The Real Cost of not getting Furcal

[Soriano12]

want to revisit the missed signing of Rafeal Furcal and calculate how much this REALLY cost the Cubs as an organization....To start..I am gonna break down the likely scenarios this offseason:

 

2007 Scenario 1: (We have a signed Furcal and kept CPat and Nolasco)

CF Patterson 2.8 Million

SS Furcal 13 Million

3rd Starter 327,000

 

Cost of our CF, SS, and #3 starter - 16.1 Million

 

2007 Scenario 2: (Hendry's screws the pooch, we overpaid for a leadoff hiiter, misout on locking up Furcal who would have cost us NO prospects, and we still have to overpay for a SS(Iszturis). Resigning Pierre will cost us 8 mil/season(very generous estimate), We will need to sign a #3 Starter(a spot that could have been filled by Nolasco)

 

CF Pierre 8 Milion

SS Iszturis 4 Million

# 3 Starter 7 million

 

Cost of our CF, SS, and #3 starter - 19 Million

 

Am I assuming alot..of course.

 

CPat - yes..this topic has been beat to death..but to deal a guy with this potential was [expletive]..especially for the crap prospects we got. Gene Clines should have been fired, and a new hiiting instructor brought in.

Even if Corey Patterson was batting around .250.-.260 with 8-10 HRS 30-35 RBI's and 15-20 SB's out of the 7th 8th hole this season,

I would take those numbers under scenario 1.(keeping Nolasco)

 

Nolasco. Yes...its always hindsight with prospects..but I hold managment to a higher standard...they know more about these guys then me..John Q Fan. The fact of the matter is they don't know when to hold them...and when to fold them. They hype up the Rich Hills, Angel Guzmans, yet they peddle off future stars like Willis, Nolasco.

 

 

Sorry for the rant, and yes I know hindsight 20/20...but the fact is we as fans have the right to judge historys mistakes.

And the honeymoon of Ramirez, Lee, and Barrett is over for Hendry. He is slowly tearing this team apart. Someone in the Tribune must wake up and give this guy an ulimatatum to get his act togheter or get out of Chicago

[Soriano12]

also..please no one throw in the arugment..well he got D. Lee for Hee Sucks Choi.

Yes it was an amazing deal, along with Aram, and the Barrett signing.

But being a good GM means building a solid group of 9 position players, 5 starters, and guys in the bullpen that can get it done.

 

In that aspect Hendry has had 95 Mil to work with and has built a bottom 5

team in baseball.

 

No excuses.

[RynoRules]

I don't think we have been over this issue enough yet.

[Soriano12]

I don't think we have been over this issue enough yet.

 

hehe..sorry..I'm a little new around to these boards...lifelong cub fan though.

 

Still..these issues with Hendry need to remain fresh.

 

I plan on confronting Hendry about this at the next cubs convention.

 

He demands all Cub fans an apology for his incompetence.

[Slugger_16]

Too bad he can't run in a straight line.

[TruffleShuffle]

Too bad he can't run in a straight line.

 

:cry:

[CuseCubFan69]

The problem is that Hendry wanted a leadoff guy in the worst way. #2 Patterson was the target of the boo birds and IMO wouldn't have had the year he has had in Baltimore and the poor coaching in Chicago would have kept him as a struggling hitter.

[Soriano12]

The problem is that Hendry wanted a leadoff guy in the worst way. .

 

He could have had a leadoff guy(Furcal) w/o giving up Nolasco and Pinto

if he would have ponied up 3 mil more per season...

 

yet he gives 6 mil/year in contracts to

Rusch

Perez

Wade no arm Miller.

 

It just doesn't make sense.

[Peoriaman]

if Patterson was still with the Cubs we would b moaning about his poor OBP.

[USSoccer]

if Patterson was still with the Cubs we would b moaning about his poor OBP.

 

Only if Baker insisted on batting him 1st. Bat him 7th or 8th and it's less important than his SLG%

[Soriano12]

hopefully the patterson fiasco will serv as a reminder of what not to due

when Pie is here.

 

When Pie arrives he should start out batting in the 7 hole unless he is simply

lights out.

[CuseCubFan69]

The problem is that Hendry wanted a leadoff guy in the worst way. .

 

He could have had a leadoff guy(Furcal) w/o giving up Nolasco and Pinto

if he would have ponied up 3 mil more per season...

 

yet he gives 6 mil/year in contracts to

Rusch

Perez

Wade no arm Miller.

 

It just doesn't make sense.

 

Whoops...that's right you said he would get Furcal.

