*Waves* Hi Bruce!

[Outshined_One]

I see you lurking. :)

 

Got any good rumors flying around regarding what moves the Cubs are currently looking at this offseason, or have things been quiet lately?

[Bruce Miles]

Nothing's hot just yet. They've been trying to get something nailed down with Glendon Rusch.

I've been covering the Sox in the playoffs, and on Monday, I'll make my fourth trip of the year to Houston. For selfish reasons, that's a lot better than St. Louis because of better working conditions.

I know this isn't a Sox board, but I'm glad a World Series has come to Chicago and I'm glad to be working my first. I thought I was there two years ago, but alas...

[CuseCubFan69]

Nothing's hot just yet. They've been trying to get something nailed down with Glendon Rusch.

I've been covering the Sox in the playoffs, and on Monday, I'll make my fourth trip of the year to Houston. For selfish reasons, that's a lot better than St. Louis because of better working conditions.

I know this isn't a Sox board, but I'm glad a World Series has come to Chicago and I'm glad to be working my first. I thought I was there two years ago, but alas...

 

I just saw Goonys head explode.

[JeffH]

Bruce, dinner's on me here in Houston, if you have no other plans.

 

:D

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is that something a notice saying that if Glendon declines his player option, he isn't coming back?

[Bruce Miles]

Not necessarily. There's a lot to be negotiated here, with incentives. If I had to guess from this distance, I'd say the Cubs bring him back.

[rawaction]

Not necessarily. There's a lot to be negotiated here, with incentives. If I had to guess from this distance, I'd say the Cubs bring him back.

 

In what role? Will he accept a bullpen role when he could start somewhere else and even possibly get more money?

[goonys evil twin]

Nothing's hot just yet. They've been trying to get something nailed down with Glendon Rusch.

I've been covering the Sox in the playoffs, and on Monday, I'll make my fourth trip of the year to Houston. For selfish reasons, that's a lot better than St. Louis because of better working conditions.

I know this isn't a Sox board, but I'm glad a World Series has come to Chicago and I'm glad to be working my first. I thought I was there two years ago, but alas...

 

I just saw Goonys head explode.

 

It almost did when I read Bruce's article this morning.

 

This is set-up as the quintessential Hendry bidding against himself situation. Rusch is in a position to decline his own option and get a lot bigger committment from the Cubs. He's due for another brutal season anytime now (4.88 career ERA, 4.52 in 2005). If this guy is counted on as anything more than the last man in the pen....., hey, they like Macias, they like Burnitz, they liked Alfonseca and Estes for Christmas sake. Sometimes I think that $100m payroll does more harm than good. Too much comfort wasting millions.

[abuck1220]

They've been trying to get something nailed down with Glendon Rusch.

 

a bus ticket out of town?

[Geech]

There's no point in bringing Rusch back unless he's starting, and we don't need that class of starter unless Maddux is gone.

[CUBZ99]

Well he didn't say that the Cubs were working on resigning Macias or Perez, so that may be a good sign.

 

BTW with all of the young pitchers coming up soon for the Cubs and talk that they will probably go after another starter, why would they spend money on Rusch? He had one good year for them and even then, he is nothing more than a #5/spot starter.

[TXCubsFan]

Well he didn't say that the Cubs were working on resigning Macias or Perez, so that may be a good sign.

 

BTW with all of the young pitchers coming up soon for the Cubs and talk that they will probably go after another starter, why would they spend money on Rusch? He had one good year for them and even then, he is nothing more than a #5/spot starter.

 

A number of possible reasons:

 

1. Guzman is going to need work in Iowa next season before going to Wrigley.

2. Hill is a work in progress and probably will spend the year in the bullpen.

3. Maddux may not be back next year.

4. Wood may not return to form.

5. Williams may be trade bait.

[YearofDaCubs]

What the....WHy Rusch?? That money can be used to get a good starter. If it was up to me I would let Rusch walk. If we want insurance for a SP we might as well go all out and get a top FA available one. Sounds like Hendry is up to the same ol same ol. I bet you Neifi and Macias are next..oh God.

[YearofDaCubs]

Well he didn't say that the Cubs were working on resigning Macias or Perez, so that may be a good sign.

