Goatriders of the Apocalypse

The wonderful enthusiasm of Cub fans across the world

Looking through the comments and the Shout Box, it's pretty awesome to read so many views by so many Cub fans.  And no viewpoint is exactly the same as any other.  It's kind of like Lou Piniella making a lineup - over 162 games, more than a few will closely resemble the others, but some lineups seemingly come from outer space.

Just in the past few days, we've seen some of these contributions from readers:

  • Forget about Peavy - Angel Guzman is the wave of the future!
  • Adam Dunn is fat and slow, but he has a tremendous OPS and can spell D.Lee against tough lefties.
  • Mike Fontenot is a 25-30 HR hitter who just needs a chance to play the game on a daily basis.
  • Trading for Jake Peavy will mean nothing to a team that desperately needs at least one more left handed bat regularly in the lineup.
  • If it means upgrading the offense and building a better balance in the lineup, then the Cubs could survive a season with Jason Marquis as the #5 pitcher on the team.
  • The Cubs can do two things - they can give Pie his shot in center by platooning him with Reed Johnson while moving Fukudome to RF, or they can put the Fooky in CF, move DeRosa to RF, and let Fontenot get some more hacks at 2B.  This is a perfectly acceptable offense if Jake Peavy is mowing them down from the rotation.
  • Soriano is fine and good when he can prey on the shoddy pitching of a 162 game season, but the Cubs desperately need a leadoff LHB.
  • Because they don't need him, Peavy shouldn't be so costly.  The Cubs should be able to acquire Peavy, along perhaps with Raffy Furcal at the cost perhaps of Theriot, Pie, Cotts, Cedeno, Marshall, and Marquis - especially if the Cubs can get Khalil Greene in the process.  This contribution should be called the At Any Cost suggestion as the contributor acknowledges it would put the Cubs over-budget, and also they should go back and grab Wood.
  • Didn't the Cubs just re-sign Dempster?  Why get Peavy when the team desperately needs to fix the effin' offense?  The Cubs need a switch-hitting leadoff man, and if Marquis is really such a crappy option maybe they can sign Randy Johnson.
  • Micah Hoffpauir could hit 30 homeruns in a season and should be an option for the Cubs - altho' hitting 30 homers wouldn't make him a superstar.
  • The Cubs should con the Orioles out of Brian Roberts, who would be an ideal leadoff hitter.  Adam Dunn should be signed, but only to serve as a spot/bench player, and Randy Johnson winning his 300th game as a Cub would be cool.
  • Forget pitching!  Pitching did nothing for the Cubs in '03, '04, or '08.  Stick with Marquis or an Iowonian and grab a serious RF bat.
  • Pretty much every World Championship team has a very balanced lineup of righties and lefties.  It's even more important than having 5 strong pitchers.
  • The Cubs don't need Peavy.  They can, however, unload Marquis (for $1 if necessary) and give Angel Guzman his fair shot.  (This comment was made by the same Goat Reader as the first comment).  If Theriot can't play better defense, Furcal should replace him.  Fukudome deserves another chance, but maybe he can also be dealt for a long reliever and replaced by Bobby Abreu.  Forget Roberts - Fontenot and DeRosa are both better.  Perhaps Marquis and Felix Pie could be dealt to the Pirates for Nate McClouth.
  • Old Style sucks.
  • DeJesus of the Royals is not only a great trade mate, but he's a leadoff choice to boot!
  • Colin is nuts for stumping for Teahen.
  • Orlando Hudson is defensively gold!

And so on.  Hell, there are a lot of them.

For the most part, I try not to really do a lot of trade speculation, and here's why: you could be Peter Gammons having a conversation with Steve Phillips about trade possibilities and values.  You could call up the guys who run Baseball America, correlate their opinions with the gentlemen who run Baseball Prospectus, and even throw in the opinions of the knowledgeable folks at Baseball Toaster and regardless of the trade you'd suggest and your logic behind it you'd still come off looking like a total, hopeless tool without a smidgen of real baseball knowledge.

But I truly appreciate the enthusiasm of our readers who are tossing about so many ideas that I can't possibly keep up with them.  Which isn't to say I'm not going to try.  Tomorrow, like the guy who canceled Christmas, I'm going to tackle most of the trade suggestions offered by our readers and I'm going to shoot them down in a blaze of hell and fury.  And then, like the guy who woke up on Christmas morning relieved to still be alive and hungry for a Christmas turkey, I'll write about how they just might work... in a blaze of hell and fury.  It should be a can't miss article, so don't miss it.  See you tomorrow.

If the Angels let

Figgins walk, they hold an option for 2009, he could be a possible leadoff man.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/figgich01.shtml

Kurts soap box

Wow kurt you may not agree with what we are suggesting but that was what we as loyal cubs fans could kind of hope for.

Why arent you hendrys assistant gm or at least a annalist for espn with all of your superior knowledge of baseball player values.

I know that many suggestions made here would possibly break the bank but we are not a bunch of bumbling retards either.

Maybe because your a writer here you can poop in our cheerios at will without reguard for others opinions but I thought that this site was for true cubs fans to express their personal opinions (right or wrong) and dream a little for a team that we could finally silence all the insults that we endure for being a cubs fan.

Maybe SOME of these suggestions are silly but SOME could happen IN A PERFECT WORLD. But we dont live in a perfect world do we.

I think that we all care for the cubs and could agree that we need a better team to contend in 09.

