Ofman reports Cubs could have had Furcal

[Andy]

bloated howry and eyre contracts?? check out what the tigers paid today for a 37 and 41 yr old pitcher

Exactly. It's more than possible that Hendry set the market with the Eyre and Howry deals, but whether he did or not, the fact is that we are getting pretty decent value compared to what other teams have been paying for relievers.

[CubfaninCA]

So upper management does have a major say afterall.

 

Will file this one away for another day when the anti-Hendry accusations start a flyin. :)

 

good call on automatically believing things that help your bizarre cause

 

Bizarre cause? Not offended. :o

[brinoch]

bloated howry and eyre contracts?? check out what the tigers paid today for a 37 and 41 yr old pitcher

Exactly. It's more than possible that Hendry set the market with the Eyre and Howry deals, but whether he did or not, the fact is that we are getting pretty decent value compared to what other teams have been paying for relievers.

 

Who knows what sets the market, it could be teams in the background driving up the prices for all I know. Perhaps he did inflate the market, but look at the deal he signed with Dempster -- one could effectively argue that Hendry reduced the market given the relative success he had as a closer.

[stitchface]

One of the things Hendry said on MLB Radio yesterday was that the Cubs generally set their maximum offer it and then hope for the best.

[fromthestretch]

Honestly... so what? Vince Coleman never had an OPS over .747 But I'd give him 5/50 in 2005 if he were a free agent and we needed a leadoff hitter. OPS isn't everything... especially for a leadoff hitter.

 

:shock:

 

Stolen bases aren't worth $10 million a year. Coleman only had two seasons in his entire career where he got on base at a 35% or better rate. Career .324 OBP. That's pathetic for a leadoff hitter.

Edited December 8, 2005 by grassbass

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The point is that the Cubs offered Furcal $9.5 million. He asked for $10 million, and the Cubs wouldn't give it to him. A measly $500,000 a year.

 

No matter what you think of Furcal, that should bother every Cub fan.

 

I'm bothered by the fact that they offered 9.5. Furcal is overrated and now overpaid.

[YearofDaCubs]

And that's why the Cubs have always been and will likely always be losers.

Yeah that. Did you guys here Stone on the score today? He said he personally has heard from MacPhail that he will never sign the top free agent and let them go to the other teams and secondly he will never exceed the the yearly payroll to the point where it will hit the luxury tax. Not exactly the type of guy you want running the organization if you ask me. What in the heck is 2-4mil dollars when you resign scrubs like Rusch and Perez to 3mil each? How ridiculous is this.

[Blueheart05]

And that's why the Cubs have always been and will likely always be losers.

Yeah that. Did you guys here Stone on the score today? He said he personally has heard from MacPhail that he will never sign the top free agent and let them go to the other teams and secondly he will never exceed the the yearly payroll to the point where it will hit the luxury tax. Not exactly the type of guy you want running the organization if you ask me. What in the heck is 2-4mil dollars when you resign scrubs like Rusch and Perez to 3mil each? How ridiculous is this.

 

Do we really need a payroll of 175MM? Isn't that where luxury tax comes into play? I know we all want the new shiny toy and so called "hot" FA but a high payroll does not equate to a championship team. That's why you have a GM, Manager, Scouts, and the like; to help discover, develop, and motivate talent.

 

I tend to agree with MacPhail in this regard. Did anyone notice the recent article detailing how many millions the Yankees lost last year? It's one of the big reasons why they have not gotten into the high stakes market this off season. I'm of the opinion that every franchise (even the most wealthy in the highest market) needs to exercise restraint.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

He said upper management didn't want to increase the offer. Apparently, the agentgave them the opportunity to increase the amount and someone (above Hendry--not necessarily MacPhail) rejected the increase. It sounds a lot like what happened in STL with Burnett.

 

I'm glad upper management stepped in! 5 years and $50M for a guy whose OPS has never been above .795?

 

How's that 4/$40M Renteria deal working out for Boston. They traded him after one season!

