Cubzfan64

Sounds like the kind of guy Hendry would be interested in - I have no problem taking a gamble.

With the position the Cubs are in going into 2006, I would never personally have traded Prior for Abreu. I do believe in the theory that good pitching is generally what wins you championships - not good hitting. Our rotation without Mark Prior going into 2006 would not have looked very good at all considering we have no idea what if anything Wood will provide and Maddux is quite likely only going to continue to decline in ability. If we had a couple top minor league arms ready to come up and fill some spots, I might chance it but I don't think that's the case. I'm becoming more and more convinced that our window of opportunity with some very good young arms is being slowly overused and wasted because we've been extremely unsuccessful in putting together a solid offense as a supporting cast. It's sad really because we don't even need an All Star offensive lineup - we just have a few pieces of the puzzle that are missing. My only hopes are that one or both of Cedeno/Murton becomes a "caught lightning in a bottle" player in 2006, that Jones can outproduce Burnitz, that Pierre is at least an upgrade over last years leadoff hitters and that our starting pitching stays at least reasonably healthy. If even some of those things happen I believe we have a shot - I just hate the fact that we have to rely on so many if's.

I've watched Millar for 2 seasons now in Boston and from a personal standpoint I can't stand the guy, but most of that is just cause his "downhome country/redneck" act has worn thin to me. If you believe in "clubhouse chemistry" at all, he's certainly got the resume for that though and he has done an extremely good job in Boston of going out of his way to take pressure off other guys by sticking his nose out in the media when guys like Manny and Renteria are under fire. I think he could have been a big benefit to someone like Corey last year and perhaps he'll do that for the O's if Corey gets off to a bad start. As far as baseball skills go, I think he's average in RF at best and probably a bit below average. He's really declined steadily from an offensive standpoint the past 2 seasons and on one hand I would worry about that as he's getting into his mid 30's, while on the flipside I guess you could argue that he's due for a rebound. He tends to be a really streaky hitter and argues that he can't find his stroke if he doesn't play every day and that seemed to hold true for him in 2004, but he was given many opportunities to play out of his slump last year and other than a few weeks during the season he was pretty dismal. Eventually Boston simply couldn't find a spot in the lineup for him on a consistent basis and he wasn't good enough defensively at 1B. I can't argue with the fact that the guy has had success as far as OBP goes, and with the lousy options we had available at the time we signed Jones to his 3 year contract, I think I would have seriously considered picking him up for 1 year instead of the direction we went. I too spent the last 3 years watching him with the Red Sox, and I completely agree, the clubhouse stuff is nice but overrated, and he is a terrible defender. It was the OBP and potential power that I like. Yup - and as much as I hate to admit it cause I still don't like the guy very much, I do believe I'd have prefered him at 1 year over Jones for 3. (gahhhh, that even TASTED bad coming out!!!)

I've watched Millar for 2 seasons now in Boston and from a personal standpoint I can't stand the guy, but most of that is just cause his "downhome country/redneck" act has worn thin to me. If you believe in "clubhouse chemistry" at all, he's certainly got the resume for that though and he has done an extremely good job in Boston of going out of his way to take pressure off other guys by sticking his nose out in the media when guys like Manny and Renteria are under fire. I think he could have been a big benefit to someone like Corey last year and perhaps he'll do that for the O's if Corey gets off to a bad start. As far as baseball skills go, I think he's average in RF at best and probably a bit below average. He's really declined steadily from an offensive standpoint the past 2 seasons and on one hand I would worry about that as he's getting into his mid 30's, while on the flipside I guess you could argue that he's due for a rebound. He tends to be a really streaky hitter and argues that he can't find his stroke if he doesn't play every day and that seemed to hold true for him in 2004, but he was given many opportunities to play out of his slump last year and other than a few weeks during the season he was pretty dismal. Eventually Boston simply couldn't find a spot in the lineup for him on a consistent basis and he wasn't good enough defensively at 1B. I can't argue with the fact that the guy has had success as far as OBP goes, and with the lousy options we had available at the time we signed Jones to his 3 year contract, I think I would have seriously considered picking him up for 1 year instead of the direction we went.

Wonder if Tejada things this will be the move that takes them over the top!!!! :roll:

Mark Prior may not be one of "these kinds of guys" but in general I'm getting pretty tired of players getting angry, hurt, demoralized etc... when management considers their names in trade talks and yet when free agency comes up, they're the first ones standing in line ready to sign whoever gives them the biggest offer.

