From the Score (I know, I know):

[Tim]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

[UK1679666180]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

Who needs a productive farm system? The Cubs have usually had a terrible one and look how far not having a farm system has got them.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

You're the one that has been overboard with the hyperbole of late. Prior doesn't count, for crying out loud. He was a big league talent the day he accepted his diploma. Or are you honestly going to claim that the Cubs minor league system had any role, whatsoever, in developing Prior's talent and preparing him for the big leagues?

 

Wouldn't surprise me, because you have a strange fetish for making excuses for the Cubs' minor league system. I don't. It's a failure. Because I deal in end-results, and the fact is, we have nearly nothing to show for these guys at the major league level. Thank god at least a few of them were traded for talent.

 

You can go back to rubbing the belly of your Hee Seop Choi doll now, Tim.

[CubfaninCA]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

Who was in charge of drafting when the Cubs got Wood, Z and Prior?? That was a pretty good run in a short period of time. In the past 25 year, I recall only a few other prospects being quite good, Maddux and Grace. Surely, I'm forgetting a player or two tho. I don't consider Dunston quite good although I did like the Shawn-O-Meter.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

Who was in charge of drafting when the Cubs got Wood, Z and Prior?? That was a pretty good run in a short period of time. In the past 25 year, I recall only a few other prospects being quite good, Maddux and Grace. Surely, I'm forgetting a player or two tho. I don't consider Dunston quite good although I did like the Shawn-O-Meter.

 

Z, like Cruz, Pinto, and Pie, were international signings, not draftees.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

Who was in charge of drafting when the Cubs got Wood, Z and Prior?? That was a pretty good run in a short period of time. In the past 25 year, I recall only a few other prospects being quite good, Maddux and Grace. Surely, I'm forgetting a player or two tho. I don't consider Dunston quite good although I did like the Shawn-O-Meter.

 

In the last 15 years, the only Cubs draft picks that proceeded all the way to the bigs, and had any kind of impact once they got there, were Prior, Zambrano and Wood as you mention, and Dontrelle Willis, Jon Garland, and I guess to a degree Eric Hinske and Kyle Lohse (though they're a bit of a stretch) for other teams. That's pretty much it.

 

The record for Cub 1st round and 2nd round picks is even more miserable yet.

[Tim]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

You're the one that has been overboard with the hyperbole of late. Prior doesn't count, for crying out loud. He was a big league talent the day he accepted his diploma. Or are you honestly going to claim that the Cubs minor league system had any role, whatsoever, in developing Prior's talent and preparing him for the big leagues?

 

Wouldn't surprise me, because you have a strange fetish for making excuses for the Cubs' minor league system. I don't. It's a failure. Because I deal in end-results, and the fact is, we have nearly nothing to show for these guys at the major league level. Thank god at least a few of them were traded for talent.

 

You can go back to rubbing the belly of your Hee Seop Choi doll now, Tim.

:D Wow, that's a lot of venom, Don!

 

Please show me where I used hyperbole on the order of "our prospects suck, they've always sucked..."

 

I'm really interested in seeing it. Was it when I claimed that Eyre was no better than Ohman and used their respective major league performances to back that statement up? Or when I said that Howry/Eyre was not a huge upgrade on Wuertz/Ohman and used stats to back that up (Howry is better than Wuertz, but Ohman's better than Eyre, so it evens out a bit).

 

Please, elucidate upon your point a bit. If I actually did use hyperbole of your magnitude, I will most certainly admit fault and retract my statement.

[CubfaninCA]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

Who was in charge of drafting when the Cubs got Wood, Z and Prior?? That was a pretty good run in a short period of time. In the past 25 year, I recall only a few other prospects being quite good, Maddux and Grace. Surely, I'm forgetting a player or two tho. I don't consider Dunston quite good although I did like the Shawn-O-Meter.

 

Z, like Cruz, Pinto, and Pie, were international signings, not draftees.

 

Ah true. Who signed them then?

[CubfaninCA]

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.

Yeah, let's just get rid of that Prior guy. Wood never amounted to much, either.

 

Ya gotta love hyperbole.

 

Who was in charge of drafting when the Cubs got Wood, Z and Prior?? That was a pretty good run in a short period of time. In the past 25 year, I recall only a few other prospects being quite good, Maddux and Grace. Surely, I'm forgetting a player or two tho. I don't consider Dunston quite good although I did like the Shawn-O-Meter.

