It's time for me to give credit to Hendry for the offseason.

[Ender]

I don't think the moves were bad for this season, I think they could look pretty ugly 2 years from now though, thats where most of the criticism goes.

[Sarcastic]

Marquis sucks. Get it through your heads, he sucks. No one, not even I, said the Cubs didn't improve themselves significantly this winter. It's just that it could have been done at a fraction of the cost and Hendry isn't smart enough to do it. Hendry deserves ZERO credit. NONE. It's that simple. Try and argue with me again. You won't win.

 

It's easy to criticize, but much harder to offer solutions. So, what would you have done "at a fraction of the cost" to put the Cubs in the same position they are currently in?

 

(If Marquis sucks with 6 wins and a .367 ERA, then there are one heck of a lot of terrible pitchers in the game today.)

 

This has probably been pointed out already, but although Marquis' ERA is solid, it isn't a great indicator of his likely performance for the rest of the contract. Just look at his K/BB ratio. He walks far too many batters. His solid ERA is due mostly to his luck with balls in play. A pitcher with as few Ks as Marquis should not have such a low BAA. If balls start finding the holes in the fielding against him, he'll be in trouble.

 

There was no perfect solution to the 5th starter problem, and the Marquis signing may not turn out to be a disaster, but it was definitely not advisable. Hendry may have been better off going with a AAA stopgap and seeing what he could do with it at the deadline or during the next offseason. Of course, the problem was that he didn't know if he would be around for next year, so he didn't have much of a inclination to act with caution.

[Backtobanks]

Marquis sucks. Get it through your heads, he sucks. No one, not even I, said the Cubs didn't improve themselves significantly this winter. It's just that it could have been done at a fraction of the cost and Hendry isn't smart enough to do it. Hendry deserves ZERO credit. NONE. It's that simple. Try and argue with me again. You won't win.

 

It's easy to criticize, but much harder to offer solutions. So, what would you have done "at a fraction of the cost" to put the Cubs in the same position they are currently in?

 

(If Marquis sucks with 6 wins and a .367 ERA, then there are one heck of a lot of terrible pitchers in the game today.)

 

Asmodai Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:12 am Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ooooh wins!

 

ooooh his era is a rising disaster.

 

Perfect example of criticizing and not answering the question.

[imb]

I think that by the end of the year Marquis will definitely have earned his 7 mil this season.

 

What worries me is that next year he might revert, but because of his contract/good 07, Lou will leave him in the rotation over someone who might give us more value.

[Sarcastic]

Marquis sucks. Get it through your heads, he sucks. No one, not even I, said the Cubs didn't improve themselves significantly this winter. It's just that it could have been done at a fraction of the cost and Hendry isn't smart enough to do it. Hendry deserves ZERO credit. NONE. It's that simple. Try and argue with me again. You won't win.

 

It's easy to criticize, but much harder to offer solutions. So, what would you have done "at a fraction of the cost" to put the Cubs in the same position they are currently in?

 

(If Marquis sucks with 6 wins and a .367 ERA, then there are one heck of a lot of terrible pitchers in the game today.)

 

Asmodai Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:12 am Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ooooh wins!

 

ooooh his era is a rising disaster.

 

Perfect example of criticizing and not answering the question.

 

To be fair, that argument barely deserves a response, and it has already been given repeatedly.

[Mephistopheles]

i offered my solutions a long time ago. this isnt the first time we've had this discussion

[Mephistopheles]

and no surprise as marquis is getting tattooed early in this game

[Mephistopheles]

and his era's over four

[Guest]

i offered my solutions a long time ago. this isnt the first time we've had this discussion

The advantage of having an article to link in. :D

[Mephistopheles]

its probably on my noneverupdated blog somewhere

[Exile on Waveland]

I think that by the end of the year Marquis will definitely have earned his 7 mil this season.

 

What worries me is that next year he might revert, but because of his contract/good 07, Lou will leave him in the rotation over someone who might give us more value.

 

I think this is the most likely result. Marquis has generally been pretty good his first year with a team then declined from there. The next two years could be very bad.

[Iceblink]

The acquisitions have been good (if overly expensive, though that appears to be where the market is going.)

 

I'm more happy about the moves that weren't made. Not signing Lugo, Zito, Schmidt, and Vicente Padilla are nice moves to not have made. I don't think Hendry can take credit for not making them as the players themselves probably made the decisions, but I'm glad to see all those guys on other teams.

[BigbadB]

The acquisitions have been good (if overly expensive, though that appears to be where the market is going.)

 

I'm more happy about the moves that weren't made. Not signing Lugo, Zito, Schmidt, and Vicente Padilla are nice moves to not have made. I don't think Hendry can take credit for not making them as the players themselves probably made the decisions, but I'm glad to see all those guys on other teams.

 

Agreed. Heck, JD Drew hasn't set the world on fire either, and he was who I wanted to fix the outfield.

