Wood wants to come back, open to relief. Bring him back.

[goonys evil twin]

I want Wood brgouht back IF it's at a good price. If he wants something like $5 million, he's gotta walk.

 

I think $2-3million base with incentives if he closes full time or starts a lot of games that can make it up to maybe $4m (closing) to $6m (starting).

 

 

And I don't think they should be performance incentives, but durability incentives (i.e. he shold get bonuses for starts, appearances, IP, etc, but not wins or saves.)

Contract incentives cannot be tied to performance measures like wins or saves.

 

The only "performance" incentives MLB allows are for awards like MVP, Cy Young, All-Star game, etc.

 

I'd give him IP incentives (including a "will not reach" incentive of as much as $5m for 150 IP), and I'd have no problem throwing in MVP, Cy Young and other type of incentives.

 

You can get bonuses for "games finished" which is a cheater way of getting a bonus for a save.

[TheDude]

if they sign wood for the pen they should trade either dempster or howry (depending on if they want wood to close or set up) imo. dempster is going to be a big ? next year and i sure dont want him starting as has been suggested in some newspapers. i think he can bounce back if he gets regular work so perhaps they should trade howry & let wood set up. if dempster melts down again, wood can close & wuretz can set him up.

 

The pen has had unbalanced innings. There is no reason to consider dropping Dempster, Howry, or Eyre just because you keep Wood. Assuming Rusch doesn't come back because of his injury, you slot Wood in his place.

[Soriano12]

Even if we found a taker for Dumpster, he would have to waive his no-trade clause if I am not mistaken.

 

Brilliant move Jim. Brilliant.

[biittner77]

Why would Rusch retire? If Rusch doesn't retire, the Cubs still have to pay his salary. This will be a lot like Mo Vaughn or Bagwell both of which chose to collect money from their teams even though they couldn't physically perform.

 

The only question is whether it will count against the 2007 salary.

[mg420]

with guys like hill, marshall, mateo veal & gahllager i think wood might be better off staying in the pen if he can keep healthy there.

 

None of those guys compares with Wood if he's at his best. The only reason he should stay in the pen is if he's physically incapable of returning to the rotation.

 

time will tell how good hill, veal & sean will be. wood hasnt been at his best since 2003 and even then he was only 14-11 with a 3.20 era. a good year but not exactly a great year. wood had (has?) great stuff but it never really translated to production on the mound.

[Tedward]

Why would Rusch retire? If Rusch doesn't retire, the Cubs still have to pay his salary. This will be a lot like Mo Vaughn or Bagwell both of which chose to collect money from their teams even though they couldn't physically perform.

 

The only question is whether it will count against the 2007 salary.

 

If he retires due to injury, wouldn't insurance pick up most of his 07' salary? If so, I imagine his salary would count against 07' payroll, but I bet the Cubs would have more to spend since insurance would be picking up most of the tab.

[mg420]

Why would Rusch retire? If Rusch doesn't retire, the Cubs still have to pay his salary. This will be a lot like Mo Vaughn or Bagwell both of which chose to collect money from their teams even though they couldn't physically perform.

 

The only question is whether it will count against the 2007 salary.

 

because he could die if he gets hit with a line drive?

[C.C.]

It's a no-brainer. The guy want's to stay, loves it here, and I'm sure will take a low salary with incentives. Get it done Jim!

[goonys evil twin]

with guys like hill, marshall, mateo veal & gahllager i think wood might be better off staying in the pen if he can keep healthy there.

 

None of those guys compares with Wood if he's at his best. The only reason he should stay in the pen is if he's physically incapable of returning to the rotation.

 

time will tell how good hill, veal & sean will be. wood hasnt been at his best since 2003 and even then he was only 14-11 with a 3.20 era. a good year but not exactly a great year. wood had (has?) great stuff but it never really translated to production on the mound.

 

That's only if you count win/loss record as production on the mound, and we all know you don't do that if you want to make a reasonable point.

[goonys evil twin]

Why would Rusch retire? If Rusch doesn't retire, the Cubs still have to pay his salary. This will be a lot like Mo Vaughn or Bagwell both of which chose to collect money from their teams even though they couldn't physically perform.

 

The only question is whether it will count against the 2007 salary.

 

because he could die if he gets hit with a line drive?

 

That's a good reason for him not to get on the mound. It's not a good reason to retire. Retire means no money. 60-day DL means keep money.

[radarluv1]

If we bring back Wood, trade Demp to Cinci.

 

For those of you who doubt the Reds would take him back, review this year's trades again...

 

dempster for freel or encarnacion? i just hope their gm hasnt learned from his last mistake

[C.C.]

with guys like hill, marshall, mateo veal & gahllager i think wood might be better off staying in the pen if he can keep healthy there.

 

None of those guys compares with Wood if he's at his best. The only reason he should stay in the pen is if he's physically incapable of returning to the rotation.

 

time will tell how good hill, veal & sean will be. wood hasnt been at his best since 2003 and even then he was only 14-11 with a 3.20 era. a good year but not exactly a great year. wood had (has?) great stuff but it never really translated to production on the mound.

