From the Score (I know, I know):

[Roast]

Losing pinto would kinda suck since I dont like Pierre that much.

 

Thats all I have to add to this conversation.

 

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill.

 

I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

 

Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years?

 

Where is the "Sign Giles, screw pierre and furcal" button?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Losing pinto would kinda suck since I dont like Pierre that much.

 

Thats all I have to add to this conversation.

 

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill.

 

I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

 

Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years?

 

None of the above. But if I had to choose...... I'd probably overpay Furcal.

[USSoccer]

Losing pinto would kinda suck since I dont like Pierre that much.

 

Thats all I have to add to this conversation.

 

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill.

 

I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

 

Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years?

 

My guess is that we'll do both.

 

I really think this is a move designed to keep that from happening. Hendry and the Cubs generally shy away from high dollar, multi year deals. Maybe that's why he's willnig to give up Pinto.

 

Maybe Hendry really feels that Walker/Cedeno/Perez up the middle at their cost is good enough.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Losing pinto would kinda suck since I dont like Pierre that much.

 

Thats all I have to add to this conversation.

 

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill.

 

I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

 

Same here.

 

Me three. Though I'd rather trade Hill than the other two (sorry abuck).

[Omar]

No new news on the 11:20 update.. I'm out.

 

I think they'll postpone progress in this deal until after the Thanksgiving Break.. thats just me..

[USSoccer]

Losing pinto would kinda suck since I dont like Pierre that much.

 

Thats all I have to add to this conversation.

 

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill.

 

I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

 

Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years?

 

None of the above. But if I had to choose...... I'd probably overpay Furcal.

 

Why? Both are overrated by Hendry and the rest of the league. Why not grab the one at the position you don't have a 2006 ML ready alternative, and that's at a lower cost? With Pierre and not Furcal, you're likely to have enough money to be a serious player for an impact RF (over the long term-their 2006 salaries will be fairly similar, but Pierre is a 1 yr expense only).. Now, let me qualify this by saying that that's the only way Pierre is the best fit-if we also get a really good RF. If it's Pierre and Jones, then it's a totally bad move.

 

If trading Pinto and the other 2 players save us enough cash to make a play for Abreu, Giles or Manny, then it's worth it. Maybe we can eat salary to make up for our lack of ML ready players that Boston or Philly would want.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Losing pinto would kinda suck since I dont like Pierre that much.

 

Thats all I have to add to this conversation.

 

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill.

 

I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

 

Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years?

 

None of the above. But if I had to choose...... I'd probably overpay Furcal.

 

Why? Both are overrated by Hendry and the rest of the league. Why not grab the one at the position you don't have a 2006 ML ready alternative, and that's at a lower cost? With Pierre and not Furcal, you're likely to have enough money to be a serious player for an impact RF (over the long term-their 2006 salaries will be fairly similar, but Pierre is a 1 yr expense only).. Now, let me qualify this by saying that that's the only way Pierre is the best fit-if we also get a really good RF. If it's Pierre and Jones, then it's a totally bad move.

 

If trading Pinto and the other 2 players save us enough cash to make a play for Abreu, Giles or Manny, then it's worth it. Maybe we can eat salary to make up for our lack of ML ready players that Boston or Philly would want.

 

Signing Furcal doesn't cost you any players of value, and is/has the capability of being a much better offensive player than Pierre while being a far superior defender at a more difficult position to fill. Trading for Pierre is a step backwards, signing Furcal might be a necessity(ideally I'd like Cedeno to back up middle IF next year).

 

EDIT: That said, we've already screwed part of this up by signing Neifi, Eyre, and Howry.

[USSoccer]

 

Why? Both are overrated by Hendry and the rest of the league. Why not grab the one at the position you don't have a 2006 ML ready alternative, and that's at a lower cost? With Pierre and not Furcal, you're likely to have enough money to be a serious player for an impact RF (over the long term-their 2006 salaries will be fairly similar, but Pierre is a 1 yr expense only).. Now, let me qualify this by saying that that's the only way Pierre is the best fit-if we also get a really good RF. If it's Pierre and Jones, then it's a totally bad move.

 

If trading Pinto and the other 2 players save us enough cash to make a play for Abreu, Giles or Manny, then it's worth it. Maybe we can eat salary to make up for our lack of ML ready players that Boston or Philly would want.

