HoopsCubs

After seeing how well Dontrelle has pitched, I figure the last thing Hendry will do is trade Rich Hill until he is better vetted. As much as I dislike Patterson, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Pierre either. I still think signing Lofton or Jose Cruz to a 1-year deal is a better move. Milton Bradley is intriguing - I'm just afraid what it may cost the Cubs in players/prospects.

Signing Neifi to play 2B could make some sense for the Yankees, if they follow through on another rumour heard last week, which was dealing Robinson Cano to the Twins for Torii Hunter. Hoops

If it's true he's staying in SD, it may be just as well. Giles could have signed with STL before even considering the Cubs. With Sanders ($4M) and Walker ($6M) both free agents, and Roger Cedeno off the books ($1.5M), STL could have easily paid Giles $10-12M per year. That type of dough and the chance to win year-in/year-out is hard to pass up. Let's see if we get confirmation reports in the next 12 hours about re-signing with SD.

Similar to what the Phils did with Lofton and Michaels, right?

I still like the Thome and Bell (combined $48M) to Seattle for Beltre ($47M) rumour. It would be an even money deal over the lifetime of the contracts, and allow Thome to be a full time DH and Beltre to play 81 home games in a decent hitter's park.

In my estimate, free agent Jose Cruz would be a better acquisition than Juan Pierre and wouldn't cost anything in terms of players/prospects. Not saying he's the best player available to play CF, but it's a better use of resources than overpaying for the over-rated Pierre. If we have to trade to get a CF, Milton Bradley is a better choice and equally available (in my opinion).

If I'm recalling the trades properly: Oakland traded Tim Hudson for Dan Meyer, Juan Cruz and Charles Thomas. Then, they traded Mark Mulder for Danny Haren, Kiko Calero and Daric Barton. If Beane is consistent, ask yourself how does Rich Hill compare to Meyer and Haren; how does Sergio Mitre compare to Cruz and Calero; how does Brandon Sing compare to Thomas and Barton? I like Zito a lot too, but I would have questions about his post-season mental toughness - Hudson and Mulder didn't look great in October.

A few weeks ago, I initiated a thread on evaluating unrestricted free agent starting pitchers since Jim Hendry had made mention earlier in the month to being in the market for an "innings-eating" starter this offseason. In that last thread we discussed the 10 best free agents (arguably): AJ Burnett, Paul Byrd, Roger Clemens, Esteban Loaiza, Kevin Millwood, Matt Morris, Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Jarrod Washburn and Jeff Weaver. We had a spirited discussion with the consensus focus on Burnett and Millwood, and with others suggesting that Byrd and Loaiza could be value picks. Today, let's focus on guys under contract, who might be available. For the first grouping, I will focus on players, who pitched a minimum of 200 innings in 2005, who had ERAs less than Greg Maddux's 4.24, and who are coming into the final year of a contract or to first time free agency: Mark Buehrle (team option in '07) John Smoltz (team option in '07) Barry Zito Jon Garland Tom Glavine Jason Marquis Mark Mulder Jose Contreras Brad Radke Would there be an equitable match here for the Cubs and a trading team? Hendry had mentioned Radke as a target 2 years ago before he re-upped with Minnesota. I have always felt Zito would be a good fit especially with Maddux and Wood potentially free agents after 2006. What about re-uniting Glavine or Smoltz with Maddux for 1 year? For the 2nd grouping, I will list out players who have the performance listed above, but who are at least 2 years away from free agency, but whose names have been prominent in trade rumours lately because of money or chemistry: Livan Hernandez Derek Lowe Jon Lieber Hernandez is always popular to discuss here. Anyone see any fits here? Enjoy! Hoops

Personnel decisions are part of Jim Hendry's responsibilities last I looked. He could make Dusty a better manager instantly by not bringing back Macias, Perez, Burnitz and Patterson.

From all indications, Jim Hendry is a fairly private individual when it comes to player dealings/negotiations. None of us can say with any certainty that he isn't interested in Giles. All we can say is that the press hasn't reported it (yet). I will remind you that there weren't any tangible reports about Hendry chasing Nomar or Derrek Lee either until literally 24-36 hours before the deals went down. We all just have to show some patience - difficult task, I know. Hoops

If the Cubs only show passive interest and St. Louis signs Giles, I would think it safe to say Jim Hendry is not interested in competing in the NL Central. Many analysts believe Giles could end up in St. Louis. They have money to spend too.

Mr. Miles has often touted Atlanta bench coach Fredi Gonzalez as an excellent managerial candidate. Ned Yost has turned into a good manager in Milwaukee after spending time on Bobby Cox's staff; many analysts feel Terry Pendleton (Braves hitting instructor) has a rosy future as a manager, and he was going to be interviewed by the Dodgers until he pulled back yesterday for family reasons. I have no doubt Fredi could be a great one too - hanging out with Bobby Cox for several seasons must be an education and a half. If Baker and the Cubs don't agree to an extension during the Spring, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Gonzalez or Pendleton given an opportunity this time next year.

