Furcal deal almost complete? -- ITI rumor

[WrigleyField 22]

I don't get why people think Soriano and his .320 career OBP(.309 last year) would be great.

Also just another righty bat- not saying we need a lefty bat, but if you're gonna make a bad deal at least get a lefty bat

Bad defense

etc.

 

If this rumor was true, I don't think it is, then I will stop being a Cubs fan until Hendry is gone.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think we have any worries about this one being true.

 

I checked the Newberg report and the only thing being reported there is the ITI article. It appears that no other respectable outlet has this deal anywhere on the radar. If it is true, not only did ITI scoop it, but no one with sources in either organization has picked up on it.

[fearthecubs]

I don't get why people think Soriano and his .320 career OBP(.309 last year) would be great.

Also just another righty bat- not saying we need a lefty bat, but if you're gonna make a bad deal at least get a lefty bat

Bad defense

etc.

 

If this rumor was true, I don't think it is, then I will stop being a Cubs fan until Hendry is gone.

 

Yea I'll be sure to let all your fans know that you're no longer a Cub fan, we're crushed. Don't you thikn you're being a touch dramatic, we all know here that we're addicts. It's ok to admit it.

[Jehrico]

I don't get why people think Soriano and his .320 career OBP(.309 last year) would be great.

Also just another righty bat- not saying we need a lefty bat, but if you're gonna make a bad deal at least get a lefty bat

Bad defense

etc.

 

If this rumor was true, I don't think it is, then I will stop being a Cubs fan until Hendry is gone.

 

I think alot of people are still thinking of Soriano's 2002 season in NY, and the fact that alot of people thought he would only improve the next few seasons, which he has not.

[cubbyvirus00]

What is everyones concern with overpaying!? It's not YOUR money and last I checked we hadn't won a championship in a CENTURY.

 

 

I reposted that from another thread because it's true. Hendry's damned by the negative Cub fans no matter what he does. If he gets OBP guys, then people get angry cause we'll lack in power. If he gets speedy players, people will be angry because the pitching sucks.

 

 

Bottem line, we had 3-4 holes in the team entering the off-season. So far one of them is completely patched up, that being the bullpen***. If Hendry lands Furcal, or Pierre, that fills a position, with a leadoff hitter.

 

While we're overspending, and trading prospects in this sort of deal, who really cares? We haven't won crap in 100 years.

 

*typo

Edited November 26, 2005 by cubbyvirus00

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

What is everyones concern with overpaying!? It's not YOUR money and last I checked we hadn't won a championship in a CENTURY.

 

 

I reposted that from another thread because it's true. Hendry's damned by the negative Cub fans no matter what he does. If he gets OBP guys, then people get angry cause we'll lack in power. If he gets speedy players, people will be angry because the pitching sucks.

 

 

Bottem line, we had 3-4 holes in the team entering the off-season. So far one of them is completely patched up, that being the offense. If Hendry lands Furcal, or Pierre, that fills a position, with a leadoff hitter.

 

While we're overspending, and trading prospects in this sort of deal, who really cares? We haven't won crap in 100 years.

 

that's the attitude that gets you another 100 years of waiting with a large payroll.

[David]

What is everyones concern with overpaying!? It's not YOUR money and last I checked we hadn't won a championship in a CENTURY.

 

 

I reposted that from another thread because it's true. Hendry's damned by the negative Cub fans no matter what he does. If he gets OBP guys, then people get angry cause we'll lack in power. If he gets speedy players, people will be angry because the pitching sucks.

 

 

Bottem line, we had 3-4 holes in the team entering the off-season. So far one of them is completely patched up, that being the offense. If Hendry lands Furcal, or Pierre, that fills a position, with a leadoff hitter.

 

While we're overspending, and trading prospects in this sort of deal, who really cares? We haven't won crap in 100 years.

 

First of all, overspending matters because the more we overspend now, the less likely it is that we'll be able to keep guys like Aramis, Lee, Zambrano, and Prior. It also matters because if you overspend on somebody like Furcal, you are left with less money to address all the other issues on the team. What part of this don't you grasp?

 

Secondly, how is it that the offense is completely patched up?

[cubbyvirus00]

All I know is for the past 100 years, we've had shoddy teams, with shoddy lineups, except for the santo/banks/williams trio. The Cubs have cheaped the team, cheaped the fans, and cheaped the city of Chicago. I'm all for dropping large amounts of cash to win NOW. It worked for the Yanks, Red Sox and could very well work for the Cubs. We had alot of supposed "studs" in our farm system, only to see some flop, some get hurt, and some not get playing time. Hendry gave the team 2004 and 2005 to try and cost effectively make our way to the playoffs, which didn't happen.

 

The White Sox just won, and this is his last contract year, do you really expect the man to take alot of chances and not drop dough on FAs?

[Jehrico]

All I know is for the past 100 years, we've had shoddy teams, with shoddy lineups, except for the santo/banks/williams trio. The Cubs have cheaped the team, cheaped the fans, and cheaped the city of Chicago. I'm all for dropping large amounts of cash to win NOW. It worked for the Yanks, Red Sox and could very well work for the Cubs. We had alot of supposed "studs" in our farm system, only to see some flop, some get hurt, and some not get playing time. Hendry gave the team 2004 and 2005 to try and cost effectively make our way to the playoffs, which didn't happen.

 

The White Sox just won, and this is his last contract year, do you really expect the man to take alot of chances and not drop dough on FAs?

