Larry Horse

Trading DeRosa was a mistake? But wait, the Cubs are more "left handed" and have a player with "attitude".....that should easily equal success. Hendry thought he would strike gold again by signing Miles after trading Derosa. A little off on that one.

I think I read that the Mets signed him yesterday.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/1543801,CST-SPT-deluca26.article Nice recap. I'm beginning to see why he's on his 7th team.

Don't forget three things: 1. Fire 2. Passion 3. He's left handed One other thing: 3 year deal.

uuuhhhh.....sarcasm I hope?

http://chi-ball.com/blog/2009/02/lous-finale/

Blanco is better than Bako. I can't believe there's an argument there. "Wanting to get more left-handed" is a verrrry weak reason for bringing back Bako. I honestly can't believe he's on this team again. He couldn't even stick with the Reds.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hendry have some heart problems in the past? He looks like he's put 20 pounds on top of however much he was overweight to begin with. He should maybe hit the salad bar for a while.

My problem with this trade is that DeRosa was arguably one of the best players on the Cubs last year and I am all in favor of selling high, but did Hendry actually do that? I'm starting to get an uneasy feeling about next year.

Schaub, Forte, Moore and the Bears.

Start three of these four: Slaton @ Oakland Lynch @ Denver Pierre @ Detroit Westy @ Washington I'm considering benching Westy....he almost cost me 2 semi games last week.

Man, you people need to read the thread This was proclaimed false a while ago by Bruce. among others. this has been explained like 432 times in this thread over the past 12 hours Yea. Nice attitude. I have extermely limited time online and I'm going to spend it reading over 64 pages so I don't have to risk offending posters who apparently are privy to every fact on this subject. You guys take yourselves waaaaay too seriously. This is a game. Lighten up.

Is anyone else feeling that this seems to be a ton to give up for Peavy? "The new owner would need to approve the addition of Peavy, who is owed $63 million." That was from Rosenthal's column. How could this deal get done this week unless if this is true?

Does this really have that much of an impact on people's lives? Boycotting the H.O.F because Santo isn't in? Wow.

Wow. Going by the #'s of the Braves players, looks pretty good for the White Sox.

"I can only imagine how much crow Jim Hendry has made fans on here eat over the last two seasons." He has spent, correct me if I'm wrong, over 700 million in contracts since he took over, which has resulted in 1 playoff series win. I'm not sure any crow should be served to anyone. That's a lot of resources spent with little in return.

Agreed. I'm not sure why the Cubs haven't been mentioned for Dunn. I'll take the 100 walks and 30-40 HR's. Butcher in the OF? Bad with the good.

I don't think they wanted to add more payroll, but they lost a crapload off their books this year with Giambi, Abreu and others becoming FAs, so why not spend it? And they do need pitching. I suppose, yea. I see $150million and I go "holy crap!" Then I realize we gave almost that much to Soriano, and I go "holy crap!" Bingo.

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year. O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post?

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever. Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti. Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success. Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job. "Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team. .....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend. The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do. No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever. Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti. Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success. Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job. "Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team. .....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever. Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti. Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success. Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

Seconded

Do you ever have anything to post other than digs at the Cubs, management, etc? no, which is why he hasn't been around much the past couple of months. not a lot to rip right now, what with the cubs having the best record in baseball. When they hoist the Series trophy, they will get all the props they deserve. Until then, the "best record in baseball" on June 21 means squat. "why he hasn't been around much the past couple of months"? not that it's any of your business, but my son learned to walk so my computer time is limited. Waaaay too many people take this way too seriously. Oh, I get it: When the team has a losing record on June 21st then it matters, but when they have the best record in all of baseball on the same date it means nothing. I hope you have some Air Jordans on, b/c you will need them to leap over that logical chasm. I'm not quite following your train of thought. Given the Cubs track record, do you put a lot of stock in having the best record in baseball in June? Awesome start, great job, win the World Series and it will actually mean something. Were you satisfied with last year's results? I mean, they did win the division. I guess I've forgotten all the past success this team has had. Pardon me for being cynical. I get it now - the Cubs haven't won a WS in 100 yrs, so no matter how good they are, how well they play, or what the stats actually say, you think they still suck. Who gives a crap how they played last season, 03', 98', 69', 45' or any other year? What does any of that have to do with the 2008 Cubs? "Awesome start, great job," I think I was commenting on their play right there. "I get it now - the Cubs haven't won a WS in 100 yrs, so no matter how good they are, how well they play, or what the stats actually say, you think they still suck." You do realize that you just typed that the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 100 years and you think that Cub fans should totally disregard that unprecedented track record of failure? No, right now they don't suck, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm going to proclaim them World Series champs.

Do you ever have anything to post other than digs at the Cubs, management, etc? no, which is why he hasn't been around much the past couple of months. not a lot to rip right now, what with the cubs having the best record in baseball. When they hoist the Series trophy, they will get all the props they deserve. Until then, the "best record in baseball" on June 21 means squat. "why he hasn't been around much the past couple of months"? not that it's any of your business, but my son learned to walk so my computer time is limited. Waaaay too many people take this way too seriously. Oh, I get it: When the team has a losing record on June 21st then it matters, but when they have the best record in all of baseball on the same date it means nothing. I hope you have some Air Jordans on, b/c you will need them to leap over that logical chasm. I'm not quite following your train of thought. Given the Cubs track record, do you put a lot of stock in having the best record in baseball in June? Awesome start, great job, win the World Series and it will actually mean something. Were you satisfied with last year's results? I mean, they did win the division. I guess I've forgotten all the past success this team has had. Pardon me for being cynical.