Howry signs with Cubs (yes, it's official)

[SouthSideRyan]

Not sure if this is posted but.

 

Howry was said yesterday to be nearing a deal with those same Chicago Cubs -- a three-year contract worth more than the $11 million the Cubs gave to Eyre.

 

 

This is in the New Jersey Star Ledger.

 

here's the link (below advertisement):

 

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1132641043208490.xml&coll=1

 

"In addition to nearing a deal, Howry sprouted a 3rd arm and has decided to throw the ball with his feet from now on."

[JeffH]

Tim:

 

From the MLB CBA:

 

Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players,

as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts. The

number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players

electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less

such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player.

If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than

two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no

Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are

more than 62 such Players, the Club quotas shall be increased

accordingly. There shall be no restrictions on the number of

unranked Players which a Club may sign to contracts.

 

This offseason, there are 85 "such Players". I'd have to assume that that would increase the quota to more than 3.

[E.J.]

One more factor to consider. I believe Eyre is a type A free agent. Assuming we also sign Howry, that would mean we've signed two type A free agents this offseason.

 

We would then be unable to sign both Furcal and Giles, no matter how much money we have left, because teams cannot sign more than three type A free agents in one offseason unless they lose more than that.

 

So, by signing two relievers, you are quite effectively limiting your options on what to do about the dreadful offense, Mr Hendry.

 

With all of Hendry's quotes I think it's a given that Hendry doesn't have much interest in Giles. I think our RF (maybe CF too if Cpatt is on his way out) will come via trade (Abreu please).

[Guest]

I'll say this for Howry: He's better than Eyre...

[imb]

One more factor to consider. I believe Eyre is a type A free agent. Assuming we also sign Howry, that would mean we've signed two type A free agents this offseason.

 

We would then be unable to sign both Furcal and Giles, no matter how much money we have left, because teams cannot sign more than three type A free agents in one offseason unless they lose more than that.

 

So, by signing two relievers, you are quite effectively limiting your options on what to do about the dreadful offense, Mr Hendry.

 

I'm pretty sure that due to the number of type a's, we can sign 4.

[mg420]

One more factor to consider. I believe Eyre is a type A free agent. Assuming we also sign Howry, that would mean we've signed two type A free agents this offseason.

 

We would then be unable to sign both Furcal and Giles, no matter how much money we have left, because teams cannot sign more than three type A free agents in one offseason unless they lose more than that.

 

So, by signing two relievers, you are quite effectively limiting your options on what to do about the dreadful offense, Mr Hendry.

 

and if he signed furcal & giles without addressing the dreadful pen the cubs had last year, he would have to bolster it the same way he will the offense- via trades. i would rather see the cubs have a great pen and avereage offense than vice versa. if howry & eyre have similar years in 06 that they had in 05, i think everyone will be quite happy with the signings.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I'll say this for Howry: He's better than Eyre...

 

hence the extra million on his contract (reportedly). :lol:

[E.J.]

I'll say this for Howry: He's better than Eyre...

 

That's why he'll get more money from Hendry...

[daske17]

One more factor to consider. I believe Eyre is a type A free agent. Assuming we also sign Howry, that would mean we've signed two type A free agents this offseason.

 

We would then be unable to sign both Furcal and Giles, no matter how much money we have left, because teams cannot sign more than three type A free agents in one offseason unless they lose more than that.

 

So, by signing two relievers, you are quite effectively limiting your options on what to do about the dreadful offense, Mr Hendry.

 

But, Hendry has said consistently that he sees more of a market in the trade arena than in free agency, so maybe he doesn't mind blowing his Type A restrictions on 2 relievers and Furcal. Risky? You betcha!

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I see Bruce lurking. Any idea how close the Cubs are to inking Howry?

 

Welcome back from vacation. I hope you had a good time. :D

[Diffusion]

Dempster

Howry

Eyre

Williamson

Wuertz

Novoa

Ohman

 

Rusch/Williams

Van Buren

Wood?

 

Hill

Pinto

Guzman

 

Wellemeyer

Aardsma

 

Anyone think we maybe have enough bullpen options now?

 

Nah, didn't think so, let's sign Dotel!

 

I swear, when we trade Hill and Williams, we had better get an absolute fortune for them.

 

Um, let's not exaggerate here...Wood, Pinto, Hill, Guzman are not bullpen options. Novoa sucks. Wellemeyer is no longer a prospect. Aardsma has self-imploded. Shoot, Andy Shipman is a better prospect than Aardsma at this point.

 

If Howry is indeed signed, the Cubs have but two extra relievers beyond the seven they'll certainly carry (because of Wood's fragility). One is Novoa, who cannot/will not beat out Mike Wuertz. He's likely trade bait later this winter. The other is Van Buren, who could be trade bait, but more likely will simply return to Iowa for Round 2, on call as the first option should an injury befall one of the ML relievers.