 

To answer your question I think Hendry figured he had Cedeno and Perez and could get Pierre for a couple of Minors he wasn't going to use in 2006. Add to that Rusch as insurance and Miller as his insurance. Man...did that house of cards fall hard.

 

I thought Rusch would have a decent year too and not nearly the disaster he has been this year andf I would have signed him to an high incentive deal. I had no faith in Miller as I have never been a big fan of his even when he was healthy. And Perez....that was just Hendry/Baker being themselves in once again another horrible signing.

 

The thing is to me is how to fix this mess. This is in the past and hopefully Hendry will learn but I highly doubt it so I'm just bracing for more crappy free agent signings and trades in 2006/07 and hope for a major change in the GM and President moves for the Cubs. I'm shooting for 2009 for the next Cub push for the playoffs.

[RynoRules]

I don't think we have been over this issue enough yet.

 

hehe..sorry..I'm a little new around to these boards...lifelong cub fan though.

 

Still..these issues with Hendry need to remain fresh.

 

I plan on confronting Hendry about this at the next cubs convention.

 

He demands all Cub fans an apology for his incompetence.

 

Agreed. Just more interested in people's new ideas these days.

[soccer10k]

Derrek Lee being out since April 19 is the real cost of not getting Furcal.

[Soul]

Derrek Lee being out since April 19 is the real cost of not getting Furcal.

 

Add that to the pile. Of course, there's no way a GM can know something like that.

 

But it's [expletive] to go after a FA full-bore and then just give up inches before the finish line-------which is how I interpret what happened.

[goonys evil twin]

The problem is that Hendry wanted a leadoff guy in the worst way. .

 

He could have had a leadoff guy(Furcal) w/o giving up Nolasco and Pinto

if he would have ponied up 3 mil more per season...

 

yet he gives 6 mil/year in contracts to

Rusch

Perez

Wade no arm Miller.

 

It just doesn't make sense.

 

What doesn't make sense is thinking you have to have a leadoff guy, letting the world know you're desperate for a leadoff guy, and show a willingness to pay heavily for a leadoff guy, and insisting that leadoff guy be a stereotypical leadoff guy. It's plain old stupid management. What's that about a fool and his money?

 

Your point does hold that wasting millions on crap like Rusch and Neifi is what keeps him from paying a little more for guys that really matter, but thinking that Furcal was a guy that really mattered is just wrong.

[Soriano12]

 

My initial post backs up the case that Furcal was the guy that mattered.

 

because if we had Furcal..we would still have Nolasco(who we could pencil in

as our #3 starter this offseason)

 

Instead the Cubs will have to get a top of the line guy(ie Schmidt 10-12 mil)

 

and a 2nd tier FA for the #3 spot in the rotation(ie..Ted Lily, Gil Meche)

That will cost b/t 6-8 million.

[goonys evil twin]

My initial post backs up the case that Furcal was the guy that mattered.

.

 

You attempted to back it up, but it's still wrong.

 

The Cubs didn't need a stereotypical leadoff hitter. They didn't need to get into a bidding war for marginally productive hitters. They weren't forced to give up big time talent for Pierre when they lost out on Furcal. It was Jim Hendry's incompetent management decisions that put this team into the position it was, and currently is, in. It was not some imagined need to sign Furcal. They could have and should have completely ignored the stereotypical leadoff hitter "position" and just gone out and found the best 8 hitters they could at each actual position.

 

 

In other words, when I ask you if you'd like me to kick you in the balls, or slap you across your face, your answer should be neither, not whichever one you think will hurt less.

[Soriano12]

My initial post backs up the case that Furcal was the guy that mattered.

.

 

You attempted to back it up, but it's still wrong.

 

The Cubs didn't need a stereotypical leadoff hitter. They didn't need to get into a bidding war for marginally productive hitters. They weren't forced to give up big time talent for Pierre when they lost out on Furcal. It was Jim Hendry's incompetent management decisions that put this team into the position it was, and currently is, in. It was not some imagined need to sign Furcal. They could have and should have completely ignored the stereotypical leadoff hitter "position" and just gone out and found the best 8 hitters they could at each actual position.

 

I will agree that the Cubs should move from the traditional sterotypical leadoff hitter.

 

Mainly..because those guys(ie Pierre..rely on the ground ball for a high % of their base hits)

 

In comes Pierre to Wrigley and his grounders are getting ate up on that grass. IMO...the perfect leadoff guy for the Cubs would be a doubles type hitter(think a Michael Barrett with some faster wheels)

 

As for Furcal...I would argue that he isn't your traditional leadoff guy.

He's got some pop in the bat and would probably be a better hitter at Wrigley over the course of time.

[C.C.]

My initial post backs up the case that Furcal was the guy that mattered.

