UK1679666180

Agreed, but Michaels would be in CF while the FA would be in LF (hopefully Drew/Soriano). Michaels will probably be non tendered. Even better.

Agreed, but Michaels would be in CF while the FA would be in LF (hopefully Drew/Soriano).

I'd be severly upset if the Cubs traded Murton. It would be nice to get good production for league minimum out of at least one position on the field. I don't want to trade Murton at all but we all have to agree that right now he probably has the most value. If we trade him for a top of the rotation starter, guys like Bonderman, Bedard, Ervin Santanna, Chris Young, I'd have to consider it. If we get Bedard and Carlos Lee I wouldn't complain, wouldn't be my first choice but I could understand the deal because it would significantly improve our ballclub next year. If the Cubs traded Murton and Wuertz for Westbrook and Michaels and was able to sign Soriano. The OF would not look too bad.

Westbrook is a durable middle of the rotation starter. I'd like to see an elite #1 starter to compliment Z, but Westbrook falls into the same catagory as Suppan, Lilly, Padilla. If Hendry can get him, more power to him.

Would be a very good move for TB, Iwamura would likely be a huge upgrade over Cantu and let Upton and Zobrist play at SS/3B. Despite finishing last in RS, they need pitching more than anything.

Good question...my guess is that it would be placed at the spot of the kick, not a safety. Reason being, if a player on the opposing team managed to get a finger on the kick and it ended up resulting in a missed FG that bounced out of the back of the end zone it would not be a safety. You're probably right, possession would have to be proven. Now, if he has possession starts to run out and has a Charlie Brown moment by starting to run it out dropping it and then having it go out the end zone, it might be a safety.

What happens if he tries to catch the missed FG, he misses it and bounces out of the back of the end zone? I assume that's a safety.

If you lowered his strikeouts you would either lower his HRs, his BBs, or most likely both. His bat angle and approach lead to the low batting avg. and high Ks, they also lead to his high HRs and BBs. His long arms don't help his bat speed either.

Wow. That's pretty ridiculous. Matt Murton<<<< And Carlos pojects as a DH. Murton is NOT a 4th OF. He can hit WELL enough, and get on WELL ENOUGH to warrant being a LF. Besides...Murton is a bargain at his current contract, whereas Carlos Lee is more likely going to be a burden on some team salary. No question....Murton IS BETTER then Lee. On a high power team, he might be a good starter, but he reminds me of Jason Michaels and that is not special. ...Jason Michaels? What? Wait, HUH? I like Jason Michaels, I think if the Cubs did get someone like Spriano and put Michaels in CF, it would be an upgrade. With that said, the only thing they have in common has nothing to do with baseball abilities.

Not even close to what I was getting at, my scenario has some reality involved. There's nothing wrong with assuming that Ramirez will get injured, to help overcome, build a stronger bench under the assumption at some point Lee and/or Ramirez will miss some games. By having someone with above avg. power for a bench guy, it'll make that transition somewhat easier than going to Mabry. As far as Lee not expecting to repeat his '05 numbers, he'll likely hit around his '04 numbers, so you build up that supporting cast so they don't to rely on requiring to put up MVP numbers. Same thing with Barrett. That's completely different than your fantasy concept of Lee being injured the whole year and Ramirez breaking his leg. My scenario would be the Cubs need two impact bats (middle and top of the order) and two impact starters (top and middle of the rotation) as well as improving the bench. Those moves would be based on worst case or worse (if you're semantical by nature) of a team able to overcome unusual amounts of injuries or players producing below reasonable expectations.

I'd rather see Hendry build this team from a worst case scenario (Lee won't return to his '05 form), Barrett won't likely repeat his '06, no 2B, SS, CF, and a weak bench rather than Lee putting up MVP numbers, Barrett being the best offensive C, Cedeno progressing, Izturis doing what he did a couple years ago, etc. That way it accounts for bumps along the way, it seems the Cubs operate under best case scenarios, where if the stars align they will do good. Same goes pitching, assume that Prior won't stay healthy, assume that Hill will struggle his 2nd time thru the League. They have the financial resources to do so.

No, its really not. Effectively, the Cubs have added Derrek Lee, Rich Hill and a fully rehabbed Wade Miller who over his last three starts pitched 14.2 innings, striking out 13, allowing 8 hits only 1 of them a HR and posted a WHIP of 1.23 with an ERA of 1.84. I'm not saying he will come close to doing that over the course of a full season, but he has shown that he can be effective. Now all he has to do is stay healthy which has admittedly proven rather difficult for Miller of late. On a lesser note, the Cubs also added the infield options of Cesar Izturis and Ryan Theriot both of whom were late additions to the roster that lost 66 games. I realize you wrote "mostly the same" as the roster that lost 66 games, but the relative additions of Lee, Hill and an effective Miller are fairly major additions that seemingly will impact a team's won-loss record. Expecting Miller to be effective is quite a stretch, unless he conts. to get healthy from what I watched from August on, I don't see him being of a contributor beyond long relief. They still need expensive upgrades needed at 4 positions (CF, 2B, top of the rotation starter, btm of the rotation starter) from becoming a potential playoff team. I think expecting Lee to produce like '05 is a stretch even before his injury. Right now, the Cubs are likely 70-75 win team.

The Cubs have the ability to improve the 25 man roster and the farm at the same time.

The roster is still mostly the same roster that won 66 games. The make or break aspect will come with players that weren't on the roster from last year. Bad metaphor time... saying he's been perfect to this stage is about the same as saying that kid has a good chance of winning the race b/c he didn't trip on the way to the starting line.

I don't mind. The Giants have been doing that stupid jump shot all game. I don't like either of them. Not as bad though as that call against Briggs on Barber.

Rivers>>>>>>Manning (Eli that is) I haven't gone thru much of thread, I apologize if another brilliant mind had the same thought.

Meh, quit taunting.

Heh, what a turnaround. When did Feely become a good kicker to deserve a kick like that. Hell, I wouldn't give Gould a kick like that.

Vance, remember the LSU-UK romp? Now, I'll get to enjoy this one.

Where the heck is the O-line? I can't believe M. Brown matters this much to the team. Johnson has been horrible tonight.

The soap or white people?

Didn't Louisville beat them 31-7 with their backup QB in Manhatten? I think they did. Baylor for BCS! I'm just going with common opponents not the Kevin Bacon game that you love to do. I think you have that backwards. Teams that have trounced KSU this year: Baylor, Mizzou, Nebraska, and Louisville. They're in the bottom half of the Big 12, they're not a quality win by any stretch of the imagination. Same with Kentucky. UK is tied for 2nd in the SEC East.

UCLA is the only team I can't taunt collegiate basketball success to. (If that helps)

Heh, UK locks a bowl game with a win against Vandy. As someone who really doesn't think that Brooks isn't the right fit for UK, he has helped prove me wrong for this year. With that said, extending his contract would be stupid. They did give up 600 yards to Vandy.

I think Drew would be a great fit in CF. Still would need someone like Durham or Loretta to round out the line-up.