 

Wood is certainly a bullpen option if the surgery hasn't done anything about his inability to go beyond whatever number of pitches it is, if there's even a word of truth to that excuse. Hill has stuff that would play a lot better right now in the bullpen than in the starting rotation, there may be longering concerns about Guzman's health that would make the Cubs prefer putting him in the bullpen at least at first, and both, along with Pinto, could make their way into the majors in the bullpen regardless of the above if there's simply not a spot open in the rotation but they're ready. If they're so ready, particularly in Guzman or Hill's case, that they force a starter out of the rotation, then both Rusch and Williams could be bullpen options.

 

I've listed Wellemeyer and Aardsma for the sake of being comprehensive. Wellemeyer is out of options, and the Cubs will either trade him or try and outright him to Triple-A, whereupon he'll probably be claimed off waivers and lost for nothing. He was in the same situation as Jon Leicester, and he is in the same situation as Sergio Mitre. Hendry completely missed the boat with all three of them, they should have been out of the organisation a long time ago. Aardsma meanwhile I wouldn't write off completely yet, but I agree that it doesn't look good for him right now.

 

And Roberto Novoa doesn't suck. Filthy stuff, very promising K/9 and HR/9 peripherals, no significant history of control problems prior to last year, the .333 BABIP against probably will prove a statistical anomoly over time, and he can be expected to improve with major league experience. As such he has a very good shot at becoming a well above average late inning pitcher.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Diffusion

[YearofDaCubs]

For the record, if Williamson is healthy he will be better than both Howry and Eyre.

[goonys evil twin]

i would rather see the cubs have a great pen and avereage offense than vice versa.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't.

 

Offense is so much more important than the bullpen.

 

 

Why is there such blatant disregard for offense?

 

I have a theory that it's a backlash for the increased importance that offense took on in the 90's and early 00's in many sports, and how all leagues worked to make offense more important. The decades long mantra that defense wins championships, and the insinuation that scoring and offense was far less macho than preventing scores started to take hits when teams like STL won the Super Bowl and even when the Red Sox won the WS. Much like the backlash against sabermetric ideas in baseball, and a more analytical approach to roster moves, the backlash against offense has been led by the it was so much better when crowd.

 

Offense matters. The Cubs bad offense is the reason this team hasn't won 90 games despite being among the top payrolls the past 3 years. Bullpen improvements would be nice, but not nearly as effective at improving this team as the major upgrades needed on offense.

[mg420]

i would rather see the cubs have a great pen and avereage offense than vice versa.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't.

 

Offense is so much more important than the bullpen.

 

 

Why is there such blatant disregard for offense?

 

I have a theory that it's a backlash for the increased importance that offense took on in the 90's and early 00's in many sports, and how all leagues worked to make offense more important. The decades long mantra that defense wins championships, and the insinuation that scoring and offense was far less macho than preventing scores started to take hits when teams like STL won the Super Bowl and even when the Red Sox won the WS. Much like the backlash against sabermetric ideas in baseball, and a more analytical approach to roster moves, the backlash against offense has been led by the it was so much better when crowd.

 

Offense matters. The Cubs bad offense is the reason this team hasn't won 90 games despite being among the top payrolls the past 3 years. Bullpen improvements would be nice, but not nearly as effective at improving this team as the major upgrades needed on offense.

 

i disagree. besides, the improving the cubs offense might be as simple as finding a good lead off man to get on before lee & aram and playing cedeno & walker @ ss & 2b. i guess we'll all have to watch and see what happens but so far hendry has put improving the pen before improving the offense. it is impossible to win with a bad bullpen while it is only difficult to win with a bad offense.

[JeffH]

Offense matters.

 

Agree 100%.

 

Step number one:

 

Don't give 1724 plate appearances to five guys with a combined OBP of .283.

[Tim]

Tim:

 

From the MLB CBA:

 

Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players,

as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts. The

number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players

electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less

such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player.

If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than

two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no

Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are

more than 62 such Players, the Club quotas shall be increased

accordingly. There shall be no restrictions on the number of

unranked Players which a Club may sign to contracts.

 

This offseason, there are 85 "such Players". I'd have to assume that that would increase the quota to more than 3.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd guess we can sign up to four, then.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Tim:

 

From the MLB CBA:

 

Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players,

as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts. The

number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players

electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less

such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player.

If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than

two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no

Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are

more than 62 such Players, the Club quotas shall be increased

accordingly. There shall be no restrictions on the number of

unranked Players which a Club may sign to contracts.

 

This offseason, there are 85 "such Players". I'd have to assume that that would increase the quota to more than 3.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd guess we can sign up to four, then.

 

Is this a limitation on the absolute number of FA signings a team can make in any one year, or the NET number of signings? I ask because Burnitz and Nomar are on the list.

[Tim]

Tim:

 

From the MLB CBA:

 

Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players,

as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts. The

number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players

electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less

such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player.

