wilk

I noticed my title was changed to "or Dunn"...? Was there actually speculation that a deal for Dunn is even being discussed, let alone "close"? Quickly browsing through all the pages I missed I saw Dunn's name, but I didn't see where this all roots from?

I don't think it's official but Macias in for Aramis, Walker 5th and Murton in the lineup is all official. That lineup very well may be official, I don't know.

And Murton is supposedly batting 6th. Hairston Neifi Lee Burnitz Walker Murton Macias Blanco ...that was posted at Cubs.com.

Hm. I'm pretty sure this is not true. I've been listening to ESPN 1000 and it has not even been speculated that Wood would be involved - nor has it elsewhere to my knowledge. The Cubs aren't trading Wood. ESPN Radio said something along the lines of "who the Cubs would send out has been speculated among guys like Hill or Pie, or Walker or Patterson." I'd think if anyone anywhere thought it'd be Wood, it'd be mentioned elsewhere.

How does Giles not help for the next couple years? I'd take Hendry's point as he's not trading for a rent-a-player or a guy who will give us a year. Giles is 34, with a 3 year contract he will not play a game with us at 38. You talk as if I'm saying to get Biggio. Giles this year has the 4th best EqA in the NL so far. I'd say even a drop off helps us in coming years. I've stated that the 3rd year is tricky because, theoretically, that's when you might start worrying about decline. Front-load a contract, and we'll get premium production for at least the next two years. That is NOT countering what Hendry has stated. And it's not as if there are 5 or 6 better free agent targets. This isn't a guy who's been declining, or showing signs of regression (any surface difference can be attributed to Petco, look at the normalized numbers). Giles SIMPLY does meet the qualifications of a player that'd help put us over the top for the next 2-3 years. Giles would prefer to play in San Diego or play with his brother (in Atlanta). That doesn't mean San Diego or Atlanta will give him it. There were talks of the Padres trading him if they fell out of it - they didn't, so they're keeping him but that doesn't necessarily mean they plan on bringing him back. Towers has been wishy-washy on the topic, though he's said he would plan to keep a winning team intact. Giles has hinted that he'd like to be a free agent and attempt to sign with Atlanta. Atlanta is playing their kids and I'm not so sure they'd give Giles a fair enough deal, even discounted. Giles isn't pledging any allegiance... But I'm not suggesting it's in any way a sure bet. Of course we'd have competition. I fail to see how that rules him out of discussion. Um, it wasn't supposed to lend any sort of validity. No one is trying to prove anything. The point was that you claim Hendry has an "EXACT" reason as to which he is not considering Giles. It's contrary to what I've heard, and since I trust what I've heard, it leads me to believe you're simply telling me what YOU think and attributing it to HENDRY'S mindset. I said it wasn't you personally, but so many people who tend to do it and I find it pretty unnecessary. We're talking to each other, not trying to show each other up over who thinks from Hendry's mind the best. Quiet interest means that it's not something he's ever said he's had interest in. It mean's it's speculative but definitely not shot down. The ol' Brian Giles is a top notch player and you always have to be open to that talent, but we're going to make the moves that look best for the ball club at the time, yadda yadda. Point being, yes, as you put it best - doesn't mean jack. It doesn't mean Hendry wants Giles, and it doesn't mean Hendry said "his age is EXACTLY why I don't want him, Giles SIMPLY does not meet those qualifications." That was my whole point, but you somehow spun it otherwise. I said very clearly that I DO NOT have direct contact, but you go ahead to say the exact opposite. I don't get it. It wasn't a Cubs.com "who's sources are better." It was a NSBB "I'm pretty sure we're mostly smart baseball people and it seems a decent portion of us talk to the right people, so please discuss it instead of just assuming our own opinions as "EXACTLY" or "SIMPLY" anything Hendry has never stated." Forget it. SPECIAL CASES? Alou was not brought in at the request of Sosa. They went after Alou after White turned down a two-year deal, and Alou seemed the perfect protection for Sosa and McGriff. They thought Alou's 2004 would happen all three years. Sosa tried to convince Alou to come, but it only happened after the Cubs were already targeting him. Alou wanted 4 years, remember? Maybe Sosa HELPED, but it wasn't Sosa who signed Alou. It wasn't a "SPECIAL CASE" for Sammy Sosa. They didn't sign Maddux for #300. What's with these crazy ideas? They hoped Maddux would mentor the young staff, and expected the consistency he showed his whole career. And yes Giles/Lee/Ramirez would be a killer 2-3-4 (not 3-4-5 ...ha, I adore that, by the way.) Who said Giles would leave California? Well, Brian Giles. I'd say Giles is plenty much a core. A core doesn't mean "as young and raw as possible." That core has fluid outer core and a solid inner core. Sure we can have all that youth and potential and energy, but you also need the solid production. Giles has been nothing but solid production to date. What is it about Giles that's no good? Are you simply convinced he can no longer play baseball at 36? And I don't get the "MVP Baseball" lineup reference... I haven't played the game so what's the reference? Fantasy? Which is it, is Giles no good for this team or is it wishful child thinking? I'm pretty confident Giles can help them win now and in the future. How much into the future do you find necessary? 5 years? 6 years? I don't Hendry is going to be handing out many contracts bigger than the one I propose for Giles. So, how is it that Giles can't help this team for the next 2-3 years? Are you convinced that Kearns will help "now and in the future"? Is that not as big, or bigger of a risk? I'm not saying I don't any individual of those players. It's the collective whole that you are suggesting that worries me. We cannot rely on a "Murton/Pie/Kearns" outfield, which you now seem to agree with. But you put Brian Giles in the mix, and you have a LOT more room to breath and "relax." You think Kearns can relax in an outfield where he's the veteran and expected to produce the most? Include Giles, and everyone can relax, and you can afford to have Kearns or Murton take their time. You can afford to let Pie develop as he should. In the same breath that you concede this concept, you shot down what Giles would bring to this club. It's definitely not lightning in the a bottle... Who would call Brian Giles hoping on lightning in a bottle? You know Giles is a .300 career hitter with a .413 OBP, right? A .959 career OPS. .297 BA / .434 OBP / .940 OPS this year with the 4th best EqA in baseball. How is he EXACTLY and SIMPLY contrary to what the Cubs need? How would signing him need an extra TREMENDOUSLY SPECIAL CASE? ...