 

Signing Furcal doesn't cost you any players of value, and is/has the capability of being a much better offensive player than Pierre while being a far superior defender at a more difficult position to fill. Trading for Pierre is a step backwards, signing Furcal might be a necessity(ideally I'd like Cedeno to back up middle IF next year).

 

EDIT: That said, we've already screwed part of this up by signing Neifi, Eyre, and Howry.

 

I normally agree with you that it's always better to spend money than prospects, bu as Diffusion pointed out, this is Pinto's last option year. The other 2 players are not likely to be of note, so it's not like giving up Pie, or Guzman circa 2003. Also, I'd disagree that Pierre is a step backwards. Our CF's last season were awful Pierre is not as good as people think, but I don't think he's as bad as 2005 would indicate, but even if the truth lies in between, Pierre is a giant step forward over any in-house option we have at CF right now. Also, look at the possible combinations. Would you rather have Furcal + Kearns or Mench (just examples) or Pierre + Abreu or Giles? Yeah, I framed that unfairly, but the point is, if we sign Furcal there goes our last type A FA this winter. It also locks up a huge amount of cash when, coupled with Lee and Aramis' contracts, and Z and Prior's raises, really locks down our payroll for the next couple years.

 

 

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

[Sabermetrician]

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

A lot of people on this board just expect all-stars at every position, they can't accept that it's not going to be that way...

[USSoccer]

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

A lot of people on this board just expect all-stars at every position, they can't accept that it's not going to be that way...

 

It's not that. I got in a huge fight with some people during the summer about how Pierre was overrated. I don't think Pierre is that good, but in this scenario, I'd rather trade for him than overpay for Furcal.

 

It's just funny how things can change.

[Sabermetrician]

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

A lot of people on this board just expect all-stars at every position, they can't accept that it's not going to be that way...

 

It's not that. I got in a huge fight with some people during the summer about how Pierre was overrated. I don't think Pierre is that good, but in this scenario, I'd rather trade for him than overpay for Furcal.

 

It's just funny how things can change.

 

I'm not singling out any one person, it's just the thing I've noticed over the years from posting here. People are satisfied with good options, they like to dream about the best whether it's realistic or not. Another thing that drives me nuts about that is that we have no idea what goes on between GMs. If some guy is continually suggesting to trade for Player X, how do we know Hendry hasn't asked about him anyway and was told he isn't avaliable? In that case, what's he supposed to do about it?

[USSoccer]

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

A lot of people on this board just expect all-stars at every position, they can't accept that it's not going to be that way...

 

It's not that. I got in a huge fight with some people during the summer about how Pierre was overrated. I don't think Pierre is that good, but in this scenario, I'd rather trade for him than overpay for Furcal.

 

It's just funny how things can change.

 

I'm not singling out any one person, it's just the thing I've noticed over the years from posting here. People are satisfied with good options, they like to dream about the best whether it's realistic or not. Another thing that drives me nuts about that is that we have no idea what goes on between GMs. If some guy is continually suggesting to trade for Player X, how do we know Hendry hasn't asked about him anyway and was told he isn't avaliable? In that case, what's he supposed to do about it?

 

But that's the fun/frustrating part about being on the outside. Speculation can make for rousing debate.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Geez, such overwrought handwringing here. All we've done is bitch about the Cubs not having a leadoff man for three straight years, how Hendry saw his lousy bullpen and lack of a leadoff man last offseason and did nothing.

 

So now his first order of business this offseason is to solve those two problems, and all anyone can do is complain?

 

Like probably everyone, I was somewhat chagrined by the Rusch signing, upset with the Neifi signing of course. But since then, impressed with Hendry's initiatives. Overpaying as usual, but that is his nature, we can't change that.

 

Love having a deep, dependable and effective bullpen consisting of six to seven guys that are good, not one or two and then watch the dreck come in and pour gasoline all over another lost Cub victory.

 

Love having a leadoff man who three times in the past five years has posted 200+ hits, 360+ OBP, 45+ SBs, less than 40 K's, and covers tons of ground in CF. The last leadoff man and/or CF to give numbers like that for the Cubs was.....Bueller? Bueller??

 

Two more points--

 

Hendry getting Pierre now puts all the pressure on Furcal and his agent, do you not see this? Time to get off the pot or pee, Rafael. We don't desperately need a leadoff man anymore. We'd still like an excellent SS like yourself, but we ain't gonna jump off a cliff now to make it happen, either. What's it gonna be, you like our offer or what?

