RynoRules

So unless all of your arguments was that the Cubs should've hired Perlozzo as the manager in the past couple weeks, your anger is misplaced. I don't think expecting Hendry to even inquire about his availability is too much to ask. How do you know that he did not? Source? I think criticizing Hendry for not going after Mazzone is patently unfair, misguided, and ridiculous.

Hahaha! I think I just heard Chris Burke tell you to keep it down. And how about Berkman? He's gets 10 HRs a year hitting "cans of corn" to the opposite field in that place.

Exactly. Getting Giles isn't going to change them as much as getting him might change us (Cubs). They already are winning 100 games every year. So what if they win 5 more. Point is: I think that our focus should be on making us better and not keeping guys away for the Cards.

Friggin great. My first choice is gone (girardi). My second choice is gone (Torre). You heard it here first: Fish will break the Bravos strangle hold on the division next year.

The deal I'd offer him is a 4/50 deal with a 5th year option of 10 million with a 2 million buy-out. He would be guaranteed 52 million over four years or 60 if the Cubs pick up the last year. I think that is about 4 million more than anyone else would gurantee him and should be enough to lure him away from other suitors. I also wouldn't [expletive] foot around with it either. I'd make the offer, tell him that it's the best we can do. I'd also tell him that it was dependent on us not spending the money elsewhere. Hopefully, he'd realize it was better than anything else, sign quickly and then the Cubs would have plenty of time to make decisions on SS, 2b, bullpen, whatever. I guess I could live w/ four guaranteed. Its the fifth year tha makes me nervous. But so long as its an opton, it makes more sense. And the fact that this bd. will erupt if the Cards overpay to get him is not a reason to sign Giles. If we offer something in Vance's range - 4 yrs , 50 mill w/ an option for a fifth year, and the Cards beat that offer, than so be it.

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done. How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances? what does everyone else think bout that?I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast. I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60. Vance, he's still Brian Giles, and not Babe Ruth. He'll be 35 this year and you would lock him up at 12 mill per through his 40th b-day? Unless his name is Bonds or Clemens I ain't doing that. I know the wisdom is that it will take 4 guaranteed to het him off the coast, but if its me, I offer 3yrs at 11 mill per, with an option for a fourth that includes a hefty raise. Give him the cash when you know (or have evidence to suggest) that he will be most productive.

Labels are fun! Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles. I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success. I think there is a happy-medium here: Podsednik was a major factor in the first-half, less so in the second (and BTW, the Sox record suffered in the second-half; go figure). In general, there's a place for both stats and so-called intangibles in analyzing any good team. Happens that stats are quantifiable and thus a product of science, and intangibles have more to do with a feeling or observation, and thus are a product of philosophy. Some people are more inclined one way or the other, thus coloring their opinions. I'd venture to say that Ken Williams is more the philosophical type and was less concerned with stats.

So your statement is that the 03' Cubs, mid-90s Yanks, 03' Fish, and 04' Red Sox succesful playoff runs did not rely on or have anything to do with very good pitching and nearly error-free defense. I am sorry, but if that is your point, than I completely disagree.

\:D/

I see what you mean about LA getting fleeced, but DePo is a from the Beane school, and those guys love increased payroll flexibility. Whatever Lowell is making is ofset by 2 mill. Thus they plug up their problem at 3B, and leave plenty of room to go out and get a more "Moneyballish" OFer to fill CF. Its the classic salary dump. As a Cubs fan, anything that gets us a true leadoff man and fifth starter who won't get hurt makes me happy. And BTW, I think if someone could get hiom to concentrate and not act like a jacka**, Bradley really has .900 OPS potential.

Wow - I never thought thepeople on thisbd. would be such sore losers. Its been repeated ad nauseam here that winning in the playoffs requires your team to play very well and to have the ball bounce their way more often than not. And most importantly - you need over-the-top performances from your picthers. The Sox are doing all of the above - they are playing great baseball right now, and clearly believe that no matter what happens, they will win. The ball "bounced" their way in Game 2. You have to give them credit and hope that this will inspire our unmotivated heros on the Northside.

