*Waves* Hi Bruce!

[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, won't cost more than $4 million and won't be tied up for more than one year--Jason Jennings.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

That's all well and good. The problem is Rusch owns a $2m option, and is apparantly willing to decline that option, theoretically hoping for more. What if he declines that option, and asks for a 3/$6m deal ($2m per)? What if it's 3/$9m? What if it's 1/$3 or 1/$4m? If Rusch exercises his option, I have no problem with his return (although it would be great if they could trade him). But if Rusch wants more than a 1 year deal with $2m guarantee and nothing more, then let him go elsewhere to find it.

[frostwyrm]

If we know anything about Hendry it's that he overvalues versatility and LH pitching, so none of us should be surprised he wants Rusch back. I wouldn't be surprised if he outbids himself too, as he did with Alfonseca at $4M

[craig]

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

 

Jennings is an interesting suggestion, Fanzone, I don't read that much so haven't heard that before, hadn't thought of him. He would be kind of an interesting guy. I wonder how Rockies feel about him and vice versa? Maybe he's a guy just itching to hit FA and leave Coors and get a decent ERA, so they see a need to transact him before the clock runs out? If so, perhaps you could get him for modest price. If they have a mutual appreciation, tne Rockies aren't worried about either his price or impending FA, he might be pretty expensive in talent. He's real wild, so he'd fit right in with the Cubs wildmen! And he might not be as good as Williams, but would be given rotation privilege regardless of performance based on status. But yeah, if he was available as a rising-salary-impending-free-agent for a modest cost in talent, he might be quite interesting.

 

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.

 

That's all well and good. The problem is Rusch owns a $2m option, and is apparantly willing to decline that option, theoretically hoping for more. What if he declines that option, and asks for a 3/$6m deal ($2m per)? What if it's 3/$9m? What if it's 1/$3 or 1/$4m? If Rusch exercises his option, I have no problem with his return (although it would be great if they could trade him). But if Rusch wants more than a 1 year deal with $2m guarantee and nothing more, then let him go elsewhere to find it.

 

Well, that's why you have discussions. If he's asking for $9/3, you say goodbye and good luck. I generally agree with you but not completely; I would be willing to juice up his current contract a little, but not very much. Perhaps bump it from $2 to $2.5; perhaps add a year with a buyout, so he's guaranteed an extra $0.5 if they buy him out. Perhaps add an extra year in which he again has a player option, so that he's guaranteed another $2 even if he gets hurt. Perhaps juice up the incentives a little; if he ends up with a job out of camp, gets 33 starts, and pitches 200 innings, it rises to $4 or something like that. (Very unlikely without some decent performance along the way...). I guess I don't see the current $2 as being the best offer take-it-or-leave-it max. But I wouldn't go very far beyond that.

 

And I'd also make it clear in any discussion that no rotation spot was being promised; ending in the rotation may be possible, but it is by no means something to assume.

[goonys evil twin]

Perhaps add an extra year in which he again has a player option, so that he's guaranteed another $2 even if he gets hurt.

 

That is something I would not consider. The guy could easily throw up a 6+ ERA this year, injury or not. That would mean paying $2m for a worthless pitcher, and then being forced to do it again next year, because he knows he can't get more. No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance.

[Fanzones trumpet]

Jennings is an interesting suggestion, Fanzone, I don't read that much so haven't heard that before, hadn't thought of him. He would be kind of an interesting guy. I wonder how Rockies feel about him and vice versa? Maybe he's a guy just itching to hit FA and leave Coors and get a decent ERA, so they see a need to transact him before the clock runs out? If so, perhaps you could get him for modest price. If they have a mutual appreciation, tne Rockies aren't worried about either his price or impending FA, he might be pretty expensive in talent. He's real wild, so he'd fit right in with the Cubs wildmen! And he might not be as good as Williams, but would be given rotation privilege regardless of performance based on status. But yeah, if he was available as a rising-salary-impending-free-agent for a modest cost in talent, he might be quite interesting.

 

Jennings was rumored to be on the block mid-season last year before getting hurt. He's got 2 more years to FA; stands to make $4 million in arb. next year. Probably too expensive for Colo., where he's struggled since ROY in 2002. I love him in Wrigley with that sinker, and the track record of guys leaving Coors recently is good (Kile, Hampton, Chacon).

