TheDude

You're definitely on a whole different plane again. Why would this organization consider Marquis and Dempster as obvious trade bait? Perhaps the other players named could be trade considerations, but all of them are young enough to ride out the veteran contracts blocking full-time spots, and several of them are already prime candidates for the 25-man roster. Marquis and Dempster have definitive penciled-in slots and I'm not sure what leads you to believe otherwise. Also, none of the names on your list are imminent, flashing-light must-trade targets. Murton, Marshall, and Gallagher are probably the names other teams would be interested in, particularly teams with mid-market payrolls. All are worthy of shots at full-time spots, particularly for a mid-market team trying to compete on a budget. But they are not must-trade names, and the Cubs would be foolish as an organization to feel a burning need to move them now. Additionally, I cannot honestly believe you think most of the people on this board "downgrade" Cubs players and prospects in the context of trade worthiness. The reality is that board tends towards extremes without considering the middle. Players or prospects are most often deemed either untouchable, grossly inflated-value, or worthless, with the youth tending toward the former and the veterans tending toward the latter. These types of extremes puts a player like Murton into the gray around here, and you'll hear arguments for why he has great value or little value. Murton will probably fall into the Walker-syndrome hole of baseball value. But the bottom-line is that I don't see why you think "It is pretty obvious there have to be more moves coming." With no additional moves, the Cubs field the likely choice (along with the Brewers) to head analysts division winner lists. You could pencil in a starting lineup and 5-man rotation right now, with more certainty than most other organizations. I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that the Cubs should look for more improvements, particularly at SS, but it isn't obvious that another move is coming, and any trade made at this stage would be a marginal upgrade to the team.

You cannot choose to arbitrarily remove a season from a player's career to suit your argument, especially a recent year. If you want to minimize the impact of a 'career year' and still present a case, you should use three-year splits. Roberts three-year splits are still very impressive for a 2B: .296 .371 .452 .823 By comparison, DeRosa's three-year: .288 .359 .438 .797 Not a significant upgrade, but an upgrade.

Alright, fair enough. If this is true, really the biggest problem I had was giving up what I considered our best option for #5 starter in Marshall. I know Gallagher is liked in these circles, but he's still firmly a prospect. I really feel Marshall would be solid @ the 5. That said though, it's pretty clear with the Dempster announcement earlier in the offseason that the Cubs did not necessarily agree with that position, since they were set to slot Dempster in the rotation, which would presumably have left Marshall in the BP or @ Iowa. So I guess I'm left wondering why the Cubs soured on Marshall, when he seemed to me to be the one guy who did a halfway decent job in the role last year. You could look at it as souring on Marshall, particularly given his loss of job in August. But, if the rumors of dead-arm are true, then it might simply be a case of Hendry selling high on a guy who is MLB ready, but still somewhat green. People always knock Hendry for not selling high, but when a player is in a position to sell high, the Cubs fan in us promotes the guy to near-untouchable status, or seriously inflates his probable actual value. Roberts gives this team something it hasn't had in a long-time - a leadoff hitter with an OBP at .371 for his three-year split. People might want to compare this deal to the Pierre deal because of the number of players given up and contract remaining, but it's not even close. Roberts is a quality ballplayer.

When you take off the blue-tinted glasses it's a fair deal. I don't think anyone in the national media is going to look at this deal and say the Cubs overpaid.

Your definition of 'hard at work' is to propose yet another Greene thread?

I don't understand this argument. The back-up catcher plays every 5th game or so and is typically the last option pinch-hit AB off the bench. Even a strong hitting catcher won't be the first or even second pinch-hit option. In other words, the role's value is defined in the games he plays, not in his pinch-hit prospect. Would you really sacrifice 32 games of defensive performance for a few dozen (at most) extra PH opportunities?

Someone already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: put the article in context. It's about best OF arms of 2007 based on results. It's not about best arms in the OF amongst all active players based on scouting evaluations, historical numbers, or famous highlight reels prior to 2007.

After 82 pages, there is no 'new' position to this argument that can be revealed. Personally, in a vacuum where only player value is considered, I think it's a good deal. But we're not in a vacuum and the deal doesn't replace Theriot at SS. Still, it does represent an upgrade at everyday 2B in the most critical need OBP, allows for the possibility of a Roberts-Lee-Fukudome-Ramirez-Soriano-Soto 1-6 in the order, and makes DeRosa the best super-utility player in the NL. So I neither have an 'Ugh' reaction nor a jubilant response. If Roberts were a SS, I definitely would be excited though.

