BigbadB

Milledge/Beltran/Nady looks like a REAL good outfield in 2007.

Actually, Aramis was fully healthy in 2003, and he was basically the only decent bat Pittsburgh had while Giles was on the DL. He was injured in 2002. Aramis was quite productive in 2003 with the Pirates (better AVG and OBP with Pitt than Chi). Some might even argue he was more productive in Pitt. He had 26 doubles in 93 games to 7 in 63 games with the Cubs. He did display more home run power with the Cubs.

He had 92 this year in just 123 games, hitting only .302. And he had Patterson, Perez and Macias hitting in front of him most of the season (besides Lee of course).

If Ramirez only has 112 RBI's with a .318 AVG hitting behind Lee and Giles and two quality OBP guys leading off, I'm going to be disappointed.

He can play everyday, but I'm not enamored with him. I'd rather sign Lofton for a year and not give up anything while we see what happens with Pie (and possibly Patterson). Lofton's OBP is better. Roberts is arby eligible, also.

I'd be fine with it if Giles was in center, Pierre, Bradley or Wilkerson was in CF and Walker was at 2nd.

Nady has a gun. It would be a waste to put him at 1b. Nady has never really been handed a starting job. He was blocked by Klesko and Giles all these years. The Mets did very well here in removing salary and getting probably equal production in return. I have no idea what the Padres are thinking. Vinny Castilla and Mike Cameron?

Back to the Padres. It just occurred to me that they traded Brian Lawrence for Vinny Castilla, while Shawn Burroughs is still on their roster. Why didn't San Diego sit back and wait patiently for a deal? Like Shawn Burroughs for Mike Lowell. Surely, Lowell would be a better option than Castilla. Padres can afford to take on the money and Florida rids itself of a big contract. The Padres want to improve pitching, but they have nothing to offer in trade and with Hernandez and Giles leaving for sure, it's a sinking ship that free agent pitchers may look elsewhere. So, they trade a starting pitcher for a 3b instead of trading a cheap 3b. #-o

These agents have yet to figure out that 1998-2001 is over. The only guys that will get 5+ year deals are SUPERSTARS. Boras may want to back off if he knows what's good for his client (well, he probably doesn't know what's good). Boston has the prospects to trade for Juan Pierre or the like. Once Boston is out of the picture, only the Yankees remain as a big time spender. With no one competing with the Yankees, even Cashman could play a litte hardball with Boras.

The Cubs could go cheap at every other position if they signed Giles. They could trade for: Lugo Bradley Wilkerson Pierre etc..... They can go in house with cheap alternatives as well, like: Walker at 2nd Cedeno at SS If they traded the bag of balls for Bradley, signed Giles and went with Cedeno and Walker, I think they have a solid offense. Walker, Bradley, Lee, Giles, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, Cedeno. There is a ton of money to spend upgrading the bench and/or pitching.

And he's spent it like a freaking moron. When guys like Tejada and Vladdy are out there, he's giving raises to Alfonseca, Macias and Neifi. Before he even gets a chance to spend on the impact players, he spends significant chunks on replacables like Rusch. He cuts corners repeatedly. I'm not saying he doesn't eventually spend the money. I'm saying he spends it on mediocrity, and that is exactly why this team has been barely above average under his control. Where were they going to put Vladdy?? LF?? Cmon that's not a fair criticism. Seems like he wanted to go west as he chose between LA and Anaheim. Sosa was horrible in RF from 2002 on. They very easily could have put Sosa in LF and Guerrero in RF. With only a year remaining on Alou's contract, they could have worked a deal with San Fran for a number of options to offset the cost of Alou's final season. Alfonso would have been nice as a back up to Ramirez and Walker in 2004. As stated before, they could have gotten creative to make it work. Just like they would have needed to get creative to make a Beltran deal work. Just like they could have been creative to make a Tejada deal work. Obviously, they never would have gotten Tejada, Guerrero and Beltran. But, they missed the mark on getting ANY of them when there was availability. Giles could end up being the next in a long line. There is no creativity needed to sign Giles. Just pony up the cash. Simple. Painless. Obvious. Once that's done, then figure out how much cash you have left to possibly upgrade over Walker, upgrade over Cedeno at SS, upgrade over Patterson in CF, upgrade the lead off situation, etc... It was upgrading over Burnitz, but we don't have him anymore. Now, we need an upgrade over????? We don't have any in house options to upgrade over in RF. That is the biggest hole. Period.

