Hendry's getting dumber and dumber, it seems.

I know basing anything on 6 weeks -- even if they were the last six weeks of the season - is a fool's errand, but Aardsma actually looked pretty good from about the last week or 2 of August onwards... maybe not Rich Hill good, but solid nonetheless.

If this gives Mike Wuertz more breathing room, maybe there's an upside.

The only other upside I see -- when the Cubs are inevitably out of it in July, they should have some surplus lefties to deal.

Too bad Hendry'll probably use that surplus to bring in some sort of Maciadrek.

Wow, that is one ugly walk rate by Aardsma there.

The walk rate's about the same for both of 'em, no? Aardsma's K:W's a lot worse, though.

Aardsma's K:BB rate is probably affected significantly by his 2004 line. (10 BB, 5 K in 10 2/3 IP)

The walk rate's about the same for both of 'em, no? Aardsma's K:W's a lot worse, though.

For some reason I read that 91 IP as 51.

They're probably pretty similar, quality-wise and since Aardsma has less service time and is more versatile and since the Cubs aren't desperate for a lefty, I'll give this one to Kenny.

Just a pet peeve, but if Dag Nabbit can voice one, so can I:

I don't find it all that insightful or useful to make a decision on who "won" the deal. Particularly when the teams are in separate leagues, the real question should be whether the deal works from each individual team's point of view. Part of that analysis obviously involves a determination if a team gave up more than they got back, but I never really saw the point in judging a winner/loser in a trade -- many trades have 2 losers, 2 winners, or none of either.

As for this deal, I'm not sure I understand this deal from the Cubs POV. The Cubs already have Scott Eyre and Will Ohman, both of whom outproduced Cotts, who was brilliant in 2005 and mediocre at best outside that. He was a pretty decent starter in the minors and Hendry did hint that he may get a shot in the rotation, so it seems that Cotts is designed to replace Glendon Rusch, whose career may be at an end. So Cotts may not be useless and his history shows that he definitely has an upside.

The question, however, is how badly the Cubs need a replacement for Glendon Rusch and whether that replacement is worth David Aardsma and Carlos Vasquez. Not that I'm a huge fan of Aardsma, but he does have pretty good stuff and, like most Cub pitchers, the question is whether he'll be able to establish the command and control. As for Vasquez, though he was suspended for steroids in 2005, he did pitch well at Daytona and at West Tenn last season and as long as he remains clean, certainly has potential as a reliever.

I guess I don't see why the Cubs need to replace Rusch in the first place, let alone have that need justify giving up two relievers with potential.

For the Sox, I think they did an excellent job of cashing in on Cotts as he approaches arbitration, particularly given his troubles this season. Aardsma could slot in quite well at the back of the bullpen, especially if Brandon McCarthy moves into the rotation, and he seems like the kind of pitcher that Don Cooper could have some success with. Furthermore, as I said, I wouldn't write off Vasquez at this point; who knows what might happen.

Overall, I think the Sox did quite well with this deal. For the Cubs, it's a little baffling, but at least it isn't a howler like Garland for Karchner.

For the Cubs, it's a little baffling, but at least it isn't a howler like Garland for Karchner.

Speaking of which, I happened across this today.

Also this.

Google groups is a nice tool.