Bull

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.

Don't know. Like I said, Muskat said it wasn't a likely deal, but it's better than what the locals suggest on the Post-Dispatch forums, which said that if the Cubs were smart, they'd just eat the contract. Oh, to be a Cardinals fan... ](*,) I'm not going on Muskat, I'm going on a Boston Globe reporter bloghttp:// http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/12/bradley_one_exp.html?comments=all#readerComm

What in the world would the Cubs do with Lowell that the Red Sox couldn't do better and without their help? Edit: all the other Lowell rumors seem to involve Texas catcher Ramirez.... does this become a three way? Is Lowell flipped to TX or is Bradley flipped to Texas?

More like 2010 - Oh crap we have no $#$%# money, I can't believe no one wants to give me something of value for Milton Bradley AND I still have to eat his whole contract. If he can cool his ego I wouldn't call it eating his contract. Still a productive player. Overpaid, yes, but eating someone's contract, to me at least, is normally reserved for guys who you pay and don't really play. He means the Cubs stuck paying some/most of his contract in a trade. Paying him to play somewhere else. Try to keep up.

the baseball recession is over.

Reports are Braves will look to trade Soriano, he has to approve a trade before June 15. Knowing that Hendry is looking for a vet out of the bullpen Soriano could make sense, if they aren't asking a ton for him and it's more of a salary relief move. That June 15th rule applies to guys signed as free agents, not guys retained through arbitration. Corey Patterson was traded in the same offseason after accepting arbitration, for example. Soriano accepting arbitration is him being signed as a free agent. Right, there are two types of guys who go to arbitration. Arb eligible but non free agent eligible players, or eligible free agents. A free agent is a free agent. A non-free agent who is arb eligible and offered arbitration doesn't accept arbitration, it accepts him. That's the "what". Here's the "why". the former is still under team control. He can either sign or go through arbitration (which he cannot reject) or be non-tendered, rendering him a free agent. Since he never left team control he can be traded. the latter is not under team control. He is a free agent unless he is offered arbitration (which he can reject). Since he is not under team control (he can reject the arbitration) he cannot be traded if he accepts arbitration.

Not sure, but I don't think he was making commentary on defense. I think he was calling Fox and Reed primarily PH's. Or maybe he was saying Hoffpauir and Fox were primarily PH's. Actually, I have no idea what he meant. It is pretty obvious he is talking about Floyd and Ward. The fact that they both rarely if ever played at the same time hurts the point of his argument a bit but I don't think it is too hard to figure out that is who he was referring to since he mentioned them in his first sentence. Ward and Floyd is correct. They were both on the 2007 team, and neither were much good with the glove. My arguement is if we had 2 guys like that on the 2007 team, we could live with 1, Burrell next year if we were to get him for Bradley and sign Cameron. I totally glossed over the 2007 part.

Not sure, but I don't think he was making commentary on defense. I think he was calling Fox and Reed primarily PH's. Or maybe he was saying Hoffpauir and Fox were primarily PH's. Actually, I have no idea what he meant.

The only reason to replace Hill is if you think Soto won't bounce back. The prospect of Hill as the starter because Soto flops again frightens me.