NorthsideAvenger

Yeah, but Murton a better all-around hitter then Dunn. Eveyrbody loves the fact that he can nearly hit the moon with his power, and like his ability to take a pitch, but that's ALL he can do. Whereas Murton can produce a SIMILAR---and maybe in time---a BETTER OBP and is a better defender in LF then Dunn (Murton's average, but Dunn flat out makes him look like a GGer). The only thing Murton won't ever do .v. Dunn is outslug him. That doesn't break my heart. I don't think trading more young valuable pitching to get Dunn (and his soon to be VERY EXPENSIVE contract) is fisible plan, considering the Cubs already have Murton and have him CHEAP for next couple of yrs. So, IN MY OPINION, talking about Dunn is like beating a horse a to death, and it is highly unlikely to end up in Chicago. Now, I COULD see Dunn going to Detroit or Anaheim.

You don't know that, either. His OBP has steadily gone up since he's been on the D'Rays: .290 in 2002; .309 in 2003; .331 in '04 and '05; and .346 this year. It hasn't gone up dramatically, I guess, but with the exception of '04 and '05, it has gone up. IMO, that's a good trend.

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's. Crawford .303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS Jones .287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS Murton .298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5035 Look at his career...He has IMPROVE his game tremendously since his debut. And while his OBP isn't great even this yr, I suspect he will continue to make improve in that area, especially if he play 81 of his games at Wrigley. And what is impressive is his career stolen base percentage of 82% (225 SB to 47 caught stealing and compare that to the Cubs CURRENT CF Pierre who is at 74% or 324 SB to 115 caught stealing). So, defensively both are about average at best, but Crawford is SIGNIFICANTLY better then Pierre (Looking back at it, I rather have traded Nalscon/Pinto/Mitre for Crawford and not Pierre) that this is not fair. Average/OBP are generally the same, but Crawford hits for more power---then again my grandmother hits for more power then Pierre-, and Crawford is 4 yrs younger, and will be significantly cheaper then Pierre. Look, if Crawford becomes available---and not just a reporter gut feeling---I would hope Hendry does his best to get Crawford---especially with Pierre making it sound like he is targeting the White Sox as his next destination. In fact, outside of looking up ARam, I think Crawford should the #2 on Hendry's list of priorities.

I rather be in a fiddle contest with the devil, then try my hand at the hoedown. Unless someone is willing tosend Eva Longoria over to my house?

The fact that he's seemingly available via trade, only has 1 year left on his contract, plays good D and has an OPS over 800 interested me. Of course, I'd much rather have ARod, Miguel Cabrera or Troy Glaus, but I don't think they're available. And Morgan Ensberg intrigues me, but I'm not sure if Houston would trade him and what his injury situation is. If Aramis walks, what would be your plan for 3B? He's got as many red flags as Blalock, without the upside. He's older, was brutal in 2005, and has been terrible in the 2nd half of 2006. I'm not saying I want Hank, but if nothing about him interests you, nothing about Lowell should interest you either. Understood, but if Aramis walks, what would be your plan to backfill 3B? Hoops, I kknow the question is for gooney, but I am going to hijack it and give my two $.02. If ARam walks, I think the Cubs should stick Moore at third base (would be better then trading MORE young/cheap players for a guy like Blalock or Lowell), unless the Cubs get a bargain, which I don't' see happening.

So the question is: If Hendry recieved a phone call from the Devil Rays and is told that they are interested in moving Carl Crawford and are interested in three pitchers; Veal, Gallagher, and Hill. The DRays say they would trade Crawford for one of them (if they want two of them, they would have to include somebody like Brignac or even Joel Guzman) and a 2nbd tier solid prospect like Carlos Marmol or Juan Mateo? Anybody interested, or think Hendry might be interested?

