FergieJ31

"The defeatist attitude that we always will be Chicago's second team just doesn't fly with me," Williams said, "and we all accept the challenges that we must win again and probably again after that to change the culture. " - KW That one quote speaks volumes. Even after winning the WS -- the ultimate prize to literally EVERY other team in MLB -- the White Sox seem as status-conscious as ever. If I were Kenny I'd pay homage to true Sox fans all winter long, and take a cool "Cubs? Pfft, we don't care, they're in the NL" stance in front of reporters. But no, we get quotes like the above. Wow.

Unfair. Maggs got a basically guaranteed five years from the Tigers. There is no way we could have, or should have, competed with that. Agree - Maggs was a bad example (I don't think any other team was even close to Det's offer), but my point was that Hendry is not nearly creative enough when it comes to creating incentive-laden contracts for players with a history of injuries -- most recently, Nomar for instance. Hopefully the Wade Miller offer bucks that trend. What are you talking about? Dempster and Williamson both fit into the category of low base/high incentive deals you're referring to. Hendry didn't make that sort of deal with Nomar because he burned us once again by getting injured and he's content to give Cedeno his shot. Williamson and Dempster were offered pretty much the same deal: one year at league minimum, $300k + extra $200k if they were activated in '05, and a club option for 2006 for about $2M -- really this more like a plain ol flyer / lottery ticket. There also was a club option that the Cubs would exercise if the pitcher made a full recovery and re-established their effectiveness (the Cubs did exercise their Williamson option, we now know). Those were good deals for the Cubs, to be sure, especially in hindsight, but it's not what I mean by a low base/high incentive offer. If we do make an offer to Miller I hope it's going to be similar in spirit to what Detroit did with Maggs (again -- I'm not suggesting the Cubs should have outbid the Tigers). By all accounts the Tigers calculated his fair value objectively by estimating his WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player). They OVERestimated this number by a wide margin, which is why they badly overpaid in base (and why it's not a good "low base/high incentive" example), but nevertheless his is a good example of the sort of creatively designed contract that would suit the Cubs (or any team) when dealing with a high risk/high reward player: The Tigers could have voided the entire contract if Maggs had missed more than 25 games due to an injury on the same knee that knocked him out in '04. That partially covered the Tigers' short-term risk. The contract is also backloaded with incentives that kick in if he gets (I think) 270 starts or over a 1000 plate appearances in 2007 and 2008. That partially covers the Tigers' long-term risk. It's a creative contract because the circumstances were unusual and the player was high risk/high reward -- not unlike Wade Miller. As for Nomar, that's another debate entirely which has been thoroughly covered on this board. Given that Nomar wanted to stay and was very effective upon return last year (albeit, small sample size), I think the Cubs would have been wise to strike some kind of low base/high incentive deal, and work out a way for him or Cedeno to play 2B -- but it's a moot point now.

Unfair. Maggs got a basically guaranteed five years from the Tigers. There is no way we could have, or should have, competed with that. Agree - Maggs was a bad example (I don't think any other team was even close to Det's offer), but my point was that Hendry is not nearly creative enough when it comes to creating incentive-laden contracts for players with a history of injuries -- most recently, Nomar for instance. Hopefully the Wade Miller offer bucks that trend.

Over the past three years Z has almost completely shut down the Cards, but only has a 4-3 record to show for it. In 11 starts, his BAA vs Stl is .205, WHIP = 1.02, 69 K's in 85 IP ... but only 4-3, that's just criminal. I was at wrigley in mid 04 when Z got tossed for plucking Edmonds twice. It was the single most exciting game I've ever been to. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=240719116 I love this rivalry. I was there, with my best friend. A Cardinals fan. I was at the Cubs-Cards game the next day, which was easily one of the most excruciating Cub losses I've seen. Cards came back from a 6-run deficit, Hawkins served up a ninth inning 2-run HR to Pujols, then another to Sanders. :shock: Then he blew his stack at the ump and got ejected. Pujols was 5-5 with 3 HR's, a double and 5 RBI's. I was with a Cards fan friend of mine and told him "I think your boys just got some revenge for that 5-game series here in Sept '03". (that said, I love this rivalry too)

Bonds didn't take kindly to that ... didn't he say after the game that Zambrano "better learn to respect", or something stupid like that? Bonds, who flips his bat and stands at the plate watching his moonshots, talking about old school respect ... what a joke. I can't find the exact quote anywhere, but I believe that was when Carlos fired back with words to the effect of 'my father taught me not to be afraid of anyone, I'm not going to start with him (Bonds)' I remember that :D I thought 'd*mn straight' when I read that

Over the past three years Z has almost completely shut down the Cards, but only has a 4-3 record to show for it. In 11 starts, his BAA vs Stl is .205, WHIP = 1.02, 69 K's in 85 IP ... but only 4-3, that's just criminal.