[soccer10k]

There wasn't much reason to expect DeRosa to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot or even Ronny Cedeno. Before last season he posted OBP consecutively of .316, .293, and .325. It was a buy high move. The smarter move would have been to look at Giles or Durham. Granted, DeRosa has outplayed both of them....but it doesn't mean it was the right move at the time. The money could have been spent better elsewhere. Just like Sorianos. All of the moves (with the exception of Marquis) helped the Cubs -- even DeRosa. It's just he didn't do it efficiently.

 

Wait, so you say that getting DeRosa "was a buy high move" then suggest Ray Durham. You know, the same Durham who had a career year in 2006. Oh, and Durham is three years older and was going to cost a few million more than DeRosa. So how was getting DeRosa buying high but Durham wouldn't be?

[Drew Doughty]

There wasn't much reason to expect DeRosa to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot or even Ronny Cedeno. Before last season he posted OBP consecutively of .316, .293, and .325. It was a buy high move. The smarter move would have been to look at Giles or Durham. Granted, DeRosa has outplayed both of them....but it doesn't mean it was the right move at the time. The money could have been spent better elsewhere. Just like Sorianos. All of the moves (with the exception of Marquis) helped the Cubs -- even DeRosa. It's just he didn't do it efficiently.

 

Wait, so you say that getting DeRosa "was a buy high move" then suggest Ray Durham. You know, the same Durham who had a career year in 2006. Oh, and Durham is three years older and was going to cost a few million more than DeRosa. So how was getting DeRosa buying high but Durham wouldn't be?

 

because durham had already put together a solid career. derosa was a bench player before last year. it may have been buying high, but in all likelihood you were going to get a good player out of it.

 

Giles was the only buy-low guy available last year, and he was non-tendered long after Derosa was signed. Plus, he was nearly a sure-fire thing to go to San Diego.

[soccer10k]

There wasn't much reason to expect DeRosa to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot or even Ronny Cedeno. Before last season he posted OBP consecutively of .316, .293, and .325. It was a buy high move. The smarter move would have been to look at Giles or Durham. Granted, DeRosa has outplayed both of them....but it doesn't mean it was the right move at the time. The money could have been spent better elsewhere. Just like Sorianos. All of the moves (with the exception of Marquis) helped the Cubs -- even DeRosa. It's just he didn't do it efficiently.

 

Wait, so you say that getting DeRosa "was a buy high move" then suggest Ray Durham. You know, the same Durham who had a career year in 2006. Oh, and Durham is three years older and was going to cost a few million more than DeRosa. So how was getting DeRosa buying high but Durham wouldn't be?

 

because durham had already put together a solid career. derosa was a bench player before last year. it may have been buying high, but in all likelihood you were going to get a good player out of it.

 

Giles was the only buy-low guy available last year, and he was non-tendered long after Derosa was signed. Plus, he was nearly a sure-fire thing to go to San Diego.

 

That doesn't change the fact that Durham was still coming off a career year (way out of his career norms) and was 35 coming into the year. He was just as likely, if not more, to have a significant dropoff than DeRosa was.

[Backtobanks]

The acquisitions have been good (if overly expensive, though that appears to be where the market is going.)

 

I'm more happy about the moves that weren't made. Not signing Lugo, Zito, Schmidt, and Vicente Padilla are nice moves to not have made. I don't think Hendry can take credit for not making them as the players themselves probably made the decisions, but I'm glad to see all those guys on other teams.

 

That's been my point all along. As a GM, sometimes you need a lot of luck instead of genius on the moves (and non-moves) you make. All you can do is try to build a winning team on paper and hope the players perform up to expectations.

[BigbadB]

There wasn't much reason to expect DeRosa to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot or even Ronny Cedeno. Before last season he posted OBP consecutively of .316, .293, and .325. It was a buy high move. The smarter move would have been to look at Giles or Durham. Granted, DeRosa has outplayed both of them....but it doesn't mean it was the right move at the time. The money could have been spent better elsewhere. Just like Sorianos. All of the moves (with the exception of Marquis) helped the Cubs -- even DeRosa. It's just he didn't do it efficiently.

 

Wait, so you say that getting DeRosa "was a buy high move" then suggest Ray Durham. You know, the same Durham who had a career year in 2006. Oh, and Durham is three years older and was going to cost a few million more than DeRosa. So how was getting DeRosa buying high but Durham wouldn't be?

 

because durham had already put together a solid career. derosa was a bench player before last year. it may have been buying high, but in all likelihood you were going to get a good player out of it.

 

Giles was the only buy-low guy available last year, and he was non-tendered long after Derosa was signed. Plus, he was nearly a sure-fire thing to go to San Diego.

 

Loretta was a buy low guy as well.

