Illini Iceman

True, those free spending ways kept us from spending $10M on a closer, $2.5M on a back up catcher and forced us to trade a 34 year old 2B coming off a career year with 1 year left on his contract. The big contracts have kept Hendry from being as free with pursuing high price talent as in past years but I think overall he is balancing it pretty well.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. well they've added payroll this year as well True, but I guess what I mean is that they haven't needed to make any corresponding moves in previous years to reduce salary other than to get rid of guys no one wants (like Marquis this year). The DeRosa move would not have been made from a perspective of value for value if the Cubs didn't need to clear payroll so it stings a bit more than dumping a guy like Marquis to whoever will take him. If it really comes down to Vizcaino, 3 years of Bradley and the prospects for Marquis and 1 year of DeRosa I can still live with the overall tradeoff, however.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-01-cubs-mark-derosa-chicagojan01,0,6804478.story

The space between how excellent Dempster pitched last year and how Jason Marquis usually pitches over a season is pretty gigantic. I agree he almost certainly won't repeat last year, but to just assume he'll plunge all the way down to Marquis' level is incredibly pessimistic. Dempster and Marquis both have a 4.55 career era. Marquis career 198 starts 79 wins,Dempster 195 starts 76 wins.Marquis has averaged 13 wins a year for the last 5. Dempster was a regular starter from 98-03. Only once in that span was his era under 4.50. Dempsters history suggests that if he makes 30 starts,he'll pitch more innings than Marquis. But,Marquis making 30 starts is more likely. So your basis for this argument is wins and ERA? Partially.Last year was a career year for him. It was a contract year and he was able to keep the walks down (until the playoffs). If his walks per inning reverts to his usual standard,most likely his era will rise,win total will drop etc. The playoffs was only one game for him and clearly he was trying to be too perfect and that threw him off his game. I think from the way he pitched and what he said last year he figured out that he has to pound the strike zone and get ahead of hitters early in order to be successful. I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that a guy could figure out as he matures a better approach to pitching and that could make him more effective.

Have you watched Dempster pitch? He's so much better than those guys. I don't understand the people who don't think that Dempster is good. Watch his stuff; it's filthy! He was mis-cast as a reliever and still wasn't terrible. He will continue to put up 15+ win seasons for the Cubs. Wow, a "use your eyes" AND using wins as a measurement in the same post. That was a gritty post. You can use any measurement you like, Dempster was awesome last year and it should continue. Maybe he won't be as good as last year but nothing he did really made it seem like it was smoke and mirrors. I would rather have Dempster at the contract he signed than Wood at the one Cleveland gave him. Wood's production is much more easily replaceable than finding a starter that can give you Dempster's production. I wouldn't feel as good about a possible '09 rotation of Z, Harden, Lilly, Shark, Marshall as I do about a bullpen of Marmol, Cotts, Vizcaino, Shark, Gaudin, Guzman, Wuertz, etc. They have enough decent candidates in the pen that they should be able to have someone step up.

If the chose is between playing for a contender like the Cubs, or a 2nd tier team like the Nats, imagine what team Bradley will sign with? The only way the Nats will sign Bradley is if they severely overpay for him. And really, the Nats need another OF like the Cubs need another backup 2nd baseman. I'm not concern about the Nats for Bradley. It means that much like Roberts and Peavy before him, the deal is not as "done" as we've been lead to believe. Seriously, just because Washington isnt a good team, doesnt mean that they wont throw more money at the guy than hes worth, and he wont accept. Remember, as stated, they were about to dump a truck load of money on Tex, and now that hes out of the pictre, they still have said truck load of money, and nowhere to dump it. If they were willing to offer Tex that kind of money, surely they can afford Bradley plus another decent free agent. Granted, it would be like the Giants chosing Rowand as their cornerstone-a player who would be a great addition to a contender, but not the type of guy that they can take an all around bad team and make a contender. The whole point of them going after Tex was so they'd have a franchise player/superstar that would draw attendance and a guy they thought they could build a team around. Milton Bradley is none of these things. With a team like the Nats, theyd be better off with Bradley and 1 or 2 other players of his level than on player like Texeira. Maybe they're thinking in those terms, and maybe Bradley would just assume be one of the main attractions on a team like the Nats than another piece in the puzzle for the Cubs. Plus the fact that Washington would be a much lower pressure atmosphere, and a lot of people are questioning whether MB would be able to take the Chicago fans if things go wrong. I am not sure what that link is supposed to show. It says the Nats have interest in Bradley, Dunn and Hudson. The report from Levine is that the Cubs and Bradley have agreed in principal to a deal and will announce it next week after the holiday. Of course anything could happen (like in the Furcal deal) but this link has nothing substantial. I think it has been a known fact that the Nats and Rays would be among the teams interested in signing Bradley.