 

BTW with all of the young pitchers coming up soon for the Cubs and talk that they will probably go after another starter, why would they spend money on Rusch? He had one good year for them and even then, he is nothing more than a #5/spot starter.

 

A number of possible reasons:

 

1. Guzman is going to need work in Iowa next season before going to Wrigley.

2. Hill is a work in progress and probably will spend the year in the bullpen.

3. Maddux may not be back next year.

4. Wood may not return to form.

5. Williams may be trade bait.

 

Maddux unfortunately will be back next year. If you question Wood's injury then it's best to add teh extra 4-5 mil and get a better starter than Rusch. No more cheap tactics.

[craig]

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to commit beyond one year or a couple of million to Rusch. If he wants to decline the option, and thinks he can get a guaranteed rotation spot or >$3 on the market, go ahead. But I think having him back with a base of around $2-2.5 and some incentives that go up to $4 or so is fine.

 

Wood and Prior have had some injuries, obviously, and Z is due for some. Maddux is old. Williams is hardly a high-quality or safe bet. Still, good starting pitchers cost a mint. With Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux all locked in, and Williams looking pretty respectable, what are some choices?

1) Go after a top-flight guy. After maybe Burnett and Milwood, are there any others available? Do you want to spend the super-excess price that guys like that cost? Starting pitching is always overpriced a ton. Does it make sense to spend the moon on a non-quality guy like Burnett who's injury record makes Wood look Maddux-durable? Maybe, but I can easily imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable.

2) Go after a decent but second-tier guy? Clement, Russ Ortiz, Derek Lowe, guys like that cost $24+ million. Do you want to spend that much for a guy who's unlikely to be more than a middle-of-rotation pitcher, and who you might not need at all if both Wood and Prior show up healthy? Do you want to go $26/3 for a guy who really may be no better than Williams? Maybe, but I can imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable.

3) Go after a limited back-end guy for insurance. But any starter costs too much. Do you want to spend $4-6 per, perhaps for two or more years guaranteed, for a guy who may be worse than Williams, and hasn't the upside of Hill or Guzman or Nolasco, but who by virtue of his contract will then be locked into the rotation regardless or how the kids are developing or that salaried vet is performing? Maybe, but maybe not...

4) Go after a Rusch-type. Doesn't cost too much. Too small a fish to be guaranteed a rotation spot. Given his left hand, could have some function on the team even if he wasn't that hot in relief this year. Isn't a big enough contract or a big enough name to block Williams or Hill or Guzman or Nolasco or Pinto or whomever if they are earning a spot. But is still a decent insurance policy: if Wood isn't healthy, or Prior or Z have trouble, or williams bombs, or Guzman doesn't improve at all, or none of the Nolasco/Pinto/Mitre types really elevates significantly.

 

Seems to me that Rusch at $2-2.5 base isn't free, but provides a reasonable safety net at modest cost.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to commit beyond one year or a couple of million to Rusch. If he wants to decline the option, and thinks he can get a guaranteed rotation spot or >$3 on the market, go ahead. But I think having him back with a base of around $2-2.5 and some incentives that go up to $4 or so is fine.

 

My problem with incentives for Rusch is the same problem I had with incentives for Neifi. Basically every incentive you give them is tied to playing time, ie. the more they play, they more they're paid. The problem is, the more they play, the worse your team is. Rusch throwing up a 4.50 ERA for 140 IP isn't worth 4-5m. It's not worth a dime. If you can squeeze 80 IP and get a 3.50 ERA, maybe that's worth $2m. But what are the odds that Rusch can be good in 2006? Every "maybe he's figured it out" theory based on 2004 was blown out of the wather with his 2005. He's poised to go back over the 5.00 ERA mark again anytime soon. And if Dusty has shown anything, it's a willingness to keep going with a subpar veteran, building up his playing time no matter how well he's played.

 

In fact, I could see Dusty purposefully giving Rusch more innings, and then explaining it by saying, "He earned that contract, I'm not going to keep him from his money."

