mhuber92211

I would imagine that Jones is not mentioned because he is likely to be dealt long before the deadline

I would imagine that this frustation would be taken out with a couple of PLayer transactions and unlikely promotions ala Murton & Greenberg a couple of years ago

what was the 40 man change? For that matter, what was the change when Cherry was brought up?

Rocco Baldelli is a DLee type breakout waiting to happen - or a Coco Crisp. Regardless i think what the OP is suggesting is a good idea and that is to get a solid young OF to build around. An OF of Soriano, Baldelli, Murton/Pie looks pretty solid. It also gives the option of trading high on Murton which, in this scenario, would be a good idea. Trading Murton at the deadline to a team for late season pitching help if we are in it and have Baldelli would be a good deal. I doubt it would take as much as Veal to get Baldelli because Tampa has an OF logjam similar to ours. The trouble is that we would have to deal Jones first and Tampa does not want him. I would suggest the viable deal of Jones to Anaheim for Rodriguez and then deal Marmol/Marshall/Pen Arm for Baldelli.

didn't he play a lot of 3B last year?

This is ridiculous. I would have assumed that an organization that promtes diversity would care less about the number of specific people of a certain decent. The only thing that matters is that they have a mix of people from ALL demographics. Not to have a specific number of specific colors. Shouldn't this organization be color blind?

How many games have we just flat out gave away? It's has to be at least 8 games. If we just won half of those we would be in good shape. I don't even know what to say anymore. It's the same thing year after year. That simple fact is what still has me believing that the Cubs will contend this year. Our guys need to learn (quickly) how to put games away when they are right there for the taking, and if we win half of the close ones, we'll be just fine. We've been saying this the past 6 weeks. Nothing has changed in that time span. So what makes you think that all of a sudden the light switch will just come on. Ironic belief for what your avatar represents

Could the game then be shown on MLB Extra innings?

So if I understand the major bone of contention correctly is that Hendry did not spend wisely. Sheesh, that makes a swell argument. The counter thought would then be that he would be an acceptable GM if he has had the same record that he has now but only spent the Pirates' payroll. Why does having a large payroll make a difference? Bottom line is that money does not make a difference in baseball. There is no correlation with big spending and wins. You can win with a minimal payroll and you can win with a large payroll. Saying that Hendry is a poor GM because he spent his money unwisely is not a solid argument. If you said that Hendry is a poor GM because his moves like Perez & Macias are more common then his moves like Lee and Ramirez. If that is the argument, the conclusion isn't clear. Hendry has made some mistakes in acquiring the correct players. Were the above mistakes? Sure. Did they cripple the team and were the direct cause of failure? Absolutely not. Was it the sum of all these mistakes? Nope. The answer is simple. The Cubs have failed because they haven't been good enough to win. The players play the game, the GM and manager set them up for success. Each year Hendry identifies what needs to improve to provide the right course for success and he sets to it. Relying on what was the best rotation in baseball in 2004 was seemingly a good way of accomplishing this and Hendry supplemented the best rotation with a couple of major relievers that had a track record of recent success. This didn't work. Hendry then thought it was depth and attacked this and again it didn't work. Agree or not, Hendry has acted to improve the team. Were they the best options at the time? Possibly. We have no idea of the roadblocks to a possible deal with various players this board has clamored for. But at least we can't fault the GM for not ignoring a problem and trying to fix it. Before the OBP argument comes into play, let me say this. OBP is another weakness identified and addressed as best as possible. In this age of baseball , even though OBP is highly valued, there isn't many players capable of putting up good numbers.

This just makes me not living in Chicago hurt that much more. http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=68684&t=511427

who is considered an upgrade as a keeper instead of those players?

Just to Be clear, the draft pick was in the comments of the trade

# of starts?

I apologize. I read the 2 rules as having to be combined and not either/or.

you withdrew them a couple of times. I have no pending offers

I have Igawa available. Since he is technically a rookie he falls into keep rules.

tsk, tsk. Smack talk in writing always looks silly by the end of the week

Since TV is barely over 50 years old that is quite the statement. I would think the Color TV is a bigger breakthrough

Wasn't part of the reason Murton wasn't playing because he was the backup catcher while Blanco was gone?

if a player is currently playing in the minor leagues he should be minors eligible no matter his MLB experience. Prior should be a minors pitcher for example.

As so stated in #1. #-o As I realized so I clarified, sicen it makes ABSOULTELY no sense. And dince i don't have a message that says my roster is illegal I take it be a misunderstanding of the rules.

You are correct Tim. For fantasy purposes I see no reason for any changes. I just had trouble with the thought in general.

if the player is currently in the minors wouldn't that also make him qualify for the minor leagues?

I don't want to start a philosophical debate but the saying that by getting a win is not an indicator of how someone played is pretty illogical. I realize that it is a team sport and the team as a whole gets the win, but the pitcher has a great deal to do with that. Really? Even if you get a win by pitching 5 innings and giving up 8 runs but your team scores 9? Or if you blow a three run lead in the 9th and then your team comes back and wins in the bottom half? Or if you throw 8 shutout innings but your closer blows the game? That's logical? Please. Yes it is logical considering that the game is a TEAM sport. Hence the team recording a win AND the pitcher recording one as well. Bottom line is that in one example the team won and in the other the team didn't. Therefore in 1 example the pitcher did his job which is simply to not let the other team score more runs then your team does. It doesn't matter how he does it, it just matters that he does.

I don't want to start a philosophical debate but the saying that by getting a win is not an indicator of how someone played is pretty illogical. I realize that it is a team sport and the team as a whole gets the win, but the pitcher has a great deal to do with that.