[YearofDaCubs]

I give credit to Hendry for signing Lilly and DeRosa. We all knew that if DeRosa could hit how he did last year he would be a good signing and that's exactly what has been happening. I really liked the Lilly signing. He's not going to be an ace but he's pretty consistent and considering how crazy the market is and has been we got Lilly to a fair deal. I also liked the Ward signing because he's a very good bench player from the left side. Soriano is good at the moment but what is he going to bring to the table in a couple of years? It's nice that Soriano is producing for us now but boy is this contract going to look really bad in a couple of years. I didn't like the Floyd signing from the get-go. I knew it would take away AB's from Murton and as we obviously know he's injury prone. He isn't hitting that much for power and his overall numbers are pretty good but he is what he is. We still have holes and there's some work that needs to be done still. I think if we're contending and we need to make a move Hendry will make it.

[frostwyrm]

I'll give Hendry some credit. This 2007 team is better than I expected and some of the offseason acquisitions look good so far. I still think things are going to get extremely ugly come 2009 because of all these hefty backloaded deals. But if you view this team as an excercise in "win now and damn the future" philosophy then it could be considered a modest success thus far.

[Skyballer]

I'll give him credit for Ted Lilly, who has been pretty good, but they probably overpaid him, too.

 

Actually the Ted Lilly signing was by far his best signing and was known to be the best at the time, IMO. Given the price of pitching he didn't overpay once you factor in he's a guy who has always had good K rates and always played in the offense happy AL East.

 

Soriano wasn't very good.

Marquis was terrible.

DeRosa was useless and overkill.

Floyd was overkill.

Ward was alright.

 

wrong

I have to agree with Keener, I wasn't happy with the signing at first but now I really like DeRo.

[Mephistopheles]

There wasn't much reason to expect DeRosa to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot or even Ronny Cedeno. Before last season he posted OBP consecutively of .316, .293, and .325. It was a buy high move. The smarter move would have been to look at Giles or Durham. Granted, DeRosa has outplayed both of them....but it doesn't mean it was the right move at the time. The money could have been spent better elsewhere. Just like Sorianos. All of the moves (with the exception of Marquis) helped the Cubs -- even DeRosa. It's just he didn't do it efficiently.

 

Wait, so you say that getting DeRosa "was a buy high move" then suggest Ray Durham. You know, the same Durham who had a career year in 2006. Oh, and Durham is three years older and was going to cost a few million more than DeRosa. So how was getting DeRosa buying high but Durham wouldn't be?

 

because durham had already put together a solid career. derosa was a bench player before last year. it may have been buying high, but in all likelihood you were going to get a good player out of it.

 

Giles was the only buy-low guy available last year, and he was non-tendered long after Derosa was signed. Plus, he was nearly a sure-fire thing to go to San Diego.

 

That doesn't change the fact that Durham was still coming off a career year (way out of his career norms) and was 35 coming into the year. He was just as likely, if not more, to have a significant dropoff than DeRosa was.

 

incorrect. buying "high" on Durham would have been 30 mil or so. He was truly underpaid for his services. Also, given the consistency of his numbers his 2006 may have been his best season, but it's not that much better than his career line. The OBP was for real, just a few more homers.

[soccer10k]

There wasn't much reason to expect DeRosa to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot or even Ronny Cedeno. Before last season he posted OBP consecutively of .316, .293, and .325. It was a buy high move. The smarter move would have been to look at Giles or Durham. Granted, DeRosa has outplayed both of them....but it doesn't mean it was the right move at the time. The money could have been spent better elsewhere. Just like Sorianos. All of the moves (with the exception of Marquis) helped the Cubs -- even DeRosa. It's just he didn't do it efficiently.

 

Wait, so you say that getting DeRosa "was a buy high move" then suggest Ray Durham. You know, the same Durham who had a career year in 2006. Oh, and Durham is three years older and was going to cost a few million more than DeRosa. So how was getting DeRosa buying high but Durham wouldn't be?

 

because durham had already put together a solid career. derosa was a bench player before last year. it may have been buying high, but in all likelihood you were going to get a good player out of it.

 

Giles was the only buy-low guy available last year, and he was non-tendered long after Derosa was signed. Plus, he was nearly a sure-fire thing to go to San Diego.

 

That doesn't change the fact that Durham was still coming off a career year (way out of his career norms) and was 35 coming into the year. He was just as likely, if not more, to have a significant dropoff than DeRosa was.

 

incorrect. buying "high" on Durham would have been 30 mil or so. He was truly underpaid for his services. Also, given the consistency of his numbers his 2006 may have been his best season, but it's not that much better than his career line. The OBP was for real, just a few more homers.

 

You can't tell me it wouldn't have taken another year and another mil or two a year to get Durham away from the Giants had the Cubs wanted him.

 

Yeah, Durham's OBP was for real, I'll give you that. But his SLG was .538 and his career average was .441. OPS+ of 127 and career average of 105.

 

Durham has been much more consistent for a much longer time than DeRosa but that doesn't mean that signing him after his 06 season wouldn't have been buying high. And you can't discount the age factor either.