vance_the_cubs_fan

The Reds will respond with demands for quality. They'll bring Pie into the discussion. Your next step? I'm not opposed to giving up Pie in a deal for Dunn, but it would have to be something like Pie and Mitre.

We haven't had a decent Dunn thread in awhile, so I thought one was well overdue. Plus I was reading this article in the Cincinnati Post about how the Reds will be exploring ways to improve their team during the Winter Meetings. It appears the Reds will trade the players or player that will net them the most in return. Folks, that player is undoubtably Adam Dunn. The only concern is whether the Cubs have enough in the cupboard to get him. I'd overwhelm the Reds with quantity: Williams, Mitre, Wellemyer, and Dopirak for Dunn.

it would be nice if you would tell us why you think this would be such a bad decision. Because when you have the payroll flexibility that the Cubs do, something like this should be inexcuseable and totally unnecessary! What's actually inexcusable and stupid is to not consider every option for improving the team, even if it means trading your best player. Right now, Lee is one year away from free agency. Without an extension, every team in the league will be able to compete with the Cubs for his services. Trading him does not even preclude the Cubs from entering that bidding next season. So to trade Lee only means that you are giving him up for one season. So, should it be a priority? No. Is it possible to consider it? Absolutely. Smart organizations explore every way to improve their team, not just conventional ways. Reasons to explore trading Lee: 1. Last season was way out of line with his career norms. His value has never been higher and you may be able to take advantage of that value before he regresses in the next season. 2. If Lee is approached with an extension and you are unable to sign him at a price you'd be willing to pay for on the open market. If management believes he will walk at the end of 2006 and they can get something of equal value that will be with the team long term, then trading Lee becomes an option. Reasons not to trade Lee: 1. He's an excellent person as well as a player. He's coming off an MVP-like season and fast becoming a fan favorite. 2. He agrees to a team-friendly extension, thereby cementing himself as part of the future of the Cubs. 3. You are unable to dramatically improve your team through trade. Just for S&G's... what if you could make one of these trades? 1. Lee to Boston for Manny + cash and Jon Lester. 2. Lee to Dodgers for Choi, Drew, and Joel Guzman. 3. Lee to the Devil Rays for Huff and Delmon Young. 4. Lee, Walker, Pinto, and Mitre to the Rangers for Mench, Soriano, and Teixeria. 5. Lee, Pintom and Mitre to the Reds for Dunn and Casey. I'm not sure I'd do any or all of those deals, but if those proposals were made, I'd hope the Cubs would at least listen. To suggest that trading Lee shouldn't be considered in any shape or form is one of the most closed-minded and dumb things I've ever had the privledge of reading on these boards.

I'd just tell Furcal that we'll match the Dodgers 3/39 or give him the 5/50.

I met Andy Sisco at a Peoria Chiefs game (but this was back when he was the visiting team on the Lugnuts), and he refused to sign an autograph for my friend an I. No matter his future MLB stats, he's a jerk. Arrogant, too. In spring training 2004, I met Sisco and he signed two autographs for me and one for my wife. Sometimes they just have bad days. If one day of not signing an autograph makes someone a jerk, then no one in MLB isn't one.

Hell, if we're dealing with Tampa let's see what they want for Delmon. =P~

If I recall correctly, there were times when San Francisco had trouble supporting a team as well. The biggest discrepancies come less from attendance than they do from T.V. contracts. The best answer isn't playing musical chairs with franchises. It's having MLB face its revenue sharing problems and working to better help those franchises that don't exist within the larger markets.

Here's a thought. As a starting point I go back to a 3-way trade rumor I brought to the board weeks ago where the Dodgers, Cubs, and Marlins would play musical chairs with Lowe, Bradley, Lowell, Castillo, Walker, Patterson and Cubs pitching prospects. Obviously, the Marlins did get rid of their players. I still keep hearing that if the LA signs Furcal, they'll want to dump Bradley and Lowe in the name of salary (but also because of clubhouse reasons). What if they traded Bradley and Lowe for some package involving Corey or Walker and some pitching prospects, and Hendry turned around and shipped Lowe and a prospect to the Phillies for Abreu? Is trading Lowe/Bradley solely dependent on if they sign Furcal? I'm not sure. But if the Dodgers lose out to Furcal, they may not want to trade Bradley. Also, they may not need to clear as much payroll. Also, if the Cubs sign Furcal, they'll still need a CF and RF and may not have the payroll flexibility to take on Lowe's contract.

Instead of Abreu, why not send Lowe (Cubs paying half the contract), Mitre, and Wellemeyer to the Reds for Dunn. Sorry guys, but we haven't dreamt of adding Dunn in at least a week.

Just wait until the crazy cajun arrives at the party and then all hell is going to break loose!