[mg420]

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to commit beyond one year or a couple of million to Rusch. If he wants to decline the option, and thinks he can get a guaranteed rotation spot or >$3 on the market, go ahead. But I think having him back with a base of around $2-2.5 and some incentives that go up to $4 or so is fine.

 

My problem with incentives for Rusch is the same problem I had with incentives for Neifi. Basically every incentive you give them is tied to playing time, ie. the more they play, they more they're paid. The problem is, the more they play, the worse your team is. Rusch throwing up a 4.50 ERA for 140 IP isn't worth 4-5m. It's not worth a dime. If you can squeeze 80 IP and get a 3.50 ERA, maybe that's worth $2m. But what are the odds that Rusch can be good in 2006? Every "maybe he's figured it out" theory based on 2004 was blown out of the wather with his 2005. He's poised to go back over the 5.00 ERA mark again anytime soon. And if Dusty has shown anything, it's a willingness to keep going with a subpar veteran, building up his playing time no matter how well he's played.

 

In fact, I could see Dusty purposefully giving Rusch more innings, and then explaining it by saying, "He earned that contract, I'm not going to keep him from his money."

 

i think if one objectively looks at rusch's game by game stats your suggestion does not hold water. aside from a streach of 4 games when he was made a starter again after pitching in the pen for 2.5 months, rusch was very effective starting. i dont see why he cant win 12-15 games with an era around 3.50 in 2006 if he starts 32 games. ill take that from a #5 any day. another case of baker not using a player to his best potential imo (see hawkins, dempster, dubois, hollandsworth & murton to name the others misused in 2005). i hope rusch is signed to start for the cubs for the next 2 years and from all indications he will.

[goonys evil twin]

i think if one objectively looks at rusch's game by game stats your suggestion does not hold water. aside from a streach of 4 games when he was made a starter again after pitching in the pen for 2.5 months, rusch was very effective starting. i dont see why he cant win 12-15 games with an era around 3.50 in 2006 if he starts 32 games.

 

You don't see why?

 

I guess we're not looking at the same player. Why are you arbitrarily removing bad games? Rusch was used almost the same way 2 years in a row. He went from reliever to start in 2004, why could he handle it then but not 2005. The only value he has is his supposed ability to be a swingman, which means going from the pen to the rotation, and vice versa. The fact is Rusch is not good. He pitched well at times, but got exposed and reverted to form. He's fine to have pitch in emergency situations. You never know what you'll get, but he's valuable, in that role, if he's cheep. If you purposefully go into a season with him as a starter, and you have a $100 million payroll, you are an imcompetent GM.

 

 

A side question. Why do people always talk about win totals with pitchers, and not w/l ratio? You say he could get 12 wins (no way) with 32 starts. What if he went 12-16? What if he went 15-18? You could call him a 15 game winner, but that doesn't mean a thing. Just like Maddux's worthless attempt for another 15 win season, what good would that be if you're 15-15? 12-5 is much better than 14-14, yet many will just applaud a guy based on win totals. Rusch is a 4.80 career ERA pitcher. He had a career year in 2004, and began to revert in 2005. He's got a .292 AVG against. He's just not good. He's a dime a dozen, and if the Cubs are contemplating an extension, they're insane. This team needs improvement, not continued mediocrity. They don't need to lock-up the replacable players, they need to acquire impact players and fill-in with the guys you can find everywhere.

[mg420]

i think if one objectively looks at rusch's game by game stats your suggestion does not hold water. aside from a streach of 4 games when he was made a starter again after pitching in the pen for 2.5 months, rusch was very effective starting. i dont see why he cant win 12-15 games with an era around 3.50 in 2006 if he starts 32 games.

 

You don't see why?

 

I guess we're not looking at the same player. Why are you arbitrarily removing bad games? Rusch was used almost the same way 2 years in a row. He went from reliever to start in 2004, why could he handle it then but not 2005. The only value he has is his supposed ability to be a swingman, which means going from the pen to the rotation, and vice versa. The fact is Rusch is not good. He pitched well at times, but got exposed and reverted to form. He's fine to have pitch in emergency situations. You never know what you'll get, but he's valuable, in that role, if he's cheep. If you purposefully go into a season with him as a starter, and you have a $100 million payroll, you are an imcompetent GM.

