wade

You'll still scare the crap out of me, though.

Oh no he didn't.

I'm looking for the green font, but not seeing it.

Half those guys will amount to nothing. Brett Wallace's 200 professional ABs really has you writing him in the lineup for the next 10 years? Daryl Jones? Jesse Todd? If you're only going to worry about what a guy did last season, what's Rasmus doing on there when he sucked out loud last year? LOL half of them wont amount to much. Yes, Pujols, Wainwright, Molina, Ankiel, Ludwick have done nothing yet. I cannot see them lasting. Yes, I'm confident that Wallace and Rasmus will be great. Jones, Todd, Garcia, I need to see more, I will give you that. However a core of Pujols, Wainwright, Wallace, Rasmus, Molina, Ankiel, Ludwick, Perez is very strong whether you want to admit it or not. I'll take the words of scouts who have Rasmus a top 10 prospect in the game, and Wallace a top 20-40 depending on who you ask (And a top 5 prospect on the hitting side) over a Cub fan hoping against hope that they fail. Reds youth core is very strong. The Cubs...not so much. But good luck with Soto. lol. You better hope Peavy gets you a title in the next 3 years, cause it's looking bad for the future. In 3 years the Cubs will probably have a 180 million dollar payroll and tens of millions coming off the books.

Wow, you guys are bitter.

Not if Dusty is still at the helm, they won't. He'll be gone by a couple of years. He'll be gone after this year if we suck again (which we will). And then I may worry about the Reds more.

While they both have value, Dunn still avoids making outs when he's not getting hits. That's key. Even if he's not driving in runs, he's giving the guys behind him a runner to drive in. Don't get me wrong, I think Bruce is going to be a very good hitter. His walk rate may even improve as he matures as a hitter. But even if he gets his OBP up to .330 while matching Dunn's slugging, .330 + .520 is less than .380 + .520. The Reds weren't very good at getting on base when Dunn was on the team. They're going to be even worse at it without him. Especially if their coach gets his way. It's an easy shot to make at Dusty, but he really does devalue one of the things that would make the Reds better offensively.

Nice. Also, a little contract insight: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090108&content_id=3736641&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc This is a good contract for the current economic state, but I wonder if Jim realizes that these backloaded contracts will kill him at some point. There's some opinion out there that backloaded contracts aren't that bad because the money isn't worth as much 3 years down the road, etc. I'm sure there are smarter posters that could explain that better.

There are instances where the talent given up is less if the club takes on a big salary, like what would make sense here. Still, I believe GMs still don't go totally taking advantage of said situation because they want to be seen as accomodating to other GMs for trades down the road. I think the trade could still happen, but the Cubs probably won't just make the Pads take crap just because the Pads' backs are against the wall.

Hendry probably wouldn't even offer a garbage package for Peavy even if he knew the Pads would have to take it. GMs usually try to keep things fair in case they ever want to trade again.

Guys, you can't make analogies with chocolate and whatnot- that stuff is under FDA scrutiny and they have to post that stuff just in case they have crap in there. GNC stuff is not regulated at all, and if you are an athlete nowadays you have to stay away, I guess. I would not be surprised if GNC had stuff with ephedra (sp?), etc. in it, but the company doesn't list it because it's not legal. They put that stuff in there with the crap that doesn't do diddly so it will at least work a little.

Disagree. It's the players responsibility to make sure what he's taking is legit. But if the supplement did not list an illegal substance and he did his due diligence prior to taking it, how is he supposed to know about it? That's the bad part about GNC and stuff like that- it's stuff that's not FDA approved, and they don't have the same guidelines about listing contents and whatnot. Most companies probably put stuff like that in there without listing it because it's probably the only thing in the product that actually gives any results.

Holy crap, I may have been right.

Is there any chance that the language in the contract has anything to do with Bradley's health? I know the Tigers had things put in for Pudge for sure, and maybe Maggs, where the club could opt out. BUT, those guys had a def. preexisting injury (back / knee), so that type of thing may not fly easily with the Player's Association in most cases. I guess games played bonuses are more likely.

Thanks for reminding me that I miss bob's keeper's posts.

He's not left handed. Duh.

11 posts up.