 

Dropping alot of money on someone who could make a difference (like Giles) is waaaaaaay different from dropping alot of money on someone like Damon when you can get a nearly comparable alternative for considerably less. That's the argument here. If Hendry offered Giles 4/60, he'd be overpaying, but I don't think you'd here much complaining, because there aren't any cheaper alternatives that could make that kind of difference like he could.

[NewUserName]

When was the last time that the team with the largest payroll won the WS? It is not how championships are won.

[Rusch33]

When was the last time that the team with the largest payroll won the WS? It is not how championships are won.

 

 

If I recall right, didn't Boston has the 2nd highest 2 years ago and won it?

[fearthecubs]

When was the last time that the team with the largest payroll won the WS? It is not how championships are won.

 

So you're inferring spending money doesn't directly relate to winning? :shock:

 

edit: I'm not being sarcastic!

[erik316wttn]

All I know is for the past 100 years, we've had shoddy teams, with shoddy lineups, except for the santo/banks/williams trio. The Cubs have cheaped the team, cheaped the fans, and cheaped the city of Chicago. I'm all for dropping large amounts of cash to win NOW. It worked for the Yanks, Red Sox and could very well work for the Cubs. We had alot of supposed "studs" in our farm system, only to see some flop, some get hurt, and some not get playing time. Hendry gave the team 2004 and 2005 to try and cost effectively make our way to the playoffs, which didn't happen.

 

The White Sox just won, and this is his last contract year, do you really expect the man to take alot of chances and not drop dough on FAs?

 

I don't think anyone here has anything against spending money to win, but when it's rumored that you're going to give a guy like Furcal almost double a contract that people were saying is far too much, it kind of makes you think. If true, that $50 million could be much better used for extentions to Prior, Zambrano, Lee, Aramis, etc, and some of it could be used to bring in other talented ballplayers. Why blow your whole wad with one guy when you can take that money and bring in 2 or 3 very good players?

 

Simply spending money is not what it takes to win. It's how you spend it and who you spend it on that makes the difference. And I'll tell you right now, if we give Furcal 6/100, then nobody in management has a damned clue as to what is going on, and we won't win anything this year or the next, or the next, because we'll have so much damned money tied up in a B-level player.

[TXCubsFan]

Oh god this can't be for real.

 

That deal for Fucal is insane. Plus, I can't imagine Hendry dealing Cedeno.

 

If this amount of money were needed to bring Furcal to Wrigley, Hendry would go to Plan B and get Castillo from the Marlins and put Cedeno at SS. Egad!

[RockTheIvy]

Oh god this can't be for real.

 

That deal for Fucal is insane. Plus, I can't imagine Hendry dealing Cedeno.

 

If this amount of money were needed to bring Furcal to Wrigley, Hendry would go to Plan B and get Castillo from the Marlins and put Cedeno at SS. Egad!

 

That should be plan A!

[NewUserName]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

[Mizzou]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

 

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run?

[NewUserName]

I fyou need to look it up I am sorry but the Yankees payroll did not explode until they started going after Mussina and Giambi and Scheffield. The Dodgers Mets and Orioles all had equal to or higher payrolls.

 

You may have a hard time admitting it but the Yankees success in the late 90s was mostly due to home grown talent. With some role players splashed in. So I will say it again spending does not equal winning. It will keep you up from the bottom but it does not equal winning.

Edited November 26, 2005 by NewUserName

[CubinNY]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

 

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run?

 

There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top.

 

Jeter

Bernie

O'neil

Posada

Brouscus

Tino

Pettitte

 

These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Haha, good ol' ITI.

[Mizzou]

I fyou need to look it up I am sorry but the Yankees payroll did not explode until they started going after Mussina and Giambi and Scheffield. The Dodgers Mets and Orioles all had equal to or higher payrolls.

 

You may have a hard time admitting it but the Yankees success in the late 90s was mostly due to home grown talent. With some role players splashed in. So I will say it again spending does not equal winning. It will keep you up from the bottom but it does not equal winning.

 

Easy buddy, I wasn't implying that you were wrong or anything - I was just under the impression that the Yankees had had the highest payroll for quite some time and was curious which teams actually had higher ones. Thanks for the clarification though.

[Jehrico]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

 

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run?

 

There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top.

 

Jeter

Bernie

O'neil

Posada

Brouscus

Tino

Pettitte

 

These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all

 

Sorry, not to hijack the thread, but what ever happened to Brocious? He hit like .287 in 1991 when he was 34 years old. You'd have to assume he had more baseball in him, but he never played again. Odd...

[NewUserName]

Sorry Mizzou about being short. I really didnt mean to be. I was really replying to Fear The Cubs who was being a little snotty also.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

 

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run?

 

There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top.

 

Jeter

Bernie

O'neil

Posada

Brouscus

Tino

Pettitte

 

These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all

 

Sorry, not to hijack the thread, but what ever happened to Brocious? He hit like .287 in 1991 when he was 34 years old. You'd have to assume he had more baseball in him, but he never played again. Odd...

 

Do you mean 2001?

[NewUserName]

Did Brocious and O'Neill retire the same year? I hated it when those two guys would come up with men on base in the playoffs. jThey might not of been great players but they are the type of players that the Yankees miss. I would rather have Brocious up with runners on in the playoffs than ARod. I dont even believe in clutch hitting. I just seen him do it enough to atleast make me think about it