I wouldn't characterize it as everybody thinks is only a marginal upgrade. I believe it's likely to be fairly sizable. As you say, not as significant as replacing the glaring hole at SS with even average production, but valuable nonetheless. I'm not overly excited about Roberts, but I think he would be a very solid addition to the lineup. Pretty well sums it up. If Roberts was SS, this board would be exploding with excitement. He is the right target for Hendry (in terms of player value) at the wrong position.

I'm not enamored with the idea of acquiring another non-ace veteran starter at this point. I'd rather save money and let the youth battle it out. However, if the Cubs and Hendry are going to make such an acquisition, I see Lieber as an ideal choice. He is a solid choice for a *consistent* veteran pitching presence. Yes he gets hit and will give up his share of runs, but Lieber is not the type of pitcher that will give away games with senseless walks and random wildness. Lieber is a plug-and-play starting pitcher that makes the other team earn a win, which, besides Lilly and Maddux, this team hasn't seen in recent years. If the Cubs are going to acquire a veteran starter, that's the type of pitcher I prefer. The team doesn't need another in the line of Dempster, Clement, etc, i.e. the 'wildly effective' starters.

I actually think Lou will try out Lee in the 2-hole. Given his declining power numbers, but consistent zone and line-drive capability, he's ideally suited for it at this stage of his career. It also allows Lou to break up Lee and Ramirez. So my lineup looks like this: Soriano Lee Fukudome Ramirez Soto DeRosa Theriot Pie

It's hard to believe you would suppose to speak for 'intelligent organizations', but it's likely you're suspecting wrong. The 'ugly' steriods stigma is irrelevant, as these ballplayers are still getting market value deals and offers from more than one team. The age bell curve in a non-steriods, non-HGH environment is entirely relevant, and of great consideration in evaluation. The only catch at this point is baseball isn't HGH-free, so you couldn't rule that out of the analysis. Though I'd think Roberts a grade A moran to be on HGH right now. Renteria is unknown. If we can presume a non-drug environment, the top of that curve is age 27/28, and so getting the player closer to that apex matters. The drop-off into the early 30s is noticeable and significant. Only the 'freakish' players sustain productivity into the mid-30s and this is demonstrated over decades of data (it's also convenient to the model that many of the 90s/00s labeled 'freakish' guys are now under a cloud of drug suspicion, hinting that perhaps their longevity wasn't natural after all). It's not just conjecture or 'baseball wisdom', it's a straight-up bell curve. You have a point when it comes to position of value, but for whatever reason, by all appearances, Hendry is sold is on Theriot at SS, but not DeRosa everyday at 2B. So from his perspective, 2B is the position of need. I don't agree with the perspective necessarily, but through his goggles, your argument doesn't apply. And on top of that, Theriot will be age 28 for the 2008 season, and while he has never had numbers of note at any level, you'd expect those modest numbers to be at career highs next year, which might factor into Hendry's thinking.

Based on what? Did Pie ever win the AFL MVP? Fuld winning the AFL MVP is like a kid who's been held back twice dominating 8th grade basketball. Not even a remotely applicable analogy.

This observation doesn't hold. When you have a lot of range, you're going to have a lot more off-balanced throws, and correspondingly more errors. So you should expect more throwing errors from a wide-ranging SS. The observation should be: a percentage of the balls he will get to will result in errors, but the alternative without the range was a base hit, so you live with the extra couple of errors to get the base-hits-turned-into-outs from the extra range and accurate throws.

I saw this briefly on ESPN (might have been ESPN's news network), one analyst's take on how the Fukudome signing alters the field: Projected Cubs positional set-up: C - Soto 1B - Lee 2B - Soriano SS - Theriot 3B - Ramirez RF - Fukudome CF - Pie LF - Murton Anybody else catch this? It caught me by surprise because I haven't seen anything else to this effect anywhere.

Not sure I trust that near-career high .345 OBP from last year. If he projects at .730 OPS, it's an upgrade over Theriot certainly, but the transaction would slide right into Hendry's marginal upgrades throughout the lineup off-season approach.

In this sort of random, immeasurable argument, all you can do is cite examples of the opposite. Throwing numbers out doesn't matter when discussing casual observation alone. How about the game where he gave up 3 solo HRs in the first, then didn't give up a hit until he came out, I think in the 6th. In fact, from my recollections, Prior was always shaky in the first, and then sometimes untouchable after. You'd think someone mentally weak wouldn't handle consistent bad starts or shaky starts. A person like that would give up before righting.

