Who's Had The Worst Offseason So Far?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

St. Louis - Lost Larry Walker, Reggie Sanders, Matt Morris, Mark Grudzielanek and Abraham Nunez. Picked up a few bullpen arms and other junk. Payroll crunch. No Burnett. :pukel:

 

Houston - The Roger Clemens mess has handicapped the team.

 

Chicago Cubs - Started the offseason with lots of money and pretty much wasted it on guys who aren't that good.

[TruffleShuffle]

Cubs, because they needed to improve to make up ground on the other two. They have all had crappy offseasons, which still leaves the Cubs behind the Cards and Astros.

[biittner77]

Before signing Jones I would have said Cards.

 

After not only signing Jacques Jones but giving him 3 years it's Cubs hands down.

[Balsa]

I'd say the Cards, simply because we did get Juan Pierre, and they have got jack so far.

[SouthSideRyan]

The key to it is so far, and considering what the lack of pretty much anything from the Cards or Stros, the answer has to be one of them.

 

Though, if I were a Card fan, I'd have a certain faith in Jocketty actually getting something done before ST as opposed to all of our feelings about Hendry.

[biittner77]

I'd say the Cards, simply because we did get Juan Pierre, and they have got jack so far.

 

jack > Jaqcues

[Mark_R]

I'm struggling to see how the Astros are better than us without Roger.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm struggling to see how the Astros are better than us without Roger.

 

I also have a hard time seeing Ensberg and especially Pettitte repeating last year's success.

[J.R.]

We won this fight the moment Perez was re-signed.

[Derwood]

I voted Astros, because no Clemens, Bagwell is old and busted, Biggio is like 80, Ensberg won't repeat those numbers, and Lance "Glass Jaw" Berkman can't stay healthy.

 

But it's a photo finish...

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I would like to change my vote. I had voted for the Astros, but I want to change it to the Cobs. Not only have they given me chest pains, but I also have lost my will to even go to any I-Cobs games this year.

 

Christ, the Angels have a low-A team in Cedar Rapids I could check out, I guess. Man, I hope the beer is cheap. Go halos? http://forums.gigantour.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[WrigleyField 22]

I say Cards.

 

That being said, they are still better than us, so it doesn't matter.

[BigbadB]

Oh, I could prepare a list of just how bad this offseason has been for the Cubs that would be several pages long.

 

Even little stupid stuff, like leaving Jose Macias on the 40 man roster while there was such a huge roster crunch. They eventually released him, but not before leaving a much better player unprotected in Rule 5 and not before trading Jermaine Van Buren for peanuts.

 

I could go on and on, and I probably will. But as much as I agree that Houston and St. Louis hasn't done much so far this offseason, the Cubs have absolutely BOMBED.

[WrigleyField 22]

Oh, I could prepare a list of just how bad this offseason has been for the Cubs that would be several pages long.

 

Even little stupid stuff, like leaving Jose Macias on the 40 man roster while there was such a huge roster crunch. They eventually released him, but not before leaving a much better player unprotected in Rule 5 and not before trading Jermaine Van Buren for peanuts.

 

I could go on and on, and I probably will. But as much as I agree that Houston and St. Louis hasn't done much so far this offseason, the Cubs have absolutely BOMBED.

 

I was a big critic of the 40 man before too. Fact is we only lost one guy to the big league portion, and hes not likley to stick. So I would listen to arguements for why we left Macias on. Beyond that, we didn't lose anyone, so in that case it looks like Hendry wasn't wrong. You may say hindsight is 20/20, but I'm sur during those fall meetings that seem to be useless Hendry is out there gauging interest.

Also has it been determined yet we traded Van Beuren for "peanuts"? We still get a PTBN right? (this is an honest question) Maybe that player will be better than we expect.

[SouthSideRyan]

Macias's spot was taken by a new addition to the team. That spot had to be there no matter what so whether Macias was released before the Rule V or not didn't matter, the spot wasn't going to be taken by a prospect, it was taken by a Howry, Eyre type.

 

The JVB trade had nothing to do with Macias. Nor did the Leicester trade. Criticisms of Hendry for his 40 man management are one of my pet peeves as he seems to take a bad rap for a lot of things that he had to do. People get angry that guys were left on the 40 man for Rule 5 then dealt for peanuts later, thinking a different prospect shoulda been adeed. Beyond the fact that any prospect that's left off and not taken automatically makes it the right decision (extra year of options), those spots were going to be taken by FAs and/or trades, so whoever was placeholding them earlier in the offseason does not matter.

[BigbadB]

Macias's spot was taken by a new addition to the team. That spot had to be there no matter what so whether Macias was released before the Rule V or not didn't matter, the spot wasn't going to be taken by a prospect, it was taken by a Howry, Eyre type.

 

The JVB trade had nothing to do with Macias. Nor did the Leicester trade. Criticisms of Hendry for his 40 man management are one of my pet peeves as he seems to take a bad rap for a lot of things that he had to do. People get angry that guys were left on the 40 man for Rule 5 then dealt for peanuts later, thinking a different prospect shoulda been adeed. Beyond the fact that any prospect that's left off and not taken automatically makes it the right decision (extra year of options), those spots were going to be taken by FAs and/or trades, so whoever was placeholding them earlier in the offseason does not matter.

 

I also stated I could go on and on and on about how bad this offseason has been. I just chose one. I'm fine if you disagree with me on this, but you won't change my mind. If you want to get technical, Jose Macias had no business being on the 25 man roster at any time in 2005, let alone still hanging onto a spot once the season was over.

 

As far as letting go of Jermaine Van Buren for peanuts, that's my stance. Whether anyone honestly believed he had the physical make up to be a major league reliever, he had value in trade. Instead of forking out huge money for Eyre, the Cubs could have used guys like Van Buren in trade to fill a left handed bullpen spot. Van Buren was a victim of a roster crunch. He didn't necessarily have to be added to the 40 man roster, but if you are going to trade him, use him in a package for something that doesn't cost an insane amount that has every possibility to be just as effective.

[TruffleShuffle]

Let's keep this poll going into January, that way we can see the Cubs finish ahead of the Cards and Astros in at least something in 2006.