"Cubs off-season moves aren't good enough" - Perry

[Backtobanks]

The writer does sound bitter, doesn't he.

 

To me he sounds correct not bitter.

 

JH has upgraded the team on paper. But how much?

 

Not much if you ask me.

 

Pierre is an upgrade, but a slight upgrade

 

Pierre as a leadoff man is a huge upgrade over Patterson.

 

Jones is not an upgrade

 

We don't know what we will get from Murton, but probably not enough power numbers to make a difference

 

You're right about Murton, but he has hit everywhere he has been and his numbers last year project to 20-25 HRs over a whole season.

 

Cedeno will hit but not walk much

 

Walker will never make it out of ST

JH Jr and Neifie will split time at 2nd.

 

Lee will likely regress

 

Lee worked hard to close a hole in his swing. If he has corrected it, why would he necessarily have to regress? Also, with better hitters in front of him, he may have many more RBIs.

 

Will Aramis be healthy all year?

 

The starting pitching remains a question mark with Wood on the shelf

 

I don't think it is as bad as many people are making it out to be. I look for Williams to develop into a solid starter.

 

The bullpen is upgraded, at least on paper. Bullpens are one of the hardest ascpects of a team to upgrade given the volitile nature of the bullpen from year to year..

 

Overall, I'd say about a .500 club. Certianly not what I was hoping for.

 

I think they will be over .500, but the question is whether they can get to 90 wins and will the Cards come down to the 90-win plateau.

[goonys evil twin]

Pierre as a leadoff man is a huge upgrade over Patterson.

 

 

I can't tell by the way you quote this, but if these are your words, I will respond.

 

Pierre is a better leadoff option than Corey. But he's not a much more productive CF, which is what we should really be concerned with.

 

The Cubs were 16th in OPS from CF last year in the NL, dead last. Florida was 15th. Pierre is no guarantee to be a huge upgrade for the Cubs. You can't just count his spot in the order, you have to look at the entire lineup. Pierre fills the "stereotypical leadoff hitter" hole that the Cubs wanted so desperately to fill. But the team needs much more than stereotypical players for different spots in the order. They need overall production.

[CuseCubFan69]

Of course Perry doesn't like the Cubs. The White Sox used his song as their theme.

[Sterling30]

Dayn Perry rates the Cubs poorly.

 

In other breaking news, Dayn Perry reports the sun will rise in the east.

[anemic offense]

Mods - Maybe should be tacked onto yesterday's short summary where Perry rated the Cubs off-season a D. This offers much more detail on why he graded that way. Feel free to move if you so desire.

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5255580

 

Summary

 

In 2005, the Cubs placed fourth in the NL Central and finished a whopping 21 games out of first place. Suffice it to say, that's a mammoth deficit to make up. Now, consider what the Cubs have done this off-season:

 

Bolstered the bullpen by adding Scott Eyre and Bob Howry.

 

Filled outfield holes by trading for Juan Pierre and signing Jacque Jones and Marquis Grissom.

 

Re-signed Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez and exercised their option on Todd Walker.

In other words, not bloody much.

 

The prevailing point is that this isn't a team in need of isolated, "nudge me over the top" tweaks; this a team that finished more than 20 games out of first place last season. Recent history suggests the front of the rotation won't be particularly durable, and what the offense has gained in Pierre they figure to give back in the form of regression for Derrek Lee and in lethal doses of Perez.

 

The reviled Cardinals won't be a 100-win team again, but they won't need to be if this is the Cubs' idea of mounting a serious challenge

 

Not that it isn't true, but I wouldn't put much stock in what Perry says. This guy's got a hard on for several teams, and the Cubs definately aren't one of them. After reading his articles over the last several years, I'm thoroughly convinced he wouldn't like the Cubs even if they assembled an All Star cast.

 

I think I respect him the least of ALL the baseball journalist. Excpet maybe Phil Rogers.

[treebird]

i dont really see how you'd need to accuse someone of bias just because they think the cubs have done a bad job this offseason.

[Hacking Out Machine]

Mods - Maybe should be tacked onto yesterday's short summary where Perry rated the Cubs off-season a D. This offers much more detail on why he graded that way. Feel free to move if you so desire.