 

Finally, the handwringing over Pinto is ridiculous. Our prospects suck, they've always sucked, they very very rarely pan out. Dontrelle Willis, maybe Jon Garland (though it took 6 years), a marginal reliever like Andy Sisco. Zambrano who we kept. That's it.

 

We don't need to make a list of highly touted Cub prospects that turned out to be deadbeats in juxtaposition, do we? Because that list is long.

 

Pinto failed at AAA miserably, he has nasty control problems, he is not even the top-rated pitcher in our own organization. You get some value out of him and solve a perpetual problem for your MAJOR LEAGUE team. I'll let others commisserate in front of their Our Blessed Martyr Prospect Shrine, light a candle for old Renyel, and discuss Ryan Gripp's likelihood of making the Hall of Fame. Myself, I applaud Jim Hendry for a nice trade that fills a need.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Signing Furcal doesn't cost you any players of value, and is/has the capability of being a much better offensive player than Pierre while being a far superior defender at a more difficult position to fill. Trading for Pierre is a step backwards, signing Furcal might be a necessity(ideally I'd like Cedeno to back up middle IF next year).

 

EDIT: That said, we've already screwed part of this up by signing Neifi, Eyre, and Howry.

 

I normally agree with you that it's always better to spend money than prospects, bu as Diffusion pointed out, this is Pinto's last option year. The other 2 players are not likely to be of note, so it's not like giving up Pie, or Guzman circa 2003. Also, I'd disagree that Pierre is a step backwards. Our CF's last season were awful Pierre is not as good as people think, but I don't think he's as bad as 2005 would indicate, but even if the truth lies in between, Pierre is a giant step forward over any in-house option we have at CF right now. Also, look at the possible combinations. Would you rather have Furcal + Kearns or Mench (just examples) or Pierre + Abreu or Giles? Yeah, I framed that unfairly, but the point is, if we sign Furcal there goes our last type A FA this winter. It also locks up a huge amount of cash when, coupled with Lee and Aramis' contracts, and Z and Prior's raises, really locks down our payroll for the next couple years.

 

 

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

Even though it's Pinto's last option year, it's still not worth it to trade him for Pierre, that's why I said none of the above at the beginning. The step backward I was referring to was philosophically, not production wise. Also, trading for Pierre takes away from what you can use to trade for an impact RF, making the combinations you mention less feasible. I think it's still up in the air whether we get 4 or 3 Type A's, and by signing Furcal you keep the chips to upgrade via trade. While Furcal is an investment, we're also not far from having Cedeno, Murton, and Pie all manning positions at a cheap price. Again though, Eyre and Howry's contracts screwed this up, which is why I don't want either particularly. But it's not terribly difficult to trade a talented player like Furcal if the need arises, and I'd rather take that chance than trade players for an inferior player.

[ThePenguin11]

Geez, such overwrought handwringing here. All we've done is bitch about the Cubs not having a leadoff man for three straight years, how Hendry saw his lousy bullpen and lack of a leadoff man last offseason and did nothing.

 

So now his first order of business this offseason is to solve those two problems, and all anyone can do is complain?

 

Like probably everyone, I was somewhat chagrined by the Rusch signing, upset with the Neifi signing of course. But since then, impressed with Hendry's initiatives. Overpaying as usual, but that is his nature, we can't change that.

 

Love having a deep, dependable and effective bullpen consisting of six to seven guys that are good, not one or two and then watch the dreck come in and pour gasoline all over another lost Cub victory.

 

Love having a leadoff man who three times in the past five years has posted 200+ hits, 360+ OBP, 45+ SBs, less than 40 K's, and covers tons of ground in CF. The last leadoff man and/or CF to give numbers like that for the Cubs was.....Bueller? Bueller??

 

Two more points--

 

Hendry getting Pierre now puts all the pressure on Furcal and his agent, do you not see this? Time to get off the pot or pee, Rafael. We don't desperately need a leadoff man anymore. We'd still like an excellent SS like yourself, but we ain't gonna jump off a cliff now to make it happen, either. What's it gonna be, you like our offer or what?

 

Finally, the handwringing over Pinto is ridiculous. Our prospects suck, they've always sucked, they very very rarely pan out. Dontrelle Willis, maybe Jon Garland (though it took 6 years), a marginal reliever like Andy Sisco. Zambrano who we kept. That's it.

 

We don't need to make a list of highly touted Cub prospects that turned out to be deadbeats in juxtaposition, do we? Because that list is long.

