David

Fixed. Oh, and can of worms - opened.

I'm not as high on Dunn, especially lately. I was in a discussion recently about Dunn, and I have to admit, I was sort of swayed. Yes, he's an OPS machine. Is that misleading, though? His RC/27 is only 6.65 for his career. I think it's around 6.8 this year. Good, but I don't think it's especially good for a corner OF. Also, I could be wrong, but that seems much too low for a guy with almost a .900 OPS for his career. He's getting paid like an elite hitter, too. I wouldn't say he's at that level in terms of production, even though he's very good. You could do a lot better than him, particularly for what he's getting paid. I just don't see the fascination. I could understand if the production was going unnoticed and he wasn't getting paid like an elite hitter (because of his other shortcomings), but he's getting paid big anyway because he hits 40+HR a year. I definitely see his production. It's very good, but it's not elite, IMO, and I just don't see the value. OK, I feel like I'm just babbling. I'm not even feeling like I can make a well reasoned argument right now, so whatever. I'll leave it at that.

I'd rather listen to smart people intelligently criticize (and praise, when it's due) the Cubs than listen to some babbling idiot on the radio. Murphy is a tard. Oh so you'd rather listen to Boers (or bernstein whoever he is I don't care), who I can guarantee he tells his phone people to purposely only let in the people with the stupidest questions on the air so he can criticize people on the air and be a "big tough guy" on the air, huh? Whatever floats your boat. Boers doesn't have to tell his producer that. 99% of people that call sports radio are idiots. Exactly. I don't really buy the, "they only let the idiots through," argument. I think a lot of people in general are idiots and even more people that call sports radio are idiots. They don't need to be "weeded out." They're the grass.

Since it looks like this trade deadline MAY pass without much Cubs activity, I was just curious as to what you guys would like/would have liked to see from this team and how you would've set this team up for a run into and through the postseason. As the season goes on I suppose we could see how our moves would've worked out. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a trade for Lofton (beating the peanuts offer that Cleveland made) and I'd given up a package of Pie (if necessary) and others for Griffey. Since Soriano isn't likely to move out of the leadoff spot anyway, I'd probably line them up like this. Soriano, Lofton, Lee, Ramirez, Griffey, DeRosa, Theriot, Kendall That team looks fairly stacked to me (for the NL, at least) and I don't think the moves would've been all that unrealistic (assuming the Reds are, as has been reported, at least somewhat open to dealing Jr. before he hits 600).

I LOL'ed. This is true. I actually like the show a little more when Boers is on vacation and they have someone fill in with Bernsie. Honestly, not gonna lie, a big part of the reason I'm such a fan of the show has been the last two football seasons and the way they handled all of the idiots who wanted Orton and/or Griese to play over Rex. I always liked the show, but that just sort of cemented me into their corner.

I'd rather listen to smart people intelligently criticize (and praise, when it's due) the Cubs than listen to some babbling idiot on the radio. Murphy is a tard. Oh so you'd rather listen to Boers, who I can guarantee he tells his phone people to purposely only let in the people with the stupidest questions on the air so he can criticize people on the air and be a "big tough guy" on the air, huh? Whatever floats your boat. I've already stated once or twice in this thread that I think Boers is just filler. Bernstein is what makes that show tick, and yes, FWIW, I'd rather listen to that than a babbling moron like Mike Murphy.

Well, depends on your definition of well-educated. He's a Duke alumnus. Fits my definition, at least. As for a career in radio, I'm sure he's very well compensated for it. The show is a juggernaut in Chicago sports radio. Sounds like a dream job to me, I'm not sure why you'd knock it. Highly paid to talk sports for 4-5 hours and laugh your butt off at idiots. But I digress. So is Mike North and I'm assuming he's uneducated. What's your point? Education means nothing in the entertainment field. Again, his education doesn't make him anymore enjoyable. I never said it did. You called him an idiot. I refuted that point. (BTW, not that it matters, but I find Mike North extremely irritating and unenjoyable, in large part because he is such an uneducated and ignorant d-bag).

Well, depends on your definition of well-educated. He's a Duke alumnus. Fits my definition, at least. As for a career in radio, I'm sure he's very well compensated for it. The show is a juggernaut in Chicago sports radio. Sounds like a dream job to me, I'm not sure why you'd knock it. Highly paid to talk sports for 4-5 hours and laugh your butt off at idiots. But I digress.