I meant in the offseason.

I was speaking to you, not asking Hendry's mindset. It's nothing against you only, so don't take it that way, but it's pretty pointless when people say things like the "[EXACT] reason that Hendry isn't after Giles" when I'd say you have no idea if Hendry is after him or not. While I have no direct contact, I have several close acquaintances who do have direct contact with the Cubs' front office. When I asked them about Giles, they said Hendry does seem to have some quiet interest in him but would hypothetically not want to give more than a 2 year deal considering his age and a 2 year deal might not be enough to pull him away. Sure Hendry would rather have Kearns, but that's not exactly as easy as a decison. There will be considerable money that could be spent this offseason, and there aren't many appealing targets. We have the money to pay Giles for 2-3 years and there's nothing to suggest he'd fall apart in that span. He's not a player dependent on power or speed, and you don't exactly lose plate smarts. Giles-Lee-Ramirez is a 2-3-4 I'd kill for and let's not discussion short simply because you assume Hendry doesn't like 35 year olds. We did it for Alou and Maddux, for starters. Giles is a perfect fit, and one of the very few guys in baseball I'd give an extended consideration to. Kearns is perhaps a bigger risk with less value over the next 2 years than Giles even if he'd have more longterm value. What other free agents are out there and a better fit than Giles? If Hendry can pull the trigger for Kearns cheaply, then I'm all for it - I support Kearns more than most do. But even acquiring Kearns does not guarantee a ready OF. And I'm not sure how you can pencil in an OF of Murton/Pie/Kearns... That's some wishful thinking and I'd rather not rush a mostly undisciplined Pie into the majors. You get a guy like Giles, and then you can afford to hope Murton/Pie/Gerut can come through. You don't find a sure bet OF, and you need them to. Finding undervalued players is great and all, but we can afford to go after the guaranteed production. I'd be worried about that 3rd year, too. But I'd rather worry about the 3rd year than worry about the next three.