 

Pinto failed at AAA miserably, he has nasty control problems, he is not even the top-rated pitcher in our own organization. You get some value out of him and solve a perpetual problem for your MAJOR LEAGUE team. I'll let others commisserate in front of their Our Blessed Martyr Prospect Shrine, light a candle for old Renyel, and discuss Ryan Gripp's likelihood of making the Hall of Fame. Myself, I applaud Jim Hendry for a nice trade that fills a need.

 

Ummm....Ditto that.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Signing Furcal doesn't cost you any players of value, and is/has the capability of being a much better offensive player than Pierre while being a far superior defender at a more difficult position to fill. Trading for Pierre is a step backwards, signing Furcal might be a necessity(ideally I'd like Cedeno to back up middle IF next year).

 

EDIT: That said, we've already screwed part of this up by signing Neifi, Eyre, and Howry.

 

I normally agree with you that it's always better to spend money than prospects, bu as Diffusion pointed out, this is Pinto's last option year. The other 2 players are not likely to be of note, so it's not like giving up Pie, or Guzman circa 2003. Also, I'd disagree that Pierre is a step backwards. Our CF's last season were awful Pierre is not as good as people think, but I don't think he's as bad as 2005 would indicate, but even if the truth lies in between, Pierre is a giant step forward over any in-house option we have at CF right now. Also, look at the possible combinations. Would you rather have Furcal + Kearns or Mench (just examples) or Pierre + Abreu or Giles? Yeah, I framed that unfairly, but the point is, if we sign Furcal there goes our last type A FA this winter. It also locks up a huge amount of cash when, coupled with Lee and Aramis' contracts, and Z and Prior's raises, really locks down our payroll for the next couple years.

 

 

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

Even though it's Pinto's last option year, it's still not worth it to trade him for Pierre, that's why I said none of the above at the beginning. The step backward I was referring to was philosophically, not production wise. Also, trading for Pierre takes away from what you can use to trade for an impact RF, making the combinations you mention less feasible. I think it's still up in the air whether we get 4 or 3 Type A's, and by signing Furcal you keep the chips to upgrade via trade. While Furcal is an investment, we're also not far from having Cedeno, Murton, and Pie all manning positions at a cheap price. Again though, Eyre and Howry's contracts screwed this up, which is why I don't want either particularly. But it's not terribly difficult to trade a talented player like Furcal if the need arises, and I'd rather take that chance than trade players for an inferior player.

 

People can't have it both ways. We need a leadoff hitter. No one wants to have to trade ANYBODY of value to get one, and no one wants to pay $10MM a year to Furcal, either. Gee, so I guess we can just click our heels three times and A-Rod and Pujols show up on our door, this is great!

 

Or the alternative, bring back the same retreads yet again, everyone angrily shouts out at that too.

 

The price of inaction was seen last year with a sub-500 record from this team with the $100MM payroll. Hendry this year is ACTING, to try and address the shortcomings, and I think he's doing a decent job of it.

 

To think Renyel Pinto was/is going to solve all the Chicago Cubs' problems is just plain silly. If, as seems to be the case, this organization is incapable of grooming prospects for ML success, then for crying out loud move these guys and get some value in exchange.

 

How many Red Sox fans are crying over the trade of Hanley Ramirez? Um, pretty much none.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Geez, such overwrought handwringing here. All we've done is bitch about the Cubs not having a leadoff man for three straight years, how Hendry saw his lousy bullpen and lack of a leadoff man last offseason and did nothing.

 

So now his first order of business this offseason is to solve those two problems, and all anyone can do is complain?

 

Like probably everyone, I was somewhat chagrined by the Rusch signing, upset with the Neifi signing of course. But since then, impressed with Hendry's initiatives. Overpaying as usual, but that is his nature, we can't change that.

 

Love having a deep, dependable and effective bullpen consisting of six to seven guys that are good, not one or two and then watch the dreck come in and pour gasoline all over another lost Cub victory.

 

Love having a leadoff man who three times in the past five years has posted 200+ hits, 360+ OBP, 45+ SBs, less than 40 K's, and covers tons of ground in CF. The last leadoff man and/or CF to give numbers like that for the Cubs was.....Bueller? Bueller??

 

The bullpen issue has been beaten to death in other threads, I'll just leave it at 3 years is entirely too long for middle relievers, and Eyre is no guarantee to be better than our current options.