Here's a thought. As a starting point I go back to a 3-way trade rumor I brought to the board weeks ago where the Dodgers, Cubs, and Marlins would play musical chairs with Lowe, Bradley, Lowell, Castillo, Walker, Patterson and Cubs pitching prospects. Obviously, the Marlins did get rid of their players. I still keep hearing that if the LA signs Furcal, they'll want to dump Bradley and Lowe in the name of salary (but also because of clubhouse reasons). What if they traded Bradley and Lowe for some package involving Corey or Walker and some pitching prospects, and Hendry turned around and shipped Lowe and a prospect to the Phillies for Abreu? If we ended up with Bradley and Abreu and only lost Walker, Patterson, and a couple of prospects...I think I might need a new pair of pants.

If Pierre goes to the Yankees, hopefully that will help move Hendry toward a deal for Bradley.

When was the last time you where in Pittsburg? I was there last year for a few Cub games over the couse of a weekend. The city is alive and well. The downtown is thriving and they have new shopping and tourism attractions. IMO, the problem is that they haven't been good in a long time. If the Steelers can sell out Heinz field, the Pirates can sell out PNC. Why would I want to go to Pittsburgh? Yikes! So what, they threw a bunch of government money to bring alive downtown. So did Cincy. It still doesn't change the fact that they're both old economy cities. Both places should be one sport towns. Send the baseball franchises to the East or West Coast or to Chicago. Man, are you parochial, or what? The Reds and Pirates are original NL teams, they're just as proud as our Cubs. And they're not the "poor sisters" many make them out to be, it's lousy baseball teams that are the problem, not fan support or lack of underlying passion. There are nearly 7 million people in the effective Reds dominance area, including Louisville, Dayton, Columbus and Indianapolis. Pittsburgh is in a little tougher spot, but they are in better shape than KC, Milwaukee, Tampa and frankly, San Diego in terms of total fan base size. Honus Wagner. Ernie Lombardi. Ted Kluszewski. Ralph Kiner. Roberto Clemente. Pops Stargell. The Big Red Machine. Not sure where you're getting SD?? People near & in SD have lots of money and can afford the rising ticket prices, which is a big part of producing revenue. And I forgot about KC. As for Cincy, all I keep hearing is that the Cincy metro's going downhill fast. So, baseball should only be in markets full of affluent people? :roll: I hope you're never in a position to make important decisions.

Basically Giles assures himself if he's traded, the other team gets him without the discount.

When was the last time you where in Pittsburg? I was there last year for a few Cub games over the couse of a weekend. The city is alive and well. The downtown is thriving and they have new shopping and tourism attractions. IMO, the problem is that they haven't been good in a long time. If the Steelers can sell out Heinz field, the Pirates can sell out PNC. Why would I want to go to Pittsburgh? Yikes! So what, they threw a bunch of government money to bring alive downtown. So did Cincy. It still doesn't change the fact that they're both old economy cities. Both places should be one sport towns. Send the baseball franchises to the East or West Coast or to Chicago. So, in your point of view, all cities in Middle America with the exception of Chicago should be one sport cities. Get a clue! Depends on the city. As someone else pointed out, Pittsburgh is a football town. Hence it's very difficult for baseball to be competitive given that there's no salary cap. St. Louis can survive w/ baseball and football, cause it's a baseball town by far, and football has a salary cap. This has more to do with revenue sharing than with a salary cap. Football has a much better plan for revenue sharing than baseball does. If revenues were more evenly distributed, it would not be nearly the problem it is. Baseball has been working on that issue, but there is still a long, long way to go. Good point. My basic point is that if baseball doesn't change the way they finance the game certain franchises are toast and would be better served by moving to much bigger metro areas. New York could easily have a 3rd team. Perhaps even a fourth. I'm not sure they would or baseball would be better served moving teams away form those places. As you move teams, fans in those areas will become less inclined to be avid baseball fans. While you may have greater attendance if you had three teams in NY and another team in SoCal, what would it do to the national popularity of the sport? Also, are you seriously suggesting moving teams away from cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh that hold so much history of the game? Doing so seems short-sighted and provincial.

The bad thing is 3/39 is better than 4/40 which is what I was hoping we'd get him for. I think he'd take 3/39 instead of 5/50. He's leaving 11 million on the table, but even after three years, if he signed a 2/12 deal he'd come out ahead. With the salaries coming off the books, could Hendry offer him the choice of a 3/39 or 5/50? One deal, we tie him up for fewer years....in the other we pay him less over more time. I'm not opposed to either, really.