 

In the last 15 years, the only Cubs draft picks that proceeded all the way to the bigs, and had any kind of impact once they got there, were Prior, Zambrano and Wood as you mention, and Dontrelle Willis, Jon Garland, and I guess to a degree Eric Hinske and Kyle Lohse (though they're a bit of a stretch) for other teams. That's pretty much it.

 

The record for Cub 1st round and 2nd round picks is even more miserable yet.

 

Hey at least they have an eye for pitcher's. However, this is why I never get fired up about hitting prospects. Bring back whoever drafted or signed Grace, Carter and Palmeiro.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Was it when I claimed that Eyre was no better than Ohman and used their respective major league performances to back that statement up? Or when I said that Howry/Eyre was not a huge upgrade on Wuertz/Ohman and used stats to back that up (Howry is better than Wuertz, but Ohman's better than Eyre, so it evens out a bit).

 

There's no reason to repeat here our back and forth in the Howry thread; suffice it to say, your comparisons were silly--as pointed out there. The stats you chose to focus on were selectively made. The logical inconsistency of your argument from one thread to another was also startling: on the one hand, you want to focus on recent performance and discount past results (Pierre), but on the other, you want to look at lifetime performance and discount recent results, even though said recent results came after career-trajectory-changing events (Eyre's ADD treatment; Howry's surgery).

 

And to top it all off, you, one of the proudest proponents of the dangers of small sample size, then tout Ohman and Wuertz' case despite both having incredibly small sample sizes from which to observe.

 

Hey, I don't take it with venom, in fact I take it more tongue-in-cheek; my interpretation is that you've been away for awhile and are just in the mood for some good natured arguments, and that's cool, I'm always up for that. But it doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong, on multiple fronts of late.

[Tim]

Was it when I claimed that Eyre was no better than Ohman and used their respective major league performances to back that statement up? Or when I said that Howry/Eyre was not a huge upgrade on Wuertz/Ohman and used stats to back that up (Howry is better than Wuertz, but Ohman's better than Eyre, so it evens out a bit).

 

There's no reason to repeat here our back and forth in the Howry thread; suffice it to say, your comparisons were silly--as pointed out there. The stats you chose to focus on were selectively made. The logical inconsistency of your argument from one thread to another was also startling: on the one hand, you want to focus on recent performance and discount past results (Pierre), but on the other, you want to look at lifetime performance and discount recent results, even though said recent results came after career-trajectory-changing events (Eyre's ADD treatment; Howry's surgery).

 

And to top it all off, you, one of the proudest proponents of the dangers of small sample size, then tout Ohman and Wuertz' case despite both having incredibly small sample sizes from which to observe.

 

Hey, I don't take it with venom, in fact I take it more tongue-in-cheek; my interpretation is that you've been away for awhile and are just in the mood for some good natured arguments, and that's cool, I'm always up for that. But it doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong, on multiple fronts of late.

Actually, I and others compared Eyre's post-add results with Ohman and found them lacking. And others brought in a lot of additional stats that reinforced the point even further. But you don't seem to want to acknowledge that our side of the argument just might have some merit to it.

 

It's very hard to avoid small sample sizes when that's all that's available. In those cases, it's all you have to go on. I'd also use Ohman's minor league numbers, but people would complain about that, so I didn't.

 

I'm not sure where I've talked all that much about Pierre the last couple days. I think you're confusing me with someone else there.

 

And I don't mind the back and forth, either. Hence the big smiley at the start of my post!

[da bears]

So has the Score once again just made up a deal or is this something that could go down. From the way it was being reported yesterday, they made it sound like a done deal.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

We don't deserve a whole lot of credit for drafting Prior. That year it was either Prior or Mauer depending on who Minnesota selected with the first pick. Everyone else in that draft was widely considered to be a notch or three below them. The choices were obvious and the only reason the Cubs got Prior is they liked to lose a lot in 2000. Prior just went through the paces in our minor league system b/c people said he had to, not because he needed polishing. 51 IP in our minor league system must have made all the difference. :lol:

 

We did a great job with Zambrano. Willis was as much, if not more a product of the Marlins' system than ours.

 

Our farm system is actually really pathetic considering how many seasons we've spent losing (and getting the resulting high draft picks).

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I'm not sure where I've talked all that much about Pierre the last couple days. I think you're confusing me with someone else there.

 

You're not in the "Pierre sucked in 2005, I don't want him" camp? Or the "Pierre has no SLG" camp? Or is it "Pierre's not worth the $$" camp?