 

 

WTG HOOPS, couldn't have said it better. =D>

[XZero771679666304]

And that's why the Cubs have always been and will likely always be losers.

Yeah that. Did you guys here Stone on the score today? He said he personally has heard from MacPhail that he will never sign the top free agent and let them go to the other teams and secondly he will never exceed the the yearly payroll to the point where it will hit the luxury tax. Not exactly the type of guy you want running the organization if you ask me. What in the heck is 2-4mil dollars when you resign scrubs like Rusch and Perez to 3mil each? How ridiculous is this.

 

Do we really need a payroll of 175MM? Isn't that where luxury tax comes into play? I know we all want the new shiny toy and so called "hot" FA but a high payroll does not equate to a championship team. That's why you have a GM, Manager, Scouts, and the like; to help discover, develop, and motivate talent.

 

I tend to agree with MacPhail in this regard. Did anyone notice the recent article detailing how many millions the Yankees lost last year? It's one of the big reasons why they have not gotten into the high stakes market this off season. I'm of the opinion that every franchise (even the most wealthy in the highest market) needs to exercise restraint.

 

No, we sure don't need a 175 Million dollar payroll. Throwing money at a problem isn't the answer. Look at some of the recent Wolrd Series winners: The White Sox, Marlins, Angels....did any of them have luxury tax-high payrolls? Meanwhile the Yankees are paying astronomically high salaries and flaming out year after year. Just think about the Yankees' payroll: 205 million, and they can't get to the series when teams like the Sox, Houston, St. Louis, Florida, etc. do.

 

If a team can't win with a 95-105 million dollar payroll, someone is doing something wrong. The problem isn't monetary, it's philosophical.

[YearofDaCubs]

I'm pretty sure the luxury tax kicks in around 117-120 mil.

[JeffH]

$136.5 for the upcoming season.

[snoodmonger]

Isn't it the overall budget the big guys would be concerned with, not individual contracts? I mean, if they give Hendry 100 mil to play with, are they really going to micromanage each million, or are they going to say, put the team together however you want (within reason), just don't go over 100 mil?

 

That's what rings false about this rumor to me. Why would they care how much he spends on Furcal, provided he stays within overall budget? And if they do micromanage each dollar, where were those guys when the Rusch/Perez/Eyre/Howry contracts were drawn up?

[UK1679666180]

Personally, I'm glad the Cubs did not try and bid against the offer of the Dodgers.

 

But, if the assumptions report from the radio station is true that Hendry had targeted Furcal as the Cubs #1 target (which isn't a stretch) and that he was willing to exceed their current offer. Then, the upper end of the Cubs' totem pole would not increase the offer stinks of an inability to delegate duties.

 

Think about it, this isn't an issue where the Trib. set the budget too low and this signing would exceed it, like in the Maddux case where they expanded the budget to fit him in Chicago. If they would've signed Furcal, the budget would be intact, just more difficult to add more pieces. But, that isn't their job to determine who should be in the budget as long as it doesn't exceed it.

 

I wouldn't expect Hendry to manage the line-ups and I wouldn't expect MacPhail or anyone higher up to determine whom to go after.

 

I hope that report was false, if not I have to question Hendry's authority as far as his role as GM. This doesn't include Baker, as a GM and manager should have a productive relationship working together on whom to bring in or release, but MacPhail should not dictate the roster.

Edited December 8, 2005 by UK

[YearofDaCubs]

Personally, I'm glad the Cubs did not try and bid against the offer against the Dodgers.

 

But, if the assumptions report from the radio station is true that Hendry had targeted Furcal as the Cubs #1 target (which isn't a stretch) and that he was willing to exceed their current offer. Then, the upper end of the Cubs' totem pole would not increase the offer stinks of an inability to delegate duties.

 

Think about it, this isn't an issue where the Trib. set the budget too high and this signing would exceed it, like in the Maddux case where they expanded the budget to fit him in Chicago. If they would've signed Furcal, the budget would be intact, just more difficult to add more pieces. But, that isn't their job to determine who should be in the budget as long as it doesn't exceed it.

