neely crenshaw

yes top picks in all leagues bomb at times. the point is unlike in the nba or nfl, where say you are selecting andrew luck to start for you next year and hopefully give you immediate help, except for once in a great while, help would not be here for several years. which is why getting the #1 overall pick is far less important. we need to restock but we don't need the top overall pick to do that, we just need to draft well.

which of these guys is going to pitch? you've signed up to 3 free agents without addressing the starting staff or bullpen. you have traded off 2 of our other fairly close prospects and sent 3 others to bench roles.

God who the [expletive] cares this is dumb. now that is one of the better points in the argument. it really doesn't matter how many we lose. it really doesn't matter if we get the #1 pick because unlike football or basketball it's not a quick fix(except rarely) and there isn't even a sure thing that the #1 pick will be better than the #10 pick.

you guys throw around these stats depending on whether you like the guy or if it helps your argument or not. if stewart had colvin's stats right now, you would be jumping up and down saying " i told you so" but we down play his. colvin's bad "may" is as good as stewart "hot" may... better average, batter on base, better slugging, better ops, and more home runs, more triples and equal doubles, more total bases in fifty fewer at bats. exactly what stat matters? he is the same age as stewart, but has fewer years experience so he has a chance to improve. colvins 2009 is equal to stewarts best year. That being said we gambled trading our player who struggled last year for their player who struggled. we had dejesus, soriano, byrd in the outfield, with jackson close. AND we had no one at third, and no one close to ready- we had to get a 3b. the problem isn't the trade, to me the problem is that last year we should have either set colvin at first or right, and let him get 500+ at bats no matter what he was hitting. By playing him once in awhile for 200 at bats was just setting him up to fail. you have to look at it that we replaced colvin with dejesus and Lahair, not stewart.

The argument started that this team would lose 100. We are battling San Diego for the worst record in baseball, and seem that we will all season. In every season but 1 in the last 10, the worst record lost at least 100, many years more than 1 team did. I am not sure how that is not a reasonable conclusion for this team. I also don't know why anyone cares because does it really matter of you lose 94 or 104? It also doesn't reflect on where we are hopefully heading. This is year is about figuring out who can actually contribute and hopefully trading off any older pieces that we can. Garza is one that people think we should re-sign but it makes more sense to get a few prospects and then sign another similar pitcher - so that we have the pitcher, and the prospects. Things could change for a few guys but that doesn't really happen in baseball. We look to get a little worse not better. As I said, when we trade dempster and probably garza, we will replace them with 2 guys not as good. dejesus and soriano could go and unfortuantely as bad as we are, they are 2 of our top offensive guys so far. So even if Rizzo and Jackson are studs, they may not be an improvement this season. Then as was posted most others are a few years off. If we have any chance to compete soon, we need every possible young player to become a usable commodity- or else we will have to buy almost every need. also not improving is not the same as getting worse. castro is done slightly from last year but we are also looking at his "season" right after an awful stretch-which happen and he is still just a bit down. Garza is inline with career averages, era is up from last year, hr's up, but his whip and baa are down over last year and career, which says to me those things could even out over his next 18-20 starts also.

I have to say that is hilarious coming from a guy so fired up about stewart's "hot 2 weeks" that showed he was coming around...

darn his bad luck...

for the record that plays out to be 24 games behind them at seasons end.

No they have not lost 100 yet. However, naysayers won't even give in that there is a very,very,very good chance that will happen. I personally have no problem with that. I would rather lose 100+ now and build base for future success than throw money at it to be average at best. Buying low at this point was smart. You have nothing at all to lose. Obviously anyone you buy low has negatives OR teams would not give up on them. The main point of contention on here is that many people think that because Theo's group got them, they will automatically be good. Truth is that they probably aren't going to be good but in actuality they probably never planned on them being really good, "hoped" maybe but they knew most will fail and not be with the cubs for long.

If a majority of the board thought this team would contend then I now understand why certain posters are thought to be "intelligent". I also must have missed those posts containing lots of promise for this squad. I remember the closest thing to talking about contending was that "IF" we signed pujols or fielder we might be able to contend because of the other team losses. I also think it's hilarious that people won't even admit that they could be wrong about this team losing a 100 games. It's clear that they won't give in until the 100th game is actually lost..then I can hear the excuses. I am guessing if lose our 99th with 3 weeks left some will still try to defend their stance. we have the worst record in baseball. we are on pace now to lose 110. there is no signs of anything or anyone getting better. Soriano is on a tear,and we are still losing. LaHair is hitting better than most though he could, we are still losing. Dempster, Garza and Samardjiza have thrown great and we are still losing. We will probably lose dempster and garza, and they will be replaced by much worse pitchers..but we figured that would happen at some point. We might lose Soriano,dejesus heck even castro is possible. IF rizzo and jackson come up and produce to the point that everyone hopes, this team won't be as good as it now. I just don't see where this team doesn't lose a 100. Seriously if the changes are made that most figure I think they may be lucky to stay on our current pace.