 

Me, I like him considering (a) he's available at modest cost in players, (b) his $$ post-arbitration is likely to be moderate (~$5MM) compared to alternatives like Damon, © he is an unrestricted FA after 2006, so signing him does not block Pie's potential future development, (d) you are getting a guy on the cheap that was a terrific leadoff man three times in the past five years, (e) and by all accounts, Pierre is a nice guy and good teammate, there are no "Milton Bradley" issues here.

 

In a perfect world, there are several CF-ers I'd prefer over Pierre (either Crisp or Sizemore certainly come to mind), but in the real world, I recognize he's likely the best attainable option, and I applaud Hendry if he closes the deal in the next few days.

[NorthsideAvenger]

We don't deserve a whole lot of credit for drafting Prior. That year it was either Prior or Mauer depending on who Minnesota selected with the first pick.

 

Actually M&P. while Mauer was consider a 1st rd pick, he was consider an "overdraft" at the #1 pick overall. There was two reasons why he went #1: 1. the Twins couldn't afford Prior, 2. he is the local hero. The decision for the Cubs wasn't between Prior and Mauer, it was between Prior or Teixeria.

 

Everyone else in that draft was widely considered to be a notch or three below them. The choices were obvious and the only reason the Cubs got Prior is they liked to lose a lot in 2000.

 

Remember the Cubs and the Philies ende up with the same crappy yr in 2000, so MLB went back to 1999 records as the "tiebreaker" and since the Cubs sucked worse in 1999, the Cubs got the #2 pick.

 

Prior just went through the paces in our minor league system b/c people said he had to, not because he needed polishing. 51 IP in our minor league system must have made all the difference. :lol:

 

He went through the minors, simply because he was polish and DIDN'T need much time in the minors. He worked with Tom House for a few yrs, so all he needed was some time in the minors to get his feet of professional baseball. Prior could had easily made the jumped from college baseball to the Cubs, but the organization waited on starting his option clock.

 

We did a great job with Zambrano. Willis was as much, if not more a product of the Marlins' system than ours.

 

He spent what...2 seasons in the Cubs system and MAYBE half a season in the Marlins system. So I don't give credit that the Marlins system developed him, I give credit to the scouts who saw "something" in him and wanted him included in the Clement deal.

 

Our farm system is actually really pathetic considering how many seasons we've spent losing (and getting the resulting high draft picks).

 

Agree. Blasko, Hagerty, Sisco, Christensen etc have tremendously disappointed me, but more importantly the Cubs organization. Which is why I am hoping that they DON'T rush, or quick to trade guys like Pawelek, Johnson, Harvey, Pie, Dopirak, and Eric Patterson. If the deal make sense then sure, but seeing as these are really the ONLY prospects to keep an eye on in the Cubs system, I would rather hold onto them instead of giving them away.

Edited November 24, 2005 by NorthsideAvenger

[CUBZ99]

Was it when I claimed that Eyre was no better than Ohman and used their respective major league performances to back that statement up? Or when I said that Howry/Eyre was not a huge upgrade on Wuertz/Ohman and used stats to back that up (Howry is better than Wuertz, but Ohman's better than Eyre, so it evens out a bit).

 

There's no reason to repeat here our back and forth in the Howry thread; suffice it to say, your comparisons were silly--as pointed out there. The stats you chose to focus on were selectively made. The logical inconsistency of your argument from one thread to another was also startling: on the one hand, you want to focus on recent performance and discount past results (Pierre), but on the other, you want to look at lifetime performance and discount recent results, even though said recent results came after career-trajectory-changing events (Eyre's ADD treatment; Howry's surgery).

 

And to top it all off, you, one of the proudest proponents of the dangers of small sample size, then tout Ohman and Wuertz' case despite both having incredibly small sample sizes from which to observe.

 

Hey, I don't take it with venom, in fact I take it more tongue-in-cheek; my interpretation is that you've been away for awhile and are just in the mood for some good natured arguments, and that's cool, I'm always up for that. But it doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong, on multiple fronts of late.

Actually, I and others compared Eyre's post-add results with Ohman and found them lacking. And others brought in a lot of additional stats that reinforced the point even further. But you don't seem to want to acknowledge that our side of the argument just might have some merit to it.

 

It's very hard to avoid small sample sizes when that's all that's available. In those cases, it's all you have to go on. I'd also use Ohman's minor league numbers, but people would complain about that, so I didn't.

