Diffusion

Laugh at the Dodgers. Then get laughed at by the Dodgers when we pay an arm and a leg for Pierre. Or just don't get Pierre at all and laugh at the Dodgers some more.

If Williams and Hill isn't equal to Bedard, then Williams, Pinto and Hill definately is. I'd think you reasonably ask for the Phillies to start eating money with an offer like that.

Laugh at the Dodgers.

If that is the case then then can have Pinto and Williams for Abreu. The Cubs can take on all his salary and still get to keep Pie. He may be on his way to the O's for Bedard and ??? Pinto and Williams I think is pretty close in value to Bedard. But I do love Bedard.

Absolutely agree. Think about this folks: 5 years and $45M for a guy, who has never achieved an OPS over .795, and who's OBP has not been above .352 in the last 4 seasons. This is just not smart. Ronny at shortstop. Trade for the biggest RF bat you can possibly get, throw all the trade chips at him. I'm thinking Abreu-size. Walker at 2B. Plug CF. Bradley when the Dodgers non-tender would do. Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Murton to fill it out. I fully endorse this idea even if it means the Cubs have to trade Pinto and Pie to get Abreu. Abreu actually fills two needs for this team. Obviously I'd do my absolute best to protect Pie, Pawelek and Guzman. But they can have absolute anyone else from the farm system. Especially Rich Hill.

Absolutely agree. Think about this folks: 5 years and $45M for a guy, who has never achieved an OPS over .795, and who's OBP has not been above .352 in the last 4 seasons. This is just not smart. He's a SS who hits leadoff. There aren't many of those who have an OPS above .800. It's basically Derek Jeter and ... Derek Jeter.[/b] A shortstop that hits leadoff only hits leadoff because he's not fast and not good enough to hit anywhere else. And if only one shortstop in the game that hits leadoff can manage a .800 OPS, best to avoid shortstops that hit leadoff.

Absolutely agree. Think about this folks: 5 years and $45M for a guy, who has never achieved an OPS over .795, and who's OBP has not been above .352 in the last 4 seasons. This is just not smart. Ronny at shortstop. Trade for the biggest RF bat you can possibly get, throw all the trade chips at him. I'm thinking Abreu-size. Walker at 2B. Plug CF. Bradley when the Dodgers non-tender would do. Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Murton to fill it out. I fully endorse this idea even if it means the Cubs have to trade Pinto and Pie to get Abreu. Abreu actually fills two needs for this team. Pie and Pinto won't get it done. They're going to want Prior or Zambrano. And they're going to get absolutely laughed off the face of the planet. Bobby Abreu will be 32 years old come Opening Day, has $31m/2yrs left on his deal, and hit just .260/.376/.411 in the second half of 2005. Or at least that's what I tell the Phillies.

Absolutely agree. Think about this folks: 5 years and $45M for a guy, who has never achieved an OPS over .795, and who's OBP has not been above .352 in the last 4 seasons. This is just not smart. Ronny at shortstop. Trade for the biggest RF bat you can possibly get, throw all the trade chips at him. I'm thinking Abreu-size. Walker at 2B. Plug CF. Bradley when the Dodgers non-tender would do. Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Murton to fill it out.

GO DODGERS!

Don't worry guys, Neifi is working the phones as we type!

Three years in Dodger Stadium is a good way to ensure that your next contract isn't worth more than $11m/2yrs plus the cost and hassle of finding another home. If I were the Cubs right now, I'd be pretty scared they're about to get burnt. The $50m/5yr offer should never have been made, and it should be withdrawn right now in case Furcal uses his common sense. The Cubs ought to have long ago turned their attentions to addressing the outfield via trade, entrusting the shortstop position to young Ronny. The Cubs need a big bat this off-season, and it makes a lot more sense to get one that plays a position where you currently have no viable internal options and where positional premiums do not apply. The Cubs can take their team a whole lot further by pursuing the best right fielder they can get, and not the best shortstop.

