mookie
-
Posts
1,500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by mookie
-
I'd be interested to know what Hendry has anything to do with this. Other than, I guess, anybody who wants to win games soon must be pining away for him or something. I was reading a bit into your thought process for wanting close to major league ready talent for Garza. I was being a bit of a jerk, honestly. Sorry about that.
-
It's going to be really, really tough if the best you get for him is a better version of Travis Wood and a guy who's 2-3 years away from throwing a pitch in the majors (if he makes it at all). At least it is when the major league roster is this bad. That said, I've never even stated that we should not trade Garza. I've simply argued that if we trade him, we need to get a guy who has the upside to replace him and is close enough that there's some certainty that he can hit that ceiling. Right, and I understand where you are coming from now. I used to think you were just adamantly against trading him. I will echo others by saying it will be really hard, if not impossible, to get a close to major league ready upside player for one year of Garza. Actually, forgive me if you have already answered this, but how close to the majors is close enough for you to approve of a trade?
-
It is entirely possible to operate on parallel fronts by trading Garza.
-
that makes no sense Really, what part?
-
This system needs elite upside talent. I thought we all knew that our system was not so hot because it was full of major league average, or utility role type guys, but no elite/high upside prospects? If the Diamondbacks offer Bradley, which they won't, you take it, sign it, and print the presser as fast as you possibly can. Dew, were you a big Jim Hendry fan?
-
Go Jon Daniels, you dumbass.
-
Rangers call up Mike Olt
mookie replied to BCVM22's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I am guessing third? Michael Young has been pretty poopy thus far. Never mind, forgot about Beltre. Yeah, I don't know. -
What in the holy hell are you talking about? We have to wait for this season to be over to have an opinion on how good the team is? Where is the overreaction? The Cubs suck. The way things are going, on many fronts, it seems plainly obvious that the best we can hope for next season is to suck less. Yeah. Calmer than you are dude. Way to get all doom-town with months of reconstruction left before the first pitch is even thrown in 2013.
-
I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could. Maybe, although for 2013 the value of Vizcaino and Chapman might not be all that different than Maholm's 200 IP of 2 WAR. Considering how many of their trades have brought MLB or near MLB talent(Vizcaino, Wood, Rizzo, Delgado*, Stewart, Volstad), I'd want to see what the deal for Garza or Soriano looks like before taking it as a white flag. And even then, incremental improvements that are not enough yet is long ways away from Greenberg's "3 years away minimum, and maybe more" tone in the article. Regardless of the tone of some article, the Cubs have put themselves in a very difficult position to even pretend to try to win in 2013, and that's really all that matters. They are making this an unnecessarily long and painful process. Why do you guys still harp on and on about this being an unnecessarily long and painful process? The first season under their tenure isn't even over yet. There is so much over reaction on this board sometimes.
-
Better than what? Than this season's team.
-
I still truly believe the 2013 Cubs will be a better team record wise after all of the conversions have been executed.
-
Really, so a package centered around Bradley was offered from Arizona, you would say no simply because he is a little ways away? Garza isn't anywhere close to the stud this board has made him out to be at times. To land Bradley would be a coup.
-
No way did Arizona offer Bradley and we shot it down. Bradley is a gem of a prospect.
-
I would give it to Villanueva, but it is close because of proximity to the majors.
-
I'm pretty intrigued by Villanueva, but not to the point that I think we got good value if Hendricks was just a throw-in. If Villanueva was the only quality player we picked up, then this seems like a fairly poor trade. This a really good deal for the Cubs. I get that we lost out on Delgado, but his value isn't exactly crapping all over Villanueva's either. Let Delgado go. This is a win for the Cubs. The whole damn deadline has been a win for the organization. The only thing that went wrong was out of the FO's hands.
-
Yep, there it is. Don't care about him now. Still think Villanueva looks very intriguing. Considering Villaneuva is the reason this deal went down, who really cares about Hendricks?
-
Are you implying TJS has no bearing on a prospects value? Who cares about his value? It was a great trade, and a great gamble.
-
Solid deal. Interesting that Texas pulled the trigger for Dempster instead of Garza. I don't think that will help their cause come playoff time, but whatever. Adios Demp. It's been a tremendously mixed bag.
-
sonofabitch
-
Come on Diamondbacks, don't let me down.
-
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, this means we needed the extension for Garza, right?????? :beg:
-
dominoes
-
Gosh, I hope that is for Garza.
-
I agree. It seems like a pretty decent get for the Marlins.
-
Yeah, good luck Dodgers. Suck it [expletive].