 

I'm not sure where I've talked all that much about Pierre the last couple days. I think you're confusing me with someone else there.

 

And I don't mind the back and forth, either. Hence the big smiley at the start of my post!

 

Tim -- I still don't understand your comparisons to Ohman and Wuertz. I don't think anybody is bashing Ohman or Wuertz and I don't believe it is a bright line,either or proposition. Your argument seems to be that because the Cubs have Ohman or Wuertz is was not necessary to sign any more bullpen help. It would be like saying just because you have 1 good starting pitcher or one good pinch hitter you should do nothing. There are more than enough spots for all of them down there.

 

With the signing of the Eyre and Howry the Cubs now have a legitimate bullpen with some depth.

[Tim]

I'm not sure where I've talked all that much about Pierre the last couple days. I think you're confusing me with someone else there.

 

You're not in the "Pierre sucked in 2005, I don't want him" camp? Or the "Pierre has no SLG" camp? Or is it "Pierre's not worth the $$" camp?

 

Me, I like him considering (a) he's available at modest cost in players, (b) his $$ post-arbitration is likely to be moderate (~$5MM) compared to alternatives like Damon, © he is an unrestricted FA after 2006, so signing him does not block Pie's potential future development, (d) you are getting a guy on the cheap that was a terrific leadoff man three times in the past five years, (e) and by all accounts, Pierre is a nice guy and good teammate, there are no "Milton Bradley" issues here.

 

In a perfect world, there are several CF-ers I'd prefer over Pierre (either Crisp or Sizemore certainly come to mind), but in the real world, I recognize he's likely the best attainable option, and I applaud Hendry if he closes the deal in the next few days.

Actually, I ranted that Pierre was vastly overrated when he was having "good" years. It has little to do with his 2005 performance. So, no, I'm not in the "Pierre sucked in 2005, I don't want him" camp. I'm in the "speedy leadoff hitters that walk 40 times in 700 PA's, slap the ball around with no power and get caught stealing far more often than they should are way overrated" camp. I've been a proud member of that camp for any number of years now.

 

Hendry keeps saying that he wants to focus on pitching and defense, yet he's acquiring one of the worst defensive CF's in baseball. Honestly, I'd be happier with GM Jr than Pierre. At least he can catch the ball and throw it. And I really don't want GM Jr as anything but a backup at this point. Also, I'm basing that decision off career value, last 3-4 years and 2005, so please no crap about inconsistency.

[Tim]

Tim -- I still don't understand your comparisons to Ohman and Wuertz. I don't think anybody is bashing Ohman or Wuertz and I don't believe it is a bright line,either or proposition. Your argument seems to be that because the Cubs have Ohman or Wuertz is was not necessary to sign any more bullpen help. It would be like saying just because you have 1 good starting pitcher or one good pinch hitter you should do nothing. There are more than enough spots for all of them down there.

 

With the signing of the Eyre and Howry the Cubs now have a legitimate bullpen with some depth.

Actually, my point is that good bullpens rarely get built by throwing money and long-term deals at guys coming off career years. We already had Dempster, Williamson, Ohman, Wuertz for the backend of the pen. We've got either Rusch or Williams for long relief. I probably wouldn't complain about Howry if he were the only other big deal. That would give us six men in the pen and we'd be set. It's really the combination of the Eyre and Howry deals that irritates the heck out of me. It means that we're committed to those guys for far too long a time considering their overall career track records. I prefer to build a pen through exceptional scouting, player evaluation and player development, rather than trying to throw money after past performance. I think there's a very, very strong chance that one of the two three year deals ends up being an anchor in the pen and the other no more than ordinary.

 

I think that rather than turning this into one of the elite pens, Hendry has done nothing more than make sure it will be average. I think he took the easy way out. We may say that we wanted a sure thing and so we're glad he signed guys that did well last year. But no reliever is a sure thing and we're committed to these guys even if they don't work out. Great pens like Anaheim & St. Louis have very few long-term commitments except at closer. They're built from within and astute pickups that were pretty much freely available to anyone. When non-closing relievers get expensive, they're traded or let go. Minnesota's been able to maintain a strong pen for years wth the same philosophy.

 

Ah, what's the point. I should just let everyone be happy because we went out and committed a big chunk of payroll for "proven" guys.

 

Hooray.