I'd try and offer Lee a pretty complicated new contract this winter. In 2006, he'd get a guaranteed $13m, a $5m improvement on what he's owed for 2006 under the terms of his current deal. From 2007-09, he'd get a guaranteed $7m per year, with another $2m per year if he reaches 600 plate appearances, and a $4m bonus for each top five placing in NL MVP voting. There'd be a $13m mutual option for 2010 versus a $3m buyout. Finally, Lee would receive full no-trade protection up until 2007, and the right to block a trade to between five and ten teams of his choice thereafter. In total, the deal could be worth anywhere between $37m/4yrs and $65m/5yrs. Why might Lee take a deal like this rather than push for free agency? Well, he can virtually double his 2006 salary here and now, and so start reaping the rewards of his 2005 straight away. He also gets himself quite a very considerable amount of guaranteed money from 2007-09, money that he could quite easily never see if he pushes for free agency but succumbs to injury or has a terrible year in 2006. At the same time though, Lee isn't having to give up on a big pay day for the sake of immediate long-term financial security: this deal allows him to earn $13m a year every time he puts up MVP calibre numbers over a full season, which is roughly what he'd be looking at via free agency based on recent deals given to Konerko, Delgado, Thome etc. Neither is he completely giving up on the idea of ever seeing free agency, since the deal only ties him to the Cubs through his age 33 season. At that point, if he wanted, he could opt out of the mutual option and try to get a final big contract on the free agent market. Finally, by signing the contract now, he shows loyalty to the Cubs and the city of Chicago, doesn't portray himself as a free agent mercenary, and he can book himself a nice long break in the Caribbean next winter rather than worrying about his next deal. Why would the Cubs sign such a deal? Well, there are a number of things the Cubs have to consider. First, they have to consider the consequences of not re-signing him. Given the reaction in this thread, excessively hostile, the lack of great minor league options at first base, and the price of elite players via free agency and trade of late, and as such how difficult it would be to replace Lee, I think that the Cubs are best off re-signing him. This deal achieves that if Lee bites, obviously. Second, the Cubs need to consider Derrek Lee's performance level. Regarding his 2005, there are two reasonable possibilities. It may have been a fluke, and he could revert to his old .270/.370/.500 with Gold Glove/good baserunning form. Or it may have been for real, and Lee could be on the verge of a number of .300/.400/.600 seasons. This deal covers the Cubs against both possibilities. Old Lee gets just $43m over 4 years out of this deal: expensive but not excessively so, and front-loaded so it doesn't eat too much into Prior and Zambrano money. New Lee, one of the best players in the NL, gets $55m/4yrs or $65m/5yrs: very fair but not extortionate. Finally, the Cubs have to consider Derrek Lee's age, likelihood of injury and of decline. And this deal keeps him around through his age 33 season, not too risky, and it's structured so that Lee in injured years gets just $7m. If that's the tradeoff for avoiding Lee repeating his 2005 numbers in 2006 and then as a free agent demanding about $70m through 2011, it's probably worth it.

