Illini Iceman

They have updated the 40 man roster on cubs.com and it is at 40 players but strangely enough Scott Moore is not on it.

I seem to recall that we got some guy named Jesus Sanchez as the 2nd player in a deal. I believe Hendry non-tendered him the very next season. Hoops He non-tendered Grieve last off season.

I think we actually agree. Macias is wasting a 40 man spot but I don't think that the reason it is a waste is because they could not keep Leciester on the 40 man. There are more worthy prospects. I see very little chance Leciester would make the team, do enough to increase his trade value above PTBNL level or work things out at his age with another year in AAA. For a player of his talent / rank in the Cubs system I agree with trading him to the first team that wants him for whatever you can get, which is exactly what Hendry probably did.

At his age if he was waived and no team in MLB was willing to pick him up to put on the 25 man roster then I don't see why he would be worthy of a 40 man spot (especially not worthy enough for BP to call it "dumb" to trade him). Macias is not worth a spot, but there a probably guys you could make better arguments for using the spot on than Leicester. Personally I don't see why Koronka is holding a spot either.

The Baseball Prospectus article mentioned in another thread pointed out how dumb it was to dump Leicester just to retain Macias on the 40-man to offer him arby. No way Leicester was going to make the 25 man roster and he is out of options so it would have been hasta la bye bye this spring anyway and at least Hendry got a PTBNL.

Unfortunately yes. So keeping Macias will cost us a prospect. As will signing Neifi and Eyre prior to the Rule V draft. Was Hendry worried Neifi would sign elsewhere? Did he feel the need to lay out $11 million immediately for Eyre? These are some more examples why Jim Hendry is a bad GM. If he signed Eyre after the Rule 5 draft he would have had to put someone through waivers to clear the spot and that is a bigger risk to losing a prospect than through Rule 5 since the team picking the player up only has to add them to the 40 man, not keep the player on the 25 man all season.

If we have to say that after every signing (and we have), I don't think it's true anymore. What about it isn't true? They signed Neifi for pretty much the same amount he got paid last year, Rusch for a slight raise and Eyre and Dempster combined can't be much (if any) more than Remmy and Hawkins. That still leaves at least the Nomar, Burnitz and Sosa money to burn.

Try calling Hendry [expletive] and Neifi Dusty's boy toy and you will be applauded and welcomed with open arms.

Maybe Ohman is now possible trade bait. Also, I'm not going to judge this signing until I see how Eyre does in a Cubs uniform. I guess all the "Mr. know it Alls" here know what the market is regarding LOOGY's as FA's. NOT!!!! Give it a chance all you pessimists & overreacter's! Maybe the optmists should give it a rest. Almost 4 mil for a loogy. Yeah! Too bad he didn't stick with Bartosh as the second lefty so when he blew another game you could rip Hendry for not upgrading the bullpen in the offseason.

My heart says yes and my head says no. IMO it would take a MINIMUM of Pinto, Novoa and Hill/Williams to get close. Even that won't be enough unless Philly decides they really need to trim payroll.

Eyre will help them win games and even if his salary is a little high it won't keep the Cubs from getting anyone they really want. They still have plenty of money to sign Furcal and upgrade RF and CF. I agree that it does probably mean that Rusch has the inside track for the 5th starter job since 3 lefties in the bullpen seems like overkill. Being able to count on two solid LH relievers will be a nice luxury and it increases the chances of Hendry being able to use Hill and/or Williams as trade bait to get the OF bat they need.

I could live with Wilkerson in CF but I am not sure he thrills me in RF batting 5th. He only hit .248 with 11 HR's last year. His OPS was pretty much the same as Burnitz.

Other than Jones in RF it doesn't look too bad to me.