[roadster]

Agree. Blasko, Hagerty, Sisco, Christensen etc have tremendously disappointed me,

 

I would not say I am disappointed with Blasko, Hagerty and Christensen...I would say it was unlucky because all three suffered serious injuries and all did well before the injuries and have not recovered fully after surgery.

[CUBZ99]

Tim -- I still don't understand your comparisons to Ohman and Wuertz. I don't think anybody is bashing Ohman or Wuertz and I don't believe it is a bright line,either or proposition. Your argument seems to be that because the Cubs have Ohman or Wuertz is was not necessary to sign any more bullpen help. It would be like saying just because you have 1 good starting pitcher or one good pinch hitter you should do nothing. There are more than enough spots for all of them down there.

 

With the signing of the Eyre and Howry the Cubs now have a legitimate bullpen with some depth.

Actually, my point is that good bullpens rarely get built by throwing money and long-term deals at guys coming off career years. We already had Dempster, Williamson, Ohman, Wuertz for the backend of the pen. We've got either Rusch or Williams for long relief. I probably wouldn't complain about Howry if he were the only other big deal. That would give us six men in the pen and we'd be set. It's really the combination of the Eyre and Howry deals that irritates the heck out of me. It means that we're committed to those guys for far too long a time considering their overall career track records. I prefer to build a pen through exceptional scouting, player evaluation and player development, rather than trying to throw money after past performance. I think there's a very, very strong chance that one of the two three year deals ends up being an anchor in the pen and the other no more than ordinary.

 

I think that rather than turning this into one of the elite pens, Hendry has done nothing more than make sure it will be average. I think he took the easy way out. We may say that we wanted a sure thing and so we're glad he signed guys that did well last year. But no reliever is a sure thing and we're committed to these guys even if they don't work out. Great pens like Anaheim & St. Louis have very few long-term commitments except at closer. They're built from within and astute pickups that were pretty much freely available to anyone. When non-closing relievers get expensive, they're traded or let go. Minnesota's been able to maintain a strong pen for years wth the same philosophy.

 

Ah, what's the point. I should just let everyone be happy because we went out and committed a big chunk of payroll for "proven" guys.

 

Hooray.

 

I don't think there is anyway to determine whether Hendry improved the pen or not until we see how Howry and Eyre perform. However, last year Hendry did nothing all winter to improve the pen and ended up with Novoa and Bartosh. We all know how that one turned out. It is possible that Hendry is overcompensating for his lack of any moves last year, but at least he didn't just ignore the bullpen and hope for it to get better by itself.

 

As far as $$ allocated to the bullpen, its not like this years budgeted bullpen $$ is much different than last year's. Last year you had Borowski $2M(?), Remlinger $4M, Hawkins $4M, Dempster $2M = $12M for 4 guys. This year you have Eyre $3M, Howry $4M, Dempster $5M and Williamson $2M = $14M for 4 guys. Do you think the improvements warrant an extra $2M in bullpen budget? IMO it does and the bullpen this year looks much improved. Now Dusty has two lefties that he can use any time late in the game and two righties he can use at any time.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

We did a great job with Zambrano. Willis was as much, if not more a product of the Marlins' system than ours.

 

He spent what...2 seasons in the Cubs system and MAYBE half a season in the Marlins system. So I don't give credit that the Marlins system developed him, I give credit to the scouts who saw "something" in him and wanted him included in the Clement deal.

 

Our farm system is actually really pathetic considering how many seasons we've spent losing (and getting the resulting high draft picks).

 

Agree. Blasko, Hagerty, Sisco, Christensen etc have tremendously disappointed me, but more importantly the Cubs organization. Which is why I am hoping that they DON'T rush, or quick to trade guys like Pawelek, Johnson, Harvey, Pie, Dopirak, and Eric Patterson. If the deal make sense then sure, but seeing as these are really the ONLY prospects to keep an eye on in the Cubs system, I would rather hold onto them instead of giving them away.

 

You're right about the signing bonuses (a difference of about 2 million dollars), but that doesn't change the fact that Prior just fell into our lap (or Mauer, or Teixeira depending on who we took). The success of that "product of the system" was a result of us losing and getting a good pick that we really would have had to screw up to come away with nothing (like most our first rounders).

 

Willis pitched 28 innings in Rookie ball, and 93.0 the next year in A ball for the Cubs' org. for a total of 121 IP for the Cubs. He threw 193 IP in the next 1 and a half seasons for the Marlins (not maybe 1/2 a season). I don't see how the cubs developed him. If you look at his numbers, there was a fairly substantial improvement after he switched organizations. I think it is a little suspect to give credit for that success to the Cubs and not the Marlins.