 

again i disagree and according to what Bruce reported, so does hendry. i am much more worried about maddux next year than rusch. i would rather see a rotation of prior, z, wood, williams & rusch in 06. i'm sure hendry will be upset that you think he is incompetent if/when signs rusch to start btw.

[goonys evil twin]

again i disagree and according to what Bruce reported, so does hendry. i am much more worried about maddux next year than rusch. i would rather see a rotation of prior, z, wood, williams & rusch in 06. i'm sure hendry will be upset that you think he is incompetent if/when signs rusch to start btw.

 

The Cubs don't care much for objective analysis, so I wouldn't expect him to care what a "non-baseball" guy thinks.

 

That rotation is a joke.

[mg420]

again i disagree and according to what Bruce reported, so does hendry. i am much more worried about maddux next year than rusch. i would rather see a rotation of prior, z, wood, williams & rusch in 06. i'm sure hendry will be upset that you think he is incompetent if/when signs rusch to start btw.

 

The Cubs don't care much for objective analysis, so I wouldn't expect him to care what a "non-baseball" guy thinks.

 

That rotation is a joke.

 

im sure you said the same thing about the white sox's rotation before the season. i mean garland , el duke & contreras stink right. just look at their career stats.

[goonys evil twin]

again i disagree and according to what Bruce reported, so does hendry. i am much more worried about maddux next year than rusch. i would rather see a rotation of prior, z, wood, williams & rusch in 06. i'm sure hendry will be upset that you think he is incompetent if/when signs rusch to start btw.

 

The Cubs don't care much for objective analysis, so I wouldn't expect him to care what a "non-baseball" guy thinks.

 

That rotation is a joke.

 

im sure you said the same thing about the white sox's rotation before the season. i mean garland , el duke & contreras stink right. just look at their career stats.

 

 

El Duque had the worst year of his MLB career this season. Is that what you're using to backup your faith in Rusch? Garland is a talented 26 year old starter, it made perfect sense that he'd be better this season than in previous years. Rusch turns 31 next month. He's been a crappy pitcher thoughout his career but had a career season in 2004 before reverting to form in 2005.

 

I'm not one to hope for guys to have a career year even though they've shown no signs of being able to do that? With a top 5 payroll you better construct a better rotation than one that includes Williams and Rusch.

[mg420]

again i disagree and according to what Bruce reported, so does hendry. i am much more worried about maddux next year than rusch. i would rather see a rotation of prior, z, wood, williams & rusch in 06. i'm sure hendry will be upset that you think he is incompetent if/when signs rusch to start btw.

 

The Cubs don't care much for objective analysis, so I wouldn't expect him to care what a "non-baseball" guy thinks.

 

That rotation is a joke.

 

im sure you said the same thing about the white sox's rotation before the season. i mean garland , el duke & contreras stink right. just look at their career stats.

 

 

El Duque had the worst year of his MLB career this season. Is that what you're using to backup your faith in Rusch? Garland is a talented 26 year old starter, it made perfect sense that he'd be better this season than in previous years. Rusch turns 31 next month. He's been a crappy pitcher thoughout his career but had a career season in 2004 before reverting to form in 2005.

 

I'm not one to hope for guys to have a career year even though they've shown no signs of being able to do that? With a top 5 payroll you better construct a better rotation than one that includes Williams and Rusch.

 

take a look at moyer's career if you dont believe a lefty starter cant turn it around later in their career. williams is a talented 23 year old starter so it makes perfect sense that he will be better next season than he was last season. i know, maybe the cubs should trade mitre for peavy and korenka for johan santana.

[craig]

The only value he has is his supposed ability to be a swingman, which means going from the pen to the rotation, and vice versa. The fact is Rusch is not good. He pitched well at times, but got exposed and reverted to form. He's fine to have pitch in emergency situations. You never know what you'll get, but he's valuable, in that role, if he's cheep. If you purposefully go into a season with him as a starter, and you have a $100 million payroll, you are an imcompetent GM.

