BigbadB

Criticism does not need to be limited in scope. People need to come to terms with this so that these threads quit going off on ugly tangents like this one has. It was a pleasant discussion with a lot of input from many different perspectives, then we have people claiming this isn't fantasy baseball, etc... It isn't needed or welcomed. I criticize Hendry because he's a tools guy and the tool thing hasn't been working. If the tool thing was working, I probably wouldn't be criticizing. To sit there and tell me that Hendry could not over the last 3 years go out and get some stats guys because they weren't available, and then criticizing my opinion in a way to say I spend too much time playing fantasy baseball is out of line. Just stop already. On a separate note, I am having a tough time understanding why every post must be backed up with facts. This is an opinion based discussion board. Facts are nice, but not required. Quit asking for proof. And finally, below is all courtesy of just Rotoworld. I'm sure I could dig up much more on how Ryan Church is available this offseason, but I should have to. He certainly looks available to me, and we certainly have the arms to get him. If they are asking for too much, then so be it. But, I haven't seen a quote from them either way that they are asking for too much or too little. More Player News Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 13 - 8:43 pm et Chris Snelling's imminent arrival in Washington will likely further increase the chances that Ryan Church is dealt this winter. Snelling and Church are both left-handed hitters who fit best in left field, though they do have some experience in center. It's unlikely that the Nationals will need both, and Church appeared to be on the way out anyway. We're guessing the starting job will be Snelling's to lose in spring training. Michael Restovich could act as his platoon partner. Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 11 - 12:14 pm et New Nationals manager Manny Acta called Ryan Church on Friday to let him know he's still in the team's plans for 2007. "I've always gotten along with Church when I was in Montreal," Acta said. "It's going to be up to him. This is a make or break year for him to show the world what he can do or go in the other direction by becoming a fourth [outfielder]." We're still guessing he's dealt for pitching, as he's one of the few expendable and fairly valuable players on the roster. If he is kept, it sounds like Acta will give him the first crack at the starting job in left field. Source: Nationals.mlb.com Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 10 - 10:46 am et Talks between the Cubs and Nationals regarding Ryan Church have reportedly cooled. The Pirates are also showing less interest in Church. The Phillies may still want him, but it's unclear whether they'll part with Ryan Madson. The Royals and Tigers are among the other teams reported to have discussed Church with the Nationals. Source: Chicago Sun-Times Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 7 - 12:34 am et A source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the Pirates are no longer showing much interest in Ryan Church. The team reportedly thinks Nate McLouth and Jody Gerut are nearly equivalent options in left field. Of course, this is the same organization that felt Jeromy Burnitz was a major upgrade a year ago. In the Pirates' defense, they finished with a .500 record as recently as 1992. Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 6 - 11:06 pm et The Nationals and Phillies have discussed a trade that would send Ryan Church to Philadelphia for Ryan Madson. Madson might receive another opportunity to start if he becomes a National. The Phillies would use him strictly as a reliever if they keep him. Source: Nationals.mlb.com Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 6 - 4:06 pm et The Cubs are talking to the Nationals about Ryan Church, who could be an option to platoon with Matt Murton. The Nationals will want pitching back, which could mean Angel Guzman, Sean Marshall or Carlos Marmol. The Cubs surely won't consider parting with Sean Hill for the 28-year-old. Source: FOXSports.com Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 5 - 11:31 pm et The Phillies and Cubs have reportedly joined the Royals in looking into Ryan Church's availability. Both teams have the young starters the Nationals desire, though Church isn't likely to bring back a top prospect. The Phillies could offer up Gavin Floyd or Ryan Madson. The Cubs have Angel Guzman or Carlos Marmol to part with. Source: Nationals.mlb.com Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 5 - 4:50 pm et The Royals reportedly have some interest in Nationals outfielder Ryan Church. There hasn't been much interest in either Reggie Sanders or Emil Brown to date, so it's hard to see how the Royals could make room for Church. They're also expected to move Mark Teahen to left field at some point to open up third base for top prospect Alex Gordon. Source: MLB.com Ryan Church-OF- Nationals Dec. 4 - 10:07 pm et Even with Frank Robinson gone, Ryan Church remains in the Nationals' doghouse, sources told MLB.com. The Nationals are upset the 28-year-old declined to play winter ball on the advice of his agent. Church clearly needs a trade and seems pretty likely to get one. The Nationals will likely go with Kory Casto in left field if they move Church. They might choose the rookie anyway. Source: Nationals.mlb.com Respect the other person's opinion, whether you agree or not.

why spring? Because he had a bad winter?

