"Cubs not interested in bidding war for Giles"

[noisesquared]

Maybe the lack of interest in Giles is due to the fact he would not help with a decidedly mediocre team ERA of 4.19. The pennant winning Astro's OBP and SLG was worse than the Cubs'(as was the world champion White SOx), but they gave up over 100(!) runs less than the Cubs. As much as I'd love to see Giles in RF, he is not going to help the Cubs give up less runs. The Cubs can add whomever they want offensively, but if the pitching is not addressed, we can forget about a WS title. If I'm Hendry, I'm targeting at least one other frontline SP as my top priority. The Cubs had enough offense to win last year, but the pitching was just not there.

 

And yet on the other hand, 3 of the best pitching teams in the NL didn't even make the playoffs.

 

The Cubs did not have enough offense to win, and they can't just add "whomever they want". Ignoring the offense would be a terrible decision.

 

The Cubs had more offense than the NL pennant winner and the World Series champ. If Houston and the White Sox had enough offense, the Cubs had enough offense. The NL teams that made the playoffs finished 1,2,6, and 7 in ERA. These teams were ranked 3,4,11, and 13 in runs per game. The top 2 teams (CIN and PHI)in R/G did not make the playoffs. How did finishing 1-2 in OBP help them? Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2005.shtml

[BigbadB]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I want solid pitching, but I want a major improvement in offense as well. With 100m payroll, there really is no excuse to not have both.

[YearofDaCubs]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I want solid pitching, but I want a major improvement in offense as well. With 100m payroll, there really is no excuse to not have both.

With the way Hendry is spending the money don't be surprised.

[CubsWin]

Read em and weep folks

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051116cubs,1,1236145.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

 

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

 

Hello Kevin Mench.

This quote and the linked article don't mean much really. Neither quotes anyone from the Cubs saying anything about Brian Giles. The only thing the author wrote is that the Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war. Who is?

 

If Hendry comes out and says I'm anxious to get into a bidding war for anybody, he weakens the leverage with which he is negotiating. So I fail to see the significant portent here.

[CubinNY]

Read em and weep folks

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051116cubs,1,1236145.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

 

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

 

Hello Kevin Mench.

This quote and the linked article don't mean much really. Neither quotes anyone from the Cubs saying anything about Brian Giles. The only thing the author wrote is that the Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war. Who is?

 

If Hendry comes out and says I'm anxious to get into a bidding war for anybody, he weakens the leverage with which he is negotiating. So I fail to see the significant portent here.

 

Then read the last six pages.

[goonys evil twin]

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2005.shtml

 

There are no top tier starting pitchers out there.

 

Taking a snapshot of this year's World Series teams and saying, "well, the Cubs have better X than them, therefore they don't need to improve it" is a baseless argument. In 2004 the Cubs had better pitching than Boston, and near identical pitching to STL. What did that get them? The only two playoff teams the Cubs scored more than this year were Houston and San Diego, the 6 other playoff teams all scored more. The contenders who fell just short all scored more runs.

 

The Cubs were a bad team overall. They are also a $100m, top 5 payroll team. There is absolutely no excuse to put all their eggs into one basket and only address pitching, especially when it's the only area of the game where they have any sort of depth or any chance of filling holes from within.

 

After Florida won the World Series, everybody said their team needed more speed to win. When Boston won, people were enamored with the 2 great starters/1 great closer theory. When Houston and the White Sox played this year, it was destined to cause a run on defensive baseball. Chasing the trend every year is a terrible way to build a baseball team.

 

There is no one way to win in baseball. But the smart teams with money should try and get as good as possible in as many areas as possible. The only reason the Astros were a pitching team was that they didn't have the money to retain a solid lineup, as their more expensive players aged and some of their better players left.

 

We need to quit pretending that the offense was just fine and dandy last year simply because they scored more runs than the NL pennant winner. In 2004 they weren't close to either World Series contender, while 6 of the 8 playoff teams scored more than the Cubs (with the early departing Dodgers/Twins as the only ones to score less), while at the same time, the Cubs were better than 7 of the 8 playoff teams at preventing the opposition from scoring.