I'm wrong? You think he put together a great team in 2004 and I'm the one who is wrong? Wow. Need I remind you that team won 89 games, the same as Texas, fewer than 10 other teams. That team was so far from great it's almost laughable that you tried to paint it that way. The Cubs have been nowhere near great in the MacPhail tenure. I don't deny that Hendry has tried to make them better, but it's pretty clear this administration has no interest in doing whatever they can to be the best. They settle for mediocritry, and overpay for it, whenever possible. It's not about contending. Half the teams in the league can call themselves contenders in a season. Contending is settling. It's about winning it all, and being the best. There is no reason why the Cubs couldn't have been a 95+ win team at some point in the past 3 years. They started the 21st century with by all accounts a top 3 farm system in place, and they went from a 12th ranked payroll to a top 5 quickly, at a time when nearly everybody else was cutting costs. Need I remind you that Prior and Wood missed significant time that year. Also Ramirez missed a month, Borowski got hurt and Latroy didn't come through. Despite all that, they were leading the wild card with a week or so to go. That team was good. This team sucked when everyone was healthy. Besides, no team is healthy all the time. Great teams overcome injuries. Excuses are for losers. Good argument. You're wrong though. Not really. The Cubs were leading the Wild Card toward the end of 2004 and everyone was healthy when they tanked.

He's done enough that I would have fired him by now. Getting back to the OBP of the guys you listed..... Murton-What are you comparing? This was his first year in the bigs. Baker loved his OBP so much, he batted him at the bottom of the order all year. Barrett-slight improvement on OBP from previous year. Ramirez-worse OBP than the previous year. Moreso than Barrett's improvement. Lee-What would you expect from a guy who was hitting everything in sight? Lee was a huge increase in OBP. After that, Barrett had a slight improvement. Murton wasn't on the team in 2004, so he can't really be counted. It's probably a safe bet that Murton's OBP in the majors was worse than his OBP in AA this year since his batting average practically matched his major league OBP. After Lee and Barrett, every other player on the 2005 team had a worse OBP than the previous year. Aramis, Corey, Hollandsworth, Nomar, Macias, Hairston and Burnitz. Whoops, Walker stayed the same.

This thought worries me a lot...but you're probably right. This has to be considered. I've only heard the need for a speedy lead off hitter. I haven't heard a word about improving on base percentage at the top of the order. Players love to hit. It has to be difficult to lay off pitches. Cudos to those who are patient. Would Pierre and Furcal absolutely love to become free swingers since that appears to be Cubs managements philosophy?

If that's the starting infield next year, my own business will reap tremendous rewards as I dedicate a bigger portion of my life away from Cubs baseball.