Lay out a list of these 'plenty of options' please. I'd bet the overwhelming majority of them come close to Fantasy baseball rather than actual availability. I consider Michaels to bea better option than Pierre, he's better defensively, has a higher OBP, cheaper, and is further away from FA. There's one upgrade that has been mentioned as being avail. this off-season as far as trades. If the Cubs were dead set on trading Walker, they should've inquired about Castillo. I don't mind them keeping Walker, I would've liked to have a seen a better defensive player there, but a Perez/Hairston platoon or either of them starting on their own, I doubt they'd match Walker. RF-Sanders is a better option than Jones, he's older, but he's been more productive and during the next two year will likely cont. to be more productive than Jones. I don't mind Perez on the roster, he's an ideal utility player/defensive replacement/pinch runner, but his role will be greater than his production merits. Given the options available to us when Jones was signed, I would have been all for trying to pick up Sanders for a shorter time than Jones was ultimately given too. I hope Jones proves many of us wrong, but I don't like adding yet another player to the team with "potential" behind his name.

The above paragraph is the one that annoys me the most - as if "almost" achieving something 3 years ago should somehow negate the past 2 season's failures. Does he think Cub fans are so desparate for something to cheer about that we should be awed, thrilled and satisfied to have ALMOST achieved something several years ago??? For me, the answer to that is a resounding NO!

Yes it was, but they have a real glut of relivers to choose from now - I agree that one or more of those arms are heading somewhere for a CF.

We're getting off the topic of the thread so I'll just post this last time here. You're way oversimplifying and overgeneralizing my comments and I honestly don't know why since we agree on alot more than you seem to think. I could just as easily oversimplify what you're saying and claim that we should field an offense of all guys who swing for the fence on every pitch because they're all trying to maximixe their production, but I won't because I know that's not what you're trying to say - give me the same benefit of the doubt (actually isn't that the type of offensive approach we've taken for the last 2 years?) If player #1 above somehow scored 100 runs and or was a major factor throughout the year in moving runners into scoring position allowing the guy behind him to have a huge year thus leading to more W's then yes, he deserves credit. Player #2 above would of course deserve credit "under my scenario" because his production would inevitably result in more W's. There was a game last season where David Ortiz of Boston stepped to the plate with a runner at 3B. The infield shifted as they normaly do against him leaving nobody on the left side of the infield. Ortiz laid down an average to below average bunt to the left side, beat it out for a hit and drove in the run cause there was nobody over there to field it. For whatever reason - maybe he didn't feel comfortable swinging against that pitcher, maybe his arm was sore, maybe he just had an idea that they needed that run and he felt his best chance to drive it in would be to bunt to the left side - whatever it was, he did it and it helped them win a game. That's the kind of adjusting, thinking and effort I want to see from the ballplayers on my team.

I'll always remember him as a Cub when he first came up and his "amazing" new pitch that made hitter look like idiots at the plate. He'll always be a Cub first and foremost to me and I hope Cub fans outnumber Card fans in Cooperstown this year when he's inducted!

the best thing that a player can do to help the team win is get on base, which means displaying patience at the plate. all that other stuff is cliche. if the team improved it's OBP, it would improve it's runs scored, and we wouldn't notice if player X bunted or made contact on a hit and run--because it would be moot. as much as people like to deny it, baseball is a sport of collective individual statistics. there is no team flow like in football or basketball. if player x gets on base and hits the ball hard, he will contribute to the team without ever laying down a bunt or hitting a sac fly. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the highlighted point above (while I DO agree with you wholeheartedly on the being patient at the plate stance when it's warranted). While I absolutely agree that OBP is the #1 statistic that each ballplayer can work on improving in order to better the record of the overall team, other factors still come into play. Wouldn't you agree that since many players offensively fail 7 out of 10 times at getting on base, one should do things like hit behind a runner and cut down on your swing simply to make contact when the situation is called for? That way, if you succeed in getting on base great, but if you don't, you still have increased the possibility that your out has done SOMETHING to increase the odds that the next guy will be able to get the run in? And so far all we've mentioned has revolved around offense - what about hitting cut off men, covering a base etc... all those little things that individuals do can become significant in the outcome of the game. Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I say I expect every guy out there to do whatever it takes to help the team win.