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5255580

 

Summary

 

In 2005, the Cubs placed fourth in the NL Central and finished a whopping 21 games out of first place. Suffice it to say, that's a mammoth deficit to make up. Now, consider what the Cubs have done this off-season:

 

Bolstered the bullpen by adding Scott Eyre and Bob Howry.

 

Filled outfield holes by trading for Juan Pierre and signing Jacque Jones and Marquis Grissom.

 

Re-signed Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez and exercised their option on Todd Walker.

In other words, not bloody much.

 

The prevailing point is that this isn't a team in need of isolated, "nudge me over the top" tweaks; this a team that finished more than 20 games out of first place last season. Recent history suggests the front of the rotation won't be particularly durable, and what the offense has gained in Pierre they figure to give back in the form of regression for Derrek Lee and in lethal doses of Perez.

 

The reviled Cardinals won't be a 100-win team again, but they won't need to be if this is the Cubs' idea of mounting a serious challenge

 

Not that it isn't true, but I wouldn't put much stock in what Perry says. This guy's got a hard on for several teams, and the Cubs definately aren't one of them. After reading his articles over the last several years, I'm thoroughly convinced he wouldn't like the Cubs even if they assembled an All Star cast.

 

I think I respect him the least of ALL the baseball journalist. Excpet maybe Phil Rogers.

 

 

Perry is a BP guy. He'll like the Cubs moves as soon as they start doing things that make logical sense. As long as Hendry keeps trading people at their absolute lowest value, acquiring people at an absolute premium, and paying millions for mediocre players of questionable worth who could be easily replicated for half the cost, he'll continue to get bashed by people in that crowd.

[CubinNY]

Perry is a BP guy. He'll like the Cubs moves as soon as they start doing things that make logical sense. As long as Hendry keeps trading people at their absolute lowest value, acquiring people at an absolute premium, and paying millions for mediocre players of questionable worth who could be easily replicated for half the cost, he'll continue to get bashed by people in that crowd.

 

Well done. Summs things up in a nut shell.

[Elrhino]

I accept the fact that this was a dry free agent crop, but the problem is that this isn't just an offseason problem. The outfield has been horrendous for the past 24 months. The bullpen has been horrendous for the past 24 months.

 

This has been a boat rowing in circles for the past 2 years, and it doesn't like like its about to right itself any time soon.

[goonys evil twin]

I accept the fact that this was a dry free agent crop, but the problem is that this isn't just an offseason problem. The outfield has been horrendous for the past 24 months. The bullpen has been horrendous for the past 24 months.

 

This has been a boat rowing in circles for the past 2 years, and it doesn't like like its about to right itself any time soon.

 

And at the risk of getting way off track, it goes back to the Alou signing, when they were not a good team and still waiting for a lot of the young players, especially pitchers, to emerge before making their moves. They signed Alou, which guaranteed that LF and RF would be plugged for a few years, with several good corner OF coming on the market in the meantime. That signing served as their excuse not to go after any impact younger corner OF in 2003 and 2004. And it just shows you how important it is to have a realistic picture of what your team is capable of in the near team, and a pretty good idea of what the not-so-distant future will look like.

 

And before anybody tries to say Hendry can't be held accountable for that, he was the asst GM, and very much a part of the decision making process that made that deal happen. An Alou signing would have made sense if those 2001 Cubs were like the 2003/2004/2005 Cubs, and despite the 88 wins, they clearly were not, as everybody on the team was old and aging quickly.

 

They said all along they were going to develop their own core from within the system, and then go outside the team for holes they couldn't fill with their own guys. Now that they have that core from within, they can't find the guys from outside to fill those holes, and we're stuck with second, or more likely, third-rate fill-ins.

[anemic offense]

i dont really see how you'd need to accuse someone of bias just because they think the cubs have done a bad job this offseason.

 

Not the point. Go back and read a few of his articles over the last several years and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not this one article in particular (which I don't have a problem with, because its accurate), rather its the sum of the parts.

