CUBZ99

is this is a competition of who made the most stupid plays? i think cedeno would blow the competition away if so. I think he was being sarcastic and saying that throwing errors don't mean a player is being dumb We are all arguing degree of deficiency here. Some say "idiotic", some say "dumb", some say "not the smartest"...... Its all a matter of the adjective that you want to use. And how many players in professional sports actually get thrown out sliding past second base on a walk? I'm guessing the odds of it happening during a ballgame are pretty astronomical. And then to admit that you didn't know there was a rule that you couldn't pass 2nd base? That is getting into Michael Barrett territory. In regard to Bruce, pointing out one of many "insert adjective for Cedeno's deficiency" mistakes over the course of his time with the Cubs isn't piling on. Piling on would be if he took the time to list multiple instances.

:lol: =D>

Any chance that the Padres wanted Heilman over Olson? If so, this trade is forgivable.

? where did you get olson? That would be a horrendous trade.

What does the amount he paid have to do with his commitment to winning? Agreed. It just shows how ridiculous this article is. Hendry has basically painted the new owner into a corner on Peavy. Everybody in Chicago believes that the Cubs can get Peavy and all that Hendry is waiting for is the approval of the new owner. If Ricketts doesn't give the approval, he will get bashed endlessly for being a cheapskate, and the beginning of his tenure as the new owner will start off on the wrong foot. If he gives the green light to get Peavy, he starts off as a hero, serious about winning. Masterstroke on Hendry's part. I dont think any of this is Hendry's fault. He never went to the media the first time around, that was Tower's. He still isn't going to the media now. He pretty much did everything he was supposed to do as a GM. It would look much worse if he never made an effort for Peavy at all. I'm not assigning any blame on Hendry. Just saying, he has played this beautifully. If this deal doesn't get done it won't be any fault of his own.

What does the amount he paid have to do with his commitment to winning? Agreed. It just shows how ridiculous this article is. Hendry has basically painted the new owner into a corner on Peavy. Everybody in Chicago believes that the Cubs can get Peavy and all that Hendry is waiting for is the approval of the new owner. If Ricketts doesn't give the approval, he will get bashed endlessly for being a cheapskate, and the beginning of his tenure as the new owner will start off on the wrong foot. If he gives the green light to get Peavy, he starts off as a hero, serious about winning. Masterstroke on Hendry's part.

I was at the game last night, and the Bulls effort was pretty bad. Besides a terrible job of coaching, the team looked pretty flat. One observation that you really can't appreciate enough on TV was how bad Aaron Gray is. He rarely ran the court and was useless inside. The Bulls have to find a better option at C. Jefferson just destroyed them all night.

Beyond Cashner, Caridad, and Castillo, it doesn't look like there is not a lot of youth to watch for in ST.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumor012409.php Is Levine just speculating or is he reporting that trade discussions have picked up again, and that is the offer on the table? If that is the offer, I can't see Hendry turning it down. Its basically Vitters + a bunch of spare parts for Peavy. I would hate to trade Vitters, but for all we know he could injure his hand again or flame out at the higher levels. If the Cubs goal is to win now, its a risk worth taking.

Bruce, if your lurking, what do you think this means for the team's payroll this year? Will Ricketts instruct Hendry to pursue Peavy or even give Hendry more payroll to pick up other players?

I hope this is good news if true. Isn't Ricketts the potential owner that wants Hendry to get Peavy?

Bruce has direct access to Jim Hendry and the Cubs organization. I'm pretty sure that over his years covering the Cubs he has built up trust with Hendry, etc. and doesn't go around spreading rumors in attempt to be the first guy to break the story. Besides the fact that he is a genuinely good poster, he has dispelled many rumors in the past, and been upfront about the info he has. He doesn't sensationalize to get attention, and I have yet to see him post information that was false. Many of us on this board see great value in that information, and appreciate the fact that he stops by every once and awhile to share our like for the Cubs.

My other plan was to hurry up and delete my not so private message once he read it, but he sorta disappeared. Your such a prick. J/k btw. :-))

Is this the Dunn thread now?

Are you saying those two are similar? Isn't there a significant difference in evaluating those lines in relation to the strikeouts? All else being equal (which is the case here at least in the stats listed) I thought making contact was better than not. I'm saying both are really awful, and banishing the younger, great fielding one while letting the older, crummy fielding one get the extended look is a poor decision. Edmonds went on to put up a .937 OPS with the Cubs. It turns out it was a pretty good decision. Now if Hendry can sprinkle some magic pixie dust on Fukudome and Gathright this year, the Cubs will be golden.

a .937 OPS over more than half a season being paid major league minimum is quite the payoff.

Who is arguing that he proved he'd never be able to hit? or that he won't improve? I'm arguing that based on the concrete stats that Edmonds/Reed put up last year, they were the better option. Sure it was a risky move by Hendry, but it paid off in spades for 2008.

