How did it come to this?

[imb]

complaining doesnt help, but neither does sunshine pumping.

 

saying that this team is awful is just being realistic.

[Derwood]

Hendry is overly concerned about getting his manager the guys he wants. Hopefully, Piniella's "boys/horses" are A-Rod, Schmidt and Soriano instead of Neifi/Macias/Rusch

[cl smooth]

i think i speak for most when i say we're concerned with whatever hendry decides to pull out of his bag of tricks this offseason. there are some really good free agents available and if the cubs brass holds true to increasing the payroll, there could be some GREAT players acquired to help this team get back into the playoffs and, ultimately, a world series victory. BUT with the past few seasons, instead of signing impact players, hendry has gone for stop-gags like pierre, jones, mabry and wasting money by giving journeymen infielders and pitchers bloated contracts with too many years attached to them. we hope he gets the impact players and not the stop-gags.

[Soriano12]

but he can't be so totally clueless can he?

 

He has been living off 3 good moves.

 

The trades for:

 

Derrek Lee

Aramis Ramirez

Michael Barrett

 

Damn shame the Nomar trade didn't work out, but at least we didn't

give up anything valuable. I feel bad for him in regards to that deal.

Nomar is just a bum, that is all.

 

In addition to FA signings, Hendry needs to re-discover the magic and heist another team via trade.

 

Hint: How can we get David DeJesus on the north side?

[KingCubsFan]

* multi-year deals for glendon rusch and neifi perez, who were WAIVED by terrible teams before they were picked off the scrap heap by the cubs. think about that for a minute.

These were bad deals, but you conveniently forgot to mention that he was also able to trade Neifi and his contract for a worthwhile prospect. And, at the time it was given, Rusch's contract didn't seem so terrible after viewing some of the other deals that were given out at the time (Jarrod Washburn comes to mind.)

* trading three young arms for a one-year rental in juan pierre, who is about as one-dimensional as they get.

A short-sighted trade that didn't work out. But you make it a lot worse than it really was when you say "three young arms." You should be saying "one good young pitcher." Besides Nolasco, the other two were trash.

* practically getting into a bidding war with the ROYALS for the services of jacque jones and signing him to a terrible 3-year deal while they were better options available.

The blind hate for Jacque has been discussed a lot on the board, so I won't go into it. I just find it funny that you would call a deal for someone who was one of the most efficient (in terms of cost v. production) RF's in the game a terrible deal, especially when he'll only be making about 4 million each of the next two years.

* giving freddy bynum, phil nevin, john mabry and a cast of thousands time in left field instead of playing matt murton.

This is mostly on Dusty. Besides, when they were getting murton's playing time, he was in the midst of putting up a .400+ OPS and was clearly slumping.

* bringing up tony womack to play on a major league roster.

How long did this last? A week? Maybe two?

* wasting bench space, fabric for a jersey and oxygen in the locker room on jose macias.

I agree. Macias was worthless. Hopefully, with Dusty gone, these type of players will never appear again.

 

*waits for Hendry fat-jokes and Dunkin' Donuts comments*

[goonys evil twin]

And, at the time it was given, Rusch's contract didn't seem so terrible after viewing some of the other deals that were given out at the time (Jarrod Washburn comes to mind.)

 

 

especially when he'll only be making about 4 million each of the next two years.

 

Rusch contract seemed terrible from the very beginning.

 

Jones will make over $5m per year, just so you know. And his barely above average season in 2006 is not likely to be repeated.

[Soriano12]

Were there other teams in the market for Glendon, or did Jim setup

a one-man auction?

[Andy]

Were there other teams in the market for Glendon, or did Jim setup

a one-man auction?

I don't recall hearing anything to suggest Rusch was pursued by anyone.

[Soriano12]

Were there other teams in the market for Glendon, or did Jim setup

a one-man auction?

I don't recall hearing anything to suggest Rusch was pursued by anyone.

 

Oh well, good for Glendon. Right place at the right time.

 

Any word when Hendry will be handing out c-notes to random pedestrains on the corner of clark & addison?

[CubColtPacer]

Were there other teams in the market for Glendon, or did Jim setup

a one-man auction?

 

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year.

[BigbadB]

Hendry has had his share of good deals and bad deals. I also don't think it's fair to evaluate a trade in hindsight.

