Bull

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.

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement. I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric.

Looking for a good place for this and this seemed as good as any. While I understand the value of cheap young talent, and developing talent for the future, letting young guys get ML experience, as well as the danger of Sammy Sosa like precipitous declines in over 30 players, nursing home style rosters like the 2005 Giants, and overpaying for old talent that could be had cheaper elsewhere, (breath) I wanted to see what everyone's take was on this: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rosters/_/sort/average_age/order/true Seems to show that the more successful teams were older than league average. While this is primarily dictated by the ability to "buy" older better players (Yankees, red sox), I was surprised to see Tampa Bay at 6. I also understand that smaller market teams are forced to have more players with less than 6 years experience who cheaper (and not yet as good) and tend to lose those player as they reach their potential. So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

I'm optimistic about the farm, but I have been before. Fool me twice and all that. I need to see castro put up above a .750 OPS (at any level) before I'm a believer.

There never have been any legit excuses. Hendry has been in this organization for a decade and a half, he had a major input on every team of this decade, and he's had the backing and support of owners, including ever increasing payrolls while many teams were flat or even declining. If there was a lack of young talent in the organization before, Hendry shares the blame. If there were missteps in the past, Hendry played a large part in that. He has been here forever and his teams have been major disappointments. This offseason isn't going to make or break him. He may stay or he may go, but Hendry has solidified his legacy, of extremely expensive mediocrity and occassional moderate success, and that won't change with this offseason. Second place again and he keeps his job. But he has to be closer to 1st than 4th this year. But he'll lose Piniella, which will cost him his job in October 2011.

Can I sig this?

How ironic...all #21. Not what ironic means. I think you mean coincidental.

Right along such great baseball names as Ty Griffin and Tyler Houston. Those are terrible baseball names. WHAT!! Next your going to say Rollie FIngers was a bad baseball name. Or Steve Trout. and yes that's the only time you;ll see those two names in the same paragraph.

I'm also optimistic about the Ricketts ownership group. However, I have to say that the handcuffing was more Hendry's doing than the ownership. He was given sufficient resources - he just spent himself into a corner. Agreed. I'd say 80/20 it was Hendry's fault. Hopefully we're moving forward now. And hopefully the farm is going to start producing position players, thus expanding the window. But, then, you and I have been hoping that together for almost a decade now. (Which stud to keep: Kelton or Hinske? -- remember that discussion?) I really am optimistic that this time is different! Hope springs eternal.

thanks Tim, and my final word on the topic is in that thread. For the record no one has suggested any such protest, it was purely theoretical. Back on topic, I am optimistic that the team is in good hands. I am thankful that the process is over and there's a sense of moving forward with things like expanding the front office. Regardless of who the owner is (corporation or family) it is unfortunate that the transition happened in the middle of the Cubs' window of opportunity, essentially handcuffing the front office for two years.

Right along such great baseball names as Ty Griffin and Tyler Houston.

link!