TheDude

You're looking past the basics, which most fans won't do. Soriano did put-up 26 HR and 88 RBI in a bad line-up. You're average fan isn't going to look at a 26 HR guy as a PH only. The only regular DH in the AL that hit more than Soriano's 26 HR was Ortiz with 28. I think you could sell this bad contract swap to the fan base. Fenway might even steady off the decline as Soriano's warning track dead-pull power should yield some singles off the wall instead of outs.

It's not about who is ideal for Boston. By all current reports, some cleaning is going to take place in Boston. I'm not buying most of names reported, but Lackey is going to lynched if he stays in Boston. He is the one guy I buy into the Red Sox trying to move. They are just as screwed with Lackey as the Cubs are with Soriano when it comes to production, but even more when you add in the media and fans. This is purely is Bradley for Silva move for both teams and cross your fingers. I don't see any NL team doing a bad contract swap for Soriano.

Throughout all the GM threads there were numerous jokes about trading Soriano or other bad contracts to Boston. I'm asking the question seriously. With Ortiz a FA, the DH role is open in Boston. Presuming Cherington is promoted, would he and Theo work out a bad contract swap of Lackey for Soriano? The money and years are close to a wash and the Cubs would be better served with Lackey than Soriano. Are there other bad contract swaps out there anywhere?

No, I do not agree with Bob on that at all. Aramis and Sori have been whipping boys and targets when there are far better guys to go after on this team. Who is a better target? These are the highest priced veterans expected to lead the club. Accepting an elite salary brings with it higher expectations and more criticism for failure.

Soriano and Zambrano for Lackey, Crawford, and Epstein. (yes, I'm kidding)

I was really hoping things would have heated up today for Cubs news, but I don't see anything out there. Some rumors of Bobby V to Boston and Tito to the south side, but nothing Cubs related.

Just a meatball topic during what is sure to be the high point of miserable season for all of us. I used to think Alfonso Soriano was the most exciting 'active' hot streak player to watch in baseball. Like so many others, I want to bang my head into a wall and slam my hand in the blender every time he swings at pitch that bounces 6 inches in front of home plate. For 140 games a season, I loathe Soriano and his miserable plate discipline. But for that 10 game stretch twice each year where he suddenly develops patience and clubs a 2+ OPS with home runs every fifth at bat, there is no question it's awesome to watch. But Castro has eclipsed him for me personally. 13 hits the last 5 games. I don't even care that 11 of them are singles, it's 13 bloody hits in 23 at bats from 21 year old kid. Are you kidding me? He had a similar stretch early in the year when he was hitting around .400 and tearing Colorado apart. He has to be the purest natural hitter the Cubs have had since Grace. I desperately want this kid to get 200+ hits and lead the NL, even if it is a little bit empty on Slugging. Sure Juan Pierre did it, as a Cub even, but for some reason it feels like night and day. It's going to take a lot for any player to displace 'Annual August Sammy' in my heart for all-time hot streak hitters, but I'm all in when it comes to emotional investment into Castro. Anybody else have a favorite hot streak player, current or otherwise (Cub or otherwise)?

Exactly. There was no good reason to keep Pena, unless you somehow think you'll get a better return at the waiver deadline. ESPN is reporting that the Cubs motivation was that none of the offers for Pena were better than the compensation draft pick the Cubs would get should Pena sign elsewhere in the off-season.

I hear the Pirates are contending. Time to double-dip.

For me 'Wow' isn't cutting it anymore. This kid and his two-strike prowess is mind-blowing. Only 5 K's nearing 100 AB's at age 21. I feel like he has a shot at a hit every plate appearance, whereas with guys like Soriano and Byrd I just cringe and hope.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates. Incremental growth is fine if you actual consistently improve incrementally. But when you have the type of huge drop offs that Jim Hendry's Cubs have had, and don't already have impact bats or potential impact bats in the system, incremental growth is not useful. At least, it's not useful if the goal is to be really good instead of hoping to be mediocre enough. It's a cycle. The Cubs missed the window and are now suffering the back-end contract results, putting them on the down side of the cycle. Now is the window to implement incremental growth, looking for a 10-15 win improvement over a few off-seasons. It takes luck to get that kind of win turnaround in one season, with or without a Gonzalez type of acquisition. Also, if you don't have impact prospects, then there shouldn't be any fear trading them away. No doubt Tampa wants pitching for Garza, but if you can get them off the top pitching prospects and/or onto a non-impact bat prospect, then you lose nothing. Why am I not surprised that you would argue with a post that supports your argument to begin with? If analysis shows Garza is likely to be worth a 1-2 win improvement, we both pull the trigger.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

It's good to have Wood back in the fold...hmm, maybe that phrasing doesn't quite work.

