Tarver

As long as were bringing up stupid Dusty quotes, this has to be one of my faves: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-04-14/sports/0604140148_1_juan-pierre-flair-cubs-fan Awful as he is, Dusty's been the most amusingly quotable character in baseball for years.

Why do people continue to bring up Bleacher Report? Seriously, it has as much credence or value as the comments section of a Yahoo or IMDB article.

That's all fine and good if that's what they're thinking. I just pray they're not buying into all this leadership BS.

If our new GMs 1st order of business is to give Carlos Pena a 3 year extension, I hate him already. I have no faith in a team with Carlos Pena unless he's batting 5th behind a legit major league 3-5 hitters unless we can somehow manage to sign CJ Wilson and trade for Felix Hernandez. Even then I don't want him. He's the epitome of bland mediocrity and offers no upside whatsoever. At least take a chance with someone else, the floor's not likely to be much lower and the ceiling would be higher.

Even thinking about Pena next year [expletive] sucks. I don't care about all his supposed leadership abilities or sparkling defense, he's nothing special and certainly not worth eight figures. If they're planning on this guy being back, we're obviously punting 2012 so I'd as soon trade for one of KC's glut of corner IF/OF types to try out for a year while we wait for Votto.

[expletive] em. They're mostly EX CUBS now

Kyle's face. Yours. What if the new GM thinks Cpatt is a cheap Carlos Beltran?

Didn't you say his secretary is your neighbor? Is she hot? She's cute I guess. I've only chatted with her about the Cubs a couple of times becuase I don't feel right obsessively stalking her for Cubs info. I will definitely talk to her about this though and try to get some dirt. Hendry mentioned her name in his press conference (Hayley) I'll bet she was able to call in a lot.

Didn't you say his secretary is your neighbor? Is she hot?

May the Cards hire you and give you carte blanche!

JESUS! It's finally happened. I've bitched about him for so long I don't know what I'm gonna do without him. I did experience an entire new emotion towards him while watching on CSN: Sympathy. He really seems like a stand-up guy, but after all these years he had become a monster to me. So long, JH.

Our long nightmare finally ends. Still, he should've been gone this time last year.

I'd rather have Berkman. Pena just doesn't have enough upside, unless he'll coming even cheaper next year.

Bruce thinks Hendry will return: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110818/sports/708189824/ He's been wrong before. Pray it happens again.

A few interesting points from Wittenmeyer: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7128572-417/carlos-zambrano-and-the-cubs-what-went-wrong.html Sheds a bit more light on some of the private problems the team was alluding to.

Technically, arguing the merits of anything on a message board is a waste of time. Doesn't stop all of us from doing that, though. And from your comments I took it that you were arguing in favor of getting rid of Z and I was questioning that reasoning. I've accepted that Z was a goner since saturday. My only argument has been that he left the FO in an untenable position, so as chic as it is blame them for every negative thing that's happened this year, this time they're in the clear. There's not a team in the league that would bring him back given the history.

This is exactly the reason why we should keep Z at this point. His value is probably right around 0 at this point, so the trade won't be made to make the team/organization better. It's a bad idea to give away an average starter with no real compensation in return, get no salary relief for him, and then try to fill his spot with options who likely will be worse than he is. Suspend him for the rest of the year if you want, but don't cut him - it's a bad business decision. I'd be perfectly fine with voiding Z's deal or watching him retire (though neither is going to happen) so that we could free up $18 million and go get 1-2 players who will be better in the clubhouse and on the field. However, since that's almost certainly not going to happen, it's a better decision for the Cubs to discipline Z this year, keep him around for next year and hope he pitches well enough to either help us win or trade him at the deadline (if we're out of it). The Cubs may well have decided he has to go no matter what, but that doesn't make it a good decision. And my original response was to you saying: "If you're continually insubordinate to management, if you're on probation and violate it, you'll be canned, at Hardees or wherever." The reason companies do this is because it's in the best interest of the organization to do it. However, in most of those companies, the employer can fire the employee with cause and not have to continue to pay the employee for not working. In the Cubs' case, however, cutting Z wouldn't be a disciplinary action because it's not discipline to tell a guy you're going to pay him for not working. Especially when Z can then turn around and make even more money than what the Cubs are paying him by signing a small deal with someone else. It's not in the best interest of the Cubs to cut Z, so it doesn't make sense to do it. Arguing the merits of retaining Z is a waste of time. All signs point to him leaving.

