Question

[Caryatid]

First post here-yet another defection from the ESPN.com board.

 

I've seen quite a few people that have lauded Jim Hendry because he "wasn't stupid enough to give Furcal $13 million."

 

Now, I can understand that. My question is this, and I stress that it is not a loaded question. I'm wondering what actually is thought by people:

 

Would the Cubs be better off:

 

a.) overpaying Furcal by 2-3 million per year for 3 years(as it was reported that he wanted the Cubs to come close to the Dodgers offer) and starting Patterson in right (at 3 million per)

 

or:

 

b.) losing out on Furcal and paying Jones 5.5. million per year for three years(2.5 million more than Patterson would have earned)?

 

To me, it looks like financially there is almost no difference between the two, so from a pure talent perspective, which do you feel makes the Cubs better?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd rather have Furcal and Patterson than Jones and Neifi for sure.

 

That being said, the Cubs should have made a stronger push for Giles. I know he wanted to stay in SD, but I would have tried to make him an offer he couldn't refuse. Giles was the one player worth overpaying for.

[BigbadB]

I'm with Vance. If you're going to overpay for someone (which the Cubs did quite well at this year when they overpaid for Neifi, Rusch, Eyre, Howry, Jones and Pierre in trade), overpay for Giles.

 

I know that the basic thought process is that Giles had no intention of leaving, but as a San Diegan who witnessed how frustrated he got day after day with Petco Park, coupled with the losses of Hernandez, Loretta and Eaton(because of Giles), and the near loss of Hoffman is a telling sign that there is no reason to be so loyal to an organization who has no problem sticking a knife in your back.

 

I'm going to continue latching on to my belief that Giles wanted to be wowed by someone this offseason, and when none of the other offers were any better than what San Diego was offering, he elected to stay.

 

His last contract was a good contract, but relatively low considering his production and what other players of his ability were making. I mean, Richard Hidalgo was making 12m to Giles' 8m just a few years ago. Giles signed a long term contract with the Pirates, which is a small market team attempting to hold on to Giles through his prime years. He lost a lot of money on that deal.

 

An argument could be made that Giles honestly just tested the market to drive up the price on San Diego and force them to match the higher offers. They did lowball him pretty good in opening negotiations. But, time was running on on whether he would be able to return to San Diego and the offers just weren't to his liking.

 

We do know that Hendry really wasn't all that interested in Giles, as Bruce Miles has mentioned numerous times on this site. Age, amount it would take to sign him, importance of a lead off hitter rather than a bopper were some of the possible reasons that Hendry didn't pursue him. Hendry claimed that he wouldn't get into a bidding war for him as well, which just furthers my own cause that it wasn't that Giles wasn't interested, but rather Hendry wasn't interested.

 

Giles is the guy the Cubs should have targeted and overpaid to play for this team. An argument could be made that he could fall off a cliff offensively as he ages, like many players do, but I don't think Giles will be one of those guys. Well, maybe he will be one of those guys afterall, since he's finishing his career in one of the least friendly hitter's parks in all of baseball.

 

To answer A or B, I don't like either choice. This team needed a big boost offensively, and neither Furcal, Jones or Patterson was enough, IMO.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'd rather have Furcal and Patterson than Jones and Neifi for sure.

 

That being said, the Cubs should have made a stronger push for Giles. I know he wanted to stay in SD, but I would have tried to make him an offer he couldn't refuse. Giles was the one player worth overpaying for.

 

Would you rather have Furcal and Patterson or Cedeno and Jones?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd rather have Furcal and Patterson than Jones and Neifi for sure.

 

That being said, the Cubs should have made a stronger push for Giles. I know he wanted to stay in SD, but I would have tried to make him an offer he couldn't refuse. Giles was the one player worth overpaying for.

 

Would you rather have Furcal and Patterson or Cedeno and Jones?

 

If I had control of things, I would have kept Cedeno and made a move to get Castillo. I might have still gotten Pierre as well, but I would have moved on Castillo and then maybe Furcal as well. At that point, I could have gotten Bradley or Wilkerson for CF.

 

Surely we could have made a stronger push for Furcal, but I don't think that was our only better option. Hendry just didn't show enough creativity this offseason. He focused on Pierre and Furcal to the exclusion of other ways of improving the team.

[stitchface]

it seems to me if you keep patterson you keep him in CF. Why move him to RF to make room for Pierre?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

it seems to me if you keep patterson you keep him in CF. Why move him to RF to make room for Pierre?

 

Excellent point. Had the Cubs signed Giles and traded for Castillo to lead off, the line-up would have been strong enough to support Patterson in CF.

[stitchface]

as BM said, this offseason has been a well-executed plan. a horrendously flawed and terrible plan.

[Abe Frohman]

Hang on a second, guys....

 

Did Hendry even get a chance to counter-offer the Dodgers? I don't think so, and he made a very, very good offer. I wouldn't say he failed. 13 million for 2 years is a lot of money.

 

I wonder if he can pull anything else off. There is a little time....

[don_kessinger_was_good]

The reports are/were that Hendry didn't have to pay $13MM a year to get Furcal. He only needed to offer $10MM for 5 years, and either he or the Trib said no. The reported best deal they made was 47.5/5. So the Cubs cheaped out for $500K, or roughly 1/6th of Neifi F. Perez' salary.

 

I'm not the world's biggest Furcal fan, but I'd sure rather him on the team and batting 2nd then Neifi. Ugh.

 

And need I point out, my payroll estimate at this point assuming Walker is gone is $93MM. If indeed the payroll cap for the Cubs is $100MM, then let's see.....Furcal at $10MM, less Perez at $3MM, equals $7MM. Lovely.

 

Talk to the sig......

[CubfaninCA]

Could they be cutting payroll? They're going to fill Wrigley regardless.

[SouthSideRyan]

The reports are/were that Hendry didn't have to pay $13MM a year to get Furcal. He only needed to offer $10MM for 5 years, and either he or the Trib said no. The reported best deal they made was 47.5/5. So the Cubs cheaped out for $500K, or roughly 1/6th of Neifi F. Perez' salary.

 

 

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Furcal wasn't going to take 5/50 instead of 4/52, nor should he. He came back to the Cubs to see if they'd match the offer, but I'm almost positive he wasn't willing to settle for what should likely turn out to be about 15M less.

[wade]

Could they be cutting payroll? They're going to fill Wrigley regardless.

 

Maybe Lee is getting extended this year, plus they're saving some for midseason in case they're actually around .500.

 

At least, that's what I keep telling myself.

[YearofDaCubs]

According to what I heard on the radio and what I have read in reports Hendry didn't even have to go as high as 13 mil to get Furcal. They were offering Furcal 9mil per year and 1-1.5 mil more per year would have had him.

[Magnetic Curses]

First post here-yet another defection from the ESPN.com board.

 

I've seen quite a few people that have lauded Jim Hendry because he "wasn't stupid enough to give Furcal $13 million."

 

Now, I can understand that. My question is this, and I stress that it is not a loaded question. I'm wondering what actually is thought by people:

 

Would the Cubs be better off:

 

a.) overpaying Furcal by 2-3 million per year for 3 years(as it was reported that he wanted the Cubs to come close to the Dodgers offer) and starting Patterson in right (at 3 million per)

 

or:

 

b.) losing out on Furcal and paying Jones 5.5. million per year for three years(2.5 million more than Patterson would have earned)?

 

To me, it looks like financially there is almost no difference between the two, so from a pure talent perspective, which do you feel makes the Cubs better?

 

welcome, cary!

 

i was excited to see that you had signed up. good stuff, man.