Bull

I remember 1985 as well. Eventually the entire starting staff was on the DL and they had AA-quality pitchers who never played in the majors again in their starting rotation. I'm sure everybody remembers Johnny Abrego and the like. Was that the year of the bad mayonaisse?

Pat says skies are clearing.

But pitchers get hurt all the time, which is why it's risky to count on pitchers to carry your franchise. The plan did not work fine. The plan was to designed to make the Cubs as successful as the Braves, and they weren't even close. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the plan worked fine from any standpoint. They failed. They had a miserable record and were terrible far more frequently than they were good. It wasn't risky, it just wasn't idiot proof.

The plan worked fine from a development standpoint. If Baker hadn't broken Woody and Prior, there would be a lot different tone to this discussion if we would be having it at all.

Andy Sisco

Definitely. Guzman is a known quantity. Having system depth is good. Bullpens are a crapshoot. That is all.

HAHAHAHAHA you're pathetic. no, YOU'RE pathetic. I know you are, but what am I? I know you are but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are but what am I?

What would Cubs'nClippers_1 say about Millar? :DSurely this is a joke account?!?

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/02/cubs-update-day-3-in-mesa.html mama said if you can't say something nice...

and some of them work. better than sticking with something that wasn't

Also Starlin Castro. Elvis Andrus, who had a lesser bat coming into the majors last year compared to Castro, was pretty respectable last year for a 21 year old light-hitting prospect. If we rush Castro, hopefully Rudy can help keep him afloat those first few months. Here's a question for us to ponder......If we were pretty certain that Castro would put up Andrus' line of .267/.329/.367 in the majors in 2010, would we want him in the majors or not? no he said ponder, not react.

bankrupsey dollors in bring Mr. Selig

Not only are the WS second to the Cubs in Chicago...

the part i don't like is when news stories from the AP or CNN or whoever use reactions from twitter. then you have idiotic things like "OMG, can't believe U R gone!!!" in a news story about a death of a celebrity. otherwise i don't have a problem with it. I can agree with that. But I think the benefits of it far outweigh the annoying things. solution: just say no to CNN.

moral? doubtful. morale? definitely.

Stronger than what? Millar shouldn't see Wrigley. If he wants to contribute to the Chicago Cubs, maybe he should purchase season tickets and watch the Cubs from the seats. I hear there's quite a wait for those, and Millar isn't getting any younger.

Fatty fat fat fat. yeah, but seriously, anyone know the story here? I was really excited about him at one point.

I think they're close. .500 and third place is my prediction. Hope I'm wrong.

Too late to sign up?

he's not arguing against the number 20, or 18 or any other number. He's arguing that not all at bats are created equal.

Report out of toronto: Sheets all but signed with Cubs. http:// http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/jays-gm-sticks-to-his-guns/article1434416/ big paragraph 3/4 down. Any credence?

I don't understand. You want Geo traded to the pirates (carribean league)?

The goal of the offseason was dealing away Milton Bradley, that happened. True. This. And what Hendry perceived as the major "pieces" are in place. He has the team he wanted and all that should remain is minor tweaks. The problem is, Soriano is not playing like a $19million player, Zambrano is not going to give hendry his $18 million worth, Samardzija was supposed to playing above his pay by now, etc., etc., etc. The moves have been made, the pieces have been extended, everything is in place, but it just didn't work. Hendry bet on the wrong horses.

anti team the entire 2006 roster.

The Cubs got both a few bucks and an (allegedly) near-worthless player. The huge money over the next two years is a sunk cost. It's not a sunk cost when we didn't have to pay it to a horrendous player before the trade. I don't think you comprehend the concept of a sunk cost. In this case the monies committed to Bradley cannot be recovered. That $21M absolutely WILL be paid. Replace "ticket" with "contract", and "movie" with "Bradley circus", and you've got the present situation described to a T, except here the Cubs got a little something for their "ticket" instead of just throwing it away -- a marginal player and $5M savings. Yes, I absolutely understand what a sunk cost is, and it's a simplistic idea that doesn't consider the realities of a MLB trade. Of course the 21 million will be paid, but as we can see it is not for certain to be paid by the Cubs, and the value received from that 21 million varies significantly depending on who is "playing for that 21 million" so to speak. That would be an applicable analogy if we had paid all but "a couple bucks" of his salary and got something like a minor leaguer in return. Instead, what actually happened is that we now have Carlos Silva and his contract. To sum up: Before: Bradley and his contract providing X value After: Silva and his contract providing X - a billion value, plus a few million dollars To use that ticket analogy, if Bradley is the ticket, then Silva is someone hitting you in the back of the knee with a crowbar. Even more accurate: The "movie" is one you loathe, but that your wife really wants to see with you. The benefits are not in watching the circus, but bearing the circus for greater good.