 

Offense matters. The Cubs can and should field a great offense and defense. There is no justification to even consider focusing only on one side or the other. You have to get in the playoffs first, then win in the playoffs. The best way to create a team that will get in the playoffs is by maximizing your expected runs scored and minimizing your expected runs allowed. I don't see Hendry going after a stud closer. There are no stud starters available. If they can somehow find a way to get rid of the Williams/Rusch combo and come up with somebody like Barry Zito to push Maddux to 5th starter, I'd be all for it. But they shouldn't just acquire pitching for pitching sake. A glut of mediore arms isn't going to make them a great pitching staff. While everybody in the league puts an extreme value on pitchers and thefore it's very hard to find and expensive to acquire, and defense has gone up in value the past year, it's the perfect time to acquire some offense.

 

something to add:

One year does not make a trend. Offense has been a problem for this team for many years. Pitching has not been. This has been a top 5 pitching staff in baseball 2 of the past 3 years. They've been a lower half scoring team every year. That's the trend that needs to be addressed most, not the "what won this year's World Series" trend.

[noisesquared]

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2005.shtml

 

There are no top tier starting pitchers out there.

 

Taking a snapshot of this year's World Series teams and saying, "well, the Cubs have better X than them, therefore they don't need to improve it" is a baseless argument. In 2004 the Cubs had better pitching than Boston, and near identical pitching to STL. What did that get them? The only two playoff teams the Cubs scored more than this year were Houston and San Diego, the 6 other playoff teams all scored more. The contenders who fell just short all scored more runs.

 

The Cubs were a bad team overall. They are also a $100m, top 5 payroll team. There is absolutely no excuse to put all their eggs into one basket and only address pitching, especially when it's the only area of the game where they have any sort of depth or any chance of filling holes from within.

 

I am not saying that the pitching should be the only thing adressed. I am saying that in my opinion, the pitching should be adressed at least equally to the offense. If no SP is added this offseason, the season opening rotation is likely Z, Prior, Maddux, Rusch, and Williams. That is not a championship, much less playoff, caliber rotation regardless of the offense. If Wood can't get/stay healthy, that's potentially the Cubs' rotation for the year. Adding a Burnett or Millwood, will provide some much needed depth, with the possibility of a dominant staff 1-5 if Wood can get/stay healthy. Regardless of trends, I believe having a deep pitching staff is a necessary ingredient to winning consistently.

 

You are correct that with the money available, upgrading both pitching and offense should not be a problem. But to the point of this thread, I'm hoping lack of interest in Giles pertains to Hendry's apparent desire to improve other areas before addressing RF, as opposed to just a lack of interest in Giles. If Hendry doesn't get Burnett/Millwood or a comparable starter via trade and then misses out on Giles, then I'll have a big complaint with Hendry's approach.

[goonys evil twin]

I am not saying that the pitching should be the only thing adressed. I am saying that in my opinion, the pitching should be adressed at least equally to the offense. If no SP is added this offseason, the season opening rotation is likely Z, Prior, Maddux, Rusch, and Williams. That is not a championship, much less playoff, caliber rotation regardless of the offense. If Wood can't get/stay healthy, that's potentially the Cubs' rotation for the year. Adding a Burnett or Millwood, will provide some much needed depth, with the possibility of a dominant staff 1-5 if Wood can get/stay healthy. Regardless of trends, I believe having a deep pitching staff is a necessary ingredient to winning consistently.

 

You are correct that with the money available, upgrading both pitching and offense should not be a problem. But to the point of this thread, I'm hoping lack of interest in Giles pertains to Hendry's apparent desire to improve other areas before addressing RF, as opposed to just a lack of interest in Giles. If Hendry doesn't get Burnett/Millwood or a comparable starter via trade and then misses out on Giles, then I'll have a big complaint with Hendry's approach.

 

You want to pay Burnett 5/50, when the guy has been no more reliable (hopefully I don't cause another ruckus with that word) than Wood?

 

I'm all for adding a stud pitcher. I just don't see it as feasible at this time. Plus, pitching has been a problem in 1 out of the past 3 years. Hitting has been a problem every year. The pitching has a much better chance to rebound back to its norms than the hitting has of suddenly improving on its own. There seem to be a lot of options to improve the offense, and the Cubs are in a position to take advantage of many of those options. There doesn't seem to be many options to improve pitching, and that will drive up the cost of those options. The one thing this organization has (besides more money than most) is pitching depth. I don't see much value in adding to that depth. The only thing I'd do now is add a stud (reliever or starter) if one becomes available, but I don't see it.