When was the last time you where in Pittsburg? I was there last year for a few Cub games over the couse of a weekend. The city is alive and well. The downtown is thriving and they have new shopping and tourism attractions. IMO, the problem is that they haven't been good in a long time. If the Steelers can sell out Heinz field, the Pirates can sell out PNC. Why would I want to go to Pittsburgh? Yikes! So what, they threw a bunch of government money to bring alive downtown. So did Cincy. It still doesn't change the fact that they're both old economy cities. Both places should be one sport towns. Send the baseball franchises to the East or West Coast or to Chicago. So, in your point of view, all cities in Middle America with the exception of Chicago should be one sport cities. Get a clue! Depends on the city. As someone else pointed out, Pittsburgh is a football town. Hence it's very difficult for baseball to be competitive given that there's no salary cap. St. Louis can survive w/ baseball and football, cause it's a baseball town by far, and football has a salary cap. This has more to do with revenue sharing than with a salary cap. Football has a much better plan for revenue sharing than baseball does. If revenues were more evenly distributed, it would not be nearly the problem it is. Baseball has been working on that issue, but there is still a long, long way to go.

Realistically, for the Marlins it's better to have a complete fire sale than a partial one. Trading Pierre is next because he's going to be a FA. It's obvious that this team isn't going to be competitive next season, so they might as well completely re-stock with the idea of being competitive two or three years down the road. Does anyone think the Marlins would be that much better if they traded just Beckett, Lowell, and Delgado? No, they weren't winning a division with Castillo-Pierre-Dontrelle-Cabrera and no one else, so they might as well finish it off and get some more players. They'll keep Dontrelle and Cabs, because those guys will still be under team control when they hope to be competetive again. Loduca and Pierre are next. If you're going to tear it down and rebuild it, you might as well do it right. It might drive the fans away? They only had about 5000 of those anyway.

When was the last time you where in Pittsburg? I was there last year for a few Cub games over the couse of a weekend. The city is alive and well. The downtown is thriving and they have new shopping and tourism attractions. IMO, the problem is that they haven't been good in a long time. If the Steelers can sell out Heinz field, the Pirates can sell out PNC. Why would I want to go to Pittsburgh? Yikes! So what, they threw a bunch of government money to bring alive downtown. So did Cincy. It still doesn't change the fact that they're both old economy cities. Both places should be one sport towns. Send the baseball franchises to the East or West Coast or to Chicago. So, in your point of view, all cities in Middle America with the exception of Chicago should be one sport cities. Get a clue!

I do think this was a missed opportunity. Of all the Marlins players that have or will likely be moved, Castillo was the best option for the Cubs. He can hit well in the one or two hole, get on base, and play stellar defense. He's also the one whose salary is most comensurate with his abilities. I'm not upset with Hendry for not acquiring him, but I do think we could have matched what Minnesota gave up to get him. I've been hoping for Castillo ever since I realized that they'll probably move Walker. I'm a little disapointed to see him get away. If we fail to get Furcal, we could now really find ourselves with a Cedeno-Perez MI if Hendry is still so pre-disposed to trading Walker. While I'll reserve judgement until that happens, if it does, I will lose all confindence in Hendry and his philosophy of guys who can catch the ball. In Castillo you could have gotten offense from someone who also can catch the ball.

Someone be sure to let me know if he mentions liking guys who catch the ball.

i didn't really mention any sabr stats, and any arrogance in my tone is purely inferred, not implied. but for the record, you don't have to be Bob's Keeper to realize that corey, at this time, would be far less productive than bradley. My point is to lose Walker in order to bring in baseball Satan, for a decent statistical upgrade is not worth all effort, when Hendry can focus his time with other teams and greater statistical upgrades. Maybe they're not considered sabermetric stats - but you get what I mean. To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish. Now, that's using an extreme hyperbole!

I think all the choices up there are better baseball analysists than Holtz is a football one. A trained chimp would be a better choice.

The thing is, nobody else is likely to come close to offering up a pitcher the caliber of Zambrano in Abreu talks. And Philly is likely to have to send money if a team takes on both Abreu's contract and Padilla's arbitration number. I'd much rather see the Cubs pay all of those contracts and pay less in talent. You make an excellent point. And I'm not saying I'd be completely in favor of the deal, I was just throwing it out there. In reality, if I were sending Zambrano to the Phillies for Abreu and Padilla, I'd also try to get Floyd or Hamels back in the deal.

I would argue that the Cubs see Prior as the ace over Zambrano. That may not be the case in actuality, but I do believe that is how the Cubs see it. While, I'd hate to lose Zambrano, this rotation: Prior, Wood, Burnett, Maddux, Padilla wouldn't be that bad. If it went with this line-up: Pierre Walker Lee Abreu Ramirez Murton Barrett Cedeno/Perez and there still may be room for improvement in that line-up. On the other hand, we could be looking at this rotation: Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Maddux, Rusch with this line-up: Pierre Walker Lee Ramirez Encarnacion Murton Barrett Cedeno/Perez