 

And if we're going to ignore 2005 performance, let's just keep Patterson, who was Pierre's equal offensively in '03-'04, is a far superior defender, and is cheaper in money and players. And before we go crazy saying that Patterson doesn't fill the leadoff role, we already have Todd Walker who can capably fill the role. If we deal him, it will likely be after Furcal is brought in, who also fills the role.

 

 

Finally, the handwringing over Pinto is ridiculous. Our prospects suck, they've always sucked, they very very rarely pan out. Dontrelle Willis, maybe Jon Garland (though it took 6 years), a marginal reliever like Andy Sisco. Zambrano who we kept. That's it.

 

We don't need to make a list of highly touted Cub prospects that turned out to be deadbeats in juxtaposition, do we? Because that list is long.

 

Pinto failed at AAA miserably, he has nasty control problems, he is not even the top-rated pitcher in our own organization. You get some value out of him and solve a perpetual problem for your MAJOR LEAGUE team. I'll let others commisserate in front of their Our Blessed Martyr Prospect Shrine, light a candle for old Renyel, and discuss Ryan Gripp's likelihood of making the Hall of Fame. Myself, I applaud Jim Hendry for a nice trade that fills a need.

 

I don't know how else to characterize your characterization of our prospects than ridiculous. Everyone has players that bust, just because we pay much closer attention to our system than others doesn't mean that ours fail more than others. And Pinto "failed miserably" in 30 innings at ages 22-23, hardly condemning. I'm not adverse to trading him, but let's make deals for players who make a difference please.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How many Red Sox fans are crying over the trade of Hanley Ramirez? Um, pretty much none.

 

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close.

 

And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

How many Red Sox fans are crying over the trade of Hanley Ramirez? Um, pretty much none.

 

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close.

 

And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer.

 

In what universe is Todd Walker a "capable leadoff hitter?" How many GMs and managers around baseball share your wisdom that they should have had Walker batting 1st all along? Because, the guy has been on a half-dozen teams and has played in the big leagues for years now, so there is ample data size to show that Todd Walker would be a great leadoff man. Oh wait, the evidence is completely lacking? Well, he is a 350-ish OBP in his good years, OK, that's sufficient evidence for me.

[jtownie]

Signing Furcal doesn't cost you any players of value, and is/has the capability of being a much better offensive player than Pierre while being a far superior defender at a more difficult position to fill. Trading for Pierre is a step backwards, signing Furcal might be a necessity(ideally I'd like Cedeno to back up middle IF next year).

 

EDIT: That said, we've already screwed part of this up by signing Neifi, Eyre, and Howry.

 

I normally agree with you that it's always better to spend money than prospects, bu as Diffusion pointed out, this is Pinto's last option year. The other 2 players are not likely to be of note, so it's not like giving up Pie, or Guzman circa 2003. Also, I'd disagree that Pierre is a step backwards. Our CF's last season were awful Pierre is not as good as people think, but I don't think he's as bad as 2005 would indicate, but even if the truth lies in between, Pierre is a giant step forward over any in-house option we have at CF right now. Also, look at the possible combinations. Would you rather have Furcal + Kearns or Mench (just examples) or Pierre + Abreu or Giles? Yeah, I framed that unfairly, but the point is, if we sign Furcal there goes our last type A FA this winter. It also locks up a huge amount of cash when, coupled with Lee and Aramis' contracts, and Z and Prior's raises, really locks down our payroll for the next couple years.

 

 

Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!:

 

Even though it's Pinto's last option year, it's still not worth it to trade him for Pierre, that's why I said none of the above at the beginning. The step backward I was referring to was philosophically, not production wise. Also, trading for Pierre takes away from what you can use to trade for an impact RF, making the combinations you mention less feasible. I think it's still up in the air whether we get 4 or 3 Type A's, and by signing Furcal you keep the chips to upgrade via trade. While Furcal is an investment, we're also not far from having Cedeno, Murton, and Pie all manning positions at a cheap price. Again though, Eyre and Howry's contracts screwed this up, which is why I don't want either particularly. But it's not terribly difficult to trade a talented player like Furcal if the need arises, and I'd rather take that chance than trade players for an inferior player.

 

What does it mean exactly if it's his last option year? I just wonder if his trade value has taken a hit due to this option year because a lot of teams don't want foresee him making the team in the next year or so.