 

Unfortunately, the good deals are far removed and replaced by bad deals.

 

Deals should really be replaced by "decisions". Whether those decisions be trades, free agent signings, retaining Baker all year, waiting too long to make deadline deals, etc... there really wasn't much to get excited about in 2006.

 

Signing Rusch, Neifi and Blanco to ridiculous sized contracts for their production was amazingly stupid.

 

Putting all of his eggs in Rafael Furcal's basket was pretty stupid.

 

Kicking Nomar to the curb without looking back was pretty stupid.

 

Trading 3 pitching prospects for a 1 year rental, speed demon was stupid.

 

Waiting too long to fill the biggest hole in the offense (RF) and having to settle for the best off the scrap heap was stupid.

 

Not firing Dusty after the 2005 season was dumb. Not firing him sometime during the season was ridiculously stupid.

 

It goes back to the 2005 season, but agreeing to allow Wood to pitch out of the pen in a season that was lost to about 99% of the viewership and retarding his chances of being healthy in 2006 was stupid.

 

Maybe I overvalue some players, but I felt that they could have gotten much more in return at the trade deadline than they actually did. Maddux, Walker, Jacque Jones, Juan Pierre to name a few guys that I felt could have garnered some interest from other teams.

 

I penciled them in to finish closer to the bottom of the division than towards the top at the beginning of the season. The writing was on the wall. ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE offseason by Hendry.

[Andy]

Were there other teams in the market for Glendon, or did Jim setup

a one-man auction?

 

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year.

Marquis sucks, but comparing Rusch's career to his is doing Glendon a big favor.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

[goonys evil twin]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

See Cardinals/Mets.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

100M should be enough to build a solid 1-8 and pitching staff.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

See Cardinals/Mets.

 

The Cardinals made it in a crappy division with a Cy Young candidate going once every 5 days.

 

The Mets made it with Pedro, Glavine, Hernandez, etc. They weren't exactly pitching devoid.

 

Z isn't even close to the pitcher Carpenter is, or Pedro for that matter.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

100M should be enough to build a solid 1-8 and pitching staff.

 

Not when you lose two aces to injuries it isn't. OBP isn't cheap nowadays, niether is SLG. How many legit aces were traded or acquired in the past season? Those guys aren't replaceable.

[CubColtPacer]

Were there other teams in the market for Glendon, or did Jim setup

a one-man auction?

 

There wasn't really any time for their to be a market for Glendon. One site I'm looking at has Glendon being signed on Halloween last year. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I know it was before free agency actually started. I'm sure somebody would have given Glendon at least a couple million dollars last year, just like somebody will give Jason Marquis that money this year.

Marquis sucks, but comparing Rusch's career to his is doing Glendon a big favor.

 

Is it? Throw out this year for Rusch (since I'm comparing each one of them before going to free agency-so Rusch before last years free agency, and Marquis before this year's free agency)

 

Here are their last 5 years before that free agency

Rusch:01: 8-12, 4.63 ERA, 1.45 WHIP

02: 10-16, 4.70 ERA, 1.44 WHIP

03: 1-12, 6.42 ERA, 1.75 WHIP

04: 6-2, 3.47 ERA, 1.23 WHIP

05: 9-8, 4.52 ERA, 1.57 WHIP

 

Marquis: 02: 8-9, 5.04 ERA, 1.54 WHIP

03: 0-0, 5.53 ERA, 1.50 WHIP

04: 15-7, 3.71 ERA, 1.42 WHIP

05: 13-14, 4.13 ERA, 1.33 WHIP

06: 14-16, 6.02 ERA, 1.52 WHIP

 

I'd rank their seasons in this order: Rusch 04, Marquis 04, Marquis 05, Rusch 05/Rusch 01/Rusch 02 (they are all about the same season), Marquis 02, Marquis 03, Marquis 06, Rusch 03.

 

So Rusch in their 10 combined seasons before free agency had 4 out of the best 6 seasons-I don't see why the comparison would not be valid whatsoever.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

100M should be enough to build a solid 1-8 and pitching staff.

 

Not when you lose two aces to injuries it isn't. OBP isn't cheap nowadays, niether is SLG. How many legit aces were traded or acquired in the past season? Those guys aren't replaceable.

