CUBZ99

Maybe its like the Scott Eyre negotiations where Hendry just blew him away on the first offer and he took it.

Actually, it's not the same as turning singles into doubles. Doubles also have the benefit of driving in additional runs beyond what singles do. Also, if you're going to list that benefit, you also have to take away the outs from his CS as a negative. Fair enough, take away the CS and count the SB as 2B's i'm sure that his OPS would be far superior. In this case Roberts gets CS 14% that is pretty good rate. Again, you can't just count sb as doubles, though. Apparently statistics aren't full proof? For the exact reasons that your stating. Which was precisely my point.

Actually, it's not the same as turning singles into doubles. Doubles also have the benefit of driving in additional runs beyond what singles do. Also, if you're going to list that benefit, you also have to take away the outs from his CS as a negative. Fair enough, take away the CS and count the SB as 2B's i'm sure that his OPS would be far superior. In this case Roberts gets CS 14% that is pretty good rate.

Leadoff hitter is not a position in the game of baseball. what is your problem, I made a mistake on saying that if thats your best comeback on trying to make me look bad then u obviously have no case in that argument Ok, now it's on. Matt Murton is a pre-prime, cheap OF who's proven he can be a decent, cheap OF. We currently have no RF. Brian Roberts is a 30 year old 2B who's marginally better than our current 2B and makes $4.2m. He would cost the Cubs 2 or 3 good trading chips. Thus, Matt Murton has more value to the Cubs than this trade for Brian Roberts. Second, leadoff hitter isn't a position. It's an old timey way of looking at a lineup's composition (which really doesn't matter much when you look at it). Offense is offense, regardless if it is hitting 1st, 6th or 8th. Finally, baseballs don't travel differently in the minors as opposed to the majors. Pie's minor league career is a perfectly justified method of evaluating his defensive ability. And for what it's worth, 40 ML games isn't that small of a sample size. First, if Matt Murton played 2B his production would be above average and the Cubs likely wouldn't be looking for a replacement in the first place. He doesn't he plays LF, and the Cubs already have a LF that put up an OPS of approx. .100 pts higher than he did. Second, you can label it is "old timey" or whatever other snide putdown you can come up with, but the idea of putting a guy with a good OBP and speed at the top of the lineup to be a "leadoff hitter" is in fact a position and fills a role on the team. With a guy that steals 50 bases a year, that is the equivalent of taking 50 singles and making them doubles. Unfortunately that doesn't factor into his OPS so that you can compare OPS cleanly. Murton provides very little stolen bases. Further, a leadoff hitter is the guy on your team who is going to get the most at bats during a game. What a concept to have a guy that can actually get on base and make things happen. Finally, I agree with you on Pie.

no way, i dont buy it Is he staying up late to make the decision?

Am I thinking of a different Brian Roberts? That's awfully steep. Done without a second thought. I must be thinking of a different Brian Roberts too, because that is one lopsided trade. He's basically Matt Murton playing 2nd. That is basically a ridiculous statement.

:lol: Wow, that is some incredible insight.

Rotoworld was speculating that it was EPatt & Hill or Felix Pie & Sean Marshall/Sean Gallagher There is no way that you trade Hill without Bedard being included.

The clips they played today of Lou's comments, made it sound like he was not happy with Derosa starting at 2b. My guess is that Hendry will find another 2B before the season starts. Besides having Roberts at 2B, it would not be such a bad thing to have DeRosa coming of the bench. We all know that somebody is going to get hurt during the course of the season and DeRosa is a good insurance policy at almost every position.

Their preference for different cats makes them perfect trading partners. All this talk about Hendry's individual deals makes me wonder why so many people try and judge him on any specific trade. The bottom line is Jim has been in the Cubs organization for 12 years, he's been GM for over 5 years now. His signature is on every level of the organization, from the farm up to the manager. And the bottom line is the Cubs have been hugely disappointing. The results on the field have not come close to matching the resources allocated to the product on the field. Another way to look at it, is that Hendry has been GM for 5 years and the Cubs have been to the playoffs 2 of those 5 years. Even if Hendry doesn't make any further moves this offseason, he still has a team that should compete for the NL Central next year (I know the Central is weak).

Offman's update just made it sound like the Royals are in the lead, because of Hillman. Who knows....

I didn't realize that Hillman (manager of the Royals) was a manager over in Japan. Maybe that is why Fukudome narrowed his choices down to the Cubs and the Royals.

I was only half listening but I thought Offman just said that the Cubs and Royals are the finalists for Fukudome and that his price was going to reach upwards of $12MM per season.