[Illini Iceman]

So has the Score once again just made up a deal or is this something that could go down. From the way it was being reported yesterday, they made it sound like a done deal.

 

I think something has to be going down SOON, since with the Howry signing the Cubs will be 2 men over the 40 man roster limit (assuming it still has not been resolved how they have 41 men after Eyre) and that means Hendry needs to move some prospects asap.

[Warpticon]

Tim -- I still don't understand your comparisons to Ohman and Wuertz. I don't think anybody is bashing Ohman or Wuertz and I don't believe it is a bright line,either or proposition. Your argument seems to be that because the Cubs have Ohman or Wuertz is was not necessary to sign any more bullpen help. It would be like saying just because you have 1 good starting pitcher or one good pinch hitter you should do nothing. There are more than enough spots for all of them down there.

 

With the signing of the Eyre and Howry the Cubs now have a legitimate bullpen with some depth.

Actually, my point is that good bullpens rarely get built by throwing money and long-term deals at guys coming off career years. We already had Dempster, Williamson, Ohman, Wuertz for the backend of the pen. We've got either Rusch or Williams for long relief. I probably wouldn't complain about Howry if he were the only other big deal. That would give us six men in the pen and we'd be set. It's really the combination of the Eyre and Howry deals that irritates the heck out of me. It means that we're committed to those guys for far too long a time considering their overall career track records. I prefer to build a pen through exceptional scouting, player evaluation and player development, rather than trying to throw money after past performance. I think there's a very, very strong chance that one of the two three year deals ends up being an anchor in the pen and the other no more than ordinary.

 

I think that rather than turning this into one of the elite pens, Hendry has done nothing more than make sure it will be average. I think he took the easy way out. We may say that we wanted a sure thing and so we're glad he signed guys that did well last year. But no reliever is a sure thing and we're committed to these guys even if they don't work out. Great pens like Anaheim & St. Louis have very few long-term commitments except at closer. They're built from within and astute pickups that were pretty much freely available to anyone. When non-closing relievers get expensive, they're traded or let go. Minnesota's been able to maintain a strong pen for years wth the same philosophy.

 

Ah, what's the point. I should just let everyone be happy because we went out and committed a big chunk of payroll for "proven" guys.

 

Hooray.

 

I don't think there is anyway to determine whether Hendry improved the pen or not until we see how Howry and Eyre perform. However, last year Hendry did nothing all winter to improve the pen and ended up with Novoa and Bartosh. We all know how that one turned out. It is possible that Hendry is overcompensating for his lack of any moves last year, but at least he didn't just ignore the bullpen and hope for it to get better by itself.

 

As far as $$ allocated to the bullpen, its not like this years budgeted bullpen $$ is much different than last year's. Last year you had Borowski $2M(?), Remlinger $4M, Hawkins $4M, Dempster $2M = $12M for 4 guys. This year you have Eyre $3M, Howry $4M, Dempster $5M and Williamson $2M = $14M for 4 guys. Do you think the improvements warrant an extra $2M in bullpen budget? IMO it does and the bullpen this year looks much improved. Now Dusty has two lefties that he can use any time late in the game and two righties he can use at any time.

 

Yeah, but you've also got Rusch ($3 mil) if Williams is in the rotation, as well. That's $17 mil for 5 guys in the bullpen, and a logjam for the sixth spot. And considering that an expensive bullpen with a strong track record last year (Remlinger, Hawkins, and Borowski had all had great success in the recent past) ended up being something we desparately want to replace, it would seem that spending more money on non-dominant relievers might not be the best way to get actual improvement.

[mhuber92211]

I think that the brief arguement over my other post (thanks for the support CW) was indicitive of what I was talking about. In no way was I saying that I was satisified with finishing 4th or 3rd or 1st in the divison. I too, of course, want a championship team. However, I can identify that there can be sucess without a championship. I see that over the last 3 and a half years there has been substansial successes to praise. There have been some monuemental failures as well but typically, the successes have outweighed the failures.

 

If I get branded as an optimistic fan, thanks. I prefer to look at the positives side of an acquisition by the team. There are drawbacks to everything. However, there are positives as well. Why complain?

[nolanwood]

Is there an ignore feature on here that allows me to block out posts from certain members?