 

Playoff teams:

New York Mets $101,084,963

Los Angeles Dodgers $98,447,187

St. Louis Cardinals $88,891,371

Detroit Tigers $82,612,866

San Diego Padres $69,896,141

Minnesota Twins $63,396,006

Oakland Athletics $62,243,079

[goonys evil twin]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

See Cardinals/Mets.

 

The Cardinals made it in a crappy division with a Cy Young candidate going once every 5 days.

 

The Mets made it with Pedro, Glavine, Hernandez, etc. They weren't exactly pitching devoid.

 

Z isn't even close to the pitcher Carpenter is, or Pedro for that matter.

 

So you discount the Yankees winning 97 games without great pitching. STL is in the same division as the Cubs, has less money to spend on hitting, and just as many crap pitchers. Carpenter is not much better than Zambrano, they are very close. The Mets didn't get anything out of Pedro this year, he had a sub 100 ERA+ in 130 innings. The 2005 version of Mark Prior was much better than that. El Duque was average with the Mets, and hasn't been in the playoffs at all. Glavine was good early, but nothing special the rest of the year. Their best pitcher the past few months has been a virtual rookie with no history of major league success.

 

People like to spout off about pitching because it's a great cliche. But the 2006 NLCS has put to rest any notion that you absolutely must have great pitching to go anywhere in the postseason. These teams are routinely throwing out retreads, has beens and nobodies, and succeeding. Why? Because they built good overall teams, and didn't foolishly focus solely on filling out a cliche.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

100M should be enough to build a solid 1-8 and pitching staff.

 

Not when you lose two aces to injuries it isn't. OBP isn't cheap nowadays, niether is SLG. How many legit aces were traded or acquired in the past season? Those guys aren't replaceable.

 

Playoff teams:

New York Mets $101,084,963

Los Angeles Dodgers $98,447,187

St. Louis Cardinals $88,891,371

Detroit Tigers $82,612,866

San Diego Padres $69,896,141

Minnesota Twins $63,396,006

Oakland Athletics $62,243,079

 

I'm not arguing that 100M isn't enough to put a winning team on the field. Read my comments again.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm not arguing that 100M isn't enough to put a winning team on the field. Read my comments again.

 

You seem to be arguing that $100m won't be able to buy us a good all-around team, and we should therefore focus almost exclusively on pitching. You claim OBP and SLG is expensive, but pitching always has been, and probably always will be the most expensive part of the game. The Cubs can afford to, and need to, field a great hitting and great pitching team.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Unless you're the NYY, pitching comes first. We lost 2 aces in Prior and Wood, for whatever reason. Aces don't come along every day.

 

It's that simple. Without pitching, you aren't going to win unless you are ungodly ridiculously stacked 1-9 (2006 NYY for example). Offense is expensive right now. 100M won't buy us enough offense to overcome a rotation of Z and a bunch or young uns or veteran trash.

 

See Cardinals/Mets.

 

The Cardinals made it in a crappy division with a Cy Young candidate going once every 5 days.

 

The Mets made it with Pedro, Glavine, Hernandez, etc. They weren't exactly pitching devoid.

 

Z isn't even close to the pitcher Carpenter is, or Pedro for that matter.

 

So you discount the Yankees winning 97 games without great pitching. STL is in the same division as the Cubs, has less money to spend on hitting, and just as many crap pitchers. Carpenter is not much better than Zambrano, they are very close. The Mets didn't get anything out of Pedro this year, he had a sub 100 ERA+ in 130 innings. The 2005 version of Mark Prior was much better than that. El Duque was average with the Mets, and hasn't been in the playoffs at all. Glavine was good early, but nothing special the rest of the year. Their best pitcher the past few months has been a virtual rookie with no history of major league success.

 

People like to spout off about pitching because it's a great cliche. But the 2006 NLCS has put to rest any notion that you absolutely must have great pitching to go anywhere in the postseason. These teams are routinely throwing out retreads, has beens and nobodies, and succeeding. Why? Because they built good overall teams, and didn't foolishly focus solely on filling out a cliche.

 

How can I discount the NYY when I specifically mentioned them? Their lineup is unreal. That kind of offensive talent is expensive...far more than we can afford. It takes that kind of lineup to win w/o pitching (although Wang was ok). What other team is going to field a lineup that stacked? The Cubs aren't, especially not on 100M.