[fromthestretch]

[if no SP is added this offseason, the season opening rotation is likely Z, Prior, Maddux, Rusch, and Williams. That is not a championship, much less playoff, caliber rotation regardless of the offense.

 

There are teams that have made the playoffs in recent years with much worse starting rotations than that.

 

If Wood can't get/stay healthy, that's potentially the Cubs' rotation for the year. Adding a Burnett or Millwood, will provide some much needed depth, with the possibility of a dominant staff 1-5 if Wood can get/stay healthy. Regardless of trends, I believe having a deep pitching staff is a necessary ingredient to winning consistently.

 

I'd be more than happy if they could get another top-of-the-line starter. But the offense is in need of an upgrade moreso than the pitching. When you look at the options, acquiring a top-notch bat is probably going to be easier than acquiring a top-notch starter. Burnett is not worth what he is going to get as a free agent, and with the potential for injury that this team already has, adding another question mark for five years isn't exactly ideal.

[cubbyvirus00]

The Cubs had more offense than the NL pennant winner and the World Series champ. If Houston and the White Sox had enough offense, the Cubs had enough offense. The NL teams that made the playoffs finished 1,2,6, and 7 in ERA. These teams were ranked 3,4,11, and 13 in runs per game. The top 2 teams (CIN and PHI)in R/G did not make the playoffs. How did finishing 1-2 in OBP help them? Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

Good post.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs had more offense than the NL pennant winner and the World Series champ. If Houston and the White Sox had enough offense, the Cubs had enough offense. The NL teams that made the playoffs finished 1,2,6, and 7 in ERA. These teams were ranked 3,4,11, and 13 in runs per game. The top 2 teams (CIN and PHI)in R/G did not make the playoffs. How did finishing 1-2 in OBP help them? Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

Good post.

 

Except that theory is completely refuted from the previous year. And the fact that the vast majority of playoffs teams have routinely scored more runs than the Cubs have the past few years always refutes that notion. It would be a terrible decision to say "if Houston and the White Sox had enough offense than so do the Cubs". It would have been as silly as saying "if STL and Boston have enough pitching, than so do the Cubs" after 2004.

[jtownie]

The Cubs had more offense than the NL pennant winner and the World Series champ. If Houston and the White Sox had enough offense, the Cubs had enough offense. The NL teams that made the playoffs finished 1,2,6, and 7 in ERA. These teams were ranked 3,4,11, and 13 in runs per game. The top 2 teams (CIN and PHI)in R/G did not make the playoffs. How did finishing 1-2 in OBP help them? Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

Good post.

 

Except that theory is completely refuted from the previous year. And the fact that the vast majority of playoffs teams have routinely scored more runs than the Cubs have the past few years always refutes that notion. It would be a terrible decision to say "if Houston and the White Sox had enough offense than so do the Cubs". It would have been as silly as saying "if STL and Boston have enough pitching, than so do the Cubs" after 2004.

 

In addition I think it's very easy to make the argument that there aren't any SP that would be a MAJOR upgrade over what we currently have. However, there is at least one available OF that is a significant upgrade over what we currently have. It makes more sense to throw money at a position that has more opportunity for improvement.

[noisesquared]

The Cubs had more offense than the NL pennant winner and the World Series champ. If Houston and the White Sox had enough offense, the Cubs had enough offense. The NL teams that made the playoffs finished 1,2,6, and 7 in ERA. These teams were ranked 3,4,11, and 13 in runs per game. The top 2 teams (CIN and PHI)in R/G did not make the playoffs. How did finishing 1-2 in OBP help them? Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that the offense is in need of serious upgrade, but going into a season without any major upgrades in pitching would be more potentially problematic, IMO. Giles would be nice, but not if it's at the expense of a top-tier SP.

 

Good post.

 

Except that theory is completely refuted from the previous year. And the fact that the vast majority of playoffs teams have routinely scored more runs than the Cubs have the past few years always refutes that notion. It would be a terrible decision to say "if Houston and the White Sox had enough offense than so do the Cubs". It would have been as silly as saying "if STL and Boston have enough pitching, than so do the Cubs" after 2004.

 

In addition I think it's very easy to make the argument that there aren't any SP that would be a MAJOR upgrade over what we currently have. However, there is at least one available OF that is a significant upgrade over what we currently have. It makes more sense to throw money at a position that has more opportunity for improvement.

