prove he belongs. Are you suggesting that we've yet to find out if Castro is legit mlb talent? Or are you saying that we've yet to see if any of the other kids down on the farm are legit? As a semi-aside, I can't be the only one who wishes Barney's name would stop coming up in the same breath as Castro, Jackson, Cashner, etc. Barney could be a very nice 24th/25th man, but his upside (heck, his current-side) is nowhere near Castro/Jackson/Cashner. Barney is nowhere near Castro in value. Barney's value is that he is a very good defender and doesn't kill you at the plate. If he'd learn to work the count it would be a bonus, though. I think you're selling him a bit short on his value, but I'm also hoping he gets supplanted at the position by one of many up the middle prospects soon. I like him on the team, I like that he doesn't make any money, and, if the savings in green are spent elsewhere on the team, I can understand his value, even as a starter. But that said, after April, Barney was the worst hitting, full-time 2B starter in the NL (I believe second worst in MLB, though I'd have to go back and check), and was near the bottom of the league defensively (which, I know, is subject to debate). Maybe it was converting from SS to 2B, and maybe some of it was the knee injury. But, other than a couple of nice plays, I was not impressed with his range or decision-making. And, obviously, he was brutal at the dish.

Have you heard that about Martinez, or do you mean we aren't hearing much more on him right now? I still see his name pop up in speculated lists about the "next round" of interviews (with Hale and Alomar).

I'm not sure I understand your point. All of those players are legitimate MLB talents with the possible exception of Jackson, who simply has not yet had the chance to prove he belongs. Are you suggesting that we've yet to find out if Castro is legit mlb talent? Or are you saying that we've yet to see if any of the other kids down on the farm are legit? As a semi-aside, I can't be the only one who wishes Barney's name would stop coming up in the same breath as Castro, Jackson, Cashner, etc. Barney could be a very nice 24th/25th man, but his upside (heck, his current-side) is nowhere near Castro/Jackson/Cashner.

Which is almost certainly why you see the Cubs bringing in guys who've not had managerial experience before, and maybe even is among the (many) reasons why Sandberg was not considered. Theo and Jed want someone they can ... control is the wrong word ... work with.

He is a suit, and people hate suits. He's from the Tribune, and people hate the tribune. There have been Hendry supporters and Hendry bashers and throughout Cubs history opinion wavers on the baseball decision makers. But for at least as long as the tribune has been involved, people have used ownership as the primary target. Now only the real loony tunes are angry at Ricketts, so the only remaining suit to hate is Crane. Many in the media hate him for reasons that are rarely articulated. The most complete I've seen is this recent takedown from Sullivan: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-24/sports/ct-spt-1025-cubs-crane-kenney-chicago--20111025_1_ricketts-family-rickettses-cubs-owners An excerpt:

Epstein-Quade meeting transcript: TE: Hi, Mike. I'm interested in learning everything you have to offer about the team and how you ran things last year. MQ: Sounds good, Eppy. TE: Actually...I left something out in the hall. I'll be right back. MQ: Sure thing, Eppy. I'll just wait here. *7 hours later* MQ: Huh, I guess he's not coming back. *leaves* Both of those items are hilarious. Well done.

What is that publication? How do they claim his teams steal well when they were in the 65% range? A lot of that was in the 80's and early 90's. It's a different game now, so I'd be curious where he stands on that issue today. Yeah, I think it's a stretch to take too much away from his style - if it's even accurate - from 25 years ago in the low minors. But that said, I'd love to hear more about his present game philosophies.

"Swain," I believe. Which makes no sense.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/41007 Chris Carpenter eh? would have been totally fine with that. Kind of sounds like that will be the baseline then, no? If Cubs were OK with Carpenter, and Boston demanded more, it's hard to see Selig going lower than that, isn't it?

Lame x2. The picture made me smile, and I stand by it.

Any time a pitcher (or player, for that matter) hurts part X of his body while recovering from an injury to part Y, I'm slightly leery that part Y isn't completely and totally healed (and he is, thus, compensating, and hurt part X while doing so). I don't have any reason to believe that's the case with Cashner - he's had a clean bill of rotator cuff health for months now - but, still, I get a little nervous.

Yeah, if Ridling can be a decent bat off the bench in the bigs, I'd say it's been a successful development.

You sound just like Jim Hendry. Well, except for the self-awareness. (yeah, yeah, Jim Hendry nice guy, yeah yeah...)

Eh. A Corona with a lime may not be my favorite, but it does me just fine from time to time.

Dibs on the first Miami Heat photoshop. http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/chicago-cubs-front-office-dream-team.jpg

Not if it's someone who's been a Major League coach before. Sandberg doesn't yet have that on his resume, and it's a plausible distinction. I don't think there's any way Sandberg can come back as a coach. If the Cubs are going to bring him into the fold it's going to have to be as manager. Making him a coach or even a minor league manager is going to be putting undue pressure on whoever is hired as manager because the local media and meatball fans are going to be screaming for Sandberg every time the Cubs hit a rough patch. I agree, but that's a separate discussion. I was saying the fact that Sandberg hasn't yet been a big league coach theoretically gives Epstein/Hoyer a distinction to which to point, which would allow them to hire someone else who hasn't yet been a big league manager, like Martinez.

Not if it's someone who's been a Major League coach before. Sandberg doesn't yet have that on his resume, and it's a plausible distinction.

I hope he doesn't look at Hendry's old office and fly back to Boston :-$ Maybe the Triangle Building project will finally get underway, after all ...

Dibs on the first Miami Heat photoshop.

Hey, I made that picture! Hooray, I'm a published artist!