.

 

You attempted to back it up, but it's still wrong.

 

The Cubs didn't need a stereotypical leadoff hitter. They didn't need to get into a bidding war for marginally productive hitters. They weren't forced to give up big time talent for Pierre when they lost out on Furcal. It was Jim Hendry's incompetent management decisions that put this team into the position it was, and currently is, in. It was not some imagined need to sign Furcal. They could have and should have completely ignored the stereotypical leadoff hitter "position" and just gone out and found the best 8 hitters they could at each actual position.

 

 

In other words, when I ask you if you'd like me to kick you in the balls, or slap you across your face, your answer should be neither, not whichever one you think will hurt less.

 

So are you saying stereotypical leadoff guys don't matter or just in this particular Cubs case?

[goonys evil twin]

So are you saying stereotypical leadoff guys don't matter or just in this particular Cubs case?

 

I'm saying stereotypical leadoff hitters are ridiculously overrated by some in baseball, including Hendry and Dusty. I'm not talking about your prototypical leadoff hitter, the guy who will get on base 40% of the time, take lots of pitches, walk, steal at an efficient clip, etc. I'm talking about stereotypical leadoff hitters, as in Dusty's insistence that the short fast black centerfielder must be the leadoff hitter, or that the leadoff hitter must be a short fast guy. Juan Pierre is a stereotypical leadoff hitter. The Cubs willingness to trade a lot for him was both obvious from the start and absurdly ridiculous. It would be similar to paying big bucks for an innings eating starting pitcher who doesn't pitch effectively at all, and is, in fact, below average in terms of ERA+ in comparison to the rest of the league.

 

When the Cubs decided they needed a leadoff hitter, aside from putting themselves behind the negotiating 8-ball by letting the world know what they were hot and heavy for, they foolishly decided that the most important aspect of the leadoff hitter's game was his speed, and that everything else was secondary. Any short fast dark skinned athlete can be a stereotypical leadoff hitter. But there aren't many prototypical ones. If you got one, great, but don't go bidding heavily on stereotypical leadoff men thinking they will be as good as a prototypical leadoff hitter.

[neely crenshaw]

i think you missed the true cost of not signing furcal.

 

first, if you need a guy, a guy that you decided was your target and you have the money- you must sign them. and yes you must overpay sometimes.

 

we did not sign furcal. so we then felt it necessary to keep neifi for 2.5 mil as insurance. i know this came first but if you plan on signng furcal, you have cedeno and walker..why do you need neifi. you need neifi because you knew you weren't going to sign furcal.

 

now because we still do not have a lead off man, you overpay with prospects for pierre- who if you still want after you get furcal, is not as big a need so florida can't rape you on the deal. look at a few of the deals they made..pierre by far brought them the most.

 

we also need a free agent splash to cover hendry'sdoing nothing...so he way overpays jones to come here for way too many years. which of course forces us to trade the younger,cheaper version of jones...corey patterson. and he will be here for 2 more years basically blocking pie or murton from playing.

 

so we would not pay the extra to furcal but we paid more for neifi, jones and pierre...and lost prospects and maddux(or whatever other prospects we could have gotten instead of izturis) lost cpatt, and are holding back one of our prospects.

 

jim, sometimes overpaying is in the eye of the beholder

[goonys evil twin]

i think you missed the true cost of not signing furcal.

 

first, if you need a guy, a guy that you decided was your target and you have the money- you must sign them. and yes you must overpay sometimes.

 

The problem with all this is they didn't need the guy and they never should have targeted stereotypical leadoff hitter in the first place. Losing out on Furcal did not force them to overpay for Pierre. It was Hendry's choice to foolishly overemphasize a secondary, or really tertiary, component in speed. He didn't have to focus on speed.

[BigbadB]

For 1-2m, Hendry could have had Lofton. For 2.5m, Hendry could have traded for Bradley. Without spending a dime, they could have stuck Walker in the lead off spot. Same with Murton.

 

All 4 of the names listed above are all better options than Pierre in the lead off spot. So, less than 3m with nothing given up (outside of Bradley) for a better option at lead off than a guy you traded 3 prospects and paid 6m is a no-brainer.

[hawkeyecub]

Derrek Lee being out since April 19 is the real cost of not getting Furcal.

 

Add that to the pile. Of course, there's no way a GM can know something like that.

 

But it's [expletive] to go after a FA full-bore and then just give up inches before the finish line-------which is how I interpret what happened.

 

Hendry gave up inches before the finish line? No, he decided not to try to top Ned's insane offer.

 

We already offered him more than he was worth. You can't just say that if you really go after a free agent, you have to top the best offer no matter what.