I agree with most everything you said in the first 3 paragraphs. I don't necessarily agree with the 4th paragraph, however. He might want to win, just not with the Cubs. The relationship died a long time ago, IMO. It doesn't matter though. If Prior is truly upset over things like being labeled soft or sent to the minors, then he is letting petty concerns overcome a desire to win. The ugly years should be behind him. He should be motivated to play for a winning ball club, especially Chicago. The fans in Chicago would have embraced Prior more readily than fans elsewhere will in the future. The Chicago fans don't think he's nearly as soft as the rest of the world. I've taken so much crap from friends and co-workers over my 'this is the year Prior comes back' attitude. Everyone I know wouldn't wish Prior on their team for anything. If he thinks Chicago was tough, other big market teams with a yearly shot at winning are tougher, and he won't have the 2003-inherited Cub fan will behind him.

I really don't care how it got to this point, but it seems to me Prior took the low road in the end. It's not that money should buy character, even if the Cubs made him rich without playing, because players in this era rarely show a need to prove contract status or worth. But the next three years the Cubs project to be playoff contenders in a weak division. And the GM actively seeks to improve more, signing the best OF FA available. By forcing his way out, Prior now shows no desire to play for a winning team. So he's demonstrated he's not a team player and now he shows he doesn't want to win. From my pov, he's turning out to be a mercenary.

It wouldn't surprise. Hendry has a history of fondness for high stuff, wildly effective strikeout pitchers. Burnett has cut his walks and improved his K/BB and K/9 ratios since his early years, and would be a highly effective pitcher in the NL.

It's like playing the Nationals.

I'm definitely ready for this saga to be over. Sign him already Hendry!!!

Oh no you didn't. Please tell me you aren't referring to Cesar Izturis. Trolling for an argument? It should be pretty obvious I'm referring to the marquee Cubs like Lee and Ramirez.

Getting these players wouldn't be a step backwards. But, to finally address this problem 5 years later is rather pathetic. And, while it's all nice that they are talking about Roberts and Fukudome, neither has a Cub jersey of their very own quite yet. That he is still around to make these decisions is the biggest problem of all. You shouldn't get as many chances as he's been given. If they managed to finish with back to back .500 seasons for the second time under his leadership, he should get a lifetime contract. You know very well I never stated such a thing. I take a more moderate view rather than extremist and I get labeled a Hendry supporter. The majority of Hendry's mistakes have been minor, even if too numerous. He hasn't made any tragic, residual mistakes with the best talent in the system, like a Kazmir, and that's important. The parts he traded away, once the Cub-obsessed hyper-evaluation is removed, have been average major leaguers at best and non-factors at the majors at worst. He has brought in talent that is the current face of the team, with deals that seem like absolute highway robbery in retrospect. So I could give or take Hendry. You could do better, but you also could do a lot worse. If he wants to keep his job, he will need to pull the trigger on several of these good looking rumors without stripping the farm and the future of the franchise, and that's something he shown he can do. All that proved was that he was as bad a minor league coordinator as he has been a GM. That would be true if the Cubs never received any notable talent return. But they have, even all-stars. And that's noteworthy.

Getting these players wouldn't be a step backwards. But, to finally address this problem 5 years later is rather pathetic. And, while it's all nice that they are talking about Roberts and Fukudome, neither has a Cub jersey of their very own quite yet. That he is still around to make these decisions is the biggest problem of all. You shouldn't get as many chances as he's been given. If they managed to finish with back to back .500 seasons for the second time under his leadership, he should get a lifetime contract. You know very well I never stated such a thing. I take a more moderate view rather than extremist and I get labeled a Hendry supporter. The majority of Hendry's mistakes have been minor, even if too numerous. He hasn't made any tragic, residual mistakes with the best talent in the system, like a Kazmir, and that's important. The parts he traded away, once the Cub-obsessed hyper-evaluation is removed, have been average major leaguers at best and non-factors at the majors at worst. He has brought in talent that is the current face of the team, with deals that seem like absolute highway robbery in retrospect. So I could give or take Hendry. You could do better, but you also could do a lot worse. If he wants to keep his job, he will need to pull the trigger on several of these good looking rumors without stripping the farm and the future of the franchise, and that's something he shown he can do.