The 2010 Cubs Free Agent and Roster Moves Thread: SAVEENG OUR KUBBEEZ!!11

[Dave B]

this guy thinks the Cubs should thropw in Angel Guzman if the Rays demand him, AND put Burrell in LF and move Fonzie to CF.

http://www.cubslocker.com/2009/10/08/the-chicago-cubs-are-ready-to-deal-milton-bradley/

[Philberto]

this guy thinks the Cubs should thropw in Angel Guzman if the Rays demand him, AND put Burrell in LF and move Fonzie to CF.

http://www.cubslocker.com/2009/10/08/the-chicago-cubs-are-ready-to-deal-milton-bradley/

I didn't know you wrote under the name of chinmusic.

[Powdered Toast Man]

this guy thinks the Cubs should thropw in Angel Guzman if the Rays demand him, AND put Burrell in LF and move Fonzie to CF.

http://www.cubslocker.com/2009/10/08/the-chicago-cubs-are-ready-to-deal-milton-bradley/

Someone set this person on fire.

[Kermit, B.]

"Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times believes the Cubs are pushing the Rays to make a deal for Milton Bradley quickly.
Chicago would certainly like to avoid the Bradley saga dragging out all offseason, impacting their free agency plans and are likely to be aggressive as a result. The Rays were one of Bradley's top suitors last winter and would theoretically still be interested. Tampa opted for Pat Burrell instead at a cheaper price (two years, $16 million as opposed to 3/$30), who had a rough year. A Bradley/Burrell deal makes a lot of sense, but the Cubbies would have to toss in money to make it happen.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Related: Pat Burrell"

32 years old and a million different kinds of awful last year.  This will end well.

He's a free swinger. Donuts likes guys like this.

Pat Burrell?  One of the most disciplined hitters in the league back before he passed away? The guy who walked 103 times a year from 05-08?  Or do you mean he's free swinging in that he strikes out a lot?  I hate those guys, especially when they get on base at a .363 clip over their careers.

You beat me to the "God damn you're so wrong, IAN" punch.  Last year aside, Burrell has been pretty much automatic for an OPS right around .900 for the past several years.  Considering the fact that every other GM in baseball knows Jim HAS to trade Bradley, I'd love to get Burrell in return.

[Powdered Toast Man]

"Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times believes the Cubs are pushing the Rays to make a deal for Milton Bradley quickly.
Chicago would certainly like to avoid the Bradley saga dragging out all offseason, impacting their free agency plans and are likely to be aggressive as a result. The Rays were one of Bradley's top suitors last winter and would theoretically still be interested. Tampa opted for Pat Burrell instead at a cheaper price (two years, $16 million as opposed to 3/$30), who had a rough year. A Bradley/Burrell deal makes a lot of sense, but the Cubbies would have to toss in money to make it happen.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Related: Pat Burrell"

32 years old and a million different kinds of awful last year.  This will end well.

He's a free swinger. Donuts likes guys like this.

Pat Burrell?  One of the most disciplined hitters in the league back before he passed away? The guy who walked 103 times a year from 05-08?  Or do you mean he's free swinging in that he strikes out a lot?  I hate those guys, especially when they get on base at a .363 clip over their careers.

You beat me to the "God damn you're so wrong, IAN" punch.  Last year aside, Burrell has been pretty much automatic for an OPS right around .900 for the past several years.  Considering the fact that every other GM in baseball knows Jim HAS to trade Bradley, I'd love to get Burrell in return.

You also missed the part where I recanted.  But, there's no guarantee that he'll return to an OBP near .363 or OPS near .900 at the age of 33.  If the Cubs have to get rid of Bradley and all they can get back is Burrell, then I won't argue at all.  I'm just saying, last year Burrell is awful.  The upside:  he's only under contract through 2010 at $9MM.  The downside:  Jim's already drafting an eight-year contract.

[Kermit, B.]

"Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times believes the Cubs are pushing the Rays to make a deal for Milton Bradley quickly.
Chicago would certainly like to avoid the Bradley saga dragging out all offseason, impacting their free agency plans and are likely to be aggressive as a result. The Rays were one of Bradley's top suitors last winter and would theoretically still be interested. Tampa opted for Pat Burrell instead at a cheaper price (two years, $16 million as opposed to 3/$30), who had a rough year. A Bradley/Burrell deal makes a lot of sense, but the Cubbies would have to toss in money to make it happen.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Related: Pat Burrell"

32 years old and a million different kinds of awful last year.  This will end well.

He's a free swinger. Donuts likes guys like this.

Pat Burrell?  One of the most disciplined hitters in the league back before he passed away? The guy who walked 103 times a year from 05-08?  Or do you mean he's free swinging in that he strikes out a lot?  I hate those guys, especially when they get on base at a .363 clip over their careers.

You beat me to the "God damn you're so wrong, IAN" punch.  Last year aside, Burrell has been pretty much automatic for an OPS right around .900 for the past several years.  Considering the fact that every other GM in baseball knows Jim HAS to trade Bradley, I'd love to get Burrell in return.

You also missed the part where I recanted.  But, there's no guarantee that he'll return to an OBP near .363 or OPS near .900 at the age of 33.  If the Cubs have to get rid of Bradley and all they can get back is Burrell, then I won't argue at all.  I'm just saying, last year Burrell is awful.  The upside:  he's only under contract through 2010 at $9MM.  The downside:  Jim's already drafting an eight-year contract.

Wait, there's NO GUARANTEE that a guy will put up certain numbers?  Well, why the hell are we even watching?

[Saul Goodman]

"Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times believes the Cubs are pushing the Rays to make a deal for Milton Bradley quickly.
Chicago would certainly like to avoid the Bradley saga dragging out all offseason, impacting their free agency plans and are likely to be aggressive as a result. The Rays were one of Bradley's top suitors last winter and would theoretically still be interested. Tampa opted for Pat Burrell instead at a cheaper price (two years, $16 million as opposed to 3/$30), who had a rough year. A Bradley/Burrell deal makes a lot of sense, but the Cubbies would have to toss in money to make it happen.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Related: Pat Burrell"

32 years old and a million different kinds of awful last year.  This will end well.

He's a free swinger. Donuts likes guys like this.

Pat Burrell?  One of the most disciplined hitters in the league back before he passed away? The guy who walked 103 times a year from 05-08?  Or do you mean he's free swinging in that he strikes out a lot?  I hate those guys, especially when they get on base at a .363 clip over their careers.

You beat me to the "God damn you're so wrong, IAN" punch.  Last year aside, Burrell has been pretty much automatic for an OPS right around .900 for the past several years.  Considering the fact that every other GM in baseball knows Jim HAS to trade Bradley, I'd love to get Burrell in return.

You also missed the part where I recanted.  But, there's no guarantee that he'll return to an OBP near .363 or OPS near .900 at the age of 33.  If the Cubs have to get rid of Bradley and all they can get back is Burrell, then I won't argue at all.  I'm just saying, last year Burrell is awful.  The upside:  he's only under contract through 2010 at $9MM.  The downside:  Jim's already drafting an eight-year contract.

THIS

[Ghost of Dave Rosello]

this guy thinks the Cubs should thropw in Angel Guzman if the Rays demand him, AND put Burrell in LF and move Fonzie to CF.

http://www.cubslocker.com/2009/10/08/the-chicago-cubs-are-ready-to-deal-milton-bradley/

That would fun to watch.

And by "fun to watch" I mean "as fun as whacking yourself in the nuts with a claw hammer."

[Jon]

"Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times believes the Cubs are pushing the Rays to make a deal for Milton Bradley quickly.
Chicago would certainly like to avoid the Bradley saga dragging out all offseason, impacting their free agency plans and are likely to be aggressive as a result. The Rays were one of Bradley's top suitors last winter and would theoretically still be interested. Tampa opted for Pat Burrell instead at a cheaper price (two years, $16 million as opposed to 3/$30), who had a rough year. A Bradley/Burrell deal makes a lot of sense, but the Cubbies would have to toss in money to make it happen.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Related: Pat Burrell"

32 years old and a million different kinds of awful last year.  This will end well.