 

I wouldn't expect Hendry to manage the line-ups and I wouldn't expect MacPhail or anyone higher up to determine whom to go after.

 

I hope that report was false, if not I have to question Hendry's authority as far as his role as GM. This doesn't include Baker as a GM and manager should have a production relationship working together, but MacPhail should not dictate the roster.

Great points.

[goonys evil twin]

I wouldn't expect Hendry to manage the line-ups and I wouldn't expect MacPhail or anyone higher up to determine whom to go after.

 

I would expect MacPhail to have input on contract structures. Just like his refusal to go to arbitration, or his recent unwillingness to go longterm, it's a organization philosophy issue.

 

 

My only problem would be if they said "we've already spent $2.5m on Neifi, we can't spend $12.5m total on our shortstop position." But that's more of a Jim hasn't figured out how to efficiently use his payroll yet.

 

Of course, Andy might have realized that if Jim was so screwed up to be thinking about 5/50 for Furcal, maybe he needs to be fired, but he can't fire him in the middle of winter meetings so he simply stepped in and didn't let Jim screw up before he fired him.

[Blueheart05]

Isn't it the overall budget the big guys would be concerned with, not individual contracts? I mean, if they give Hendry 100 mil to play with, are they really going to micromanage each million, or are they going to say, put the team together however you want (within reason), just don't go over 100 mil?

 

That's what rings false about this rumor to me. Why would they care how much he spends on Furcal, provided he stays within overall budget? And if they do micromanage each dollar, where were those guys when the Rusch/Perez/Eyre/Howry contracts were drawn up?

 

I can't answer that question for the Cubs but in light of the situation in St Louis (surrounding the loss of FA) it was revealed that Jocketty has an overall budget as well as a budget for individual positions. Grudz left because Jocketty has a "hard salarycap" of 2MM for 2B. Who knows, Hendry may have to work under similar circumstances (not necessarily 2 million but a limit that must be approved/rejected by higher management per position).

 

St Louis Post Dispatch

 

Jocketty had a chance to re-sign Grudzielanek for two years at $3 million per season, but couldn’t convince ownership to raise the payroll to make it work. Because of a hard salary cap imposed by his superiors, Jocketty had no more than $2 million to spend on next season’s second baseman.

[PieOnMyHands]

Little Georgie making up stuff again?

 

Grow up. That's a serious accusation of someone in the media. People make a living via made-up stories.

 

Corrected. (Hope nobody posted this already.)

[Blueheart05]

Personally, I'm glad the Cubs did not try and bid against the offer of the Dodgers.

 

But, if the assumptions report from the radio station is true that Hendry had targeted Furcal as the Cubs #1 target (which isn't a stretch) and that he was willing to exceed their current offer. Then, the upper end of the Cubs' totem pole would not increase the offer stinks of an inability to delegate duties.

 

Think about it, this isn't an issue where the Trib. set the budget too low and this signing would exceed it, like in the Maddux case where they expanded the budget to fit him in Chicago. If they would've signed Furcal, the budget would be intact, just more difficult to add more pieces. But, that isn't their job to determine who should be in the budget as long as it doesn't exceed it.

 

I wouldn't expect Hendry to manage the line-ups and I wouldn't expect MacPhail or anyone higher up to determine whom to go after.

 

I hope that report was false, if not I have to question Hendry's authority as far as his role as GM. This doesn't include Baker, as a GM and manager should have a productive relationship working together on whom to bring in or release, but MacPhail should not dictate the roster.

 

Not necessarily. They reserve the right to dictate how much can be spent for individual contracts (even if the amount does not exceed the overall budget).

 

On a side note, the Tribune company has taken some serious financial hits lately. The stock has fallen considerably, they have forced a number of "retirements," and they had to pay many millions because of the interest in the LaTimes.