 

If you still don't see where I'm coming from, then I'll reference Rob Neyer as an example. I don't agree with a lot of his assessments sometimes (I'm not a huge stat guy, altthough I willingly acknowledge their importance), but I'll have to admit is opinions are rarely biased and rooted in fact. With that said, it is abundantly clear his Twins bias rears its head at least once every year. Not that I have a problem with that, it just goes to show most journalists have a positive or negative bias towards some teams.

 

In Perry's case, I've always got the impression he just doesn't like the Cubs. Sometimes its content, sometimes its his tone, but I think its quite obvious. You can agree/disagree with that all you like.

[fromthestretch]

i dont really see how you'd need to accuse someone of bias just because they think the cubs have done a bad job this offseason.

 

Not the point. Go back and read a few of his articles over the last several years and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not this one article in particular (which I don't have a problem with, because its accurate), rather its the sum of the parts.

 

If you still don't see where I'm coming from, then I'll reference Rob Neyer as an example. I don't agree with a lot of his assessments sometimes (I'm not a huge stat guy, altthough I willingly acknowledge their importance), but I'll have to admit is opinions are rarely biased and rooted in fact. With that said, it is abundantly clear his Twins bias rears its head at least once every year. Not that I have a problem with that, it just goes to show most journalists have a positive or negative bias towards some teams.

 

In Perry's case, I've always got the impression he just doesn't like the Cubs. Sometimes its content, sometimes its his tone, but I think its quite obvious. You can agree/disagree with that all you like.

 

That's a little odd considering he's been a Royals fan his entire life. And he doesn't hesitate to rip into them for terrible moves they make.

[treebird]

i dont really see how you'd need to accuse someone of bias just because they think the cubs have done a bad job this offseason.

 

Not the point. Go back and read a few of his articles over the last several years and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not this one article in particular (which I don't have a problem with, because its accurate), rather its the sum of the parts.

 

If you still don't see where I'm coming from, then I'll reference Rob Neyer as an example. I don't agree with a lot of his assessments sometimes (I'm not a huge stat guy, altthough I willingly acknowledge their importance), but I'll have to admit is opinions are rarely biased and rooted in fact. With that said, it is abundantly clear his Twins bias rears its head at least once every year. Not that I have a problem with that, it just goes to show most journalists have a positive or negative bias towards some teams.

 

In Perry's case, I've always got the impression he just doesn't like the Cubs. Sometimes its content, sometimes its his tone, but I think its quite obvious. You can agree/disagree with that all you like.

 

That's a little odd considering he's been a Royals fan his entire life. And he doesn't hesitate to rip into them for terrible moves they make.

 

beat me to it.

[anemic offense]

i dont really see how you'd need to accuse someone of bias just because they think the cubs have done a bad job this offseason.

 

Not the point. Go back and read a few of his articles over the last several years and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not this one article in particular (which I don't have a problem with, because its accurate), rather its the sum of the parts.

 

If you still don't see where I'm coming from, then I'll reference Rob Neyer as an example. I don't agree with a lot of his assessments sometimes (I'm not a huge stat guy, altthough I willingly acknowledge their importance), but I'll have to admit is opinions are rarely biased and rooted in fact. With that said, it is abundantly clear his Twins bias rears its head at least once every year. Not that I have a problem with that, it just goes to show most journalists have a positive or negative bias towards some teams.

 

In Perry's case, I've always got the impression he just doesn't like the Cubs. Sometimes its content, sometimes its his tone, but I think its quite obvious. You can agree/disagree with that all you like.

 

That's a little odd considering he's been a Royals fan his entire life. And he doesn't hesitate to rip into them for terrible moves they make.

 

beat me to it.

 

Really?? Hmmm could have swore it was him. But even if he isn't a Twins fan you'd still think he was one by reading his articles. He always seems especially optimistic when it comes to their rebounding players, such as Kubel and Mourneau.

[fromthestretch]

 

If you still don't see where I'm coming from, then I'll reference Rob Neyer as an example. I don't agree with a lot of his assessments sometimes (I'm not a huge stat guy, altthough I willingly acknowledge their importance), but I'll have to admit is opinions are rarely biased and rooted in fact. With that said, it is abundantly clear his Twins bias rears its head at least once every year. Not that I have a problem with that, it just goes to show most journalists have a positive or negative bias towards some teams.