Now there have been some swirling rumors that Miguel Tejada is NOW OUT OF POSITION at SS. Alot of baseball people think Tejada is a 3rd baseman playing SS (the reverse ARod, if you will). So, I'm thinking if ARam splits, why not Tejada for 3rd? That still leaves a whole at SS, I realize that, but that would make they POSSIBLY make a run at Julio Lugo for SS, and perhaps either Soriano or Lee for LF. (And no Hoops, I'm not a fan of Mike Lowell, and if Hendry allows Ramirez to walk and replace him with Lowell, he should be humilated)

Wake me up, when Snider reaches #1 prospect in ALL of minor league baseball. Until then, being the "best of a league" while impressive in itself, is still not the end all be all of a player's value/talent. Do I think Snider would have been a great pick for the Cubs sure....but, I am still a believer that Colvin is going to be a heck of a player.

Well...........d'uh. But hey on the season, the Cubs are at rock bottom, so they can't go any further.

I think the reason why MLB loves to put the Cubs playing the Reds on OPENING Day, is because both of these teams are two of the oldest teams in the majors. And I don't know maybe this trend of the Cubs playing the Reds in Cinci on the first day of the yr will continue. IMO, if that is the case, if the Cubs have to play the Reds on Opening Day in Cinci, then the Reds need to come to Chicago, on the Cubs home opener. It's only fair.

I never knew that the 63 win was a very important milestone, especially getting it in MID September. Man, next yr, the Cubs can get their "63rd win" by say earlier then September 23, perhaps, eh?

IF Manny is traded (going on his 1.2 billionth trade demand) my guess is unless the deal is between the Cubs/Red Sox or the Angels/Red Sox, or even Dodgers/Red Sox, I think it would be easier for Boston to move Manny in a three team trade.

Take your best stuff to the Hill, Rich.

All managers/coaches, they are nothing but highly paid babysitters. I realize that is an oversimplication of what they do, but to me that is what they are. There are three things a manager/coach have to do that is part of their job descritpion: 1: Fill out the lineup card and make sure the players get to their right positions. 2: Speak with the media. 3: Smooth out any potenial in house troubles, behind close doors. We know, Baker does two of the three things, with #3 he refuses to do. I also believe that being good at “in game strategy” is about as overrated as “the strikeout” or “speed in your leadoff guy.” The fact is half the time the “decision” will work, half the time the “decision” won’t work, but 100% of the time it depends on the players on the field to make the manager’s “decision” work or not. So again, I think the “in game strategy” is abit overrated description for the manager. So any “questions” about Girardi’s, Fredi Gonzalez, or Dusty Baker’s “in game strategy” is abit useless in debates. Baker is just a bad manager as he doesn’t have nor hold accountability, or regardless of what the players say, Baker has NO respect among the players in the clubhouse. With that said, why are there some people here who think Fredi Gonzalez would be agood hire, and others think Girardi would not? Is it because Fredi has coached under Bobby Cox? Name one quality coach that was under Bobby Cox that went on an found success elsewhere? Maybe Ned Yost, and right now his success in Milwaukee has been limited. I can’t think of another. But what about Joe Girardi? He got to learn under Joe Torre, a HIGHLY respect manager in his own right. And Willie Randolph turned out to be a very good coach, atleast better initially then Ned Yost. And Joe even has one yr of managing up on Gonzalez, so Joe would still be classified as a “young manager.” So I don’t get the pro Fredi Gonzalez, and the not-so-pro Joe Girardi groups. I think both would be a solid choice for manager. But I slightly prefer Joe since he knows the Cubs, their organization, and how to deal with the Chicago market. I fear a little that Fredi might be in over his head abit if he tried to managed in Chicago, after coaching in a little pressure market like the Atl.

And right now, I believe Hendry doesn't think OBP is even a viable stat, much less an important one.

Yeah, but dude, Carlos Lee does have a triple. And with that kind of speed you can expect Carlos Lee not to be clogging up the basepaths.

. (I didn't see this anywhere, and if it was, then I apologize) This was in Sullivan's latest "Q-n-A". Notice the bold part? No wonder Baker and Hendry are a match made in heaven. So, I expect the Cubs won't be addressing the "lack of OBP" anytime soon.