I haven't heard of him being in on Giles, I haven't heard him express any sort of interest whatsoever. He could have gone balls out for improvements with all the money he had available, instead he wasted it on mediocrity and garbage like Rusch and Perez. The entire MacPhail era has been about cutting corners. Andy has always been about trying to contend within the division. Never have they talked about trying to be the best of the best, or going all out for a World Series. They're goal is to be in the NL Central race all year, and if they make the playoffs, just hope it works out. The OBP problem has been an enormous problem for years, and the Cubs ignored it year after year. The OBP problem is in fact strictly a BB problem. This team doesn't draw enough walks. The average has been there, the walks have not, and that's why the runs have also been lacking. I don't think you could be any more wrong. I think in '03 and '04 Hendry made every effort to try and win the whole thing. Don't forget that Hendry put together a great team for '04. Traded for Lee, signed Maddux, that team should've contended. For whatever reason it didn't. Last year he could've done better. He did though resign Nomar. How could he have known CPat would tank like that, or that Nomar would miss most of the season. I also honestly think he thought Dubois would get more playing time than he did. Yes, last year he assumed Kerry would be healthy. Well, why wouldn't he? At that point Wood had 2 dominating seasons before missing time in '04. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I've seen no evidence of this team cutting corners. I seriously doubt Hendry is satisfied with just contending in the central. I think the moves he's made throughout his tenure point to him trying to win the whole thing. I'm sure Hendry does want to win the whole thing. However, he has either a very poor way of evaluating talent or he has let Dusty do his thinking for him. The Cubs penciled in Patterson to lead off in 2005. A career OBP below .300 is probably not a good idea at lead off. When he failed, Neifi Perez got the nod. He's even worse. Jose Macias seemed to be next in line. He's even worse. This organization has valued aggressiveness at the plate for the entire time they've been here. The walks have dropped and so has their run production. If either Hendry or Baker had a clue last year, they would have seen that Todd Walker was their best lead off candidate and Murton was the best #2 option. Neither got the opportunity. Cubs management did not maximize the potential of the starting line up at any time last year. If it's because Hendry didn't want to interfere with Baker's decisions or if he agrees with Baker's philosophies, either way this organization is flawed in their thinking. Considering Baker's aggressive approach, won't Furcal and Pierre love the fact that they will have the ability to now become free swingers just like all the other Cubs who have been assembled here in the past by this management? What will happen to Furcal and Pierre's OBP's when that happens? Have we thought of that? Just because we now have speedy lead off hitters like Baker wants doesn't mean that Baker will all of a sudden fall in love with the walk over an aggressive swing at everything approach. Walker was selective at the plate and Baker had him hitting 6th just about as often as 2nd. Walker never did lead off this year, and I can distinctly remember 2 other organizations who DID use him as a lead off hitter. The Cubs sent the wrong message this offseason in not firing Baker. They sent the wrong message when they decided that Neifi Perez and his sub .300 OBP was worth retaining at nearly double the price AND double the years. The Cubs were in the Beltran sweepstakes last year. They said early that they were interested and you constantly heard reports that they'd love to have him. I hear nothing about the Cubs and Giles this offseason. I hear all kinds of Furcal and Pierre rumors. They aren't playing their cards too closely to the vest on these guys. Where is the Giles interest? If the Cubs want to win next year, they can't be marginally better. They need to be MUCH better. They have the resources to do it. I do not want to hear at the end of this offseason that the guys they wanted weren't available or they were too expensive or any other excuse. They had 40m to spend this offseason, umpteen Rule 5 guys who can be unloaded along with talent at the major league level available in trade, and guys available in free agency who can help this team. There will not be any excuses that will satisfy me if they end up with a less than stellar offseason.

If you're a top 5 payroll with $30m to spend, and you rely heavily on improved health to increase your team, your GM is an imcompetent moron. This isn't an $85m payroll team that has to cut corners in spots and hope for things to work out. The Cubs' front office has been given the resources to pretty much guarantee a playoff spot, and make themselves among the favorites to win the world series, not just be in the picture. I haven't seen any signs of him cutting corners. Have you? Sounds to me like he's pretty much in on everyone available. All we did last year was complain about OBP at the top of the order. How no one was ever on base when Lee was up to bat. Well he's addressing that. But I don't think assuming the rotation will be healthy next year means he's a moron or that he's cutting corners. Goony's right. It's not just about the top of the order. The Cardinals were without Rolen most of the year in 2005, yet still carried the division by a lot. Can the Cubs do that without Aramis? A .325-.350 OBP (Pierre and Furcal) only moderately improves the offense. I'm fine with that IF they get Giles. Giles and his .400+ OBP is significant. I hope Pierre and Furcal provide a better OBP than they did last year, but there is no guarantee. If Lee goes back to his career norms, someone will need to step up and make up for Lee's drop in production.

I read that 5 times and didn't understand what you were saying. But now that I read the first post I understand. Yeah at the Trop you can bring in your own food. Just not a case of beer!! Oh well. The Piniella years in Tampa will be looked upon as the turning point of this franchise. It's to bad he was here for the house cleaning but not the party yet to come. I predict a winning record next year for this team. With NYY, Boston, Baltimore and Toronto all in that division? :shock:

We also traded one of our better trade chips for a position the team is not in need. If you trade Williams, fill a hole. With Walker, Perez, Cedeno and Hairston all able to play 2b, let's get a CF, RF or a SS before we trade for another 2b.