 

I would strongly disagree that Burnett or Millwod in the rotation would not be a HUGE upgrade over Rusch or Williams. Or Maddux for that matter. Maybe Burnett and Millwood aren't stud #1's, but they are at the least solid #2-#3 starters. If a Z-Prior-Maddux-Rusch-Williams rotation comes to fruition, that's 2 quality but inconsistent #1-#2 starters(Z and Prior), a #4 whose best quality is his no. of IP(Maddux), and 2 fringe #5's(Rusch and Williams). How does adding Burnett or Millwood to that rotation not vastly improve it? Even if Wood is healthy, the addition of another top SP pushes Maddux back to the #5, and keeps Rusch and Williams in the pen, or allows Williams to be used as tradebait for more offense.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything to indicate Hendry has any more interest in a top SP than he does in Giles...

[goonys evil twin]

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything to indicate Hendry has any more interest in a top SP than he does in Giles...

 

I agree that it would be a big help if they get a great starting pitcher. I don't think AJ is reasonable though, given the supposed contract demands, and his history that is no more impressive than Wood's.

 

I would be more willing to accept lesser offensive upgrades if they acquired a really good starting pitcher, however, I don't think it's going to be easy to get a really good starting pitcher, while I think it would be relatively more easy to get a good hitter.

[E.J.]

Haven't seen anything posted today about Giles with all the Marlins' firesale talk, but I found this interesting. Looks like Giles might not want to play for the Yankees.

 

Brian Giles, who's avoided New York forever with no-trade contract stipulations, is said to be "playing phone tag" with Joe Torre - a very bad sign - after the Yankees floated $33 million for three years. Giles is a West Coast guy, but if he ventures east of the Rockies, he'll likely go to St. Louis. That's really no great loss, as one AL scout said, "He's no centerfielder."

 

 

Link

 

With this and with the Cards seemingly worried more about pitching than Giles why isn't Hendry swooping in and getting Giles while he can? I know he's said he doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but it's starting to play out like there won't be much of a bidding war for Giles.

[rawaction]

 

With this and with the Cards seemingly worried more about pitching than Giles why isn't Hendry swooping in and getting Giles while he can? I know he's said he doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but it's starting to play out like there won't be much of a bidding war for Giles.

 

I was just gonna say the same thing. If San Diego, St. Louis, and New York are out of the equation, it probably comes down to Cubs vs. the LA teams. And that would come down to the Cubs interest vs. the Dodgers uncertainty.

[USSoccer]

Haven't seen anything posted today about Giles with all the Marlins' firesale talk, but I found this interesting. Looks like Giles might not want to play for the Yankees.

 

Brian Giles, who's avoided New York forever with no-trade contract stipulations, is said to be "playing phone tag" with Joe Torre - a very bad sign - after the Yankees floated $33 million for three years. Giles is a West Coast guy, but if he ventures east of the Rockies, he'll likely go to St. Louis. That's really no great loss, as one AL scout said, "He's no centerfielder."

 

 

Link

 

With this and with the Cards seemingly worried more about pitching than Giles why isn't Hendry swooping in and getting Giles while he can? I know he's said he doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but it's starting to play out like there won't be much of a bidding war for Giles.

 

Oh. Come. On. You can't pay Giles what you paid Alou from 2002-2004?

 

Jim Hendry, sign Giles, and I'll take back all of my criticisms of you this offseason.

[E.J.]

 

With this and with the Cards seemingly worried more about pitching than Giles why isn't Hendry swooping in and getting Giles while he can? I know he's said he doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but it's starting to play out like there won't be much of a bidding war for Giles.

 

I was just gonna say the same thing. If San Diego, St. Louis, and New York are out of the equation, it probably comes down to Cubs vs. the LA teams. And that would come down to the Cubs interest vs. the Dodgers uncertainty.

 

Maybe Hendry is just playing it cool, but it just doesn't make sense to me why the Cubs wouldn't be serious about getting Giles. He's a perfect fit for this team and it looks like that bidding war that Hendry was worried about won't happen. With the Padres lowballing him and the Dodgers' uncertainty the Cubs are seemingly set up perfectly to make a run at him.

[USSoccer]

 

With this and with the Cards seemingly worried more about pitching than Giles why isn't Hendry swooping in and getting Giles while he can? I know he's said he doesn't want to get into a bidding war, but it's starting to play out like there won't be much of a bidding war for Giles.