What about Brian Giles? I'd say the ONLY concern with Giles is age, and I'd place more in Giles keeping it up for 3 more years than Kearns reaching that level. He wants to stay in San Diego or play with his brother and he'd take less to do either, but I'm not sure either team will give him enough to make "less" worth it. Giles has the 4th best EqA in the NL this year.

Thank you Jeff. That's what I had gathered, but I wanted someone to verify it for me. ;) As far as the book - I was referring to "The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book" not the CBA. It's the book that covers waivers, options, Rule 5, June draft, etc. From everything I've heard, and all searching I've done, it's not attainable outside an ML front office. Thanks again.

Why do discussions like this always come to such narrow assumptions and ignoring the actual gist of the point? When did I ever sum up my argument as RISP? It was one of many of my points and yet the only one anyone is focusing on. So... No. Considering ~100 at-bats wouldn't make the decision for me, I think it's safe to assume 9 at-bats wouldn't change my opinion either. I thought my post laid out my opinion pretty clearly. Sheesh.

You can't just lump all situational stats into a category to dismiss. I mean, technically, all statistics are situational. I definitely wouldn't consider career situational splits like RISP, or men on with 2 outs to show any discernable talent for such situations - but how they perform in various splits *this year* still stands to tell part of the story (especially when the difference is significant to his total season numbers.) From year to year these numbers can drastically change - but from month to month your offensive numbers can change drastically while situational splits remain pretty similar. I'd say that has to mean SOMETHING? I don't believe there are clutch hitters - there are only clutch hits. But hitters can have quite a difference "situationally" in their approach and by that the result. Like I said before, if it were the only difference it wouldn't make or break the deal for me. In fact, I'd be much more concerned with this away numbers and the fact that Wrigley isn't exactly built for his type of game. He has struggled in many aspects of his game this year. What's there to say that he'd goto Wrigley and perform better? Gut feeling?

Yes, the old Ignore everything else to condescendingly point out ONE stat and assume that it's not a situation you'd have to worry about for a leadoff hitter. So no comments about the rest? Still going to ignore all that and yet somehow claim that everyone else ignores the facts? Sorry, I don't quite understand that attitude. The problem is that RISP is not the only difference, it's one of many. And that's fine if you guys want to ignore situational stats. But I guess just the same it's fine that people want to ignore what he did in his "career" opposed to the old "what have you done for me lately." Then I guess we have to consider HOW much "lately"? My point was never to say that Pro-Pierre is wrong. It was to say that you jumping to conclusions that Anti-Pierre is "ignoring facts" is blatantly incorrect - it's just a matter of which stats you choose to ignore. I guess it's been proven to be a pretty hypocritical statement too. Oh well.

So, no one knows for sure?

I see, so let's ignore the areas where Pierre *does* suck because it hurts the argument that "Pierre doesn't suck"...? So Pierre walks much less, but since he strikes out less is that the end-all? What about that Pierre's line Away is .249 / .284 / .332 / .616? Yes, Hairston's career OBP is .335, but Pierre's career OBP "away" is also .335. I don't feel like doing the math, but the number would even be somewhat lower if you take out Coors and Dolphin from the "Away" when he switched teams and vice versa. His career numbers at Wrigley are .279 / .343 / .361 / .704. So you do the rough math and see if you can project a rough season line. Not so great. I'd say "overrated." Or what about: Pierre RISP - .203 / .301 / .304 / .605 SP2O - .143 / .236 / .265 / .501 OB2O - .194 / .260 / .284 / .544 Cl&L - .196 / .255 / .255 / .510 Hairston RISP - .292 / .382 / .417 / .799 SP2O - .269 / .321 / .308 / .629 OB2O - .216 / .256 / .270 / .526 Cl&L - .258 / .361 / .452 / .813 (Runners in scoring position, scoring position 2 out, men on 2 out, close and late) Of course the line this season: Pierre .272 / .319 / .357 / .676 Hairston .264 / .346 / .388 / .734 And then the ever popular "Pierre in Wrigley?" consideration. Unless you plan on him bunting every single at-bat, the grass is a bad thing. And then of course if he bunts every at-bat it stops working. There are plenty of numbers and arguments to say that Pierre is overrated and not all that good when you really consider it - just, some people "apparently" plan on ignoring them when it "hurts their argument that Pierre [doesn't suck]" and instead focus on the month or months that Pierre was pretty good rather than the ones when he sucked. See how it goes? The problem is not that people are so vehemently opposed to Pierre being on the team - it's a matter of his cost vs. value. He's not worth what "Juan Pierre" would seemingly command, but if we can grab Pierre for Hairston and Wellemeyer I'd go for it. I'd swap Pierre for Hairston at the cost of Wellemeyer for sure, because Hairston won't be here next year anyway, and I'd trust Pierre to supply a spark more so than Hairston. I wouldn't pay much more than that - certainly not Hill, Pie, Murton, Nolasco, Marmol, etc. - the difference between the two is much smaller than most of the Pro-Pierre crowd admits. But does anyone actually think we can get Pierre for Hairston and Wellemeyer? I don't. Hence why I'm opposed to Pierre in most cases.