Of all the spots in the lineup, the leadoff spot is where a high strikeout total/low BA (at least when compared to the hitter's OBP) matter the least. The main drawback of high OBP/low AVG and high K hiiters is their comparative weakness at advancing runners. K's only really hurt you because they're less likely to advance a baserunner than another type of out. Similarly, the only time a walk is worse off than a single is when there are runners on base who could conceivably advance an extra base or two on a hit, whereas on a walk they may not advance a base at all. Basically, the moral of the story is that for a walk or strikeout to "hurt" your team there needs to be at least one runner on base. Leadoff hitters should have the fewest such opportunites (by far) of anyone in the lineup. Hence, strikeouts are not a big concern for a leadoff hitter, and neither is a low batting average. (Provided he can still maintain a good OBP by drawing lots of walks, that is.) As far as the Cubs are concerned, I'd much rather have Bradley or Wilkerson than Pierre. Wilkerson provides a much more stable OBP than Pierre thanks to his walk rate, which tends to be much more consistent than the BABIP-dependent nature of Pierre's OBP. The same is mostly true of Bradley, and both men provide much more power than Pierre would, as well. As far as prospect costs go, Bradley would likely be the cheapest option of the three, though there's his reported attitude issues to consider. I agree. I'd rather have Wilkerson or Bradley over Pierre. I just don't see Wilkerson being an ideal leadoff hitter. There is no doubt both would be 100 times better than what we had last year and improve this ballclub. Mark Bellhorn and his 2002 season with the Cubs compares with Wilkerson. Bellhorn hit .274/.389/.542/.931 as a lead off hitter for the Cubs in 2002. He had 2 steals in 4 attempts in less than half a season's worth of at bats. He scored 48 times in less than half a season of at bats. Assuming that a good scoring team will send their lead off hitter to the plate 700 times over the course of the season, the 48 runs scored translates to well over 130 runs scored for the season. Bellhorn also struck out 58 times in just 212 at bats. I'd take production like that from my lead off hitter all day long. The question becomes, would you rather have a guy with the potential to score 130+ runs with a .380+ OBP and very rarely steal a base, or do you want a prototypical lead off guy (Pierre) who scores 100 runs while supplying a .340ish OBP and stealing 60 bases? Wilkerson scored more runs in 2004 than any season Pierre has scored runs. Most of Wilkerson's runs came as a lead off hitter (89). Wilkerson's numbers as a lead off hitter look eerily similar to what Bellhorn did as a lead off hitter in 2002. High K's, low average, incredible OBP, high run scoring, good OPS.

I'd rather see these journalists putting pressure on Cubs management to make a run for Giles rather than making predictions.

How did we get Ransom back? I thought we got rid of him.

They aren't saying they want to spend it on pitching, though. The reports I have read said they are real interested in Burnett and Ryan, but they feel comfortable with the pitching they have and will focus their energy on offense rather than bidding wars.

The Yankees don't set the bar when it comes to free agents. There is the amount that 28 other teams might pay, and then there is the amount Boston and New York will pay. Mussina 17m Jeter 21m Giambi 19m K. Brown 15m The list goes on and on...... Kenny Lofton got 1 year/1m at the last minute from the Pittsburgh Pirates in 2003. In 2004, Lofton signed a 2 year/6m deal to play for the Yankees. I think Matsui's signing relates very little to Giles.

Call it an exaggeration if you wish, but the Cubs had several poor OBP guys in the line up last year. 14 times on base from a .350 to .330 over the course of a season x all the players who had worse than a .330 makes your run scoring chances pitiful. Put nothing but .350+ OBP guys throughout the line up and you're going to maximize your run scoring chances. Accept a .330 or below here and a .330 or below there, and you are limiting the offensive capabilities. After watching the futile offense these last few years, in regards to OBP, and I'm ready to see them go out and get nothing but .350+ OBP's in every spot in the line up. Not only do they have the cash and resources to make it happen, but the pitching staff deserves some run support for a change.