Nothing like mid-season contract talk to mean nothing.

I don’t know what the Cubs are waiting for.

1) Confusion over the ownership switch,
2) Hendry hasn't been an especially shrewd GM. He did nice job this off-season, but his overall record is pretty bad, especially given the resources he's had to work with.
3) according to some talk on sports radio, GM Jim Hendry is concerned about putting lots of money into Zambrano because he's a headcase and just in general jitters,

Well, this disproves previous contentions that Zambrano was going to settle for the original deal.

I doubt Hendry is really concerned about Zambrano's personality. The lad has been a handful since he showed up yet has always taken his turn. He's a horse. It's more likely that Hendry is wondering about the "miles" on Z's arm. Or Jim is a ninny. There is always that possibility.

Here's hoping things turn out for the Cubs fans. Zambrano and Chicago seems to be a good fit for all concerned.

Looking at Zambrano's line, I'm a lot less impressed than I thought I'd be. Maybe it's still just the beginning of the season dragging it down, but his strikeouts are down, his walks are still up, and his ground ball rate is down. Considering the mileage on that arm, I don't know that I'd be in any rush to lock him up long term.

The ownership situation may take a while to resolve, considering the switch isn't done yet and then they have to figure out who they're selling the team to (and then that process has to be approved by MLB).

Looking at Zambrano's line, I'm a lot less impressed than I thought I'd be. Maybe it's still just the beginning of the season dragging it down

Ding! Having a lousy two months will drag down the line over a four month period. Here's his line since beating up Michael Barrett.

My favorite is that he's allowed 39 hits in 81.7 IP. Yup, that's right. Less than a hit every two innings. Batters are hitting 141/252/214. I really don't know what to make of that, I think he's getting lucky, but it's so extreme (and it's timed so well with his improvements in K's and HRA) that I don't think it's only luck.

By my basic BABIP calculations ((H-HR)/(TBF-K-HR-W-HB)) his BABIP is .178 (34/191). Holy ####.

'Course all that means is that he won't pitch with a 1.43 ERA forever. It doesn't mean he won't be really effin good.

If he would consent to an MRI as a condition precedent to a new contract, I think there is a very high probability that a deal will get done with the Cubs.

2) Hendry hasn't been an especially shrewd GM. He did nice job this off-season, but his overall record is pretty bad, especially given the resources he's had to work with.
3) according to some talk on sports radio, GM Jim Hendry is concerned about putting lots of money into Zambrano because he's a headcase and just in general jitters,

I don't think this has anything to do with Hendry's shrewdness, or Hendry's jitters. (Incidentally, I think you're giving him extremely short shrift with regard to Hendry's track record of keeping the Cubs' star players at market or below market rates. See Lee, Ramirez (and, yes, Barrett and Wood, though those two didn't turn out as well as one might've hoped or expected.) I think it has everything to do with orders from the top, which is keeping any sort of long term deals from being done until the ownership situation's straightened out. (Basically, I think that Sam Zell, who clearly has no knowledge of or interest in running a baseball team (and therefore no comprehension of sunk costs [Jacque Jones] and elite, marketable commodities [Carlos Zambrano] and their potential effect on the value of baseball teams) is putting the kibosh on any and all significant expenditures of money, despite the fact that a re-signed Zambrano could only enhance the value of the franchise.)

Unless Zell is still in control of the Cubs well into the free agent signing period, I still think the Cubs' chances of re-signing Z are significantly greater than 50-50 (and who knows--maybe he'd approve a long-term signing of Z anyway, after he sees all the megabids for the franchise that are out there). But that's a lot less than 99-1 (which they were a week before opening day), and it's going to cost them more than the $80M that apparently was about to get it done at that time.

I think you're giving him extremely short shrift with regard to Hendry's track record of keeping the Cubs' star players at market or below market rates.

It's tough to recall the last significant post-Maddux player the Cubs lost to free agency. Randy Myers? Dawson was about done. I really suspect they'll get the deal done.

Here's his line since beating up Michael Barrett.

At the time, given the fight w/teammate + bloated ERA, I wondered if Zambrano's was the worst-salary-run-ever.

Looks like it's all Andruw now, though it looks like he was his old self in July.

Looking at Zambrano's line, I'm a lot less impressed than I thought I'd be.

Even with the lousy first two months, Zambrano is the 13th best pitcher in the majors (5th in the NL) in terms of VORP.

Well, this disproves previous contentions that Zambrano was going to settle for the original deal.

Come on, Harvey, I never said that. And yes, I know you were addressing me, so I had to revive this thread.

I was using that original deal as evidence that he'd stay with the Cubs. That's all I said. In fact, I said several times that the Cubs were definitely going to have to pay more than the original $80mil. But his quote in this article *helps* my argument, and doesn't hurt it. Notice we don't get anyone from the Mets fan base (or, ha, Braves) in this thread still claiming he's coming to their team.

Moses:

Actually, no. I have been hearing from my Cub buddies that Zambrano was going to take a hometown discount for about a year.

And no, they don't reside here. They use the Internet to get map directions and e-mail. That's about it.

Fair enough. Thanks.

He still could take a hometown discount, you know. If he only (ha!) took $17mil, that would probably be a discount, right?