 

In Perry's case, I've always got the impression he just doesn't like the Cubs. Sometimes its content, sometimes its his tone, but I think its quite obvious. You can agree/disagree with that all you like.

 

That's a little odd considering he's been a Royals fan his entire life. And he doesn't hesitate to rip into them for terrible moves they make.

 

beat me to it.

 

Really?? Hmmm could have swore it was him. But even if he isn't a Twins fan you'd still think he was one by reading his articles. He always seems especially optimistic when it comes to their rebounding players, such as Kubel and Mourneau.

 

I'm optimistic about them, too, and I'm a Cubs fan. Morneau could be a 30-40 homer guy. He had a really bad year last year as far as health and luck are concerned. If I remember correctly, he had pneumonia, chicken pox, and something else (appendicitis maybe?) prior to the season starting. Then he got drilled in the head by a pitch during the season. I think if health and luck are on his side, he'll be fine.

 

Kubel probably would have been starting in Minnesota's outfield last year if not for an injury (ACL, I believe). The kid can hit.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

Here's someone who graded the Cubs off-season with a B:

(sorry pessimists)

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/01/19/nl.grades/1.html

[Backtobanks]

Here's someone who graded the Cubs off-season with a B:

(sorry pessimists)

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/01/19/nl.grades/1.html

 

Just goes to show what I have said all along: these "experts" don't know any more than the rest of us. Football analysts go through the games and end up picking the favorite. Look at their records using the point spread and you will see that most of them end up at or below .500. In baseball it's easy to see who the best teams are, but all it takes is a few key injuries to change everything. The 2006 Cubs will be competitive if they remain healthy. I believe that Hendry has had a competitive team for the last few years barring injuries and stupid personnel choices by the manager.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I think if you asked most regulars here, we'd split the difference and give Hendry a C. Myself, that's how I'd grade him. I liked and supported the bullpen moves from the beginning, because I'm tired of poor bullpen depth being such a perpetual team weakness. Now, it ought to be a team strength, with Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Williamson, Wuertz and Ohman all capable relievers. You can argue Hendry overpaid for these guys, and that knocks down his credit a little bit, but not much. He had plenty of money to spend.

 

I also supported bringing in Juan Pierre from the beginning. I understand the hesitation since Pierre had such a down year in 05, his arm stinks, and he has no power--so if he's not on top of his game, he is not a good addition. But his numbers in 01, 03 and 04 suggest he is capable of being the best leadoff man the Cubs have had in a long time.

 

I even supported the decision to let Nomar go. He's a shell of his former self, but we all remember the all-star and batting champ. The guy is so brittle you just can't put your eggs in that basket again.

 

So based on these three things, pretty good. But....

 

The Rusch and especially, Neifi signings? Unsupportable. Those were two of Hendry's first three off-season moves! Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Failure to nail down the Furcal deal. He was ours for the taking if Hendry had simply closed the deal with a solid offer, but he tried to nickel and dime him (after literally throwing money at Neifi), that gave LA a chance to get in the game, and we know the outcome. If Hendry would have closed the deal while LA was still without a GM.....

 

The Jones signing stinks. He was likely viewed as the best of a set of poor alternatives (eg, Wilson, Encarnacion, Burnitz, Hidalgo), but Hendry wouldn't have been in that position if he'd worked out a deal for a corner OF last year.

 

And though at the margin, giving away Jermaine Van Buren really rubs me the wrong way, not because of JVB's ceiling so much as because it illustrates yet again Hendry's mismanagement of, and poor decision-making related to, the 40-man roster. JVB had trade currency, it should have been used.

 

So, overall grade C. Not good enough for a team that was 5 outs away two years ago, has a $100MM payroll, and is installing 1800 new seats this year (and raising ticket prices in general).

[stitchface]

maybe its because the twins have been highly successful with an indifferent owner, a miniscule payroll, and a small market? maybe because the twins have developed their own players? and perhaps you should have read the articles ripping the twins for hanging on to jacque jones and thereby blocking younger cheaper players.