How would a Lofton/Hairston platoon leading off and playing CF, with Lugo batting 2nd and playing SS look if Hendry could simultaneously bring in a Giles, Abreu, Sheffield, Dunn or Burrell to play corner OF? These moves would leave plenty of money to go after Burnett or Millwood. There are so many ways of thinking about this.

And Goony's point is that getting Wilson is not acceptable. I respect his opinion. I think he's wrong on this one. He thinks I'm wrong. Either way, it will always be civil.

Neither of us can guarantee anything. It's called taking a gamble. If I had Hendry's job, I would gamble $4M over a 2 year period (paying $7M to Corey over 2 years vs. $11M to Preston over 2 years) that Wilson would outperform Patterson. Why would you talk about signing Corey to a 2 year deal. It doesn't need to happen. $3m for this year alone is all you need to gamble. Preston requires far more than that, even though he's not anywhere close to worth it. I don't know what else to say at this point. Wilson's offensive numbers were very good in 2005 with respect to Corey's numbers. He had a 200 point advantage in OPS in just his AWAY games than Corey had in his ALL games. He's an adequate fielder with a decent arm. Even at $5.5M per, he is better than Corey batting in that 7-hole in my opinion.

Neither of us can guarantee anything. It's called taking a gamble. If I had Hendry's job, I would gamble $4M over a 2 year period (paying $7M to Corey over 2 years vs. $11M to Preston over 2 years) that Wilson would outperform Patterson.

The dude is capable of a .250/.320/.450 season, and he'll likely get paid more than twice what Patterson will make*. That's a huge upgrade over 2005 Corey, but I have to believe Patterson can at least put up his career average numbers next year, which aren't that far off from that line. And while I've given up on the idea of Corey as a star, I would not be at all surprised if Corey outproduces Wilson next year. *You know that if Jim goes after him he'll be more than happy to grossly overpay, as he has with so many other mediocre free agent signings. Considering Patterson made $2.8M in 2005, and will likely get $3.0M in 2006, I would have no issue if Hendry paid Preston Wilson $4.5-5.0M in 2006. Just as long as he's paying Brian Giles $11M or Adam Dunn $8M. Hoops

I have no problem with CP as the 5th OF - I have a problem paying him $3M to be one, which is what he will get through arbitration. Batting 8th or not, he does not deserve to start until he proves he has plate discipline.

Fair enough. What about the other 6? If we got one of those guys, would you consider Wilson an upgrade over Patterson?

I know you are, which really makes me question your logic in every other thread. :wink: I don't think the Cubs will be better off with Wilson in center instead of Corey. If Giles or Abreu is playing RF, I think Wilson in CF batting 6th or 7th is a huge upgrade over Patterson. Yes, I do believe that. :wink: What I have said repeatedly is that I don't want Preston Wilson, if he's the only move Hendry makes in the OF.

If I thought he was going to repeat 2005, no doubt I'd be very much anti-Corey. Also, if the concern is how Baker will use him, then perhaps the focus should be on ridding the team of Dusty before the renewal can begin, rather than one of his misused players. I'm all for an improvement in CF, if they can find it. But I'm not currently 100% anti-Corey. A small part of me wants to see one more try (with Hairston ready to fill-in if need be). What I wouldn't want is dumping Corey and then going hard after a guy like Preston Wilson. I'm cool with Preston Wilson playing CF, just as long as one of these guys is playing corner OF: Manny Ramirez Brian Giles Pat Burrell Bobby Abreu Gary Sheffield Adam Dunn Cliff Floyd

Now that's blech. Low trade or value not, Patterson's got to go in order for the organization to start its renewal process. Why? I don't understand this thought process. Why does Corey have to leave for this team to be good? That sounds an awful lot like last year's "get rid of the bad apples" strategy that failed oh so miserably. If you want Corey replaced with somebody who is guaranteed to be much better, fine. If you're looking for more CF production, I can't argue. But the "he has to go before this team can win" theory doesn't add up. I think if you can get the necessary improvements elsewhere, they'd be justified in giving Corey another year to make something of his skills. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, getting rid of him is an addition by subtraction move - it's a gut thing - obviously, someone else will be playing CF if Patterson is gone. As long as that somebody isn't Marquis Grissom, Endy Chavez, Laynce Nix, Steve Finley, or Tike Redman (and I wouldn't expect Hendry to get any of those guys), the Cubs will be better off.

They have a loose affiliation with some of the decision makers, but there not "in the know" per se like some of my more reliable and sincere sources. Which is why I predicated the comments with the "grain of salt." Still, I do perceive that changes are coming - I get the sense that Hendry really wants to to beef up the 1-2 holes for Derrek and Aramis - the question is can he with what's out there.

Lowell has got 2 years $18M vs. Lowe's 3 years $30M. They re-structured Lowell's deal to take the stadium stuff out. Hoops

To your point, Bradley figures to make $4-5M as an arbitration eligible guy; Lowe will be making $9M; Lowell will be making $9M. Essentially, the Dodgers will be giving away guys making $13-14M for a guy making $7M (Cubs picking up $2M). That's a $6-7M upside for LA, which could be used on a lot of things. By the way, I have heard the Dodgers are trying to lure Paul Byrd up 30 miles - they like his mental make-up. Hoops