If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than

two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no

Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are

more than 62 such Players, the Club quotas shall be increased

accordingly. There shall be no restrictions on the number of

unranked Players which a Club may sign to contracts.

 

This offseason, there are 85 "such Players". I'd have to assume that that would increase the quota to more than 3.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd guess we can sign up to four, then.

 

Is this a limitation on the absolute number of FA signings a team can make in any one year, or the NET number of signings? I ask because Burnitz and Nomar are on the list.

It is the total.

[Mizzou]

Wow, up to 18 pages of people complaining about a possible move that will no doubt make our team better? The negativity on this board has kicked into over drive this offseason.

[Southpaw191679666239]

Wow, up to 18 pages of people complaining about a possible move that will no doubt make our team better? The negativity on this board has kicked into over drive this offseason.

 

Apparently, the horse isn't dead yet, so we must continue to beat it. The majority here are not complaining of the move itself, but the dollars and years it will take ~ on top of just signing Eyre to a similar deal ~ when there are many moves on offense to be made/addressed.

[biittner77]

i would rather see the cubs have a great pen and avereage offense than vice versa.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't.

 

Offense is so much more important than the bullpen.

 

 

Why is there such blatant disregard for offense?

 

I have a theory that it's a backlash for the increased importance that offense took on in the 90's and early 00's in many sports, and how all leagues worked to make offense more important. The decades long mantra that defense wins championships, and the insinuation that scoring and offense was far less macho than preventing scores started to take hits when teams like STL won the Super Bowl and even when the Red Sox won the WS. Much like the backlash against sabermetric ideas in baseball, and a more analytical approach to roster moves, the backlash against offense has been led by the it was so much better when crowd.

 

Offense matters. The Cubs bad offense is the reason this team hasn't won 90 games despite being among the top payrolls the past 3 years. Bullpen improvements would be nice, but not nearly as effective at improving this team as the major upgrades needed on offense.

 

More to the point, it has been widely held that pitching is harder to find than hitting. The strategy, then, was to establish a strong pitching staff and then add offense as needed. That concept has been reversed the last few years- at least as far as the Cubs are concerned.

 

In football, it seems like there have always been teams that were good on one side of the ball and merely adequate or suspect on the other. There are countless examples like the Ravens team from a couple years ago. It seems like baseball is becoming the same way. Certain teams- Reds, Rangers, Milwaukee, etc. are always looking for pitching while other teams- Dodgers, Cubs and now the Astros- have lots of pitching but suspect offenses. Either can be a formula for success or disaster depending on how things shake out.

 

Conventional wisdom says that, if forced to chose, it's better to have pitching and defense. Whether or not stats bear that out I couldn't say. The difficult part to accept as a fan is the necessity of the choice when what we really want is both.

[goonys evil twin]

Wow, up to 18 pages of people complaining about a possible move that will no doubt make our team better? The negativity on this board has kicked into over drive this offseason.

 

Wow, that was a ridiculous thing to say. This has hardly been 18 pages of complaining. I've seen a lot of the space used for questions, clarifications and praise.

 

 

But it's good to see the spirit police spring into action to try and haul in those evil people who have the audacity to question a move made by the impeccable Cubs management team.

[abuck1220]

Wow, up to 18 pages of people complaining about a possible move that will no doubt make our team better? The negativity on this board has kicked into over drive this offseason.

 

come on.

 

if the cubs signed giles to an 11 year, 145 million dollar deal no one would complain because he would make our team better? there's more to a signing than just 'does it make the team better'.

[goonys evil twin]

Conventional wisdom says that, if forced to chose, it's better to have pitching and defense. Whether or not stats bear that out I couldn't say. The difficult part to accept as a fan is the necessity of the choice when what we really want is both.

 

In the NFL, with the salary cap, sometimes that is a choice that has to be made (although there have been quite a few teams that were quite good on both sides of the ball in recent years - New England, Philly, Pittsburgh [while they may not throw, they run like no other], Denver and quite possibly this year's Colts. And if you are a lower payroll baseball team, this might also be a necessary approach.

 

But if you are a baseball team with a top 5 payroll, you simply don't have an excuse not to be a top 5 team both at scoring and preventing runs in your league.

[Mizzou]

Wow, up to 18 pages of people complaining about a possible move that will no doubt make our team better? The negativity on this board has kicked into over drive this offseason.

 

Wow, that was a ridiculous thing to say. This has hardly been 18 pages of complaining. I've seen a lot of the space used for questions, clarifications and praise.

 

 

But it's good to see the spirit police spring into action to try and haul in those evil people who have the audacity to question a move made by the impeccable Cubs management team.

 

I've read the thread, the majority of it has been complaining.

 

Spirit police? LOL. No, it's just that no matter what Hendry does (or doesn't do) he gets slammed for it, and frankly it gets old. Signing Howry will make our team better. The specifics of the contract may not be ideal in your eyes, but answer me this: when was the last contract that a Cubs player signed that you thought WAS ideal?