I din't say they made no trades. Almost all of those trades were salary dumps by the other clubs. Also when you hang onto pie, 2 pattersons, kelton, dubois, guzman, brownlee, hill, marshall(as a starter),christenson,fox and this is just off the top of my head as untouchables. seriously you are throwing at names like hernandez, hill, hundley and choi as top prospects. Actually emphasizes my point because those guys all were held onto until they got to the bigs and were no longer considered prospects but taken as slary dump by pittsburgh and the marlins. Their main asset was that they were cheap and got rid of salary. It's kind of like saying the Marlins used their young prospect volstad to get zambrano. Exactly what do you think we could have pulled for them before they were seen at the big league level? I am pretty sure we could have gotten any veteran we wanted at the deadline for patterson or hill, or pie, or even marshall before they flopped for us.

Only if you're viewing their numbers in a vacuum. Just going on what was said about his year at the majors last year. Which I fail to see as good in or out of the vacuum. The main point was that the guys who loved him enough to make sure he was in the deal for Gonzales are now here. Not a slam on either player or group. Some groups favor hitters, and some favor pitchers. I personally think that since we had no idea on Lahair, this was worth the deal. Getting a potential middle order bat for a team that has lacked a true #3 hitter since DLee hurt his wrist years ago, we need bats more than a set-up, potential closer. It has been said that Theo's group feels that you can always find bullpen help.

my biggest problem with Hendry and his organization is their inability to ever trade a prospect for a proven talent. We were(allegedly) loaded with prospects at various times especially pitching but the names were "untouchable". So we held on to them until everyone saw they weren't what we thought, and then it seemed we traded them to baltimore for game balls and fungo bats. At a time when we were pretty close to getting to the world series, we couldn't pull the trigger on a deal for a proven commodity to get us over the top.

remember the guys that brought to boston and san diego are gone. So maybe the padres guys did not have the same strong feelings for him. He did not tear things up last year, so maybe they were ready for a change. Also petco is not exactly a park to cultivate young hitters over young pitchers. he wasn't great the other day but it still is pretty eye-catching to see him 102 on the gun.

It's very hard to feel that they are very close though. When you hit Mather 3rd just magnifies the fact that the team has 2 hitters and a couple of role players and then a load of guys that wouldn't be awful if they could hit 7th or 8th. My only guess is if Rizzo comes, he and lahair would hit 3-4 in some fashion. If he proves he can do it, and lahair keeps going, then you have a 1-4 that's solid.

You're the worst. No, really...give us another list of the valuable offensive assets that the Cubs have that they'll part ways with and make them so much worse. The few good players they have they need to hold on to and the rest are garbage. Dempster is the main exception, but who knows if he'll accept a trade. DeJesus is about the only other one who could possibly net some value, but the argument could be made they'll need him back, y'know, unless next year is going to be another "oh, we're going to tank because you gotta be worst before you can the best" fun fest. ok it will probably be a small truck but: it makes sense that dempster and garza are traded for as much as possible..which will bring us to volstad and colemen? or possibly mcnutt. either way at the very least you are downgraded from dempster/garza. soriano could be gone at some point to an AL team to be dh. Talk was that it would be after dempster/garza were moved to make the salary hit tolerable (it would have to be done ala zambrano) so we would have better defense but no sure thing to match soriano's offense (limited as it is). with offense as is, and a chance that pitching will take a hit thru trades we are certainly looking at 100 losses and without a significant offense boost from rizzo or someone else, we could be looking at something much, much worse. this is not even factoring in that it will be tough for even our solid guys to play well everyday when they are losing at such a clip, it will sometimes steamroll a team. As for Dejesus. We can use him but if you are horrible it is better to be horrible and young, rather than horrible and old. We are lacking prospects. If we can a get a few for anyone, then why not(other than any young talent we have). If we are going to lose 95, then does it matter if we trade any commodity and that causes us to lose 100? or 105? Right now it doesn't make sense to worry about keeping any veteran just for the sake of being less horrible this year or next. Because looking at the minors, and what we have here I don't see any chance without a huge spending spree that we will be much more than mediocre next year

why do we even need to designate or have a closer. and we do we need to even make a statement when we change them? If we ever have a save chance just send someone out there, until then just put in whoever you think has the best match up. Bottom line is there is a 50/50 chance that camp's arm will fall off at some point this season.

OK, last night was not what I was thinking of when I read this.