Based purely on age...to be completely honest I just see him as an elite player trying to age gracefully and win. What does that mean?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings110816/jim-thome-truly-real-caring-person You can't afford to have the clubhouse struggle when fighting for 70 wins. And leadership is so much more important at 1B than offense. If Ricketts has such a hard-on for the Bosox, hire a backup catcher to be the "leader" and be done with it.

But should the Cubs only hurt themselves by outright releasing Z or trading him without any real compensation? If they cut Z, they have to eat the entire $18 million and Z gets his entire paycheck. You're not hurting Z in any way by cutting him - on the contrary, you're giving him the opportunity to make even more money by cashing his check from the Cubs and going out to look for more work. In cutting Z, the only party that's hurt is the Cubs because they have no extra payroll space but have a new hole in the rotation to be filled. The only smart business decision for the Cubs at this point is to keep Z and let him pitch, unless they can find a way out of a decent portion of his contract. Working a trade for another [expletive] contract or getting as much relief as possible on the remaining deal is the best we can expect at this point. There's just no way he's coming back, unless the new FO rolls the dice on him again, which I doubt. It might make sense to some of us to keep him, but we don't have to deal with his BS everyday. The team wouldn't have pushed this as far as they have if they thought things could be reconciled.

Interesting note from Stark: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings110816/jim-thome-truly-real-caring-person

The only one that doesn't make me sick to my stomach is the Adam Dunn proposal. Sure, I'd prefer Fielder or Pujols, but if they don't plan on spending the money, I'd much prefer Dunn over Carlos Pena, despite Dunns 2011 numbers. A return to playing the field, the NL, and Wrigley Field could be just what the big guy needs, plus Z reportedly has a great relationship with Ozzie Guillen. You should be sick to your stomach already. All of those trades seem better than the alternative, which is to release Z. This thing is now beyond the kiss-and-make-up stage. I just can't see a silver lining here. Sure, miracles can happen, but what GM in his right mind is going to give us anything of value and/or pick up a good chunk of his salary? I don't think we release him and just outright eat all that money, but it's not like trading him is going to be a hell of a lot better. Of course there's no silver lining. It's all about damage minimization now. Some sort of trade is the path to achieving that. Releasing him maximizes the damage. [expletive] that. If the Cubs are paying him 18 mil next year, unless we get some good prospects or a decent big league player for him, he damn well better be pitching for us, whether he's a middle of the rotation starter or a middle reliever. I personally don't buy into the clubhouse cancer nonsense. As I've said before, whether you're a multi million dollar athlete or making minimum wage at Hardees, you're bound to work with guys you don't like, but there's no excuse for it to affect your performance at work. Getting along with teammates is secondary. If you're continually insubordinate to management, if you're on probation and violate it, you'll be canned, at Hardees or wherever.

Not surprised to see Holly's a "nation" guy. That phrase was lame the minute it originated with Boston ten years ago.

http://www.csnchicago.com/pages/video?PID=6cLLTB-vDUH8V_RF7Z6WilCpUBjBoPlnySTyN1U Holly looks a little flustered. And he said passion at least 80 times.

Was LoMo actually demoted for off the field stuff? I've heard a bunch saying it was performance. As to Ponson, I don't see how that's "close enough." One guy is breaking laws and putting other peoples lives in jeopardy... another guy doesn't get along well with others. But even that is further muddled when you consider that most people who get DUIs or beat their wives or any other number of awful transgressions get in significantly less trouble with their teams than Carlos Zambrano (or none at all). How you can see so many people get away with so much worse and not see the Cubs reaction as over the top is confusing to me. I've pointed out already that Z's numbers are fine(ish)... but I know Hendry probably isn't smart enough to realize that so I'll concede he probably would have handled it differently if he hadn't perceived Z's numbers to be so poor. He did physically assault two teammates on national television. His tendency to pull these antics in front of the customers hurts him as much as anything.