 

That's only if you count win/loss record as production on the mound, and we all know you don't do that if you want to make a reasonable point.

 

Even if you coun't W/L records he's still close to 20 games above the .500 mark in his career.

[mg420]

Why would Rusch retire? If Rusch doesn't retire, the Cubs still have to pay his salary. This will be a lot like Mo Vaughn or Bagwell both of which chose to collect money from their teams even though they couldn't physically perform.

 

The only question is whether it will count against the 2007 salary.

 

because he could die if he gets hit with a line drive?

 

That's a good reason for him not to get on the mound. It's not a good reason to retire. Retire means no money. 60-day DL means keep money.

 

pehaps but i think that the leauge and some doctors would have a say in the matter. if there is no way he will be able to pitch next year, what's the point of putting him on the 60 day? i dont know what the mlb rules are in this situation.

[HoopsCubs]

Why would Rusch retire? If Rusch doesn't retire, the Cubs still have to pay his salary. This will be a lot like Mo Vaughn or Bagwell both of which chose to collect money from their teams even though they couldn't physically perform.

 

The only question is whether it will count against the 2007 salary.

 

because he could die if he gets hit with a line drive?

 

That's a good reason for him not to get on the mound. It's not a good reason to retire. Retire means no money. 60-day DL means keep money.

 

pehaps but i think that the leauge and some doctors would have a say in the matter. if there is no way he will be able to pitch next year, what's the point of putting him on the 60 day? i dont know what the mlb rules are in this situation.

 

Does the injury settlement clause still exist in MLB rules? Doctors rule Glendon unfit to pitch in 2007, and the Cubs and Rusch agree on a $1M buyout?

[mg420]

with guys like hill, marshall, mateo veal & gahllager i think wood might be better off staying in the pen if he can keep healthy there.

 

None of those guys compares with Wood if he's at his best. The only reason he should stay in the pen is if he's physically incapable of returning to the rotation.

 

time will tell how good hill, veal & sean will be. wood hasnt been at his best since 2003 and even then he was only 14-11 with a 3.20 era. a good year but not exactly a great year. wood had (has?) great stuff but it never really translated to production on the mound.

 

That's only if you count win/loss record as production on the mound, and we all know you don't do that if you want to make a reasonable point.

 

i count a 3.68 era and averaging 141 ip in 8 years as a lack of serious production on the mound.

[goonys evil twin]

i count a 3.68 era and averaging 141 ip in 8 years as a lack of serious production on the mound.

 

You have a problem with a 3.68 ERA?

 

There's no doubt Wood has been limited by injury. I don't get your point in bringing this up. I said the only thing that should keep him in the pen is if he is physically incapable of starting. When he's been healthy for a full season, he's been great. It's been rare, I know. I'm not saying you give him a starting job next year.

 

I am saying you put him in the pen, see how he does. If he goes all of 2007 healthy, and looks healthy in 2008, then you start to consider extending his innings, but most likely keep him in the pen. If he can get back to the rotation by 2009, you give him that chance, because odds are the Cubs are not going to introduce 1, let alone 4 starters who would be better than a healthy Wood in the rotation.

[mg420]

i count a 3.68 era and averaging 141 ip in 8 years as a lack of serious production on the mound.

 

You have a problem with a 3.68 ERA?

 

i do when you consider the talent that wood has. supposedly he had the best stuff in the leauge when he was healthy. he never came close to living up to his potential as a starter. hopefully he can rise from the ashes and be lights out in the pen. and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

[goonys evil twin]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

[SouthSideRyan]

This sounds a lot like what Nomar was saying last year. And then Hendry focused on bringing Neifi back.

[C.C.]

This sounds a lot like what Nomar was saying last year. And then Hendry focused on bringing Neifi back.

 

Normar didn't have a position to play. Different situations...

[SouthSideRyan]

This sounds a lot like what Nomar was saying last year. And then Hendry focused on bringing Neifi back.

 

Normar didn't have a position to play. Different situations...

 

Why is shifting Nomar to a corner OF position or 2B any different than shifting Wood to the bullpen?

[C.C.]

This sounds a lot like what Nomar was saying last year. And then Hendry focused on bringing Neifi back.

 

Normar didn't have a position to play. Different situations...

 

Why is shifting Nomar to a corner OF position or 2B any different than shifting Wood to the bullpen?

 

Didn't we already have like 10 2B last year? And if Normar couldn't stay healthy playing SS having him flopping around in the OF prolly wouldn't be a good idea.

[mg420]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

[Backtobanks]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

 

Woods' greatness has always had more to do with potential and short term achievement rather than season-long achievement.

[SouthSideRyan]

and again i wouldnt call any season he had "great".

 

I'd call his 2003 great, without question. Not down in history great, but great nonetheless. As great as Zambrano last year.

zambrano wasnt great last year either imo. we must have a different opinion on what "great" means. i look at some of the years pedro, maddux, clemens, johnson & sanatana have had and woods 2003 just looks like a very average year that a good pitcher would have. not a great year by any stretch imo.

 

So by your definition, there's about 1 great pitcher per year.