Thanks biittner. Like you I'm "pretty sure" he would not have to clear waivers again, but I want to be positive. ;) Patterson is on an optional assignment because he had 2 options left (only used in option in 2001). His option CLOCK expired on September 18, 2003, and since then he'd have to clear waivers to use an option. He does not have 5 ML service years, so he could not refuse the optional assignment - that's what you are referring to - but it's still an optional assignment opposed to an outright assignment. This aspect I am pretty clear on, I'm just not quite sure what happens when his waiver expires. You have to call up all optional assignments by Oct. 1, but I'm not sure if your guy who needed a waiver is safe in the minors even without a waiver once put there. If he were to be called up before July 31, he'd definitely not have to hit the waiver wire again. But - if called up after July 31, or if we wanted him to stay on optional assignment beyond July 31 - I'm trying to clarify how that works. If only "the book" were available to the public. :(

Patterson's waiver expires July 31, but he is on an optional assignment. My question is - if we decided to keep Patterson in the minors for the rest of the season, would he have to pass through waivers on Aug. 1 after the expiration of his current waiver? I know we'd need new waivers to trade him after the deadline, of course, but if we simply keep him in AAA? Or if we want to call him up mid-August, would he need to clear waivers then? Hopefully I'll get this cleared up this time... Thanks in advance.

Definitely not? I know that they no longer have waivers secured after July 31, and that he'd have to pass through if we wanted to trade him, but he can stay down as long as we want now that he cleared for this period?

And what if they just want to keep him in the minors? Does he need to clear August waivers on Aug. 1?

You are exposed to irrevocable waivers if you are out of options, or removed from the 40-man roster. You can attempt to request revocable waivers multiple times if you want as long as he has options - only outright waivers are irrevocable.

To some degree, yes, but you also put in a claim often to set up a trade scenario. Patterson could have been claimed, talked to Hendry and Hendry didn't like the trade proposal, pulled back the waiver request, then put him back through again. At THAT point, it's gentleman's agreement to not claim the guy again to simply block a move. It's possible Corey WAS claimed and Hendry didn't like the offers - you know, right about the point at which it was "leaked" that Corey is "available"? ;) And of course there's the possibility that he requested waivers on the majority of the team, and was simply "snuck" through. August waivers are a whole new story, however.

After this, Corey still has 1 option left. At that point, when he IS out of options, he would have to be outrighted and clear irrevocable waivers. We would not need his consent until he has 5 years of ML service - and right now he's at something like 4.01. The rest of what you said is pretty much accurate. We requested waivers for the May3 - July 31 period, so he can now be freely sent down until July 31. As you mention, revocable waivers are used all the time by teams to simply gauge interest in players, even if they have no interest in trading or demoting the player. I'd guess that there's a fair chance that the better portion of our roster has at one point been on the waiver wire during this season.

MacPhail was still the GM then (Hendry was the assistant). If I recall, however, I think Hendry was generally credited for the trade. Hmmm....ok then. So Lets recap some of the pitchers Hendry has dealt or lost... Jones Tavarez Chavez Willis Farnsworth Sisco Sanchez Who am I missing? Beltran & Cruz Ronald Bay, Matt Bruback, Ben Christiansen, Steve Smyth...