[goonys evil twin]

Jocketty had a chance to re-sign Grudzielanek for two years at $3 million per season, but couldn’t convince ownership to raise the payroll to make it work. Because of a hard salary cap imposed by his superiors, Jocketty had no more than $2 million to spend on next season’s second baseman.

 

That's why STL always has been and always will be losers.

[UK1679666180]

I wouldn't expect Hendry to manage the line-ups and I wouldn't expect MacPhail or anyone higher up to determine whom to go after.

 

I would expect MacPhail to have input on contract structures. Just like his refusal to go to arbitration, or his recent unwillingness to go longterm, it's a organization philosophy issue.

 

 

My only problem would be if they said "we've already spent $2.5m on Neifi, we can't spend $12.5m total on our shortstop position." But that's more of a Jim hasn't figured out how to efficiently use his payroll yet.

 

Of course, Andy might have realized that if Jim was so screwed up to be thinking about 5/50 for Furcal, maybe he needs to be fired, but he can't fire him in the middle of winter meetings so he simply stepped in and didn't let Jim screw up before he fired him.

 

This has nothing to do with arbitration, that's a separate issue, Hendry and him likely have the same intentions of bring that player back w/out going to a 3rd party in the care of arbitration. This is about them having a disagreement and someone higher up having the authortative power to overrule, the one who should be making the decision.

 

I don't care how badly Hendry could mismanage a payroll, it isn't MacPhail's job to get his hands in the cookie jar.

 

What if it was a different player, let's say Hendry could sign Giles for 3yr at 11mil but the orig. offer was for 3yr at 9mil and the upper management would'nt allow the increase? Would you have the same laissez faire attitude towards them putting their noses where they don't belong. I've been critical of Hendry's off-season, but they need to stay out of it. If Andy wants to play GM again, fire Hendry.

[Blueheart05]

Jocketty had a chance to re-sign Grudzielanek for two years at $3 million per season, but couldn’t convince ownership to raise the payroll to make it work. Because of a hard salary cap imposed by his superiors, Jocketty had no more than $2 million to spend on next season’s second baseman.

 

That's why STL always has been and always will be losers.

 

 

LOL, Goony I know where you're coming from...

 

(and for those that don't know, read the thread).

[RynoRules]

He said upper management didn't want to increase the offer. Apparently, the agentgave them the opportunity to increase the amount and someone (above Hendry--not necessarily MacPhail) rejected the increase. It sounds a lot like what happened in STL with Burnett.

 

I'm glad upper management stepped in! 5 years and $50M for a guy whose OPS has never been above .795?

 

How's that 4/$40M Renteria deal working out for Boston. They traded him after one season!

 

Word up.

[goonys evil twin]

This has nothing to do with arbitration, that's a separate issue,

 

I don't care how badly Hendry could mismanage a payroll, it isn't MacPhail's job to get his hands in the cookie jar.

 

Would you have the same laissez faire attitude towards them putting their noses where they don't belong.

 

I think trying to say that Andy has no right to be involved in contract talks is rather illogical and naive. The Cubs just went through the Sammy thing, Andy was very much involved. Just like Hendry should tell Dusty, I got you this guy to be the starting LF, Andy should get involved.

 

I would be pissed if they came up $500,000 short for 3 years on a really good player like Giles who would fill a big need position, but that's because they would have failed to sign a really good player at a big need position, not because Andy "stuck his nose where it didn't belong." Talk about hyperbole. He's not the president's wife determining tax policy. He's very much involved, and should be. Everybody has different levels of input. The top guy should have final say, and get involved when he things it's necessary, that is why he is the top guy. It's not like he's muddling up every move they try to make. If Hendry was willing to trade Pie, Hill, Guzman and Pawelek for Scott Podsednik because he knew he had to "win now" or lose his job, I'd expect Andy to step in and enforce organizational philosophy.

[UK1679666180]

Not necessarily. They reserve the right to dictate how much can be spent for individual contracts (even if the amount does not exceed the overall budget).

 

Why? It's not their job to determine a player's value, not over a GM.