As baseball fans we have to stay cognizant of the fact that nobody does whatever it takes in every situation. Failure is part of the game, and an acceptable part of the game. What matters is the rate at which failure, and therefore success, occurs, and that is measure via stats. And when you have enough of the good stats, your team will win enough games. One guy with ungodly numbers teamed with a bunch of shmoes doesn't work. An entire team of guys with favorable numbers in comparison to their counterparts on other teams will have success. I agree with everything you said except for the part of "nobody doing whatever it takes to win in every situation" - I fully accept failure which in baseball happens at least 7 out of every 10 times for most guys. What I don't accept is having runners at 3rd with less than 2 outs and seeing the batter swing wildly at the first 2 balls in the dirt and/or 2 feet high with an uppercut which could only result in a popup to the infield if any contact was even made. Baseball is a game of constant adjustment like any competitive professional sport - you see it in good football and basketball teams that adjust to their competition in order to win. Good baseball teams play the same way - just because you're a power hitter doesn't mean you go up swinging for a home run every at bat - just because you're an aggressive batter doesn't mean you swing at everything when the pitcher obviously can't find the strikezone. The game may well be a collection of individual statistics combined together, but players have the capability to bring the odds of success more in their favor by their approach to the game and from the last 2 seasons or so, I've seen too little of that from Cub teams.

I don't have a problem with players predicting what they are going to do in the season. I want the guy to be confident in his ability. And he's at a press conference introducing him to the local media, and the fans. It's inevitable that the discussion of what his numbers will look like will come up. I do have a problem with a GM who says stuff like "he's going to give us a .300, 25 HR, 90 RBI season. First off, that insinuates that you base your offseason moves on what kind of AVG/HR/RBI line the guy will give you and exposes your potential ignorance of the more telling numbers. And secondly, it usually never comes true, and therefore acts as a sort of built in excuse for when the team loses. What happens if that players hits .260/18/76, and the team fails? Well, you can talk about how you and your scouts were expecting more out of player X and he failed to live up to expectations, when in fact, your expectations were out of whack. You have to build teams expecting average numbers out of your guys, not career highs. I understand your line of reasoning about players predicting, but as I've gotten older I've found that I care less and less about individual performances and statistics from Cub players - I just want each and every one to do whatever it takes in every situation to help the team win the game. That means making contact on hit and runs, hitting to the opposite field, taking an extra base when given it, hitting sacrifice flies when needed, driving the ball, being consistent on defense etc... It's the team performance and record that makes all the difference to me these days and I expect every player to focus on that goal rather than any individual expectations.

I wish players would just go out there and DO what needs to be done to help the team win rather than run around predicting what they're gonna do. That said, I'm glad Jones didn't stress the desire to hit 50 HR's or something ridiculous but rather to improve on his average. Of course that's before he actually stands at the plate and sees the relatively short powerallys and has those days where the wind blows out. I've often wondered how many guys have screwed up their swings by coming to Wrigley field and expecting every pop fly to the outfield to carry to the nets, when in reality, the wind blows in there an awful lot too.

I didn't say it would be a smart or fiscally responsible thing to do, but we're only what 8 weeks or so from the start of spring training and Boston has NOBODY to play CF, no leadoff hitter and a utility guy pegged to start at SS - I honestly don't see them going into the season with Cora slated to be there every day. They've got TONS of pressure on them right now with what the Blue Jays and Yankees have done to improve themselves - not to mention the controversy around losing their GM. Lugo would fill 2 of their 3 holes at leadoff and SS and at least give them a fighting chance in their division. If they don't make the move to get Lugo, I see them being a 3rd or 4th place team in that division - even with Lugo they have plenty more question marks than they've had the last few years. There's no GM in baseball who's going to basically pay $16 million for 1 year of Lugo. They have a young kid in Pedroia who could get a chance to win the spot in spring training. He was basically blocked by Ramirez, so they moved him over to 2b. Their hole at SS is not nearly as big as the hole they have in CF. I wouldn't expect a straight up Marte for Lugo deal - I could see some other names being involved to get something done though (Gaithright, Huff, Clement, Arroyo, Shoppach...).

I didn't say it would be a smart or fiscally responsible thing to do, but we're only what 8 weeks or so from the start of spring training and Boston has NOBODY to play CF, no leadoff hitter and a utility guy pegged to start at SS - I honestly don't see them going into the season with Cora slated to be there every day. They've got TONS of pressure on them right now with what the Blue Jays and Yankees have done to improve themselves - not to mention the controversy around losing their GM. Lugo would fill 2 of their 3 holes at leadoff and SS and at least give them a fighting chance in their division. If they don't make the move to get Lugo, I see them being a 3rd or 4th place team in that division - even with Lugo they have plenty more question marks than they've had the last few years.