And in my opinion old style does suck but i have drank atleast 1 in every game that I attend in the wrigley field bleachers. I like natural light and many say it sucks.

All of this is writen IMHO

I kind of expected this to

I kind of expected this to happen with at least a few people, G&N. You took only what you wanted from what I said... but here are the relevant parts you left off.

"you could be Peter Gammons having a conversation with Steve Phillips about trade possibilities and values. You could call up the guys who run Baseball America, correlate their opinions with the gentlemen who run Baseball Prospectus, and even throw in the opinions of the knowledgeable folks at Baseball Toaster and regardless of the trade you'd suggest and your logic behind it you'd still come off looking like a total, hopeless tool without a smidgen of real baseball knowledge."

Then: "I truly believe that Jim Hendry himself could retire from the Cubs, take a job as an analyst for ESPN, and write about trade suggestions all day every day and he'd come off looking like a tool. It's almost impossible for amateurs like us to not be completely wrong about trade talks."

Then: "You could probably summarize this article by saying that it was very internet of me. In other words, I took ideas - some good, some bad, some unrealistic - and took a heaping crap on all of them, although I did try to positively spin them all as well. It's very Internet Trollish to say 'I hates it! I hates it!' no matter what it is. I've posted in the past my thoughts on what is realistic and unreasonable, and I'll probably post updated thoughts early in the week. I welcome all to crap heapingly on my own opinions as well."

Also: "like the guy who canceled Christmas, I'm going to tackle most of the trade suggestions offered by our readers and I'm going to shoot them down in a blaze of hell and fury. And then, like the guy who woke up on Christmas morning relieved to still be alive and hungry for a Christmas turkey, I'll write about how they just might work... in a blaze of hell and fury."

See what I did there, G&N? If I could summarize it, I said "none of us know anything, and even people who know a lot sound like they know nothing when they talk about hypotheticals."

I wasn't pooping in cheerios, or elevating myself above anybody. You will only rarely find me talk hypothetical trades for this very reason ... when I do, I sound like a dumb motherfukudome. It's just the nature of the game. Maybe you'd rather I be less honest and pat you on the head for trying hard, but considering that I called nobody out by name, and especially considering that I tried to find a positive in every trade/free agent scenario, I think your offended response is just a bit ridiculous and a lot overblown.

Besides, you'll get your chance to come down on my ideas with hell and fury tomorrow. I expect and welcome you to.

My soap box

I was over reacting in my comments.
Atleast you did not crack on me about my spelling.
I wont be pooping in your cherios after all we are all entitled to our opinions, but you did call out many of my suggestions and or opinions including the statement that old style sucks.
I guess that differing opinions for the same team are somewhat going to irritate some me included.
You did make some good arguments.
I like this site and like the differing opinions on how the best way to improve the cubs.
Personally I dont like the idea of having adam dunn on our team though he does have alot of pop in his bat.
As I have stated before the cubs have lots of options and thats a good thing.
Why couldnt theriot be the leadoff guy if they arent going to replace him with better defense.
We may very well also have that much needed lefty as stated in previous posts in the form of hoffpaur or fontenot.
Why is there so much disrespect for fontenot I know hes no sandberg but he does deserve a chance.
I apologise for calling you out by name kurt I was wrong for doing that. After rereading your post a couple of times I get what you were saying and that is anyone could possibly be made to look like a fool by the experts and even the experts can be made to look like a fool by stating those hypothetical scenerios.
We all want the cubs to win that world series title asap.

Understandable

Just keep in mind that I called nobody out on anything in the article you've responded to here ... that was me collecting many of the trade opinions together in one post for everybody to read without positive or critical commentary. It was basically a short-hand reference for me when I wrote the post that you probably read this morning. My pointing out that you said "Old Style Sucks" is not the same as me disagreeing in any way with what you said ... if anything, I added it for comical value since every other bullet point was in reference to trades or free agency.

To respond to some of your opinions directly ...

I'm pretty sure you're fairly new to the blog, but I've said for a long, long time that Theriot is either best served batting leadoff or 8th in the lineup. He doesn't slug enough to bat anywhere else. If he can put up an OBP of .360 or higher next season, it's a no-brainer that he be the leadoff guy, but he reallllly has to cut down on the number of times he's caught stealing. Additionally, I think he's this year's Rich Hill, not that next year aught to be a total bust for him. What I mean is, I think his trade value will never be higher and the Cubs should deal him, as he is unlikely to match last year's performance ever again.

I don't think there's been *any* disrespect for Fontenot. I might have missed something, but I don't think anybody has criticized him anywhere on this blog. Not even Colin - the most stat-oriented of all of us - has said a bad word about him. What I *have* said is that the Cubs should take a realistic approach to his ability. Based on a number of factors - his age, his athleticism, etc. - it seems tremendously unlikely that he's a bonafied starter, and I doubt he's going to put up better offensive numbers than pretty much every other second baseman in baseball which is what he'd be doing if he hit 30 homeruns in a season. I love Lil' Babe Ruth, I think he's a great story and he brings a tremendous positive to the team, but I think he should be used relative to his ability. In other words, he's an ideal bench player who should get lots of at bats by subbing at a variety of positions. As a starter, his flaws would become increasingly evident and I doubt he'd be better than average.

Anyway, thanks for letting cooler heads prevail. Disagreement and debate is a great thing, and it's certainly something that drives content for the blog. But hopefully nobody takes anything personally... ideas are free to be attacked, people not so much.

Chicago Tribune's Chicago's Best Blogs award