Colo. needs a CF to patrol the spacious OF so I'd offer Patterson (and Mitre if necessary). I think Patterson's 30 HR potential and plus defense in that park might tempt Colo.

[Guest]

Perhaps add an extra year in which he again has a player option, so that he's guaranteed another $2 even if he gets hurt.

 

That is something I would not consider. The guy could easily throw up a 6+ ERA this year, injury or not. That would mean paying $2m for a worthless pitcher, and then being forced to do it again next year, because he knows he can't get more. No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance.

It's not like Rusch is the pitching version of Neifi or Macias. While his ERA is usually pretty bad, at least his peripheral numbers are always pretty good. I'd say Rusch was a better bet to put up a 3.50 ERA than an ERA over 6.00.

[Fanzones trumpet]

That is something I would not consider. The guy could easily throw up a 6+ ERA this year, injury or not. That would mean paying $2m for a worthless pitcher, and then being forced to do it again next year, because he knows he can't get more. No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance.

It's not like Rusch is the pitching version of Neifi or Macias. While his ERA is usually pretty bad, at least his peripheral numbers are always pretty good. I'd say Rusch was a better bet to put up a 3.50 ERA than an ERA over 6.00.

 

Do you think that 125 pitch shutout he pitched against SD last year might have played a role in his poor performance thereafter (until September). If I remember correctly, he was very good until that game.

[goonys evil twin]

It's not like Rusch is the pitching version of Neifi or Macias. While his ERA is usually pretty bad, at least his peripheral numbers are always pretty good. I'd say Rusch was a better bet to put up a 3.50 ERA than an ERA over 6.00.

 

.300 AVG against this year, 800 OPS against, .292/796 for his career. He gives up a fair amount of flyballs, and is susceptible to the HR. He doesn't walk a ton of guys, but he doesn't strike out many either, and allows a large amount of baserunners. He's a smoke and mirrors tight rope walker. People love to bring up Moyer, but Moyer didn't start getting paid until after he started actually coming up with the results on a consistent basis. Rusch hasn't done that yet. He's fine if he's willing to play without extra years guaranteed or more money. But anything more is not realistic. If you look at a list of his most similar pitchers, overall or by age, there is nothing to give people faith. Names like Allen Watson, Ricky Bones and Frank Castillo are nothing to hang your hat on.

[YearofDaCubs]

Here's hoping that Rusch declines his option and goes elsewhere. We can do better. It's time we start looking at the top tier instead of middle to low tier players. No more cheapness...

[Guest]

It's not like Rusch is the pitching version of Neifi or Macias. While his ERA is usually pretty bad, at least his peripheral numbers are always pretty good. I'd say Rusch was a better bet to put up a 3.50 ERA than an ERA over 6.00.

 

.300 AVG against this year, 800 OPS against, .292/796 for his career. He gives up a fair amount of flyballs, and is susceptible to the HR. He doesn't walk a ton of guys, but he doesn't strike out many either, and allows a large amount of baserunners. He's a smoke and mirrors tight rope walker. People love to bring up Moyer, but Moyer didn't start getting paid until after he started actually coming up with the results on a consistent basis. Rusch hasn't done that yet. He's fine if he's willing to play without extra years guaranteed or more money. But anything more is not realistic. If you look at a list of his most similar pitchers, overall or by age, there is nothing to give people faith. Names like Allen Watson, Ricky Bones and Frank Castillo are nothing to hang your hat on.

His career K rate isn't that bad (near MLB average), his HR rate isn't terrible despite being a little high, and his BB rate is actually pretty good. The only area of his game that's been consistently bad is his BABIP, and we all know how well that predicts future performance...

[craig]

Perhaps add an extra year in which he again has a player option, so that he's guaranteed another $2 even if he gets hurt.

 

That is something I would not consider. The guy could easily throw up a 6+ ERA this year, injury or not. That would mean paying $2m for a worthless pitcher, and then being forced to do it again next year, because he knows he can't get more. No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance.

 

I'm also not keen on giving players player options. It usually works out unfavorably for the club; you never get the guy for the second year at a good price if you want him. If he's good enough to want back, he opts out. You only get him back at originally scheduled option price if he stinks or gets hurt. I also fully sympathize with your aversion to incentives, especially appearance-based ones that are unrelated to successful performance.

 

However, I understand why GM's do these things. You're always negotiating value. The GM has two kinds of value to offer: he can offer guaranteed dollars, and he can offer other stuff, like option year buyouts, incentive clauses, player options, etc.