Of course, had they played Pie last year he might have developed enough to make signing Bradley unneccessary. Had they given Pie a real chance he may have shown enough to where they could trade him and get much more value in return. That being said, the Cubs handling of Pie last year had more to do with off the field issues than anything else. I understand that, but hindsight being 20/20 Hendry actually made the right call last year for last year's season. It would be hard to imagine that Pie could have come close to the Edmonds/Johnson platoon. Hendry made a great (albeit lucky) move by picking up Edmonds. Pie didn't need to match Edmonds/Reed's offensive #s to be comparable because he had a big defensive advantage. Even considering defense, he didn't need to match their value because him being a league average player for us last year would be a better scenario than what Edmonds/Reed gave us last year because we'd have Pie for a long time for very little. You have to have cheap players somewhere, and the Cubs never even gave a chance to one of their best chances. The goal of the GM is to put the best possible team on the field within the resources that he has. Last year Edmonds/Reed was a great combo in CF. Sure Hendry has to look toward the future, but as the 2004 team knows even the best laid plans can lead to failure. The Cubs are not a lower salary bracket team. They have great resources that should field a competitive team year in and year out. Its unfortunate what happened to Pie, but I don't fault Hendry for doing everything possible to try to win now. At some point there has to be personal responsibility on the players part. Had Pie started hot one of the last two spring trainings or during his call ups, the Cubs would probably still have him. In regard to cheap players, their roster is loaded with cheap players. Theriot, Fontenot, Soto, Marshall, Hoffpaiur, Shark, Guzman, Gathright, Cedeno, Wuertz, . If anything Hendry has done a nice job at bringing up role players to supplement the roster well.

Of course, had they played Pie last year he might have developed enough to make signing Bradley unneccessary. Had they given Pie a real chance he may have shown enough to where they could trade him and get much more value in return. That being said, the Cubs handling of Pie last year had more to do with off the field issues than anything else. I understand that, but hindsight being 20/20 Hendry actually made the right call last year for last year's season. It would be hard to imagine that Pie could have come close to the Edmonds/Johnson platoon. Hendry made a great (albeit lucky) move by picking up Edmonds.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumors12009.php That's awesome if we can keep Vitters. Don't see how that package is enough though. No kidding. I would take back my criticism of Hendry to this point if he can pull that deal off. Only worry would be who is going to fill in for Harden/Peavy or Zambrano if they get hurt.

How was it dumb to platoon two decent players for a full season and get great production from the CF slot? If anything, using a platoon like that to such great effect was pretty atypical for the Cubs. Well they gave up on Pie before anybody knew they'd get freakish production from Edmonds Or, it was obvious that Pie wasn't going to be able to contribute offensively in 2008, so they looked elsewhere for production. It was obvious by those whole 30 PAs that he struggled in to start the season? In has last 40 PAs before Edmonds took his place and Pie was sent back to AAA, he went .286/.350/.400. He was improving. I'm not a Pie fan at all, but the dude was never given a chance in 2008. I'm a huge Pie fan, but last year Jim Edmonds and Reed Johnson put up monster numbers in CF. I'm not opposed to playing for the moment and trying to win now, which is exactly what the Cubs did. This year Hendry had to get somebody decent to play RF, he went out and got the AL league leader in several offensive categories in 2008. That left him with a $12MM Fukudome to either back up or play CF. There was no room for Pie on this year's team. Hopefully, Pie gets a chance to play with the O's and becomes a great player. But with all three OF's signed for at least the next 3 years, there was no room for him with the Cubs.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/19/1s20padres-projected-payroll-over-target/?padres Sooner is better than later. Was there any verification other than the WSJ that the Cubs were going to announce the winning bidder this week?

How was it dumb to platoon two decent players for a full season and get great production from the CF slot? If anything, using a platoon like that to such great effect was pretty atypical for the Cubs. Well they gave up on Pie before anybody knew they'd get freakish production from Edmonds Or, it was obvious that Pie wasn't going to be able to contribute offensively in 2008, so they looked elsewhere for production. Personally I don't see how that was obvious. Guys struggle early, develop and improve. Pie has a track record of adjusting to higher levels with playing time. O's fans say the same thing about Olson. They say that he is dominant once he adjusts to the new league. I'm guessing that is one of the reasons that the Pad's may want him. Petco would be a great park to pitch half your games in.

The Cubs definitely need pitching prospects, just that what they rec'd from Clev. wouldn't classify as anything elite or worth holding onto. That type of thinking is what led the Yankees to where they've been for the last 5 years and not something the Cubs have the capacity to do. While I would have no problem in this case of Vitters being involved for Peavy, they should factor the state of the pipeline and what blue-chip guys are being included even if that player will help the Cubs. They trade Vitters and the cubs have maybe the worst farm in the game, espec. if Samardzija does spend the year in the Cubs' pen. To play devil's advocate, most of the contributions the Cubs have gotten from the minor leagues haven't been blue chip prospects. Soto wasn't highly rated or thought of and now is one of the better catchers in the NL. Theriot wasn't highly rated, but put in an above average season last year. It seems to me that most of the blue-chippers like Bobby Hill, David Kelton, Felix Pie, Corey Patterson, Pawelek flamed out. I do agree with you that if the Cubs trade Vitters, their minors will be pretty barren.

Whats more interesting to note is that Alderson had previously said he had a deadling of the 15th of january to announce that Peavy was off the trading block. He extended that deadline to february first which by coincidence would be after the cubs named the winning bidder. I just find it too much of a coincidence that Hendry traded for Olsen ( A player the padres wanted), Pitching Prospects from Cleveland (Which the cubs didn't need). I just dont by the fact that the cubs planned on trading derosa and marquis to just acquire bradley. But the more interesting trade has to be the Pie trade cause there was never a reported interest in olsen other than the peavy talks. Hendry has in effect boxed the new owner in on acquiring Peavy. If the new owner approves the deal, he is a hero. If the new owner doesn't approve the deal, there will be outrage from Cub fans.