I wonder if the Cubs think they have another Lilly in Garza.

He's obviously not going to get that much, but yeah, pass. Why? That takes him to age 36. He is a premier offensive and defensive player. Passing on contracts like this every time means you never get them, because someone will pay it.

Marmol blows my mind. He might be a manager's worst nightmare with the walks, but in 28 years of watching games he's the first pitcher I've ever seen that makes hitters routinely look uncomfortable to the point that they just have no clue. Analysts love to throw around "unhittable" when it doesn't apply, but Marmol is actually unhittable. Other guys have thrown pitches that make a guy look stupid (Wood's curve was awesome for that), but Marmol often gets away with a straight fastball down the middle because a hitter is so off-balance. In a lost season I've truly enjoyed watching Marshall to Marmol as a dominant 8/9.

Dunn in Wrigley is a reason to get excited about what looks to be an otherwise mediocre 2011. I think you go Dunn or save. I pray Hendry doesn't throw 10 million at a modest improvement over Lee.

Probably more a financial consideration for next year, since Lee is the only one of the big contracts ending. The only way to compete with all those hefty under-performing contracts is to fill the roster with cheap talent do some finger-crossing. Castro, Dewitt, and Colvin doesn't light the world on fire, but it does provide dirt cheap starter talent (with the hope of being better than replacement level).

Just want to add it's nice to see a several page discussion in one day again around here.

The Angels are skidding right now (2-8 last 10 games), but they may not have been 8.5 out when the proposal was made, so I don't think a comparison of today's standings is appropriate. The article just says in the last ten days this occurred. If it was a week ago, the Angels are right there and the scenario is different. Despite the number of games right now, the Angels are still trying to get back in it, and the Cubs are not. The mentality of the Angels is one of a winning team, while the Cubs are known to be selling Fukudome, Lee, Theriot, Zambrano, Lilly, Nady, and possibly more. The bottom line for me: by refusing the trade, Lee is showing that winning is not his first priority. If I'm a GM this off-season, I remember that when looking at veteran 1B.

I don't think it's that odd just because relievers are so unpredictable from season to season as group. If a guy is overpaid, it's likely because he has been a successful reliever for at least one season and a GM like Hendry rewarded his past success, expecting similar production going forward. If scouts like the pitcher and it doesn't cost the shopping team any real value in players or dollars, and there is a chance the guy returns to the form that earned him the salary to begin with, then it seems a reasonable gamble for a big market team.

Packaging Theriot and Lilly seems ideal. I don't know enough about the Tigers to know what a good, even, or poor return would look like however.

This is a deal Hendry should be working to conclusion. Castro is only the second position rookie in the Hendry era that hasn't had to fight for playing time. It's pretty clear Theriot's days as SS are done with the Cubs. With both Baker and Fontenot on the roster, Theriot is certainly expendable.

This is what is so ridiculous about analysts, even one as good as Neyer. They need to stop using immediate past performance as a future indicator. Baseball analysts need a crash course in put/call trending of the market to do their jobs. It's also convenient to throw out the injury year as a 2. For the rest of this season, Lee would be expected to regress to his mean (Neyer's 5/6), which would indicate a much stronger second half of the season and boost his trade value, not diminish it. I imagine last year after April Neyer's opinion would have been same. Yet he went from a 2 to 7 by season's end, using his charting. That means the team trading for him would have gotten all the good and none of the bad. Not sure why this year is different.

Marmol is the primary reason I watch the team this year. In 30 years of watching/playing baseball, I've never seen anyone like him.