[WrigleyField 22]

let's just keep Patterson, who was Pierre's equal offensively in '03-'04

 

Corey '03 .298 .329 .511

'04 .266 .320 .452

 

Pierre Career .305 .355 .375

 

Or are you just judging Pierre on last years stats? Cuz I seem to remember a lot of people saying we can't only use the previous years stats, see Howry, Eyre. So which is it? Or can we just pick and choose what stats we want to use?

EDIT- I'm not sure if you specifically said anything against Howry/Eyre, I'm juat using it as an example.

Edited November 24, 2005 by WrigleyField 22

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How many Red Sox fans are crying over the trade of Hanley Ramirez? Um, pretty much none.

 

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close.

 

And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer.

 

In what universe is Todd Walker a "capable leadoff hitter?" How many GMs and managers around baseball share your wisdom that they should have had Walker batting 1st all along? Because, the guy has been on a half-dozen teams and has played in the big leagues for years now, so there is ample data size to show that Todd Walker would be a great leadoff man. Oh wait, the evidence is completely lacking? Well, he is a 350-ish OBP in his good years, OK, that's sufficient evidence for me.

 

Guess what spot in the order Todd Walker has the most major league at bats.

 

Walker's career OBP is .348, he's had exactly one season below .349 since 1999.

 

EDIT: Career stats hitting #1:

 

Pierre: .304/.354/.375/.729

Walker: .291/.349/.443/.792

Edited November 24, 2005 by Transmogrified Tiger

[CubfaninCA]

Geez, such overwrought handwringing here. All we've done is bitch about the Cubs not having a leadoff man for three straight years, how Hendry saw his lousy bullpen and lack of a leadoff man last offseason and did nothing.

 

So now his first order of business this offseason is to solve those two problems, and all anyone can do is complain?

 

Like probably everyone, I was somewhat chagrined by the Rusch signing, upset with the Neifi signing of course. But since then, impressed with Hendry's initiatives. Overpaying as usual, but that is his nature, we can't change that.

 

Love having a deep, dependable and effective bullpen consisting of six to seven guys that are good, not one or two and then watch the dreck come in and pour gasoline all over another lost Cub victory.

 

Love having a leadoff man who three times in the past five years has posted 200+ hits, 360+ OBP, 45+ SBs, less than 40 K's, and covers tons of ground in CF. The last leadoff man and/or CF to give numbers like that for the Cubs was.....Bueller? Bueller??

 

Two more points--

 

Hendry getting Pierre now puts all the pressure on Furcal and his agent, do you not see this? Time to get off the pot or pee, Rafael. We don't desperately need a leadoff man anymore. We'd still like an excellent SS like yourself, but we ain't gonna jump off a cliff now to make it happen, either. What's it gonna be, you like our offer or what?

 

Finally, the handwringing over Pinto is ridiculous. Our prospects suck, they've always sucked, they very very rarely pan out. Dontrelle Willis, maybe Jon Garland (though it took 6 years), a marginal reliever like Andy Sisco. Zambrano who we kept. That's it.

 

We don't need to make a list of highly touted Cub prospects that turned out to be deadbeats in juxtaposition, do we? Because that list is long.

 

Pinto failed at AAA miserably, he has nasty control problems, he is not even the top-rated pitcher in our own organization. You get some value out of him and solve a perpetual problem for your MAJOR LEAGUE team. I'll let others commisserate in front of their Our Blessed Martyr Prospect Shrine, light a candle for old Renyel, and discuss Ryan Gripp's likelihood of making the Hall of Fame. Myself, I applaud Jim Hendry for a nice trade that fills a need.

 

Classic. I may need to copy and save this post & paste this when the daily crying starts.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

let's just keep Patterson, who was Pierre's equal offensively in '03-'04

 

Corey '03 .298 .329 .511

'04 .266 .320 .452

 

Pierre Career .305 .355 .375

 

Or are you just judging Pierre on last years stats? Cuz I seem to remember a lot of people saying we can't only use the previous years stats, see Howry, Eyre. So which is it? Or can we just pick and choose what stats we want to use?

EDIT- I'm not sure if you specifically said anything against Howry/Eyre, I'm juat using it as an example.

 

Look at offensive metrics like WARP2 at BP, they show that Patterson and Pierre were near equals in '03-'04(note: not last year for either player).

[CubfaninCA]

How many Red Sox fans are crying over the trade of Hanley Ramirez? Um, pretty much none.

 

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close.

 

And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer.

 

He may be capable, but Baker won't lead him off. Dusty Baker making Walker leadoff man is just pure fantasy thinking.