vance_the_cubs_fan

Error by Branyan on a ball hit by Jiminez and the Rockies lead 3-0.

I like me some Jericho Jones! And where's my Michael Brenly updates?

I have no idea. I just provided the link. Take all of it with a grain of salt. I take everything you say with a heaping of salt. I can throw in some hot sauce too.

I have no idea. I just provided the link. Take all of it with a grain of salt.

Here's more on the Cubs' pursuit of Harden.

I'd hope so because I don't really see anyone being insensitive to his cancer. I also thought it was kind of lame to be like "yea well you wouldn't react this way if you knew I had cancer." I'm really sorry he has cancer, but it doesn't change how I feel about the original post, and it's not like the two are related. I dunno. Bingo!

I'm taking them one game at a time. Let's win this one!

I think Wolf is still being facetious.

I think so. May take 1 more player though. What about Pie, Ceda, Castillo, and Hart? Enough to get it done? I don't know. Hard to imagine the Cubs making a deal without involving a close to ML ready starter. Hart is more of a reliever to me. Maybe Pie, Ceda, Castillo and Veal, with a throw-in prospect coming from the A's? Well then what about Colvin, Castillo, Hill, and Fox?

I think so. May take 1 more player though. What about Pie, Ceda, Castillo, and Hart? Enough to get it done?

Would a deal of Pie, Ceda, and Castillo get the A's attention?

Gosh, how do I put this nicely without promoting an attack or coming across as an arrogant know it all? Please don't take this the wrong way. That is what she is supposed to say to you and doesn't mean he is working on any deal nor that he will get the message. She does her job well. Pretty much what I figured as well. I think you said it quite well.

From what I've gathered, Hendry is a guy who works around the clock. He probably spends 18+ hours a day working. So, I don't think it's necessary to call him and encourage him. Now, if you happen to see him somewhere, sure offer your encouragement to him. Hendry knows what needs to be done and he doesn't need me to tell him. AS NCCF said, what Hendry needs more than anything is a willing partner. And nothing personal, SSBW, but he could have been in a meeting or that could be the line his secretary gives when someone calls. Also, jokes about you calling Hendry have nothing to do with your health. Please don't take them as such. We all wish you the best in your recovery. I have a mother that had to fight through cancer and I don't wish it on anyone. But, I think more than anything people are making light of the fact that you called and expected to actually get through to Jim. And on another note, if all 1000 of us kept calling to talk to Jim to encourage him, wouldn't that keep him from doing the very job we hope that he is doing?

Member? Hell you don't even need to be educated to read their posts. In fact, if all you have a middle school grasp of scatological humor, you'll do fine over there.

Suppan goes on the DL to make room for Sabathia. McClung and Bush will remain in the rotation for now.

This thread will be locked in 5...4....3...2...1...

Atlanta might be a good fit for a trade. They often value the same things in prospects that we do. They are just better at it and better at developing them.

You might be better off calling Billy Beane. As they say, it takes two to tango.

Bruce weighs in on the trade and its implications for the Cubs. Link.

I think the title should be changes to read Dusty Baker's Reds.

Teams should draft based on who is the best asset - included in that is future trade value. But best asset is often a moving target depending on who you are trading with. LaPorta right now is a better asset than Vitters because he's hit well at a much higher level. LaPorta is also 23 compared to Vitters being 18. In those five years, Vitters could easily surpass LaPorta and either be a valuable member of the Cubs or traded for someone better than Sabathia. Hindsight is great. Sure, had the Cubs taken LaPorta, then maybe we're the front runner in getting Sabathia. I just don't think that's the best way to handle the draft.

Yes, but I'm not sure Hill has enough value at this point to make that happen. I'd do it, though.

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted. So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous. And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well. And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine. So because he's hit well for a couple weeks criticisms of the pick are invalid? Truffle was against that pick before, during and after the draft. He's held his ground pretty steady and has been very clear about why he was against it. The draft is all about acquiring assets - assets that will be used in a variety of ways. Being against drafting high school bats that high, especially high school bats with the red flags Vitters had, is hardly an indefensible stance. Sure, it's fine that he was against the pick. And it may be that he's right. But using the Sabathia trade to further justify it is what I find comical. While I don't have a problem with the philosophy of drafting college hitters who may be closer to the majors and easier to project, I do think it is crazy to draft by trying to predict which will have more trade value one year down the road. Had it been another team other than the Indians shopping starting pitching, a player more projectible like Vitters might have held the value. It just happened that this year it was the Indians who want someone who can step in by next season.

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted. So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous. And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well. And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine. not really. drafting wieters would've given the cubs a trading chip that would have been more valuable at this time. that isn't arguable. you can say that you think vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time. i disagree. just because other baseball organizations thought it was a fine pick for that position doesn't meant that it was the right move - if so then just about every cubs' bust in the past 10 years is justifiable. also, montanez was playing at a higher level at the same age, so i don't think you could say that vitters is outperforming him at this stage. So, you think teams should draft based on who will be the better trading chip one year later and not on projectibility further down the road? So, by that logic, you think LaPorta would have been a better pick than Wieters and you thought that last year, right?

I could see Beane having a lot of interest in Ceda as well. And if Beane's recent move to valuing defense is correct, he might value Pie as well. Pie + Ceda might be a starting point. I'm not in any way suggesting that would be enough, but it could form the centerpiece of a deal.