Castillo/Clevenger is fine with me if they trade Soto. I'd prefer they upgrade the OF and rotation first, then probably 2B, which is where the Stephen Drew idea might work. not sure but brenly mentioned questions about defense. it was only 1 game but brenly talked of castillo's struggling with handling pitches and he did not receive well. lost several strikes with poor form and it was said that clevenger didn't throw well. hopefully we'll see a lot of both and at least know for sure with them. I'm sure someone who tracks the prospects a bit more would know the low down on them. I just hope shark continues.We have to have as many of our 'possibles" work out. I will throw out this. It may just be that is was due to happen but I am pleased that we had a pitcher with potential that has actually improved. It gives me hope that the new staff is teaching something. We had so many big time prospects that just failed there had to be an organizational problem. Samardjiza has been great and clearly wood fixed something from spring. Maybe someone down there can work it out with volstad.

you're still committing to spend that money can we really pair that with any meaningful signings on the offensive side? Yes...or I should say, most likely, yes. Upton or a trade for...someone. a problem I see is that we need to upgrade catcher. that's a tough spot to add a ton of offense to and still have what you need defensively especially on a what could be a some what limited budget.

ryan seriously, let's ease up. I do not think he is a piece of crap. I think his historical numbers and my overly negative feelings (which I will fully admit probably are swayed by looking at his former stats) say he won't hit better than his norms. My other thought is that Trumbo could be a pretty good hitter and that his stats show that. I told I don't want to trade those two, or have him replace stewart. OK? I also said I see the argument of how we could see some improvement in stewart's lines. I still think it won't happen but I can understand how it could. I know Trumbo's line will fall but in his 2nd season there is no reason and no data that says he won't improve this year. Particularily in the ob% area. It can't/won't be to what he did in the first 40 but I don't see how you could mind having him on our roster. Now the best argument made was there is no way in heck they would make that deal. Hard to argue but say he blows or his ob% is too low after 1 year is silly.(i don't think you said that ryan, but someone did) I mean if we are happy to pick up Cardenas then doesn't Trumbo have at least that much upside? Right now, people are arguing over Dejesus and stewart. I guess since there is nothing else going on it keeps things going on here (the game thread went like 3 pages?) but you guys are arguing with me over statements that I didn't make. I never said replace dejesus or stewart. There is no one else even close to being ready at 3rd. We all know each is a stop gap with low cost, and lots more possible ups than negatives. It's highly unlikely that either is here in 2014, but stewart could if he does get to those numbers that you guys are hoping for. I simply thought and still think that in a season where we have no chance of doing anything that it makes sense to look to guys that could be here or could show improvement. (and by that I mean back to their career norms but that they are young enough or inexperienced enough to IMPROVE their career norms)

how many years would we need to drop on Hamels to land him. (barring any crazy offers) Wouldn't someone be talking 5? Although I want to be better next year because this is frustrating as heck to watch/sit through. Are we better served looking at a pitcher the following year? If Hamels is our top dog for 3 seasons (thinking some fall off in the last 1-2 of the deal) Next it seems hard to see serious contending unless everyone we hope (and some we pray) all work out or we spend for help in several spots besides starter. Right now I just continue to hope that samardjiza and wood continue to produce. Is there any reason at all to push anyone very far this year? Other than making sure he can hold up, we (in theory, only) could shut him down after august and what difference would it make for our season? unless of course that doomsday date is accurate, then I am going to be really pissed we didn't spend this year.

Tough to buy him as a meathead. that could be a good point, however when options are few...ok, it was way wishful thinking but it was january at the time, that's the time to dream! Also factor in that scott downs is closing for them. I remember a team once opun time trading for Antonio Alfonseca because they needed a closer....

The optimism about Stewart has little to do with his hot streak (which is moreso being viewed as a hopeful sign that things are turning around) and much more to do with his peripherals. Trumbo's peripherals suggest the opposite. by periperals do you mean his babip and LD% and such? If so, yes those have to come down, and yes, I see that Stewarts very well could come- I talked about my pessimism over all but I can buy/see the argument. I simply also see that his(Trumbo) history says some improvement is usual and should/could be expected (not to his current extent). His walks, ob%, ops and overall improvement have always improved with more experience. You mentioned his power and walks. he is heading for 24 hrs. His slugging and OPS have always been high 700's to into the 800's so I am not sure how his power should be questioned, he did hit 29 last year. His walks are up- 3 behind stewart, and heading for about 50 for this year or double last year (and that should not be bothered by babip) I agree it's a crazy line on his babip. Way above Hamilton and Kemp, I just can't dismiss his other history completely though. I don't think he would make us great. I don't even say let's replace stewart with him. Just an example of how a few posters completely dismiss any theory that they do not agree with or think up themselves. I do not see how anyone honestly can say that we wouldn't be better off with Trumbo on our roster at a whopping cost of 500k. which is what guys like Cardenas, Valbueno, and Mather are making. The argument has been made, and is understandable that Cardenas is worth the gamble. I can agree but how in go'd name is Trumbo garbage and could not possibly be a value if Cardenas is? I also find the argument that Scioscia is a meat head tough to buy also.

Don't know what you are arguing. please clarify. You are comparing Stewart and Trumbo not me, I did not say I want Trumbo at 3rd. Right now he is playing outfield because vernon wells and hunter are out. I simply pointed out that you seriously missed on Trumbo. Yes, his Babip has to fall VERY WELL NOTED! that's a crazy line. If that is your argument, you win. Are you saying that Trumbo for Marmol was still a dumb idea? Are you saying that he won't improve his ob% and ops this year- because that's what you were saying in january. Are you saying the upside of Cardenas, Mather and valbuena is better than Trumbo? because that's who is on the 40 man at about the same cost.