 

The Mets also have two stud infielders developed in their own system. That frees up a lot of payroll. Their pitching was fine until the injuries.

 

People like to spout off about pitching b/c it's a great cliche? Wake up dude. That's people on both sides of the isle, stats and scouts. Beane certainly knows pitching wins games. All his successful teams have had great pitching. He's had 3 run homer teams that couldn't field a lick and teams that couldn't hit their weight but had incredible defense. Pitching made them all win. No pitching, no winning.

 

Why are you even citing success in the playoffs? It's a crapshoot. Even Sergio Mitre had a couple good starts in a row. Even the 2006 Cubs scored more than 10 runs in a games. Sample size.

[goonys evil twin]

How can I discount the NYY when I specifically mentioned them? Their lineup is unreal. That kind of offensive talent is expensive...far more than we can afford. It takes that kind of lineup to win w/o pitching (although Wang was ok). What other team is going to field a lineup that stacked? The Cubs aren't, especially not on 100M.

 

The Mets did.

 

The Mets also have two stud infielders developed in their own system. That frees up a lot of payroll. Their pitching was fine until the injuries.

 

Pedro's been banged up and/or ineffective all year. Glavine is the only starting pitcher who was with the team all year and better than average all year.

 

 

People like to spout off about pitching b/c it's a great cliche? Wake up dude. That's people on both sides of the isle, stats and scouts. Beane certainly knows pitching wins games. All his successful teams have had great pitching. He's had 3 run homer teams that couldn't field a lick and teams that couldn't hit their weight but had incredible defense. Pitching made them all win. No pitching, no winning.

 

Why are you even citing success in the playoffs? It's a crapshoot. Even Sergio Mitre had a couple good starts in a row. Even the 2006 Cubs scored more than 10 runs in a games. Sample size.

 

I cite it because two teams vying for the NLCS have mediocre starting pitchers, and in some cases, incredibly piss poor starting pitchers. The Cardinals have below average pitching (9th in NL in ERA, below 100 ERA+) and are a game away from the World Series.

 

I'm sick and freaking tired of everybody pretending baseball is pitching only. Cy Young pitchers regularly go out and look like crap in the playoffs, rookies and mediocre pitchers have stellar games.

 

Pitching is the most expensive thing in the game. The Cubs spent the last 12 years trying to build a team around pitching and virtually ignoring the offense. It's a poor plan. You have to do your best to field the best pitching and hitting possible. A $100m payroll is more than enough to have a top 5 hitting and top 5 pitching team, and if you throw in another $10-15m, you should be top 3 in each, which is exactly what the Mets did.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm not arguing that 100M isn't enough to put a winning team on the field. Read my comments again.

 

You seem to be arguing that $100m won't be able to buy us a good all-around team, and we should therefore focus almost exclusively on pitching. You claim OBP and SLG is expensive, but pitching always has been, and probably always will be the most expensive part of the game. The Cubs can afford to, and need to, field a great hitting and great pitching team.

 

A 100M team with two aces that miss pretty much the entire season isn't going to play like a 100M team. You can't just go out and purchase the equivalent talent to make up for those losses (offensively or with pitching)...not in one season anyway. Aces are pretty much developed in house and don't reach the trade or FA markets until they are very old or very overpaid.

 

Pitching is expensive and that's exactly why we weren't going to do much w/o Prior and Wood this last season. It can't be replaced easily. The offense that we'd need to acquire to win with a rotation of Z/Maddux/scrubs would need to be ridiculous.

 

OBP and SLG are expensive. Just ask Billy Beane. He shifted strategies to win. Flexibility and openness to new ideas is a good thing.

 

There isn't one way to win baseball games, but it's pretty freaking difficult without pitching. There's no way the Mets make the playoffs without Pedro, Glavine, and Hernandez. There's no way the Cards make the playoffs without Carpenter.

 

Once you get into the playoffs, whatever. Guys like Schuerholtz and Beane both think it's a crapshoot have very different philosophies on constructing an offense. But all their winning teams had great pitching...

 

Both pitching and offense (well, OBP and SLG) are expensive, but we should be able to field both on a 100M payroll? Are you serious? We'd be hard pressed to do one now that Z's cheap years are long gone.