vance_the_cubs_fan

I'm going with my gut and picking Teixeira to win it.

Clemens: 7 W Carpenter: 13 W Considering how poor Houston's offense was in April and May, and how poor it's bullpen is sans Lidge...7 wins is damn impressive. So, even counting wins, Clemens leads in 3 key stats, Carp in one (and that the least important). Clemens ERA is more than a run lower. Clemens got shafted.

Wouldn't Tim's ability to check IP addresses help with that?

Two words: Eric Milton :wink: If we took back Milton's contract, it certainly would make it easier to acquire Dunn.

The point is that no one was discussing Lee. We were discussing Carp. It's a trollish behavior to try to divert one discussion to a criticism of Lee. If you would like to discuss Lee's chances at maintaining his current pace, there's a thread on Lee and his chances for the Triple Crown. Why not add your views there.

Hi Eric. Thanks for taking the time to answer some questions. What part of your game do you take the most pride in? Hitting, base running, or fielding? Have you considered playing any other positions besides secondbase?

Thanks for taking our questions. What's a typical day like for a minor league pitcher?

Unfortunately for the Twinkies, I don't think Boone will be any more productive for them than he was for the Mariners this year. But they did have a need at second base, so this is not a bad deal for them.

I would have started Clemens, and if not Clemens, Willis. Carpenter isn't a bad choice, but I think the other two are more deserving. I will say that Carpenter's numbers are close enough that it made it easy for him to pick "his" guy, but I have little doubt that if any other manager in the National League were making the call, he would have gone with Clemens or Willis.

Until Guzman is healthy and pitching again, he has little to no value whatsoever. Unless he gets healthy, he'll be viewed as just another prospect who washed out on the way to the show.

Ok, I've seen a lot I want to comment on, and I'll do it all in one post. 1. Is Dunn the "perfect" hitter? No, but he's pretty damn close. He's also only 25 so there is reason to believe he will get better. 2. I wouldn't let Pie be a deal breaker, but I'd do my best to keep him out of it. The Reds need pitchers more than they need outfielders, and that's our strength. It would take some good negotiations, but I think he could be traded for without giving up Pie. I do think Patterson would have to be included if Pie isn't. 3. I think the Reds would trade within the division if we have the best package. If it's close, they'll take the other offer. We might have to throw in that extra prospect to get anything done. 4. I do believe it will be hard to outbid the Dodgers if Depodesta decides it's worth giving up his top players to make a deal happen. If the Dodgers offer Edwin Jackson and Joel Guzman along with another prospect, we have no chance. On the other hand, if Depo decides he wants to hang on to Guzman then we have the horses to compete. 5. The best way to get Dunn might be to help the Reds with one of their money problems. We have no need of Griffey if we get Dunn, but we might could help them out by taking Milton. 6. If Jerome Williams continues to pitch well, he could be the kicker that gets this deal done. Williams has had major league success and is young and cheap. To the Cubs, he's also expendable. Williams would make any package the Cubs put together much more palatable to the Reds.

I have a pair of tix (not great seats) to see the Cubs vs Astros on Sept 25. The seats are section 529, row 5. I was hoping the wife would make a late season trip to the game, but she nixed the idea. I'm willing to offer them up as a prize for the site. I know it isn't much, but it could be some form of incentive. I was wondering if increased traffic might lead to increased ad revenue...I don't know, so someone correct me if my assumption is wrong. What I had in mind was maybe a referral contest. A person receives a point for every person that they refer to the site that registers. At the end of a specified period of time, the person with the most registered referrals wins the tix. I know this will likely only appeal to those in and around the Chicago area, but they are also the ones most likely to win since they'll know more Cub fans. Just a thought.

Why not? Dunn is better right now than Pie will ever be. If Dunn was 5 years older I would agree with you, but he is only 25 and has plenty of great seasons ahead of him. I highly doubt the Reds would deal their best player without getting the Cubs best prospect. An opportunity to get a player like Dunn doesn't happen very often, so if Cinci needs Pie to deal Dunn, I think we should give him to them. Partly because I don't think Pie becomes a deal breaker. I expect the Reds to counter with Pie, but I think by offering Patterson and better pitchers the deal still gets Dunn. The Reds need pitching and lots of it. One advantage the Cubs could have in trading for Dunn is to offer 2-3 pitching prospects. I also think swapping Patterson for Pie but then offering Dopirak is a better deal for the Reds. If the Cubs put Pie in the deal, then Patterson is out of it and so is Dopirak.

I just wanted to remind everyone: THIS ONE COUNTS! :roll:

In the Cincinnati Post, Dan Obrien comments on trading for one of the three outfielders: Pena, Dunn, or Kearns. So, yes to get Dunn you're going to pay and pay a lot. The Reds control Dunn for two more seasons after this one. They could, if they wanted to, afford him for next season. 2007 might be out of their price range. That being said, the Reds have until the offseason following the 2006 season before trading Dunn becomes urgent. If preceeding that time, they can unload Griffey's contract or bring in some young cheap talent elsewhere, they may be able to afford Dunn in the 2007 season as well. My guess is he will be traded sometime before the 2006 trading deadline, with a deal most likely this offseason. There's also still a decent chance he isn't traded until the offseason preceeding the 2007 season. To get a deal done right now for Dunn is going to be costly.

