UK1679666180

The Cubs or Colorado? For the Cubs, you trade Jones and you're left with? Colorado needs a CF'er more than anything, Sullivan is a 4th OF'er starting for the Rockies.

If either LA didn't panic for CF'ers, both would have made likely good match partners for Baldelli.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/04/Rays/Salary_boom_win_win_f.shtml More than what the Cubs have to offer....

How is that? Jones is the centerpiece of the deal, not Marmol. Marmol has the value of a young, strong armed, & lacks control reliever. Replacing Jones will be more difficult than replacing Marmol. This is where I wish the Cubs would've let Soriano run the risk of becoming injured for the chance to play CF in Winter Ball (assuming that was an option on the team that he would've played on). The signing of Soriano becomes reduced if Soriano replaces Jones and whichever CF'er they signed replaces Pierre. Or if they stick Soriano in CF, they still have to sign someone in the mold Trot Nixon, Cliff Floyd who will likely be a downgrade to Jones especially from a health standpoint. The Cubs need another LH'ed bat in the line-up and they can never have enough pop. That is before Jones would be traded. If they can't trade an area of surplus for an area of need they shouldn't be trading. They definitely shouldn't be replacing one area of need for another, especially when there is more pitching avail. via FA rather than productive and healthy LH'ed hitting OF'ers.

Wells would be an ideal fit for the Sox and if would one of the their expendable top OF prospects as well as an expendable starting pitcher, it has the makings to help out both teams. If I was a Sox fan, I would be thrilled for the rumors of Wells on the Southside.

That walk from the Beloit Snappers locker room to the field will be filled with many autograph seekers for him.

My top 5 Rule 5 would be... Jamie D'Antonia(would like to see on the Cubs, 1B/3B RH'ed with pop)(AZ) Dan Smith (LHP)(ATL) Adam Boeve (OF)(PIT) Ryan Raburn (2B/OF)(DET) Ambiorix Concepcion (OF)(NYM)

http://www.gothambaseball.com/news/1165257764.php

http://ukathletics.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_article_id=18972&change_well_id=2 Heck of a kid you coached there, never seen him pitch but to be with that group is a heck of an accomplishment.

His strengths and more importantly his weaknesses probably don't fit well into Hendry's philosophy especially at whatever cost it would be to acquire him and then try and lock him long-term.

My powers are greater than Modzilla's even on a bad day.

A platoon is not a weakness. A platoon is a necessity to counteract the weakness of individual players. A platoon is how you make the most of a less than ideal situation. This is like saying "studying hard is a weakness" if a student doesn't just immediately absord everything he is taught. It is a wekness becuase a team is paying two guy to play one positon. And one guy to come off the bench. It's not as if they're paying two salaries worth the going rate of two starters. Jones and a platoon partner would be pretty productive and cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Didn't the Cardinals more or less use a platoon? The Mets went into the season with a plan to platoon both corner OF spots, and ended up adding 2B to the mix. The Dodgers basically platooned a couple positions throughout the season. Very few teams have 8 guys plan the vast majority of the games at their position, AL or NL. Your stance on this issue makes less and less sense the more I read it. I just don't get it. A platoon is a weakness. The fact that this team or that team uses one is irrelevent. Sometimes the weakness can be overcome becuase of the overall strength of the team. Nevertheless, a platoon makes more sense in the AL becuase a team doesn't use it's bench as often. However, a platoon is better than just playing a crappy player in certian situations. But why would a team want to plan for that situation? What I mean is, why would the Cubs get JJ and pay him the amount of money they have if to be a part time player. Now that doesn't make sense. The avail. of players often dictates whether or not you have to use a platoon to maximize production. If you have a huge hole if RF like the Cubs did before signing Jacque Jones as well as other big holes (the Cubs needed a CF, RF, SS, bullpen, and SP heading into '06), you might not be able to ink a player who's production is good enough vs. both to merit not going with a split to get the most out of it. Of course, a LH'ed part-time player can have significant playing time and in the case of Jones, well worth his current salary.

I'd be more worried counting on Miller than Hill, even with Lilly there are too many questions with the rotation until they add another starter. If you have two spots to be filled between Prior, Guzman, Miller, and everyone else that's one spot too many.

So what does everyone think about Lilly? Isn't he a bit of a mismatch for Wrigley, being a flyball pitcher and all? Maybe I'm not seeing it right. Should be an upgrade regardless, albeit an expensive one. He's ok enough to be a middle of the rotation starter on a decent staff, bad enough to be a btm of the rotation starter on a good staff, and good enough to be a top 2 starter on a bad staff.

When has Gallagher pitched for the Cubs?

http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/tb/y2004/m02/d25/c641479.jsp Here's Piniella on platoon situations back when he was in TB. Personally, I like platoons and especially if a staff is going to keep 12 pitchers it is wise to have least 2 bench players with the production to start on many lesser clubs. I think someone such as Preston Wilson as a 4th OF'er could play CF and platoon with Jacque Jones vs. LH'ers and still plenty of ABs and provide value. Maybe go after someone like Huff as well to play LF/RF/3B/1B and he could possibly platoon with Murton and fill in the area previously mentioned. It'd be expensive and take away from the potential pitching funds, but could be done properly and not take away production from the rotation.

He did, he said it's impossible for them to determine which one loss team deserves to go over another. He predicts there will be a playoff system.

Isn't he close to signing an extension with Arizona? I thought I read that somewhere. Byrnes was upset that AZ did not want to offer a multi year deal and will likely go to arbitration. He does want to say w/the D-Backs, but they have younger, better, and cheaper options in the OF.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=MLB&id=3105&line=196770&spln=1 Would Byrnes be a good fit in CF? Ideally, he's not the Cubs should be looking for (RH'ed lower OBP), but if they need a CF'er, I think he provides above avg. pop and good defense in CF. I don't know what they're looking for and what not, but if there was some way to trade for him and put a defensive liability at 2B while platooning Derosa/Jones, it could potentially be better than the current situation. He just needs a haircut.

I don't think the Clemson vs. UK matchup looks good for UK. Everything they do well on offense, UK can't stop. Everything UK does well on offense, Clemson can stop.

Throw me into the time for Griese camp as well as the Benson camp.

There's no doubt it's going to flucuate dramatically espec. top 10s, but I find it odd that they have kids in the top 300 that I doubt will get drafted and have been in the top 300 the entire time.

Nov. 13th. was when it was last updated, the original was from before the Summer. I didn't pay for it, I wouldn't recommend it either. The 10 or so kids that I've seen on that list isn't very accurate how they have them ranked. There are kids in the same area that aren't on that list that are better than all but one of them.

Meh, leave me alone. It's way too crowded there anyways. that wasn't directed at you . . . Good, I was hoping you weren't taking a cheap shot at my lack of good skiing facilities nearby. no, it was more of a behind their back poke at those folks in the favorite cities thread. when are you moving out west? Got a job as an associate scout avail.?