 

Hendry gave those sorts of things on four of his contracts this past offseason: got Rusch back at $2 by offering the extra player-controlled option year and the incentives. Got Walker signed at modest price by offering the second year with vesting option and with player-option built in. Got Aramis signed (as many on this board urgently wanted); the dollars in the deal were not outrageous, IMO, but I suspect Hendry would have needed to offer more if he hadn't allowed Aramis the opt-out clause for after this upcoming year. Essentially Hendry only locked in a 1-year extension on Aramis, but he didn't have to give a huge salary to get that. Likewise Nomar got incentives.

 

My expectation is that in each of those cases, Aramis in particular but also Rusch and Walker, they wouldn't have taken the offers without the extra "stuff" in them. Hendry had to decide: a) let them go unsigned (and in Aramis's case have FA hanging over all year...), b) pay them more guaranteed money, or c) keep the short-term guaranteed money limited by instead supplementing an otherwise inadequate offer by throwing in some player options or incentives.

 

It's hard for me to judge whether offering those player-controlled options or incentives is wrong unless I know how much guaranteed money would have been required in their absence.

[goonys evil twin]

Perhaps add an extra year in which he again has a player option' date=' so that he's guaranteed another $2 even if he gets hurt. [/quote']

 

No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance.

 

I'm also not keen on giving players player options. My expectation is that in each of those cases, Aramis in particular but also Rusch and Walker, they wouldn't have taken the offers without the extra "stuff" in them.

 

It's hard for me to judge whether offering those player-controlled options or incentives is wrong unless I know how much guaranteed money would have been required in their absence.

 

It's one thing to cave into the demands of good players like Walker, or potentially great players like Ramirez. But my specific problem is with giving that control to Rusch, a guy who could give you a 6+ ERA really easily, and basically provide no value.

 

 

*edited for ramirez/rusch mix-up

Edited October 21, 2005 by goony's evil twin

[craig]

It's one thing to cave into the demands of good players like Walker, or potentially great players like Rusch. But my specific problem is with giving that control to Rusch, a guy who could give you a 6+ ERA really easily, and basically provide no value.

 

The principle is the same. GM needs to decide whether he wants the player or not. Hendry wanted Rusch last year, and apparently would like to have him again this year. (And as discussed before, I don't blame him for being interested in Rusch at very restricted price.)

 

So anytime GM has some interest, even if limited, he's always going to want to make the best deal he can. Which is better, $2.7 flat, or $2.0 with some incentives? Which is better, $2.7 flat, or $2.0 with a $0.5 buyout on a second year at $3.5? Which is better, $2.7/1 flat or $4/2 with the player having an opt-out on year two?

 

Obviously if the judgment is that anything beyond $2.0 flat is too much, and if you think even that is actually too much, you don't mess around with any of these other things. You say "Take the $2 or take a hike". Or perhaps you hope he runs away from the existing $2 option, becuase you think $2 is already too much, without having any interest in jazzing it up further. Hendry's judgement seems to be a little different, apparently.

 

He may be wrong, I'm no Rusch fan myself. But Hendry may be right, too. If we end up with the playoffs hinging on whether it's 4.5 Rusch or Koronka pitching a month of fill-in games, I may be glad Rusch is around.

 

I don't think that a Rusch-type is safe to be even 4.5; obviously he might go 6. But at the same time I don't think it's valid to assume you can pick up a 4.5 type pitcher by snapping your fingers, for no money and at a moment's notice. The 1998 season in which we had Don Wengert and Mike Morgan losing almost every time they started is a reminder to me of that. And the problems that Mitre and Hill and Koronka had this year is a reminder that you can't always just call a guy up from AAA and be able to rely on him to perform at a mediocre level.

[NorthsideAvenger]

We can get the same production from Rich Hill or Jon Koronka, or heck even Rinyel Pinto then we can from Glendon Rusch, at a FRACTURE of the cost it will take to keep Rusch.

 

If Rusch can get overpaid from a team like the Rangers, let him go.

[goonys evil twin]

And the problems that Mitre and Hill and Koronka had this year is a reminder that you can't always just call a guy up from AAA and be able to rely on him to perform at a mediocre level.