Pierre isn't very good. I'll take him for a couple of Rule 5 guys that wouldn't make the 40 man if Hendry can swing that. Depending on the price I'd be pretty okay with it. It keeps Dusty from EVER batting Neifi leadoff, it doesn't necessarily preclude us from signing Furcal if we want to, but it gives us leverage. He's a FA after this year, and will probably be a A type FA, so we get a draft pick if/when he walks, and he will be an improvment over the tripe we had at the top last year. Having said all that, it all swings on the player cost to aquire. If it's reasonable, then it's a good move. If we give up a Pie, Hill, Pinto or Masrhall, it's not. I agree. I can't imagine Pie or Hill but I really see Pinto as a guy that may go in this trade. I hope not. With Florida being motivated to move Pierre due to salary reasons I think Mitre and Greenberg seems fair. I would avoid trading Pinto unless it is in a deal to get an impact bat like Abreu or Dunn.

He's old and homosexual. I don't think that comment was necessary or factual. There's no need to bring up someone's sexuality. Sorry if it was inapporpriate, but i'm pretty sure he's admitted he is. So what? If Ellen Degeneres could hit 40 HRs and play a solid CF, I'd be begging JH to sign her up. PC police on full alert tonight, huh? I gather from this thread it is OK to call people [expletive] (since no one made a peep in response to that) but calling someone homosexual really is going over the line.

Yeah really. I mean Furcal is very good but is he that much better than Jimmy Rollins or Edgar Renteria? I just don't understand some of these agents sometimes. Well, since you asked: Furcal: 03: 292/352/443/25 steals (93 percent success) 04: 279/345/414/29 steals (83 percent success) 05: 284/348/429/46 steals (82 percent success) Rollins: 03: 263/320/387/20 steals (63 percent success) 04: 289/348/455/30 steals (77 percent success) 05: 290/338/431/41 steals (87 percent success) Renteria: 03: 330/394/480/34 steals (83 percent success) 04: 287/327/401/17 steals (61 percent success) 05: 276/335/385/9 steals (69 percent success) First, Renteria is mired in an awful decline. That signing is only going to get worse and worse for Boston. Second, Rollins and Furcal are amazingly similar players -- Rollins' numbers are encouraging (for Phillies fans, I guess) because he still appears to be improving, while Furcal has been pretty consistent. I'd probably give the edge to Furcal since he gets on base more, and we all know that's what a leadoff man should really be doing. Rollins got a 5 year/$40 million deal, so Furcal is probably worth (in market value, at least) a bit more than that. Good think Epstein jumped ship before he had to answer for the big money long term deals he gave to Clement and Renteria. I know Boston doesn't seem to worry too much about budgets but I still think they are going to regret those contracts.

Obviously not, since we are so far into the offseason and so many teams have made moves and Hendry is just screwing up left and right. :roll: Seems to me that are always going to be some people hoping for a bad offseason because they seem to get more enjoyment from ripping mistakes (real or perceived) by Hendry, Baker, etc. than they get when the team is succesful. Well..so far he screwed up to the left with the Rusch resigning. According to this article he is working on screwing up to the right as well. Wait to see what happens when he gives Macias a 3 year contract with an option. :( Btw, would you actually like this move? That's what this post seems to be implying. I think Rusch has been a useful arm for the Cubs the last couple season and that when all is said and done with FA signings around the majors the $3M will look like a reasonable deal. Therefore, I don't agree with your statement that he has "screwed up to the left with the Rusch re-signing". I don't see Neifi signed yet of for how much so I am not going to criticize him for a move he has not made. If he does sign him and plans for him to be the starting SS or 2B then I will heartily agree that it is a bad move. However, before I get on his case I need to see the whole offseason body of work and not just make knee jerk reactions to rumors from a dubious source.

I agree with most of this but I don't think Hendry goes with Nomar in RF. IMO he is going to try to use Hill, Mitre or Williams plus CPatt and some minor league talent to upgrade RF. I still get the feeling that Kearns is high on his list but it might not be enough of an upgrade so he probably will try for someone bigger if he can find a willing trade partner. I get the feeling that Hendry will try to get a low cost temporary option for CF (e.g. - Lofton) because his previous comments seem to imply that he thinks that Pie is really close. If he can't move CPatt I don't see any way they release him. Even as a utility guy he has value so it would be a waste to just cut him loose.