Bonds didn't take kindly to that ... didn't he say after the game that Zambrano "better learn to respect", or something stupid like that? Bonds, who flips his bat and stands at the plate watching his moonshots, talking about old school respect ... what a joke. btw that was one of my fave big Z memories too. another was watching him run out a triple or two last year, complete with a belly flop into 3rd (which makes you cringe til he gets up and looks ok). LOVE that kid!

post of the day :lol: I cannot take more than 5 minutes of Joe Morgan before I run screaming from the room.

The idea of a low base/high incentive contract ... how novel! Too bad the Cubs didn't think of that concept when considering Nomar (or Maggs when he was a FA a year ago) :roll: In any event, I like this idea. If the Cubs can get him and Kielty or Byrnes, and trade CPatt, I'd call it an off-season (start TWalk at 2B and keep Hairston as a supersub), and we'll try forget the Prior/Tejada nightmare. We'd hate to see Miller circa 2001-2 at that other NL Cent club (Cards I imagine?)

"Ohhhh noooooo!!" I was at the Brant Brown game; one of the most amazing games I've ever witnessed, partly because of the Sosa hysteria (he hit #64 and #65 that game) and partly because of the Brewers 7-run comeback and that play. I was in the left field bleachers and had a unique sightline on the hit. I'm not defending BB but that ball wasn't a can of corn ... it wasn't a frozen rope either, but it was hit hard and it was hooking. The sun was somewhat of a factor too. I remember looking up after seeing the ball hit the ground, watching the Brewers flying around the bases ... they were running on contact with two outs, so Brown had no chance to cut down the winning run. I think I saw a few Cub infielders on their knees in shock. I heard later that Brown was in tears when he entered the dugout. I really thought the Cubs were finished at that point; little did we know the huge favor Neifi! would do for us in the near future. Trivia q: who hit the ball to Brant Brown? ans: Cub killer Geoff Jenkins. Who scored the winning run? Jeromy Burnitz. Who got the win? Chad Fox. Also, more trivia: Brant Brown was a ninth-inning defensive replacement for Glenallen Hill, who was 0-5 that day. Best post-game quote from Shooter: "If they had a four-letter word for baseball, we'd probably be using it." (I'm not even sure what that was supposed to mean, but it sounds about right coming from Shooter's mouth.) Sosa actually hit 3 that day, IIRC> I was in the LF upper deck. He hit two out to RF and one to CF that never went more than 10 feet off the ground. Hardest hit baseball I've ever seen. USSoccer, I remember that one he smoked to center. My God ... if that shot were elevated at all it would have gone 450-500' I'm pretty sure he two HRs and walked three times that day. That rifle shot to center made up for a cheapie just inside the right foul pole, barely over the fence. When Sosa came up for his last AB in the 8th, it was the only time in my life I've been in a semi-scary hysterical crowd situation. I was sitting in LF bleachers and people jammed the aisles, jockeying for position on every pitch, anticipating his 3rd HR. But Eric Plunk (one of many Sosa whipping boys that year) wanted no part of Sosa in that AB. But I digress: this post is far afield from the thread subject... More bad guys: Gary Carter (virtually anyone on that obnoxious 86 Met team would qualify) Bob Gibson (fantastic pitcher but mean and cranky as the day is long)

When I think of Shawn Estes I want to remember him by that gem he pitched against the Reds down the stretch in '03, in his final start as a Cub. (Though it's true that the Reds were fielding a AAAA team by that point...)

Ya pays your money and you takes your chances. For the next several years I like the Cubs chances a LOT more with Prior and Z anchoring the rotation than without.

> I say yes - Tejada wants out and Hendry seems to be a man on a mission. The holidays gave the powers-that-be a brief respite from thinking about this deal. If it's really true the Cubs have their final offer(s) on the table, negotiations are over and I don't see why it should take longer than tomorrow or Thu for the O's to pull the trigger, and they'd be idiots not to (please let them be idiots ).

not merely far from possible, this is a probable scenario IMHO.