 

And yet, toward the end you could have easily let Rusch go and use Hill, likely not giving up a thing. I hate that this organization builds in the excuse not to use a guy in advance. "We have to sign Rusch because we don't know what Hill can bring us." Why didn't you see what Hill could do in the 2nd half. "We had to see if Maddux could manage a 15-15 season, and Rusch earned those starts." Make the right decision in the first place and you wouldn't be stuck feeling it's necessary to negotiate with Glendon Rusch.

[craig]

And the problems that Mitre and Hill and Koronka had this year is a reminder that you can't always just call a guy up from AAA and be able to rely on him to perform at a mediocre level.

 

And yet, toward the end you could have easily let Rusch go and use Hill, likely not giving up a thing. I hate that this organization builds in the excuse not to use a guy in advance. "We have to sign Rusch because we don't know what Hill can bring us." Why didn't you see what Hill could do in the 2nd half. "We had to see if Maddux could manage a 15-15 season, and Rusch earned those starts." Make the right decision in the first place and you wouldn't be stuck feeling it's necessary to negotiate with Glendon Rusch.

 

I most wholeheartedly agree. Although you are assuming that a few September starts would have established a viable alternative. It's equally possible that giving Hill or Mitre or Koronka 3 more starts in September would have reaffirmed rather than relieved the felt need for Rusch insurance?

[BigbadB]

I'm assuming that's part of the reason why you have a pitching coach. Someone can chart his pitches and see if he's major league caliber. The pitching coach can evaluate, instruct and educate to identify whether there would be a need to bring Rusch back as insurance.

 

This mess is of their own making.

[craig]

I'm assuming that's part of the reason why you have a pitching coach. Someone can chart his pitches and see if he's major league caliber. The pitching coach can evaluate, instruct and educate to identify whether there would be a need to bring Rusch back as insurance.

 

Maybe that's exactly what they did.... and identified that there *is* a need to bring Rusch back as insurance? They charted Mitre's pitches, and noticed that he doesn't have anything that he can throw consistently in the strike zone to control the count. They watched Koronka; and made the logical conclusion that Rusch was a better bet. They watched Guzman in Arizona... and judged that his arm is iffy and he doesn't have any control at present, so they aren't sure if or when he will. They charted Wood going to surgery, and couldn't conclude that he'll be healthy and good.

 

So they perhaps charted Williams in as #5, Hill in as #6, and Rusch in as #7. Hill may be removed because he may be invaluable in relief, or may be too wild to be good. Wood may be removed because he's injured. Prior may be removed because he's injured. Z may be removed because he's injured. Williams may pitch worse than Rusch.

 

Seems to me there is plenty of reason, given the age and fragility of the front 5, to think that the #7 guy might be needed, and might be worth $2.5 million bucks. To want some insurance other than Koronka and Guzman as your #7 starter, I guess I don't see why that's so crazy.

[CubfaninCA]

With the way Cub pitchers get hurt, they need a 6th starter. I'd rather see Rusch than the trio of crap sandwiches, Welly, Mitre and Koronka (or whatever the h his name is). Bring him back as a long reliever/starter.

[stitchface]

I'm assuming that's part of the reason why you have a pitching coach. Someone can chart his pitches and see if he's major league caliber. The pitching coach can evaluate, instruct and educate to identify whether there would be a need to bring Rusch back as insurance.

 

Maybe that's exactly what they did.... and identified that there *is* a need to bring Rusch back as insurance? They charted Mitre's pitches, and noticed that he doesn't have anything that he can throw consistently in the strike zone to control the count. They watched Koronka; and made the logical conclusion that Rusch was a better bet. They watched Guzman in Arizona... and judged that his arm is iffy and he doesn't have any control at present, so they aren't sure if or when he will. They charted Wood going to surgery, and couldn't conclude that he'll be healthy and good.

 

So they perhaps charted Williams in as #5, Hill in as #6, and Rusch in as #7. Hill may be removed because he may be invaluable in relief, or may be too wild to be good. Wood may be removed because he's injured. Prior may be removed because he's injured. Z may be removed because he's injured. Williams may pitch worse than Rusch.

 

Seems to me there is plenty of reason, given the age and fragility of the front 5, to think that the #7 guy might be needed, and might be worth $2.5 million bucks. To want some insurance other than Koronka and Guzman as your #7 starter, I guess I don't see why that's so crazy.

 

If Wood, Zambrano and Prior are hurt, or perhaps or, it doesn't matter who our 7th starter is. Might as well go with youth.