Yea, I heard that, too. A lot of times reporters don't realize just how absurd and stupid what they're reporting is. I'll believe it when I see it. Even Hendry isn't that incompetent. No? No. I realize it's funny to poke fun at Hendry and all, but no. Not a chance.

I'd rather listen to smart people intelligently criticize (and praise, when it's due) the Cubs than listen to some babbling idiot on the radio. Murphy is a tard. Who on the score gives you that? Generally speaking, I find Bernstein to be a pretty smart dude. Really? I think he's an idiot. B&B are the worst. They love to listen to themselves way too much. They are egotistical as hell, but that's because they are smart. I agree to a point. Boers is ok. I don't think he's really that smart, just sort of rides DB's coattails and laughs at his own or Bernsie's jokes. I love the egotism, though, especially when they rip into the idiotic callers (which seem to represent 99% of the fanbases of the teams).

I'd rather listen to smart people intelligently criticize (and praise, when it's due) the Cubs than listen to some babbling idiot on the radio. Murphy is a tard. Who on the score gives you that? Generally speaking, I find Bernstein to be a pretty smart dude. Really? I think he's an idiot. B&B are the worst. They love to listen to themselves way too much. Dan Bernstein is a really, really smart and well-educated guy.

Yea, I heard that, too. A lot of times reporters don't realize just how absurd and stupid what they're reporting is. I'll believe it when I see it. Even Hendry isn't that incompetent.

It's not coincidence. The organization likes free-swingers that can hit as well as pitchers that usually are able to strikeout said free-swingers. The Cubs pitching staff would absolutely dominate its own offense, likely racking up double-digit K's and few walks. That's probably very true. Similar to the slight improvement by pitchers giving up fewer walks, the Cubs offense is actually 15th in the NL in walks taken, following 2 straight years of 16th place. To be fair, part of the problem is probably the fact that we have 3 (maybe 4) extreme black holes in this lineup. If you could replace those guys with even decent OBP guys, we'd probably improve significantly. I realize that's not saying much and you could do the same for a lot of teams.

Agreed. Murph is one of the few Score hosts I'll listen to. Yeah, he's wacky, but he's the only guy on the Score who talks Cubs first. Am I crazy, or is that not an agreement? Kujay basically called Murph a moron (which I definitely do agree with), IMO...

I'd rather listen to smart people intelligently criticize (and praise, when it's due) the Cubs than listen to some babbling idiot on the radio. Murphy is a tard.

You know, I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with him about Lou, but I'd venture to say that people were responding the exact same way when people here were complaining about Dusty in 2003 and 2004. Shouldn't we know better by now? Who was right in the long run?

How is it that this team so badly overlooks the importance of walks that it gives up too many and draws too few? I just don't get it. Is it a coincidence?

I'd be pretty happy with that deal. Hurts a little to lose Murton and Gallagher, but I can deal with the rest. Griffey is the impact bat we need and Arroyo is a decent SP. I don't, however, think it's anywhere close to being true. EDIT - Whoops, I didn't see he had us giving up Hill too. Nevermind.

Anything to report on TC?

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games? If a team did that, and used 3 games as any sort of significant deciding factor, then yes, absolutely. I didn't think I needed to be any clearer. The only exception might be to confirm a player's health after an injury, but I'm not sure 3 games is even enough to determine that for sure.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm). What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games? You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain." Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too? If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say. You're evading the question (perhaps wisely). What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games? Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?" I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier. The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm). What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games? You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain." Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too? If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

You can't be serious. This post doesn't really even deserve a response. What a joke. Fanboys, LOL. LOL @ you thinking I'm a Dunn fanboy. Right. I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable. Thanks for playing.

I still can't believe they're doing this. It's just crazy. The funniest part is when fans of other teams say, "They'll just blow it like they always do," as though the Cubs did this sort of thing with any type of regularity. The Cubs are rarely in contention late in the season. They say that like they always start hot and blow it late. In fact, the Cubs have pretty regularly been bad all season.

It's like Adam Dunn's 200 strikeouts being a symptom of his patient approach at the plate.