He's a free swinger. Donuts likes guys like this.

Pat Burrell?  One of the most disciplined hitters in the league back before he passed away? The guy who walked 103 times a year from 05-08?  Or do you mean he's free swinging in that he strikes out a lot?  I hate those guys, especially when they get on base at a .363 clip over their careers.

You beat me to the "God damn you're so wrong, IAN" punch.  Last year aside, Burrell has been pretty much automatic for an OPS right around .900 for the past several years.  Considering the fact that every other GM in baseball knows Jim HAS to trade Bradley, I'd love to get Burrell in return.

You also missed the part where I recanted.  But, there's no guarantee that he'll return to an OBP near .363 or OPS near .900 at the age of 33.  If the Cubs have to get rid of Bradley and all they can get back is Burrell, then I won't argue at all.  I'm just saying, last year Burrell is awful.  The upside:  he's only under contract through 2010 at $9MM.  The downside:  Jim's already drafting an eight-year contract.

Wait, there's NO GUARANTEE that a guy will put up certain numbers?  Well, why the hell are we even watching?

Once my statfag dream of a sport played by computers on graph paper, we won't have to.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

"Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times believes the Cubs are pushing the Rays to make a deal for Milton Bradley quickly.
Chicago would certainly like to avoid the Bradley saga dragging out all offseason, impacting their free agency plans and are likely to be aggressive as a result. The Rays were one of Bradley's top suitors last winter and would theoretically still be interested. Tampa opted for Pat Burrell instead at a cheaper price (two years, $16 million as opposed to 3/$30), who had a rough year. A Bradley/Burrell deal makes a lot of sense, but the Cubbies would have to toss in money to make it happen.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Related: Pat Burrell"

32 years old and a million different kinds of awful last year.  This will end well.

He's a free swinger. Donuts likes guys like this.

Pat Burrell?  One of the most disciplined hitters in the league back before he passed away? The guy who walked 103 times a year from 05-08?  Or do you mean he's free swinging in that he strikes out a lot?  I hate those guys, especially when they get on base at a .363 clip over their careers.

You beat me to the "God damn you're so wrong, IAN" punch.  Last year aside, Burrell has been pretty much automatic for an OPS right around .900 for the past several years.  Considering the fact that every other GM in baseball knows Jim HAS to trade Bradley, I'd love to get Burrell in return.

You also missed the part where I recanted.  But, there's no guarantee that he'll return to an OBP near .363 or OPS near .900 at the age of 33.  If the Cubs have to get rid of Bradley and all they can get back is Burrell, then I won't argue at all.  I'm just saying, last year Burrell is awful.  The upside:  he's only under contract through 2010 at $9MM.  The downside:  Jim's already drafting an eight-year contract.

Wait, there's NO GUARANTEE that a guy will put up certain numbers?  Well, why the hell are we even watching?

Once my statfag dream of a sport played by computers on graph paper, we won't have to.

A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

[Saul Goodman]

Rudy Jaramillo will solve all the problems!  Even Bradley!

[MAD]

Rudy Jaramillo will solve all the problems!  Even Bradley!

Phil Rogers deserves to be hit in the nuts with Rudy Jaramillo's fungo.

[Philberto]

Rudy Jaramillo will solve all the problems!  Even Bradley!

No.

I was convinced in the SBox that if you're going to get a hitting coach then get the best one. I'm fine with that, but if this happens it MIGHT be in the top 10 of significant moves this offseason.

[CT III]

Did anyone notice another thing that a lot of Jaramillo's students had in common?

Sammy Sosa, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Bagwell, and Alex Rodriguez?

Maybe Hendry should just sign Jaramillo's pharmacist.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Did anyone notice another thing that a lot of Jaramillo's students had in common?

Sammy Sosa, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Bagwell, and Alex Rodriguez?

Maybe Hendry should just sign Jaramillo's pharmacist.

Wasn't Mark DeRosa there, too?