Obviously not, since we are so far into the offseason and so many teams have made moves and Hendry is just screwing up left and right. :roll: Seems to me that are always going to be some people hoping for a bad offseason because they seem to get more enjoyment from ripping mistakes (real or perceived) by Hendry, Baker, etc. than they get when the team is succesful.

The Rays boy wonder Andrew Freidman was discussing a 6-year deal with Baldelli before it was put on the back-burner until the GM/Manager searches were complete. I wouldn't be surprised if he signs a long-term deal in Tampa this winter. Not likely that Baldelli signs any long term extension. First of all his agent is Boras, and we all know he will not want any deal that takes his client away from a free agent windfall. Secondly, I think Baldelli is sick of the losing and really wants to get out of TB. His dream would probably be to play CF for the Red Sox so I think he will avoid signing any contract that will keep him from having that chance asap.

It is not a question of planning but of differences in opinion regarding player evaluation. Clearly Hendry thought Nomar, Burnitz, Holly/Dubois was better than any other combination of SS, LF, RF out there that he could put together within his budget. If Nomar was healthy and Dubois was the hitter a lot of people though he would be it may have been a good plan. However, on Nomar he was unlucky and on Dubois and Burnitz he was wrong. He has this offseason to fix the problem or he may be back to scouting. That's the nature of his job.

The difficulties in moving Sosa would have been somewhat alleviated had the Cubs not made it clear that they *had* to move him through the PR job they pulled. If you want to trade a guy, you don't torpedo his value by proclaiming what a bad guy he is and that you need to get rid of him. Next, I think moving Sosa became such a priority publicly (thanks again to the PR job) that Hendry spent far, far too much time trying to do it. Hendry may work hard, and I'm sure he gave the direction of the ballclub plenty of thought last winter. It was the execution, or the plan itself, that was severely lacking. Severely. The plan for moving Sosa, for instance, was fatally flawed from the start. Similarly, the idea that Burnitz was a suitable replacement and that Hollandsworth and Dubois were starters on a championship club were also very bad plans. And again, as I pointed out, you could have brought back Alou with, at worst, minimal impact on the payroll even before December of 2004, with plenty of time left to deal Sosa. So there too was a lack of planning, or a lack of logic, if you prefer,as Hendry publicly stated that it was fear of getting stuck with Both of them led to Alou not coming back. Salary wise, that should not have been the case. *edit #1* Perhaps I shouldn't say "lack of planning", and term it "poor planning and execution". But I think that's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion. *edit #2* I'm not saying I wanted Alou back. At the start of last offseason, I wanted him gone, but in hindsight having him here would have made a very big difference in our season, and the fact that Hendry's logic in not bringing him back was faulty is what I'm criticizing. I don't think the whole Alou issue can necessarily be hung on Hendry. If management gave him a budget and he could not fit Alou and Sosa into that budget then his hands were tied. He couldn't make an offer to Alou until he had moved Sosa if he didn't have the financial OK to potentially be stuck with both salaries. He makes some moves that are head scratchers but as a whole I think he does a good job. The Hundley, Lee, Nomar and Hawkins trades were all excellent IMO so that buys him some benefit of the doubt from me. That being said, this is a BIG offseason for him. Alou signed for $7m with a $6m option for 2006. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the money you spent on Hairston and Burnitz would have nearly paid for all of that. Would Alou have taken less than $9m to stay here? Maybe not, but then you don't go and sign Macias and Perez to a combined $2.5m. Then you would certainly have been able to fit Alou in with or without Sosa. Numbers are numbers. You can't get around simple math. Proper money management or a simple realization that Sosa would be hard to move and they would have to make do somehow could have netted us a much more productive OF. I'm only pressing this home because I think it's a sign of a greater problem with Hendry than just his love of toolsy players and possible overreliance on Gary Hughes' advice. I agree - you can't get around simple math. The money paid to Hairston and Burnitz was AFTER the trade of Sosa to Baltimore so therefore AFTER management was 100% sure that the equal Sosa money was off the books. You are suggesting he commit to the Alou money BEFORE a Sosa deal was complete. If he wound up not being able to swing a deal where another team absorbed $6M worth of salary then he would be over budget and that may not have been acceptable to the Trib bean counters. Your arguments may make sense from a fan's perspective, but any manager that has worked under a budget knows that you sometimes can't do what you want because you aren't being given the money. You suggest in another post that he should have considered Kent over Walker or Drew, Maggs or Beltran because of their long term benefit. Where's the money coming from? This year Hendry has plenty of payroll flexibility so he can show us what he can do. If he fails again then he will be in the hot seat. However, I find it hard to put too much blame on him for moves he did not make last year when, by all accounts, he probably did not have the budget to make them.