The real lesson to be learnt from this Van Buren trade is that you have to construct your 40-man roster properly. Over the last few years, Hendry has made a number of 40-man roster decisions that have been highly questionable at best. In November 2003, he purchased the contracts of Carlos Vasquez and Ronny Cedeno. Vasquez was about to turn 21, and was coming off a first season at Lansing (Low-A) where, coming off Tommy John surgery, he'd thrown 137.1 IP of 3.74 ERA ball (136 hits, 5 home runs, 47 walks, 87 strikeouts, and, for what it's worth a 10-13 record in 23 starts). In spite of the unspectacular numbers, Hendry protected the left-handed sinkerballer from the Rule 5 draft. He'd never have been selected, yet alone have stuck on a major league roster for a year, for his complete lack of a real upside would have made effectively suffering a 24-man roster for a year entirely unthinkable. Vasquez was optioned to Daytona (High-A) in 2004, had another unspectacular season, and was quietly outrighted (successfully) off the forty this year. He then failed a drugs test, and that's the last I've heard of him. Ronny Cedeno, meanwhile, as we all know, has blossomed into something of a prospect. Credit must be given to Hendry and his scouting department for recognising this at an early stage. All the same, the decision to protect him on the 40-man roster was unjustifiable. Cedeno, 20, was coming off a first season at Daytona (High-A) where he'd hit just .211/.257/.295 in 107 games. And the year before that he'd hit a virtually identical .214/.270/.296 in 127 games split between Lansing (Low-A) and Boise (short-season A). While very good defensively, there's simply no way that he'd have been picked in the Rule 5 draft given that the market is always flooded with no-hit/good-glove middle infield types. Consider, for instance, that the Cubs were able to sign Neifi originally via a minor-league contract. Anyway, the Cubs needlessly burnt an option on Cedeno's 2004 breakout season, they burnt another option on his 2005, and so he has just the one more option year left. That winter the Cubs also purchased the contracts of Angel Guzman, Renyel Pinto, Brendan Harris and Jason Dubois with the intention of protecting them from the Rule 5. Pinto was most probably well-enough down prospect-lists at that point to escape attention. The other three were obvious moves. In October/November 2004, purchased the contracts of John Koronka, Russ Rohlicek and Geovany Soto John Koronka would have been a six-year minor league free-agent had the Cubs not either added him to the 40-man roster or re-signed him to a minor league deal. You know what I say to that? Big deal. What did Jim Hendry say? Fine, onto the forty you go! Quite why is not obviously apparent. Then 24, Koronka had just come off a season at Iowa (AAA) in which he'd thrown 153.1 IP of 4.34 ERA ball (164 hits, 19 home runs, 65 walks, 116 strikeouts, 12-9 record). His good changeup, bad fastball and nothing else combo was the reason that for many years he languished in the lower regions of the Cincinnati Reds season before they thought him so worthless they sent him our way in exchange for Phil Norton. Since being added, Koronka's put up another "bleh whatever" season at Iowa, had a cup of coffee in the majors in which, for obvious reasons, he got battered around, and had a decent handful of innings in the AFL, all while wasting a 40-man roster spot. He's still on the forty too, still wasting a spot. Of course, Hendry also protected Will Ohman, justifiably, Rohlicek, right decision but didn't pan out, and Soto, an understandable third catcher move, and left, amongst others, Andy Sisco, stupidly, and Luke Hagerty, presciently, unprotected. Why was the Andy Sisco move stupid, if adding fellow deep in the system lefties Renyel Pinto and Carlos Vasquez was uncalled for? Simply because Sisco was a top prospect, and widely thought of as such. A second round pick, tall, mid-nineties fastball, the comparisons to the likes of Randy Johnson preceeded him. From the very moment that Sisco was left unprotected, Cub fans knew that he'd at the very least be selected in the draft. On the other hand, most Cub fans hadn't even heard of Pinto and Vasquez at the time they were added to the roster. Of course, that's not to say that other team's scouts hadn't seen them, and there's a possibility that Hendry became aware that Pinto or Vasquez would be selected, but it's unlikely. Pinto and Vasquez were lesser names for a reason - they were lesser prospects. In November 2005, purchased the contracts of Brian Dopirak, Scott Moore and Jose Reyes Brian Dopirak has all the power in the world. He's also a first baseman that has trouble hitting for average due to his strikeouts, doesn't walk that often and plays pretty poor defence. Baseball America's ranking of him as the Cubs' 2004 top prospect was always at best a bit of a stretch, and that they still rank him ninth in the system after the year that he had at Daytona (High-A) is, I believe, a case of them trying to justify last year's ranking. What kind of a year did he have? Well, he hit .235/.289/.381 in 132 games. Let's just leave it at that. No team would have taken him, because of the Carlos Vasquez factor: his upside isn't great enough to make a 24-man roster worthwhile. If he were a gold-glove shortstop, absolutely you'd still protect him. But Dopirak is right at the other end of the defensive spectrum, where viable options are ten times more easily found. Scott Moore is in the exact same boat, only with a better year at Daytona but less ceiling. And Jose Reyes is another Geovany Soto backup catcher at best type, all glove not that much hit. It's possible he would have been lost in the Rule 5 draft, but the forty doesn't need four catchers. The only way it really makes sense to protect him is if Hendry moves either Soto or Reyes in a trade sometime soon. I think for now we should give Hendry the benefit of the doubt, but this trade had better materialise. Also purchased the contracts of Felix Pie, Carlos Marmol, Sean Marshall, Ricky Nolasco and Jae-Kuk Ryu, all correctly in my view. Left Bobby Brownlie, Billy Petrick, David Aardsma, Chadd Blasko and Jake Fox off the 40-man roster, again all correctly I think. And left Brandon Sing off too, which I completely disagree with. Outrighted Mike Fontenot and designated Adam Greenberg for assignment, both ridiculous moves. Both aren't much less marginal than Soto/Reyes, but because they're ready to contribute, you protect them, and then use them as trade chips if you really don't want to keep them.