Thos fancy numbers again are a 384 OBP, a 550 SLG, and a 935 OPS. He's 25 (Think same age as Patterson) and has a career 899 OPS. I'd gladly give up the deal I proposed. None of those players are essiential to the Cubs future. Patterson is done here. Hill is the best of the lot, but we have a wealth of pitchers coming up the pipe. Now would be the time to sell on Dopirak and if we lock Lee up past his current deal, Dope has no place to play. I don't think Leicester has a future with the team either. I wouldn't trade Pie, but I'd trade a lot to get Dunn. He's a player that when surrounded by talent can definitely make a difference.

Do you really think it'd take that much? I have no problem trading dope, with the emergance of Lee. But i'd think one of Patterson/leicester might be able to be pulled from that deal. I'm sure they'd want hill, with their pitching woes and all. That being said, I'd probably do that deal. Yes, I do. In fact, I'm worried that might not be enough. We don't have the "quality" in prospects to trade. Because of that, we have to overwhelm with quantity. The Dodgers could send Edwin Jackson (viewed as better than Hill) and Joel Guzman ( a blue-chip OF prospect - likely viewed by most scouts as better than Pie) for Dunn. We won't send Pie, so we offer Patterson. Patterson helps because he has ML experience, but he also could get expensive for the Reds. Hill gives them a pitcher, but his ceiling isn't high enough alone. Dopirak gives them the high risk prospect, but he also carries some clout to help make the deal more palatable to them. Leicester is the last piece. He's not great, but he is a major league ready arm for the pen. As I said, I'm not sure that would be enough for Dunn since they don't have to trade him now. We might have to upgrade some of those like Welly instead of Leicester or add another player that could interest them. Getting the Reds to part with Dunn will not be an easy proposition.

Murton has excellent discipline at the plate and great bat control. He lacks the power a lot of teams desire for a corner outfielder, though.

What about Patterson, Rich Hill, Dopirak, and Leicester for Dunn?

I'm thinking of sending this to Phil via e-mail: Phil, I was reading your hopelessly flawed argument about Pujols deserving the MVP over Lee, and I was stunned to see that you mentioned Pujols had more "Runs Created" than Lee did. Then I realized you made up your own "Runs Created", which is essentially completely opposite the real "Runs Created", which Bill James (who I'm sure you revile) put together a couple decades ago. Runs Created measures offensive prowess based on an individual's total contributions. Adding Runs and RBIs (and subtracting homers, whatever) only shows a player's contribution based on the team around him. Is it really Lee's fault that he had to bat behind Patterson and Perez for a month, when neither could get on base to be driven in if their lives depended on it? Just for fun, here's the actual Runs Created leaders in the NL currently: 1. Lee 95.1 2. Pujols 81.1 3. Abreu 77.6 4. Cabrera 68.5 5. Bay 67.7 And here's a link, in case you don't believe it: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=nl&season=2005&seasonType=2&sort=runsCreated&type=sab&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all As you can see, it's not even close. And if you want to talk about team performance, what of the fact that Pujols is surrounded by All-Stars? I think it can be very reasonably asserted that the Cardinals would still be in first place without him. However, without Lee, the Cubs would not even be sniffing the Wild Card -- they'd probably be just behind the Pirates, and looking to sell. Regardless of the argument, I would like to HIGHLY suggest you not use the term Runs Created anymore. That's not the name of the stat you showed, and it's beyond misleading to call it that. On point? I'm sure he'll just delete it (if he knows how), but it'll at least make me feel a little better. I like it. You should send it to him.

Speculation in today's LA Times that Adam Dunn could be headed to LA. I hope that if Dunn is available that Hendry will make a run for him. I don't know that we don't have more to offer than the Dodgers. I guess the Dodgers could create a package that includes Edwin Jackson, Andy LaRoche or Joel Guzman. Dioner Navarro might interest the Reds as well.

That's what Kotsay wanted all along and what some believed had been holding up the deal previously. Beane hates giving no-trade clauses, but the deal is affordable which is likely why Beane compromised. And, to the other point: Unless we can pull off a blockbuster for a bat like Dunn, I'm not sure if there is a player out there and available that makes us significantly better. While I don't think we should be sellers, we might not really need to be buyers either.

I'm of the presusasion that Hendry got the best deal he could considering the factors he was working with. 1. He needed a team willing to take Sosa and a team that could afford him. 2. He needed Sosa to waive the automatic vesting of 2006 if traded. 3. He had to find a team Sosa would waive his no-trade clause to go to. All those hindered other possible deals. I don't look at us wasting money paying Sosa to play for someone else. That money would be wasted there or wasted on Sosa. We had 17 million tied into Sosa one way or the other. Looking at his production, getting back 8 million of that to use is better than giving all 17 million to Sammy.

According to Sun Times, Kotsay would likely have been a Cub if he hadn't signed the extension on Saturday. It appears that as of now, the Cubs don't have a plan B.

Most reports I'v heard are that Borowski will seek to latch on to a major league team and if that doesn't work out will take a spot with Iowa.