One of the posts asked why, if Hendry had such a man-crush on Tejada, did he not sign him when he was a FA two years ago. One answer is, of course, an albatross who wore #21, but I agree with the sentiment ... after all, Hendry was looking at starting '04 with AGony at SS. Where there's a will there's a way. Another poster lamented that if this trade went down it'd end up going down in "Brock for Broglio" infamy. I absolutely agree with this comparison -- it's not "Cub fans overvaluing Cub players" hyperbole. Thing is, this time arguably it's worse. When the Cubs traded for Broglio they only had a faint glimmer of Brock's true talent: he hit about .257 with the Cubs in 2 1/2 seasons, OBP barely above .300 but with great speed. Meanwhile Broglio had come off an 18-8, ERA = 2.99 season in 1963, and was 60-38 since 1960 with 3 sub-3.00 ERA seasons. So one can't fault the Cubs TOO much(*) then for not knowing Brock would go on to steal 118 bases with a .368 OBP 10 years later, and the subsequent suckitude that would befall Broglio. This time the Cubs can't say they haven't seen what Prior is capable of, his true potential. (*) I'm probably on thin ice for pushing this point too far, but I'm comparing their knowledge of Brock then to their knowledge of Prior now.

"Ohhhh noooooo!!" I was at the Brant Brown game; one of the most amazing games I've ever witnessed, partly because of the Sosa hysteria (he hit #64 and #65 that game) and partly because of the Brewers 7-run comeback and that play. I was in the left field bleachers and had a unique sightline on the hit. I'm not defending BB but that ball wasn't a can of corn ... it wasn't a frozen rope either, but it was hit hard and it was hooking. The sun was somewhat of a factor too. I remember looking up after seeing the ball hit the ground, watching the Brewers flying around the bases ... they were running on contact with two outs, so Brown had no chance to cut down the winning run. I think I saw a few Cub infielders on their knees in shock. I heard later that Brown was in tears when he entered the dugout. I really thought the Cubs were finished at that point; little did we know the huge favor Neifi! would do for us in the near future. Trivia q: who hit the ball to Brant Brown? ans: Cub killer Geoff Jenkins. Who scored the winning run? Jeromy Burnitz. Who got the win? Chad Fox. Also, more trivia: Brant Brown was a ninth-inning defensive replacement for Glenallen Hill, who was 0-5 that day. Best post-game quote from Shooter: "If they had a four-letter word for baseball, we'd probably be using it." (I'm not even sure what that was supposed to mean, but it sounds about right coming from Shooter's mouth.)

Higher pitch counts, I agree 100%. He seemed to be trying to nibble on corners more post-injury, getting his pitch count up early in some games and walking a few more guys. I don't want Prior going anywhere; not even for Tejada + Bedard straight-up. If Prior, Wood and Z are hitting on all cylinders and make most of their starts, Cubs have a reasonably good shot at a playoff berth and a better chance of advancing. Hopefully someone will get through to Dusty on managing his starters this year.

1892 blew my mind. 36-12, 1.93 ERA, 1.062 WHIP, 453 innings pitched, 48 complete games I could do that... Wow ... good thing BP wasn't around back then to publish his Pitcher Abuse Points! Speaking of pitcher abuse, the 1980 Oakland A's are a good case study for those in the beware-the-PAP school of thought: 1980 A's starting rotation, Rick Langford, Mike Norris, Matt Keough, Steve McCatty and Brian Kingman, tossed an astonishing 93 CG and over 1257 IP that year. Brian Kingman was, of course, infamous for being a 20 game loser that year, in spite of 10 CG and a relatively respectable 1.38 WHIP. All 5 starters were between the ages 24 and 28 in 1980. And of those 5 promising young starters, all except McCatty were effectively finished by the end of the '82 season. Mike Norris would attempt a lame comeback in 1990. Steve McCatty held on til '84, putting up mediocre numbers after his stud 1981 year. The 1980 Oakland A's rotation should be the poster boys of the PAP-awareness school.

I remember that game like it was yesterday. I remember talking to friends of mine after the game who are Cards fans and marveling at McGee's cycle (he was and still is my fave Cardinal) while they were marveling at Sandberg ... a real politeness-fest :D What was that Herzog after-game quote, I forget exactly ... something like "Sandberg is the best player I've ever seen"? Or what is "That was the best [single-game] performance I've ever seen"? Ralph Citarella, there's a not-so-household name, a good trivia question: "Everyone knows the pitcher who served up the two HR's to Sandberg, but who started that game for the Cards?"