That's because every team uses about 6 or 7 starters, some many more. Of course you can find worse pitchers. But the only way you can be satisfied with the numbers Marquis gave you is if he was a 25 year old making his debut in the majors. You cannot seriously be satisfied getting those numbers in the first year of a three year contract of a guy with Marquis's track record. I think your expectations of a $7MM free agent starting pitcher are unrealistic. Last year, among the other pitchers others were hoping for were Padilla $9MM 5.76 ERA 1.63 WHIP, Zito ($10MM last year, big remaining contract) 4.53 ERA 1.35 WHIP and Schmidt ($15.75MM) 6.31 ERA 1.71 WHIP. Compared to those guys on the market, Marquis' deal was not that bad. For Christ's sake... Other team's mistakes (or bad luck) do not justify Hendry's. You could have gotten similarly crappy production out of a rookie pitcher for the league minimum. That is a ridiculous statement. Try actually looking up pitchers stats. If stats like Marquis' were so easy to put up by a rookie or any pitcher, every team would have a rotation filled with pitchers with those stats or better than those stats.

That's because every team uses about 6 or 7 starters, some many more. Of course you can find worse pitchers. But the only way you can be satisfied with the numbers Marquis gave you is if he was a 25 year old making his debut in the majors. You cannot seriously be satisfied getting those numbers in the first year of a three year contract of a guy with Marquis's track record. I think your expectations of a $7MM free agent starting pitcher are unrealistic. Last year, among the other pitchers others were hoping for were Padilla $9MM 5.76 ERA 1.63 WHIP, Zito ($10MM last year, big remaining contract) 4.53 ERA 1.35 WHIP and Schmidt ($15.75MM) 6.31 ERA 1.71 WHIP. Compared to those guys on the market, Marquis' deal was not that bad.

It worked out well last year. This year probably not so much. It did? An ERA near 5 and a WHIP of almost 1.4 is working out well? It worked out well for about 1 month(April) and then it was all downhill from there Yes, they may not be sexy numbers but they are still very decent numbers for a back of the rotation pitcher. Marquis is terrible. I'd rather give that rotation spot to one of the kids making peanuts. And to top it all off they probably will be better than an overpaid Marquis. Terrible contract. Marquis is not terrible by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure that almost every team in the NL would have loved to have their 4th or 5th starter put up the numbers he put up last year. Just for fun take a look at other teams complete rotations, and compare them to the numbers Marquis put up last year. Is Marquis great? Not even close, but he is not terrible. Marquis is terrible, period. You can believe what you want but the fact remains Marquis sucks. Have you even seen how bad he was down the stretch? Look at his numbers the year before, the guys SUCKS. Try looking up his stats. He was above average for a back of the rotation starter last year.

It worked out well last year. This year probably not so much. It did? An ERA near 5 and a WHIP of almost 1.4 is working out well? It worked out well for about 1 month(April) and then it was all downhill from there Yes, they may not be sexy numbers but they are still very decent numbers for a back of the rotation pitcher. Marquis is terrible. I'd rather give that rotation spot to one of the kids making peanuts. And to top it all off they probably will be better than an overpaid Marquis. Terrible contract. Marquis is not terrible by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure that almost every team in the NL would have loved to have their 4th or 5th starter put up the numbers he put up last year. Just for fun take a look at other teams complete rotations, and compare them to the numbers Marquis put up last year. Is Marquis great? Not even close, but he is not terrible.

I want this report to be true, but is Newsday really that reliable?

It worked out well last year. This year probably not so much. It did? An ERA near 5 and a WHIP of almost 1.4 is working out well? It worked out well for about 1 month(April) and then it was all downhill from there Yes, they may not be sexy numbers but they are still very decent numbers for a back of the rotation pitcher.

It worked out well last year. This year probably not so much.

Found this on CS this morning: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071204cubs,1,1825969.story?coll=cs-home-headlines Is Sullivan's math really bad, or did the Cubs pick up more of Jones' salary than was originally reported?

Lets be serious. Who would ask for Fuld in a trade? I don't see the harm in Hendry's comments.

How many times have we seen this before with Hendry? Trade player A for Player B( plus other crap) then turn around and trade player B for Player C, who is even worse than B+the crap thrown in. I can think of at least a couple of times in the last 2-3 years. If Hendry can use the cash to get an Impact player, I think it would be a solid move. Yes, Hendry basically gave away Jones to get rid of his salary, and moved Ohman for a potentially good bullpen arm. Neither one of those guys were in the Cubs plans for 2008. Depending on how he uses the money it could turn out to be a solid trade.

I believe you are the one judging this based on emotions. I believe you've insinuated in the past you that Prior's problem is about body language and emotion, as opposed to any real injury. You've insinuated he's a steroids abuser and other things. I believe you have a grudge against Prior and just want him gone, thinking there's some sort of "cord cutting" benefit to moving on from the Prior era. Why not attack the argument instead of the poster? Seriously, who cares if he is a Prior hater or if he is the head of Prior's fan club. He has a good argument for his position. Instead of attacking the argument your spiraling into a competion between he is the better Prior Prognosticator. Soon we will be arguing over whether Prior is a real man or not.............

Is McLouth a top prospect?