I wish the Cubs could play this brand of baseball well enough to make it to the World Series. I am NOT advocating small ball, but if the Cubs went that route, and made it to the WS, then hooray hooray! I agree that I'd take it any way I get it, but when it's not us then it really upsets me because it gets celebrated. Now that's sour grapes. They are winning the same way the Cubs did on 03': great pitching, "timely" hitting, good defense. Funny, but that's how the best Yankee teams won (see: Brosius, Scott and O'neil, Paul), how the 03' Marlins won, how last year's Red Sox won...are we seeing a pattern here? Baseball isn't all about stats: sometimes things just have to go your way. Frustrating, but true.

Man, I didn't know they were from Chicago? course not, it is well known the Giles brothers hail from the SoCal shoreline, Brian from El Cajon, CA, and Marcus from SD. Uh. I think he was being sarcastic.

Then wouldn't the ump have given Paul the benefit of doubt then? But he didn't call the ball in the dirt, he called in "no contact" and rung him up. EXACTLY - and if he had thought the ball had been dropped and/or hit the ground first, he would have made a "safe" signal and called out "no catch". He admitted in the press conference that he did not yell out "no catch", and Paul stated the same. He blew the call, lied about it, and had his umpire buddies sitting on the podium like they were his attnys, trying to bail him out. Supremely arrogant.

:lol: I was going to say Hillary Rodham Clinton or Dr. Evil.

No offense, Sir Knight-life, but that's a "homer" response. Go with the Phins. Cadillac Williams is hurt and may not play, leaving Brian Greise, Michael Pittman and Joey Galloway.

I agree they need more. But I think the Twins would love to deal both guys. Remember, no playoff revenue this year, which was something they had gotten used to in recent seasons. If they choose to lock up some young guys before they reach arbitration, this would help a lot. Radke is the de-facto mayor of the Twin Cities (in his first contract year, the state legislature considered diverting funds to the Twins to help re-sign him), and Hunter is the Deputy. If you think they have attendance problems now, try telling their fan-base that they just dealt the team's two most popular players to the most hated franchise in baseball, and in return received three guys known only those of us who are baseball obsessesed (Cedeno, Hill, and Duncan) and one absolute bust of a CFer (CPatt - but, hey, he's got all five tools!). In summary: Ryan would be committing profesional suicide and would have to enter the witness protection program if he made that deal.

There are good arguments both ways on this. I wouldn't mind having Johnny in Chicago. That said, it would have to be for less than he is alleging he wants. At the end of the day, the mkt will determine his value, and Georgy-boy is likely to want him, so this is all academic. But poor Johnny will have to cut his hair to be a Yankee...

Let me be more clear - I acknowledge that Giles has been mor eproductive than Damon. But one of the arguments that has been made for not signing Damon is that he is 32 and wants a 5-year deal. Giles is 35 and I have read on several occassions on this bd. that many would be willing to sign him to a 4-year deal. Thus, if you don't want Damon b/c of his age, but you want Giles in spite of his age, that appears to be contradictory. Its not a big deal, but if you don't want Damon and you are okay with Giles, I think you are better off sticking with the batting statistics as a justification.

That's the first point made against signing Damon that I really agree with. I find it contradictory that some of the same folks who would sign 35-year old Brian Giles to a 4 or 5 year deal are balking at signing Damon (at least in part) due to the fact that he's 32 and wants 5 years.

*Points to signature*

If you gave the two an SAT or something, I'd put my money on Beane. Good for Beane. :roll:

I think the Cubs would have to offer much more than just that package. Sub in Jerome Williams for Rich Hill due to the park the Phillies play in, and then toss in Scott Moore & Felix Pie and you'd have a deal they might bite on. My guess is even more than that. They'd want an "ML-ready" position player, and arguably, Pie isn't that guy. Murton might be on their radar, and with the way the ball jumps out of that park, he would be very succesful there. Would you deal Murton, Hill, and a Single A prospect to get Abreu?

Wow, I mean, I think that's so obviously true that there's no way I would have assumed that's what you were disagreeing with. I'd give you 10:1 odds that if you stuck hendry in oakland years ago they wouldn't have done nearly as well. Maybe he's not actually smarter, but I think beane is clearly better. Now that might be true. Comparitively speaking, Beane has done a better job than Hendry, though I think that Hendry's has made only one major mistake, and that was hiring Dusty. Unfortunately, that mistake may tarnish Hendry forever. But the notion that Beane is "smarter" is without any support, IMO.

I guess I disagree, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You said he sees managers as "fungible" twice in this thread, it looks like you agree with poudre. To clarify: I disagree that Beane is "smarter" than Hendry. I haven't seen any evidence of that. That's just my opinion.