They become free agents. Word is the Cubs have re-signed Harben to a minor-league deal. I would expect the same for Reyes. I'm surprised Buck Coats didn't meet the same fate. Didn't I read somewhere the Cubs signed Koyie Hill to a minor league contract? Maybe Reyes won't be back?

The Pirates would have a really nice line up with Huff at 1b. Just not sure they're willing to fork out the cash for him.

This is the latest from Rotoworld: Though the Pirates need a left-handed power hitter, they haven't been in contact with free agent Aubrey Huff. The Orioles also don't seem very interested in Huff at his current asking price. Unless someone else steps up, Huff might have to settle for a one-year deal somewhere. It's believed he's asking for about $9 million per year for three seasons. Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A 1 year deal would be interesting. I think I read somewhere on here that Piniella wasn't all that fond of Huff, but I don't remember exactly how it was phrased. A month ago, there was talk about Huff staying with the Astros, but I'm not sure where those talks went.

Wherever he wants.

I clearly remember my stance on last year's offseason. I said I could live with Cedeno at SS if the rest of the team was improved, which included a stud RF (Giles/Nomar) and someone to split time with Murton in LF like Huff. I said I could live with Murton in LF if they had a stud bat in RF and a better SS option than Cedeno. I said they couldn't go into the season with both in the starting line up. By doing that, the bench would likely be extremely weak as well as a couple of virtual unknowns getting everyday starts in the everyday line up. Hendry just doesn't understand the need for depth. Is Church our savior? No. But, he's cheap and provides depth and can even step in and be a regular starter. Minnesota has depth in their outfield and they always have. They have been able to absorb an injury to Hunter or Stewart by having a capable back up like Lew Ford or Mike Cuddyer ready to step in. Darryl Ward is nothing more than a bench guy at this point in his career. If Soriano gets hurt, is Ward the guy who Hendry thinks can step in and keep the team competitive? Pagan? After last year, you would think he had learned his lesson with running a thin line up out there day in and day out. I guess not.

I'd rather have a CFer. If they are looking at another corner outfielder, Huff is the guy they should be looking at. He can play multiple positions. Floyd can only play the same positions Ward plays.

Absolutely. It would be absolutely silly to platoon Jones and Murton and have Pagan patrolling CF.

I think that would be awesome. Not sure how the contract part would work, but it sounds good.

I almost always give some benefit to a hitter who plays half their games in an extreme pitcher's park. I haven't done it for Izturis, which probably isn't fair. But, I don't think I'm being completely unfair, because he has missed a significant amount of time over the last 2 years, and that time could definitely hurt his chances of matching what he did in 2004, which is almost a mirror image of Juan Pierre's 2006 season and not very good offensive output for someone earning a major league paycheck.

There are going to be a LOT of question marks with this team if this is really what they plan to open the season with. What team out there doesn't have question marks? Of course all teams have question marks. I emphasized A LOT because I think the Cubs will have more than their fair share of them.

I seem to recall a lot of people being happy with this deal. Getting anything for Hundley was a thing of beauty.

Fair enough. But, I'm not sure how moving the cap from 2250 back to 2500 takes away a huge advantage teams carrying a lot of pitchers solves. To me, one negates the other. Reducing the cap to 2250 and not changing the pitching points is not much different than keeping the cap at 2500 and using the pitching point changes. Maybe there is a significant difference and I just haven't reseached it enough to see it.