 

...He's just not good. He's a dime a dozen, and if the Cubs are contemplating an extension, they're insane. This team needs improvement, not continued mediocrity. They don't need to lock-up the replacable players, they need to acquire impact players and fill-in with the guys you can find everywhere.

 

I agree that he's just not good. But I don't agree that he's a dime a dozen.

 

Seems to me that the market for guys like Clement, Lowe, and Russ Ortiz suggests that guys who can keep their ERA's near $4 are not a dime a dozen; they are $24/3 value! Rusch obviously isn't that good; I think he's got a fair shot to be a 4.3-4.5 type guy, a chance (small) to be a <4 guy, and a chance (fairly substantial) to be a 4.8+ guy. But guys who throw strikes and can be decent, 4.4-ERA types are *not* a dime a dozen. The market sets their value at around $2-3 million, maybe higher if they have any upside (Rusch has little). So I think paying Rusch at that sort of level, in the $2's, is not unreasonable.

 

I agree with your point that incentives are based in appearances, not excllence. So the last thing we want is Rusch to get 30 starts, because that would mean a lot of mediocre pitching and would also mean that somebody who might be good (Wood? Prior?) was hurt.

 

I also agree that Rusch should not be paid as a rotation starter. He should be considered as a swing man. A rotation filler, if: a) intended starters are injured (Wood, Prior, Z), or b) Williams flops, and c) nobody from the Hill/Guzman/Mitre/Nolasco pool elevate strongly very quickly.

 

The best case is for the current 5 to be healthy and excellent, or to replace Williams with somebody like Burnett who turns out healthy and excellent. The next best case is that if a hole emerges, one of the young pitchers has already elevated his performance so that he's so compellingly ready that even Hendry and Dusty put him into the rotation, and he does well. The worst case is that the rotation springs a leak, the young pitchers are not improved enough to command or succeed a shot as the replacement, and Rusch becomes the best option. That would be very non-ideal, IMO.

 

But it's still realistic enough so that you need to cover yourself.

 

I'm not interested in Rusch as an intended rotation member. But I am interested in him as a #7 starter. Because often you need to use your #7 starter for a while. And to spend $2 for a #7 starter who'll possibly be fairly decent for a while does not strike me as money ill spent.

[Fanzones trumpet]

Wood and Prior have had some injuries, obviously, and Z is due for some. Maddux is old. Williams is hardly a high-quality or safe bet. Still, good starting pitchers cost a mint. With Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux all locked in, and Williams looking pretty respectable, what are some choices?

1) Go after a top-flight guy. After maybe Burnett and Milwood, are there any others available? Do you want to spend the super-excess price that guys like that cost? Starting pitching is always overpriced a ton. Does it make sense to spend the moon on a non-quality guy like Burnett who's injury record makes Wood look Maddux-durable? Maybe, but I can easily imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable.

2) Go after a decent but second-tier guy? Clement, Russ Ortiz, Derek Lowe, guys like that cost $24+ million. Do you want to spend that much for a guy who's unlikely to be more than a middle-of-rotation pitcher, and who you might not need at all if both Wood and Prior show up healthy? Do you want to go $26/3 for a guy who really may be no better than Williams? Maybe, but I can imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable.

3) Go after a limited back-end guy for insurance. But any starter costs too much. Do you want to spend $4-6 per, perhaps for two or more years guaranteed, for a guy who may be worse than Williams, and hasn't the upside of Hill or Guzman or Nolasco, but who by virtue of his contract will then be locked into the rotation regardless or how the kids are developing or that salaried vet is performing? Maybe, but maybe not...

4) Go after a Rusch-type. Doesn't cost too much. Too small a fish to be guaranteed a rotation spot. Given his left hand, could have some function on the team even if he wasn't that hot in relief this year. Isn't a big enough contract or a big enough name to block Williams or Hill or Guzman or Nolasco or Pinto or whomever if they are earning a spot. But is still a decent insurance policy: if Wood isn't healthy, or Prior or Z have trouble, or williams bombs, or Guzman doesn't improve at all, or none of the Nolasco/Pinto/Mitre types really elevates significantly.

 

Go after a potential #3 istater who eats innings, who won't cost more than $4 million and won't be tied up for more than one year--Jason Jennings.