There were quite a few of us who thought it made more sense to just give Corey RF rather than waste money on Jones - MUCH LESS ON A 3 YEAR DEAL!!! It remains to be seen what Jones will do in the coming season, but I personally think it was a poor alocation of $.

I have to believe the Red Sox have the best shot to get Lugo - they are in dire need of a leadoff hitter and if they can get one in Lugo who plays SS, so much the better since their only other option there right now is Cora and I don't think they want to go through a full season with him at SS. As others have said - the price will be steep.

Thanks for posting those Serena - I know most of the time in sports it's "politically correct" to make comments like both Hendry and Corey made, but since I generally think the best of human beings unless proven differently, I like to believe that part of the move is Hendry really giving Corey a chance somewhere in a lower profile market where he can try to turn his career around. Corey on the other hand may now be able to relax going into a new environment and a new season and become what all of us have seen glimpses of.

If that happens, you can be assured that many people who regularly post here will have some serious questions about the organizations ability to "coach" young position players, and I'll be near the front of that line! We've had such a glaring lack of success in producing even an everyday position player (not to mention anyone with star quality) it seriously makes me wonder if it's extremely poor drafting (and evaluation of draftable talent), extremely poor coaching in the minor leagues or extremely poor handling of the kids when they get to the big club. I'm sure it's a combination of all of the above, but whatever way you slice it, if you can't draft/train/coach/develop ballplayers, the only resource you have left to be competitive is a large payroll and luck. And when you have to go the free agency route to build a contender, you can be guaranteed that you will end up overpaying more often than not. I'm not thrilled with the direction this organization has been taking, but alas, I'm a Cub fan and I'll be going into 2006 with as much optimism as possible - tempered with a little realism that comes from watching 30+ years of mostly futility.

I just hate seeing guys with lots of raw talent fail (or at the very least not live up to expectations). That said, I really think this was an inevitable situation after last season. Corey just had an absolutely terrible season last year, and although the Cubs screwed with him alot by moving him all over the lineup and finally sending him down to the farm, he certainly shares blame by just not being able to adjust. Once the fans turned on him, it seemed to me like he "gave up" (I'm sure he didn't, it's just the impression I got from his play). As soon as the Cubs showed any interest in Pierre, Corey was no longer going to be on our team. I can't believe we had another "can't miss" regular day prospect who plummeted so much in value that we almost had to give him away. Face it, this was the best move for the organization as well as for Corey. I hope he's able to put it all together for Baltimore or wherever else he may end up.

Think AA prospects. I doubt we can get better at the moment. Put me down for thinking that Corey goes to Seattle for a PTBNL, and then Reed goes to Boston for Arroyo. That wouldn't surprise me at all! The only hang up I hear is that Boston would prefer getting rid of Clement rather than Arroyo - Bronson gives them a guy who can pitch alot of innings and start as well as relieve.

It depends on the situation. I think the upgrade between Pierre and who the Cubs had in CF will be about 1.8 wins higher than last year. I that difference will be higher than what the Cubs had at leadoff last year as Hairston led the team in leadoff PAs and what he did as getting on base last year. Last year, Hairston had 44.4% of the ABs leading off and had an OBP of .344, I think Pierre will likely be between .344 and .350. Any offensive upgrade at leadoff will be destroyed by having Neifi hitting 2nd, if they decide to go that route. Destroyed may be a bit of an overstatement, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that Perez batting second would be a mistake over a full season -that said, ever since Neifi signed that contract I've been convinced that he WILL be an everyday player (either SS or 2B) and that's been the Cubs plan all along since they plan to get rid of Walker. If we went into the season with what we have (minus Walker), I would prefer seeing Murton or even Barrett hit second.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I'd be really interested to read any analyses of OBP. I know math and statistics only tell part of the story, but I still find it hard to believe that if you take the exact same team and just replace the leadoff hitter with a .300 OBP with one with a .350 OBP that it would result in significantly more wins per season. Take my original argument and assume that the guy with the higher OBP gets on base a total of 34 more times every season. Now take the fact that even the guys with the best OBP only score ~1/2 the time they are on base. That means this guy will score ~17 more times over an entire season - and how many of those times will actually result in the team winning a game - I can't believe it would be more than 1/4 of the time meaning an extra 4 wins. As you said, I'm sure there have been lots of studies about OBP - but if anyone knows of any, I'd really like to read up on them and find out where my observations have gone wrong. Thanks for the reply.