XZero771679666304

I thought Cameron got busted for weed? I don't really care, but then again, I'm not trying to justify trading Milton. I'm just resigned to it.

I dunno, there has been a trend of slow starts for the Illini. I think it's more us than them.

texas, if Nebraska wins Hopefully. That would presumably edge out the Big Ten teams. More likely Boise. Yeah, I doubt the bowls pass up a Big 10 team if they have the chance. Which would be a shame.

I surprised you haven't noticed. He's conspicuous by his absence. It's been a while.

I wonder if Tebow will deign to participate in a non-championship bowl game.

Yeah, but I hate Florida more. And I hate hearing about Tebow even more than that.

Someone needs to call the sunset squad. The can pick up Dick Stockton as well.

I've been expecting Cameron to the guy since before the season ended, and I really don't think it would be a bad move at all. That is provided Jimbo doesn't give him a stupid contract.

I don't think my feelings toward the clubs can be diminished. That's the problem.

It's not poor at all. Baseball is the easiest game around to flip back and forth and still follow. And they aren't even the biggest games, the championship series are much bigger. Plus there would barely be a need to have 2 games on at a time. In recent years the CS games were the only ones aired simultaneously. What can I say, I like to see every pitch. I'm actually with you on this one. If two games start at the same time and both come down to the wire, who wants to have to flip back and forth to keep track of the drama? I just don't think it would be that hard to stagger the games a bit.

HA!

I'm thrilled, but I have to say that I'm not all that surprised that Wisky won.

They are both guys that had significant off-the-field issues that impacted how much teams were interested in having them, are they not? That's some impressive spin. Are we or are we not discussing the extent to which teams weigh on-field production against off-field issues? And do both of these players not provide good examples of this? There's having a bad attitude, and then there's having a bad attitude combined with serious steroid allegations and potential suspension and/or prosecution, as well as age and injury factors.

That's a pretty huge leap to make. It's more like these other teams aren't run by idiots and realize that they have the Cubs over a barrel. If your conclusion was correct then why would any other team want to trade for him under any circumstance? It's not like a trade that screws over the Cubs magically gives Bradley an attitude adjustment. When talking about a guy like Adam Dunn, astute fans will point out that to gauge his true overall value, one would have to subtract his defensive liability from his offensive production. Some would say the defensive adjustment cancels almost all of the offensive value. Well here with Bradley we have a case where we have to make a sizable deduction for attitude and clubhouse impact, much like the defensive adjustment for Dunn. Right now the trade market is indicating that Bradley's (offense + defense - attitude) yields a value close to zero. And this talk of gamesmanship and teams holding back thinking they have the Cubs over a barrel is folly. If Hendry was asking 50 cents for an asset widely valued at a dollar, then he would have a buyer in a second, lest teams end up kicking themselves for losing out on the opportunity. The truth is, whatever Hendry's asking for Bradley (and by all indications it's very little) is still more than the other 29 teams think he's worth, despite his impressive hitting stats. Disagree. Several teams have expressed interest. Texas being one of those teams and Bradley just played for Texas a year ago. The hold up would appear to be that Hendry created a zero value market for Bradley, but he then wants much more than anyone is willing to give. Basically, he wants others to help pay for his mistake, and apparently not everyone is as dumb as he thinks they are. So who are those "several" teams that have expressed interest. As I've pointed out before, the very few teams that are interested only want him at a price that will justify dealing with his attitude. Those posters who believe that Bradley's attitude isn't the major factor in this trade situation are living in a dream world. Every thread about Bradley is littered with positive stats about his ability and yet nobody wants to trade for him unless we not only give him away, but pay most of his contract too. Just keep repeating "It's not his attitude". :pig: His attitude has something to do with it, but the fact that Hendry put himself over a barrel by all but announcing he was going to get rid of him at any cost has a lot more to do with it. He surrendered his leverage and now those teams that are interested are just going to wear him down. None of the huge market teams are going to come calling, but there will be (and are) a few smaller market teams that will be interested. But again, now that it is common knowledge that Hendry is desperate to move Milton, no one is going to be too hasty about acting.