He wasn't horrible his first 2 years with the Cardinals.

There are going to be a LOT of question marks with this team if this is really what they plan to open the season with.

I've been patient. I was also aware the rules were changing. The cap was reduced to 2250 An outfielder was eliminated from the starting roster Pitching points were being looked at for adjustment for next year You put the rule changes out there for discussion. You adjusted rules based on the opinions of the rest of the league. Out of the blue, and in mid-December, the new pitching points now count towards the cap. I don't even know what changes were made to the pitching points. You claim it won't make much of a difference, but one of the guys I was trading for just took on more than 100 points by himself. Every other manager in the league may not be like me when it comes to how I work my roster, but I've spent a lot of time playing with numbers to figure out who my keepers will be this offseason, based on 2250 points. Based on the rule changes you published. Like I said, it didn't change anything with my team and I can still make the trade. But, assuming that this change you are making this late in the ball game doesn't affect anyone is asking for trouble. Trades are already being made. One was officially made prior to your announcement. What if one of the teams that made that trade didn't need to make that trade now that they have more cap room? I just think a change this significant, this late in the offseason, should be put up for discussion. If it's not open for discussion, can I ask why? I think you're doing an awesome job running the league. I want to make that clear. I also don't want to sound like a whiner. I'm just trying to understand why a change to the pitching points (which I agree with) has to count towards a season that is already over. Change the points and then have the affected change count towards the next season, which is what all the aforementioned rule changes are supposed to affect. Using it to change the cap now would be akin to going back and recalculating the entire 2006 season's head to head match ups. I don't think I'll be alone in this opinion. If I am, then once again, I'll shut up.

That would be a good plan if you want to win the AAA championship. I hope Hendry is shooting a little higher than that.

They just cleared 2 spots to get down to 37, and should not be able to fit Lilly, Marquis and Ward without making a move. Whoops. I missed that. I thought it was still over 40 with Ward, Marquis and Lilly still to be added.

People are wasting their time talking about this shortstop thing and Giles. The Cubs, whether you like it or not, are happy with Izturis and are not looking for a shortstop. They signed DeRosa for three years to be their second baseman. They are not going to sign Giles. I definitely don't like it even though what you are saying is true. It just goes to show you with all the money spent on this team we will be lucky to make the playoffs. isnt it ridiculous how much medicrity costs these days- a quarter of a billion for a third place team- Payroll jumping to 250 million!! Now we're really talking. He's referring to the life of the contracts signed this offseason.

I think we need another backup middle infielder more. Right now the team has one backup that can play both MI slots, one guy that can back up all the outfield spots, one guy that can back up the corner OF and first base, and a backup catcher. 3B is covered with our starting second baseman, but we still need a second backup middle infielder that can make sure that we have at least one left on the bench on the days when DeRosa plays 3rd. If we could get somebody that could back up 2nd, SS, and 3rd though, that would be very good. Cedeno and Theriot can both play SS or 2b. Cedeno doesn't belong on the big league roster at this point and would be better served playing everyday in AAA. But, he is still on the big league roster.

And it's decisions like these that will probably put Hendry in the unemployment line. Unrelated: I can't imagine they are done at this point. Isn't there a 40 man roster issue right now? Unrelated part 2: Come on, Jim. Give us SABR guys just one guy to hang our hats on. You've ignored our screams at NSBB for improved OBP by never going after the guy that "we" want. Just give us Church to shut us up for awhile. Thanks!

Seems to me the that the next bench guy would need to be able to play both corner infield spots.

Oh, we don't like it. You can rest assured on that. Why exactly is Hendry so enamored with him? That's what I don't understand. Izturis is just another in a long line of slick fielding/no hit SS's who come and go in this league, and are soon forgotten. I wasn't fond of his offensive output pre-injury. He's 2 years removed from that offensive output and may never match it again.

Here's what I came up with: 2004: 5.4 2005: 4.03 2006: 4.7 The 3 years combined came to: 4.73