 

I was just gonna say the same thing. If San Diego, St. Louis, and New York are out of the equation, it probably comes down to Cubs vs. the LA teams. And that would come down to the Cubs interest vs. the Dodgers uncertainty.

 

Maybe Hendry is just playing it cool, but it just doesn't make sense to me why the Cubs wouldn't be serious about getting Giles. He's a perfect fit for this team and it looks like that bidding war that Hendry was worried about won't happen. With the Padres lowballing him and the Dodgers' uncertainty the Cubs are seemingly set up perfectly to make a run at him.

 

Maybe Hendry is flying under the radar on this one. Lets hope so.

 

Playing "The Advocate" for a second, lets say Hendry had 4 players on his target list this winter: Furcal, Eyre, Giles and Burnett. He's explored the trade waters for Pierre while he feels out how much Furcal will cost. He signs Eyre quickly, maybe to get one thing out of the way. Maybe at this point, he is trying to see if he can afford both and still have room for one more bullpen guy. The catch is this: he's more willing to bid on Furcal at the expense of losing Giles than he would be at shoehorning both into a budget.

 

Thus, the situation we have right now. Hendry is going to sweat out Furcal and count on Giles's age and Petco/SBC/Dodger Stadium numbers depress interest in him until Hendry has his leadoff hitter solved, then he'll work on RF.

 

/end "Advocate".

[don_kessinger_was_good]

The only rational reason I can figure Hendry not being hot after Giles, especially when he seems to be ripe for the signing, is that Hendry must think Abreu is realistically available via trade. And I must admit, I would prefer him over Giles, as Abreu is younger, faster, a better slugger, a better defender, and just as good at OBP. And hits LH like Giles.

 

Thing is, Abreu will cost some talent, even with his expensive contract, while Giles only costs $$--something the Cubs have alot of. Hendry is really really really maddeningly dense if he doesn't quickly solve one of our two biggest problems with a phone call and a cashier's check. Fer cryin' out loud!

[CubsWin]

Read em and weep folks

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051116cubs,1,1236145.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

 

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

 

Hello Kevin Mench.

This quote and the linked article don't mean much really. Neither quotes anyone from the Cubs saying anything about Brian Giles. The only thing the author wrote is that the Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war. Who is?

 

If Hendry comes out and says I'm anxious to get into a bidding war for anybody, he weakens the leverage with which he is negotiating. So I fail to see the significant portent here.

 

Then read the last six pages.

I already did. Six pages of conjecture, however well thought out means about the same as the article that inspired them. I stand by my original comment that the quote and linked article don't mean much really.

 

I can't point to one hard fact, one quote from a Cubs official, nothing from the article or the "last six pages" that undeniably communicates the direction that Hendry is or is not going.

 

Can you?

[CubinNY]

OK if there is no bidding war for Giles, will the Cubs be interested?

 

To me it appears that Hendry's MO when he targets a FA is to let the media know how much he wants the guy. If that is the case, then the absence of such information along with Sullivan's column lead me to believe that Giles is not a target. The reasons for this are beyond my ability to understand.

[CuseCubFan69]

The only rational reason I can figure Hendry not being hot after Giles, especially when he seems to be ripe for the signing, is that Hendry must think Abreu is realistically available via trade. And I must admit, I would prefer him over Giles, as Abreu is younger, faster, a better slugger, a better defender, and just as good at OBP. And hits LH like Giles.

 

Thing is, Abreu will cost some talent, even with his expensive contract, while Giles only costs $$--something the Cubs have alot of. Hendry is really really really maddeningly dense if he doesn't quickly solve one of our two biggest problems with a phone call and a cashier's check. Fer cryin' out loud!

 

I'd still sign Giles and package Murton to Philly for Abreu if that's what it would take.

[SCCubbieFAN]

The only rational reason I can figure Hendry not being hot after Giles, especially when he seems to be ripe for the signing, is that Hendry must think Abreu is realistically available via trade.

 

Problem with that argument Don is that if Hendry lets the Phillies know he is not even remotely interested in Giles (as an alternative to a trade for Abreu) and then he gets into negotiations for Abreu, Hendry's bargaining position goes way down. It's always good to let the other side know you at least have a fallback plan if they start asking for too much.

[RynoRules]

I hope what was said earlier is true; that JH is waiting in the weeds b/c he thinks Abreu (or Dunn?) will be avilable at the GM meetings. Thus, why sign a guy who is that much older to a multi-year deal? Makes sense...if that is in fact the case.