See, I'd think that, but considering most Cardinals fans on this board would be pleased to see the Cubs make this move and most of the rational White Sox fans over on WSI also would like to see the Cubs make this move, I'm inclined to doubt that. Although I wouldn't do the deal, by no means is it a ripoff. A few thoughts: 1) I think most NSBB members overlook is Prior's injury history too much. The fact is he hasn't *proven* to be durable. After coming back from his freaky elbow injury he didn't look right. Anyone should agree that Prior hasn't proven to be durable. He's had a few non-freak, pitching motion-related injuries since '02 (his Achilles heel injury in 04 has to be counted as pitching motion-related). But I disagree that he didn't look right after he came back last year: The Cubs were 7-2 in the games he started before his injury; his WL record was 4-1. Then he got hurt. In his first 7 starts back he was 2-2 but the Cubs were 5-2 in those starts including big wins against the Cards & White Sox. It looked to me like he didn't miss a beat even if he didn't go deep into games, hence the no-decisions. Except for a clunker in Atl, he was very strong -- sometimes dominating -- in most of his post-injury starts until Aug & Sept. He went 4-4 in Aug & Sept with a couple of dominating starts against Col and Mil, but he generally looked relatively weak those two months, I admit. When he went down his ERA was 2.93 and when the season was over it was 3.67. Anyone have his ERA after the injury on May 27? It was 4.07 -- but take away 2 clunker starts in Atl and Philly and his ERA from the time he came from his injury to the end of the year was 3.35. If you take issue with my giving him two mulligans, fair enough -- those were two big games that he needed to step up and he didn't. My main point is that his post-injury performance wasn't systemically worse than his pre-injury performance. His pre- and post-injury ERA doesn't contradict that assertion when you take out those two games, which occurred in his 3rd and 8th of 18 post-injury starts.

See, I'd think that, but considering most Cardinals fans on this board would be pleased to see the Cubs make this move and most of the rational White Sox fans over on WSI also would like to see the Cubs make this move, I'm inclined to doubt that. Although I wouldn't do the deal, by no means is it a ripoff. A few thoughts: 1) I think most NSBB members overlook is Prior's injury history too much. The fact is he hasn't *proven* to be durable. After coming back from his freaky elbow injury he didn't look right. Anyone should agree that Prior hasn't proven to be durable. He's had a few non-freak, pitching motion-related injuries since '02 (his Achilles heel injury in 04 has to be counted as pitching motion-related). But I disagree that he didn't look right after he came back last year: The Cubs were 7-2 in the games he started before his injury; his WL record was 4-1. Then he got hurt. In his first 7 starts back he was 2-2 but the Cubs were 5-2 in those starts including big wins against the Cards & White Sox. It looked to me like he didn't miss a beat even if he didn't go deep into games, hence the no-decisions. Except for a clunker in Atl, he was very strong -- sometimes dominating -- in most of his post-injury starts until Aug & Sept. He went 4-4 in Aug & Sept with a couple of dominating starts against Col and Mil, but he generally looked relatively weak those two months, I admit.

Apologies -- I misunderstood my source. Kielty was indeed offered arbitration (the only A that wasn't was Boccachia, as vance said). That said, it'd be nice if a deal for Kielty could be worked somehow - either Kielty or Byrnes would be a good fit for the Cubs.

1998 redeems him a bit, don't you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neifi_P%C3%A9rez

Any interest? Switch-hitter but he's much more effective from the rightside; he has some very nifty OBP #'s against lefties past three years. Not much power but I love his plate discipline & knowledge of the strike zone -- just what the Cubs need. Good two-hole hitter against lefties. I know it's a pipe dream to think Hendry would sign him to platoon with JJ (ex-teammate, 2003 Twins), so yes, I'm grasping at straws -- anything to distract me from the godawful Prior-Tejada blockbuster rumblings.

Yeah. And like when I said, "While not indicating a deal is close, neither (article) seem to think Prior is untouchable at all", the part about Prior not being untouchable is what scares me. I wouldn't trade Prior for hardly anybody. Amen. The trade proposal even from the Cubs side has Brock-for-Broglio written all over it. The O's version is worse. This is bizarre. What I don't get is why the Cubs would consider moving Prior. If he were a FA a year from now I could almost see the logic of a trade now, but he's not. Here's a complete hypothetical (it would never happen from the Phils side) but what if the Cubs could move Prior, Hill, CPatt + cash for Abreu and Ryan Madson ... is that better than the Miggy deal?