Dodgers have so many holes to fill, I don't see them taking on an even bigger contract in Abreu. Isn't that why they wanna move Lowe anyways? Any wanting to get rid of Lowe would be all about the roughly league average pitcher earning $28.5m over the next three years thing.

Because then they can't get rid of Bradley. They can non-tender Bradley if push comes to shove. There's no need for them to make a bad trade to offload him.

Lowe's contract is not bad, in fact I would say it's avg to good. Especially compared to what the market is dictating this year. he's making 5M more than Kris Benson correct? i think it's a decent contract. Wood is goinng to make 11.5M this year. Paying a starting pitcher that's in all likelihood going to be around league average an average of $9.5m over the next three years is a bad contract regardless. If the free agent market's so bad that anyone could possibly think otherwise, then you find and use other means to reach your ends.

So Pie + relatively cheap cost of acquiring Bradley/Lowe nets us Bradley and Abreu? I'd do it. And about $40m in salary commitments over the next two years. Look, it boils down to this. If Derek Lowe, a good prospect and a chunk of cash is worth Abreu, why would the Dodgers bother dealing with the Cubs?

Derek Lowe is a decent pitcher with a bad contract: he has $28.5m coming to him over the next three years. The Cubs may as a result be able to acquire him and Bradley relatively cheaply in terms of players, but they're not then going to be able to flip Lowe with a prospect for Abreu, unless they're eating a ridiculous amount of salary, or the prospect is called Felix.

The Eyre signing doesnt bother me as much as the Neifi and Rusch signs. I liked the Howry signing. Relievers that by rights should have an ERA around 3.50 based on their peripherals are very handy (and both Howry and Eyre are around that mark). But $4m each a year really is a steep price to pay for that. Honestly, at this point with Ryan getting over $9 mill and with Farnsworth getting over $6 mill, do the Eyre and Howry signings look that bad? I understand Ryan is better, but I dont think he is over twice the reliever Howry or Eyre are, and I think they are both better than Farnsworth. As I said, Hendry played a large part in setting the market, and he set it way too high. He takes two of the most widely overrated relievers off the market (because they're not relievers in the long term that can sustain 2.something ERAs), which limits the number of remaining options, and he also pays for the privilege in both dollars and years. Other relievers use the Howry and Eyre deals to justify yet higher and longer demands, teams get nervous about the market moving and they panic buy, and the whole process repeats itself over. The biggest beneficaries are those free agents that sign last before the money runs out.

I'll be disappointed if we don't get a decent PTBNL out of this.

The Eyre signing doesnt bother me as much as the Neifi and Rusch signs. I liked the Howry signing. Relievers that by rights should have an ERA around 3.50 based on their peripherals are very handy (and both Howry and Eyre are around that mark). But $4m each a year really is a steep price to pay for that.

Hendry trying to justify Eyre/Howry contracts by pointing to where the market's moved since. Overlooking of course that the Eyre/Howry deals contributed to the market going that way.

By my reckoning, that's now $167.5m handed out in multi-year deals for free-agent relievers so far this off-season. The Cubs are responsible for $38.5m of that.

That needs to be one good prospect they're throwing our way.

Personally, I think it was absolutely unnecessary. Personal insults are never harmless. More than anything, they reduce the value of your own argument. Personal insults drive down the value of this community. You class "you're making things up as you go along" as a personal insult? I take your point about the Cubs having an imperfect record when it comes to deciding which players to protect on the 40-man roster, but, unless you've heard a single dissenting opinion in this particular instance, someone that believes either that Nolasco should have been left off the roster or Pignatiello added, or both, then my point is still valid.