The difficulties in moving Sosa would have been somewhat alleviated had the Cubs not made it clear that they *had* to move him through the PR job they pulled. If you want to trade a guy, you don't torpedo his value by proclaiming what a bad guy he is and that you need to get rid of him. Next, I think moving Sosa became such a priority publicly (thanks again to the PR job) that Hendry spent far, far too much time trying to do it. Hendry may work hard, and I'm sure he gave the direction of the ballclub plenty of thought last winter. It was the execution, or the plan itself, that was severely lacking. Severely. The plan for moving Sosa, for instance, was fatally flawed from the start. Similarly, the idea that Burnitz was a suitable replacement and that Hollandsworth and Dubois were starters on a championship club were also very bad plans. And again, as I pointed out, you could have brought back Alou with, at worst, minimal impact on the payroll even before December of 2004, with plenty of time left to deal Sosa. So there too was a lack of planning, or a lack of logic, if you prefer,as Hendry publicly stated that it was fear of getting stuck with Both of them led to Alou not coming back. Salary wise, that should not have been the case. *edit #1* Perhaps I shouldn't say "lack of planning", and term it "poor planning and execution". But I think that's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion. *edit #2* I'm not saying I wanted Alou back. At the start of last offseason, I wanted him gone, but in hindsight having him here would have made a very big difference in our season, and the fact that Hendry's logic in not bringing him back was faulty is what I'm criticizing. I don't think the whole Alou issue can necessarily be hung on Hendry. If management gave him a budget and he could not fit Alou and Sosa into that budget then his hands were tied. He couldn't make an offer to Alou until he had moved Sosa if he didn't have the financial OK to potentially be stuck with both salaries. He makes some moves that are head scratchers but as a whole I think he does a good job. The Hundley, Lee, Nomar and Hawkins trades were all excellent IMO so that buys him some benefit of the doubt from me. That being said, this is a BIG offseason for him.

Hank hit a Patterson-esque .231/.276/.335/.611 away from Ameriquest this year. Patterson, Nolasco and Williams for Abreu would be good. Patterson and Nolasco to Texas, Blalock and Williams to Philly. I think for the Rangers to even consider this the prospect would need to be more at the Pinto level than Nolasco. Nolasco had a nice year and all but still I think from a "stuff" comparison Pinto is probably more valued by other GM's. Maybe something along the lines of CPatt, Williams, Pinto and possibly throwing in Wellemeyer to the Rangers or Phillies would make it more likely.

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz. Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did. The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option. Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa. If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal. I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with. At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05. We ate, IIRC, $13m of the $18.5m of Sosa's 2005. Hairston made $1.8m last season, and Burnitz signed for $4.5m. At best, that's a wash. The budgetary issue is a total red herring for a complete lack of planning from the second the final out occurred against Atlanta last October. Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub. The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams. Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.