I think many of us are agreeing that Hudson may not be worth $11M a year, which is why I put the $11M cash clause in the mock deal. Hudson is due to make $6M in 2007, $13M in 2008, $13M in 2009 and $1M buyout in 2010. If the Braves gave the Cubs $5M cash in 2008 and $6M in 2009, the Cubs would owe Hudson $6M in '07, $8M in '08 and $8M in '09. Plus, they get Jones to play CF in 2007 (and maybe beyond). It's a great deal for the Cubs, and a huge salary relief for Atlanta if they want to re-build or re-load. Again, just attempting to think outside the box and improve the offense and rotation simultaneously. If Hudson/Jones require giving up a prospect like Veal/Gallagher/Pawelek/etc, etc, I don't see the upside of getting Hudson/Jones. Now if the Cubs could get them with kids like Mateo/Johnson/ and maybe Marshall, fine...

Soriano scares the heck out of me. He could be Carlos Beltran in 2007, or he could be Adrian Beltre. Now, if Hendry decides to go after Soriano, I pray to the baseball gods, that Hendry does his homework on Soriano.

And Les Walrond. Well played. Ryu kidding? I Juan Jim to Rusch Glendon out the door, and Mabry I'll buy tickets again. Howry we gonna compete? That's Rich. Ohman. Somebody's drunk. :D

I am one that will stay in Prior's corner. I still believe Prior will become the best pitcher of his generation (I know, I know), after he battles through his early career adversity. I know people are going to say I am overly optimistic about Prior, but I still hold out hope to seeing a dominate one-two punch of Z and Prior.

Since 03, Hudson has become MORE hittable, he gives more walks, he strikes out few and few. In other words....as of 2006, Tim Hudson is a VERY MEDIOCRE #2 pitcher, and more likely at this stage is closer to being a #4 pitcher, then a #2. Wade Miller can give same type of production at a fraction of the cost. So unless ATL is willing to eat over 60% of Hudson's contract, I wouldn't even talk about trying to get Hudson. That's just not true. 2003 was a career year for Hudson, using that going forward as a comparison to show a decline is pretty deceiving. His K's have stayed similar, his walks have stayed similar since coming to the NL, and his BAA has been similar. His peripherals show his 2006 ERA and WHIP are pretty unlikely to repeat, that he's more than a 4 starter, and that he's most certainly better than Wade Miller. No matter how you spin it, Tim Hudson at this stage of ihs career is more of a 5-8 million dollar pitcher, NOT an $11 million dollar pitcher. So if the Cubs are interested in Hudson, ATL has to eat alot of money. I would rather just sign Jason Schmidt.

Since 03, Hudson has become MORE hittable, he gives more walks, he strikes out few and few. In other words....as of 2006, Tim Hudson is a VERY MEDIOCRE #2 pitcher, and more likely at this stage is closer to being a #4 pitcher, then a #2. Wade Miller can give same type of production at a fraction of the cost. So unless ATL is willing to eat over 60% of Hudson's contract, I wouldn't even talk about trying to get Hudson.

Jeff Weaver and Russell Branyan are the ONLY two on that list, I would even consider. And with Wade Miller slowing regaining his health, Weaver would become redundant. And Branyan, I would love to add to the bench, along with Eduardo Perez (via trade).

That's your opinion, not fact. People are perfectly welcome to talk about it if they want. And I am not stating my opinion as fact, but more like, it's something that is LIKELY to happen. That's probably what you INTENDED to say, but not what you DID say. The wording you used did imply fact, not opinion, since you didn't use wording such as "probable" or "likely." I'm sorry if you read it wrong and the fact I typed too fast to put my whole thought in, instead of half a thought. But I went back and made the correction. It now has an opinion being stated, not fact. Even tho, I believe it is fact that Dunn won't be coming to Chicago, and continuation of this thread will likely stalled with every angle about Dunn will be exhausted. So in other words you think it is a Dunn deal that he won't be coming to the Cubs. :D Like I said, I think it's unlikely, but it can't be completely ruled out. Yes, it's a "Dunn deal" that Adam won't be coming to the Cubs from the Reds. Now I'm not saying Dunn won't come from another team in a few yrs, but coming from Reds, HIGHLY unlikely.