Failing miserably at his job, like usual. So, nothing in the long post above seems likely as an answer?

He's owed 106m ($17.7m per year). Yes, it is that bad of a deal, no he's not "very" productive and no, he's not "probably" going to have his best year as a Cub next year. There could be a market if they ate a big chunk, but I don't see the point in that. There are 150+ free agents still out on the market because nobody outside the Yankees is committing any money this offseason. How is Soriano not productive? And how do you know he's not going to have his best year as a Cub? If Soriano plays 140+ games he will no doubt have his best year as a Cub. That is a big "if" but its possible. Its just surprising how many people on this board jumped for joy when Soriano was signed, then get all geeked when he has a good game and goes on one of his hot streaks but then turn their back on him and say he's worthless when the season is over. So i'm guessing if soriano hits over .300 40hr 100+ RBIs with 20+SB .360OBP next yr that contract is till not good for you. Oh wait maybe you'll use the excuse that he's old at 32yrs old or past his prime, or maybe that he's just not good anymore. Does someone need to link in the old Soriano thread? Because the general reaction was very, very negative about the signing at that dollar amount, though many were hopeful that Soriano would provide good (but probably not great) offense for the first half of the contract. It also amazes me to see how often people fall into the trap of ascribing positions from many different people to "the board". I'm sorry would rather me listed the members on the board that said it one by one. Relax saying "the board" is only a term on the saying you specifically so calm down buddy. If I interpret what you wrote appropriately, you must not have been here when the deal went down. The majority were against the signing. He wasn't here then. He's only been a member since Nov. 2008. Probably best not to make blanket statements about the mood here at the time, then. I guess he could have been a lurker, but still, it's way off what was going down.

He's owed 106m ($17.7m per year). Yes, it is that bad of a deal, no he's not "very" productive and no, he's not "probably" going to have his best year as a Cub next year. There could be a market if they ate a big chunk, but I don't see the point in that. There are 150+ free agents still out on the market because nobody outside the Yankees is committing any money this offseason. How is Soriano not productive? And how do you know he's not going to have his best year as a Cub? If Soriano plays 140+ games he will no doubt have his best year as a Cub. That is a big "if" but its possible. Its just surprising how many people on this board jumped for joy when Soriano was signed, then get all geeked when he has a good game and goes on one of his hot streaks but then turn their back on him and say he's worthless when the season is over. So i'm guessing if soriano hits over .300 40hr 100+ RBIs with 20+SB .360OBP next yr that contract is till not good for you. Oh wait maybe you'll use the excuse that he's old at 32yrs old or past his prime, or maybe that he's just not good anymore. Does someone need to link in the old Soriano thread? Because the general reaction was very, very negative about the signing at that dollar amount, though many were hopeful that Soriano would provide good (but probably not great) offense for the first half of the contract. It also amazes me to see how often people fall into the trap of ascribing positions from many different people to "the board". I'm sorry would rather me listed the members on the board that said it one by one. Relax saying "the board" is only a term on the saying you specifically so calm down buddy. If I interpret what you wrote appropriately, you must not have been here when the deal went down. The majority were against the signing.

Is Dunn playing second base or something? Soriano.

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please. I;m not going to go through 11 pages and qutoe evrtyhing you've ignored. There are a ton of things that people have brought up that you haven't replied to. There will be like 10 posts in between yours and then you'll make one small post cherry picking a statement you want to reply too. Name one thing. If I'm truly purposely ignoring it because it's not easy or I can't speak against it, then I shouldn't be able to answer it right? Just pick one. You made a very good point, there's 11 pages of stuff here. Do you expect me to answer everybody here? This isn't even the best Cubs board I visit, so why would I spend that much time here? Why come here at all?

Reds hitters were awesome last year after failing to execute a Baker-ordered bunt! He has them do that just to loosen them up and let them hit a game winner down in the count.

I know homers don't count because I made the mistake of assuming that before as well.

Not to nitpick, but Peter Gammons specifically said that Nomar was his favorite to win the MVP in the NL right before the start of whatever year that was. Then Nomar started like 2 for 30 and tore his groin all to hell. Gammons also predicted an MVP for Bobby Crosby even after 2-3 years of total suckage. he doesn't count. He's still a person.