[frostwyrm]

And yet, toward the end you could have easily let Rusch go and use Hill, likely not giving up a thing. I hate that this organization builds in the excuse not to use a guy in advance. "We have to sign Rusch because we don't know what Hill can bring us." Why didn't you see what Hill could do in the 2nd half. "We had to see if Maddux could manage a 15-15 season, and Rusch earned those starts." Make the right decision in the first place and you wouldn't be stuck feeling it's necessary to negotiate with Glendon Rusch.

 

Yeah, I hate that the organization puts itself in a state of ignorance for no good reason. Besides Hill, we still don't know what Cedeno can do in everyday duty because Neifi had supposedly earned the right to start 5 times a week even after playoff hopes were gone. Now Hendry will throw big $$ at Furcal out of ignorance of Cedeno's ability level. Ignorance is expensive.

[CubfaninCA]

I'm assuming that's part of the reason why you have a pitching coach. Someone can chart his pitches and see if he's major league caliber. The pitching coach can evaluate, instruct and educate to identify whether there would be a need to bring Rusch back as insurance.

 

Maybe that's exactly what they did.... and identified that there *is* a need to bring Rusch back as insurance? They charted Mitre's pitches, and noticed that he doesn't have anything that he can throw consistently in the strike zone to control the count. They watched Koronka; and made the logical conclusion that Rusch was a better bet. They watched Guzman in Arizona... and judged that his arm is iffy and he doesn't have any control at present, so they aren't sure if or when he will. They charted Wood going to surgery, and couldn't conclude that he'll be healthy and good.

 

So they perhaps charted Williams in as #5, Hill in as #6, and Rusch in as #7. Hill may be removed because he may be invaluable in relief, or may be too wild to be good. Wood may be removed because he's injured. Prior may be removed because he's injured. Z may be removed because he's injured. Williams may pitch worse than Rusch.

 

Seems to me there is plenty of reason, given the age and fragility of the front 5, to think that the #7 guy might be needed, and might be worth $2.5 million bucks. To want some insurance other than Koronka and Guzman as your #7 starter, I guess I don't see why that's so crazy.

 

Good post. Only thing I can disagree with is Hill as the 6th starter and Rusch as the 7th. I think it's more like bring back Rusch as the 6th starter and Hill is the 7th starter. Keep Hill @ Iowa and let him start instead of letting him rust away in the Cub bullpen.

[NCCubFan]

We can get the same production from Rich Hill or Jon Koronka, or heck even Rinyel Pinto then we can from Glendon Rusch, at a FRACTURE of the cost it will take to keep Rusch.

But how much time will he have to spend on the DL to heal from the fracture? :lol:

[CubfaninCA]

I'm assuming that's part of the reason why you have a pitching coach. Someone can chart his pitches and see if he's major league caliber. The pitching coach can evaluate, instruct and educate to identify whether there would be a need to bring Rusch back as insurance.

 

Maybe that's exactly what they did.... and identified that there *is* a need to bring Rusch back as insurance? They charted Mitre's pitches, and noticed that he doesn't have anything that he can throw consistently in the strike zone to control the count. They watched Koronka; and made the logical conclusion that Rusch was a better bet. They watched Guzman in Arizona... and judged that his arm is iffy and he doesn't have any control at present, so they aren't sure if or when he will. They charted Wood going to surgery, and couldn't conclude that he'll be healthy and good.

 

So they perhaps charted Williams in as #5, Hill in as #6, and Rusch in as #7. Hill may be removed because he may be invaluable in relief, or may be too wild to be good. Wood may be removed because he's injured. Prior may be removed because he's injured. Z may be removed because he's injured. Williams may pitch worse than Rusch.

 

Seems to me there is plenty of reason, given the age and fragility of the front 5, to think that the #7 guy might be needed, and might be worth $2.5 million bucks. To want some insurance other than Koronka and Guzman as your #7 starter, I guess I don't see why that's so crazy.

 

If Wood, Zambrano and Prior are hurt, or perhaps or, it doesn't matter who our 7th starter is. Might as well go with youth.

 

Yep the season's probably over if Prior and Wood bite the dust again, even if the Cubs get a few of the guys the walk romanticists pine for on a daily basis. :D However, if Maddux and Williams go down (quite possible this is the Cubs afterall), Rusch and Hill are not a huge dropoff.