I actually have a good feeling about it too. This had to be an awful week for them practice wise. I honestly have no idea what to expect at this point.

The guy is 80 freaking years old. What if his own accord means coaching until he's 97 years old, blind and in a wheelchair? Should they let him do that because they owe it to him? Eventually, a program needs to do what is best for itself. The program wouldn't be anything with out him. Wait him out. He's been loyal to them for 30 odd years, would it kill them now to be loyal to him for another 5? It might. Building the program from the ground up won't matter much if he runs the team back into it.

I could see them contending, I just think they are doing a horrible job of maximizing their odds. Agreed. Unless the Cards return everyone (unlikely), the Cubs will likely contend in 2010, even if they do nothing from here till spring training. In fact, doing nothing else might be the preferred route, judging by what Hendry has done so far. Depends on what you mean by nothing. Letting Harden walk and dumping Bradley leaves significant holes. I was mostly being facetious, but if Hendry's something is allocating more millions to the bullpen, I'm not sure. I don't like losing Harden, but I think we can live with it. Not getting draft picks is what hurts. As for Bradley, I'd just as soon keep him, but that's not going to happen. If he is replaced by someone like Mike Cameron, I think the team will be all right, at least relatively speaking. If nothing else, if Hendry continues to screw the pooch, we might be rid of him after the upcoming season.

I could see them contending, I just think they are doing a horrible job of maximizing their odds. Agreed. Unless the Cards return everyone (unlikely), the Cubs will likely contend in 2010, even if they do nothing from here till spring training. In fact, doing nothing else might be the preferred route, judging by what Hendry has done so far.

Yeah, the "I plan on staying" line is something we've all heard before from a coach/player who was soon to be an ex-coach/player for a team. I'd put very little stock in it.

True, but Ramirez doesn't typically miss half the season, or even a quarter of it. And I think a good part (well, at least some) of Soriano's suckitude had to do with the fact he was playing on a bad leg most of the season. He's not ever going to be the player he was even a couple of years ago, but I think he'll be better in 2010.

I agree with what you are saying, but Saito is still more of a setup/closer than a MR. If he weren't 39 and Grabow hadn't been signed I'd be on the fence about this.

Yeah, Chip is no good, but he is still much, much, better than Stockton. Which says a lot about TBS.

It's been out there for a few days now, but it seems as if the Cubs are interested in Takashi Saito. While he has been awfully solid, I'm not pleased (or surprised) to see Hendry showing interest in a veteran reliever. I'd imagine it would take at least 5-6 million per to sign him. That said, a Guzman/Saito/Marmol back end would be awfully tough.

The problem with waiting until after he makes that much money is the market dries up. I'd much rather trade Theriot too early than too late. You know you aren't going to get burned by some great playing finally putting it together. This is really the best time to trade Theriot. The Cubs are already paying Fontenot, Baker and Miles to play 2nd base. If they move Theriot to 2nd they have to either cut Miles which costs money or trade Fontenot for little or no return. I'd rather they get a useful player for Theriot which helps offset having to pay Miles to go away. I agree. I'd deal Theriot now and let Blanco hold down SS until Castro gets here. And I don't think a Baker/Fontenot platoon would be all that bad, at least for the short term. If you let Theriot get to the 5-7M range, you drastically reduce your return, IMO.

I don't think the 2010 Cubs will be blowing anybody away, but the notion that they will be a middle of the division team is a bit silly, IMO. I am pretty sure it will be a two team race for the Central in 2010, and the Cubs will be one of those two. At worst, I think the results will be about the same as last year. Lee will regress, but Aramis probably won't miss half the season again. Wells will regress, but I think Dempster will be better. Even if Marmol doesn't improve, he still won't blow as many saves as Gregg. Soto should improve a bit, and we almost have to get better production from 2B. Soriano probably won't ever be what he was even 2 years ago, but I don't think he will be as bad as he was in 2009. The defense should be better, assuming Hendry brings in an actual CF. If Castro ends up at SS and Theriot at 2B and Hendry were to sign, say, Mike Cameron, the defense would be great. And while there won't be many moves, we have to wait and see what happens in the next couple months before we start declaring 2010 and 2011 to be forthcoming lean times.