Since you were wrong on just about everything that you said last offseason would happen in 2008 I have a hard time believing that suddenly you have it all figured out and that your predicted outcomes will now be useful and/or accurate.

Also the Gaithright signing doesn't make much sense unless Hendry is setting up the trade of Pie to Baltimore for Olsen. All the things that supposedly had to be done to make the Peavy trade work seem to be there so it would be very strange for it not to be leading up to that. The Padres still need to move him and I have not heard about any new teams in the mix.

Right. The Cubs are going to get the same production out of shortstop, secondbase, centerfield, two pitching spots and our bullpen. If you think that is true, then perhaps we're somewhere in the low 90s. If you think that is true. Is 88 wins really all that surprising? Everyone thought we were close to that last year when we had almost the exact same team. Then a lot of guys had outlier seasons. Other than Dempster and Theriot they didn't really have anyone putting up "outlier seasons". Better years from Zambrano, Lee and Ramirez could easily offset any regressions that you are assuming. Plus Harden for a full season, Bradley upgrading RF and possibly Peavy instead of Marquis.

I could just as easily say that Soriano won't be hurt as much next year, Ramirez will bounce back from a fairly mediocre season, Fukudome will be better with a year of adjustment to MLB under his belt and that a full season of Harden will offset any decline by Dempster. Just because you want to only look at the possible negatives doesn't make your statement of a 10-12 win regression accurate.

I'd be interested in seeing your stats to back up that 10-12 win regression. And it is a little hard to make any such definitive statements until you see the final team they bring to spring training. Considering we were a 90 or so win team that managed to win 97 games last season I don't have to do much. Basically, all I have to say is that Ryan Dempster's ERA needs to go up a run and that Milton Bradley isn't Carlos Beltran and Grady Sizemore and I've covered my three wins or so. I'd put the Cubs right around 88 true level, right around 90 adjusted for the NLC. Wasn't their pythag right at 97 last year? Or are you using projected 2009 numbers? 98.6 - but as usual he just makes up numbers to support his (usually wrong) point and assumes no one knows how to look it up themselves.

I'd be interested in seeing your stats to back up that 10-12 win regression. And it is a little hard to make any such definitive statements until you see the final team they bring to spring training.

Tampa can't get in unless Dallas loses.

Yeah - those would have been REALLY bad free agent signings in '01.

See above but Tampa Bay (over Oakland who put up a great performance over a hot Houston team today) and Dallas (over Philly) So Atlanta and Dallas control their own destiny for the Wild Card spots right now? Atlanta has clinched If TB winds up not making the playoffs I bet Gruden gets fired.

See above but Tampa Bay (over Oakland who put up a great performance over a hot Houston team today) and Dallas (over Philly) So Atlanta and Dallas control their own destiny for the Wild Card spots right now?

If the Giants lose out they might not earn a 1st round bye. The only other team that can get to 11 wins is the Vikings and it's now even looking good for #10 right now against Atlanta.

He was part of that big splash free agent class the Cubs signed before the '01 season. Dave Smith, Danny Jackson and George Bell. Didn't work out so well, other than eventually flipping George Bell for Sammy Sosa.

They were division champs so I don't see how they could be fairly classified as the third best team. Pythagorean wins. And they are third best how? Even if you believe Pythagorean is the perfect method to determine which team is best it puts Red Sox at 101 wins, Rays at 95 wins, Toronto at 90 wins, Yankees at 90 wins and Orioles at 69 wins.

They were division champs so I don't see how they could be fairly classified as the third best team.

Every time I flip by the channel I see Bobby Jenks warming up in the bullpen. Either a big coincidence or it is on constantly.

FWIW - I don't think anyone is predicting an MVP season from Upton either (except you). The Rays should be good next year but they got through the season with a relatively injury free rotation and high PAP or not that is not always easy to replicate. Pena had an awful first half but very good second half so overall his numbers are about where you would expect (as long as you aren't expecing him to replicate 2007). The team did have trouble scoring runs for stretches during the season (even with Crawford and Longoria) so they need to get another bat if they are going to consistently be better offensively. Overall I think they are still very good, but the Yankees and Red Sox look to be improving during the offseason so I don't think the Rays can afford to stand pat and assume that they will be able to finish any better than third in that division.

Yanked around? The Dodgers topped his offer and MacPhail put the kibosh on upping the offer. Furcal and his agent bear no blame here. My recollection is that he seemed to lead Hendry on mostly just to have some leverage against the Dodgers in an effort to get the most he could from them. Normal agent stuff really, not anything sinister, but still Furcal doesn't seem to have any real preference to play in Chicago which means that Hendry has to go in to an all out bidding war to get him and for the reasons mentioned above I don't see that he would be inclined to do so.

No way the Cubs are going after Furcal. Hendry needs his available money to get his LH right fielder. Plus he probably is not real thrilled with how he got yanked around last time Furcal was a FA and is most likely not in a big hurry to go through that again.