Rob

Why would you actually want to know less about a player and his chances of future success? I just don't get it.

Doesn't that make the stat pretty much invalid? Yeah it does. Not really. It has no real value in quantifying how good a player has been... true. However, one can easily use BABIP to help predict future success or failure for subsequent years. It's hardly infallible, but an abnormally high or low BABIP typically means the season was a fluke. If it deviates more than a few points from (LD% + .110) then watch out next season.

So much we don't know, though. Maybe Drew's agent has told Hendry that JD prefers the NL and if Hendry matches any offer from Boston that he'll win in the end. Hard to get too upset until something actually happens. Irregardless of his "preference" for the NL or the midwest or whatever... wouldn't you be willing to throw down an extra million per year to make sure the deal gets done (and in short order)? I know I wouldn't make the best GM in the world if I were willing to cave in to early demands just to get my guys into the fold quickly as possible, but I do believe I'd be able to put out a competitive team year in and year out if I were to do so.... the extra money is worth a guarantee you don't have to scramble to fill that hole later on. What are the other options in CF? Soriano - we're likely to get outbid on... and even if we weren't, there's no guarantee he'd be much more productive than an average CF. Dave Roberts - he's surely not worth the three year deal at five per that he's supposedly commanding. Juan Pierre - Uh huh... 3/30 is about 3 times more than he's worth. Gary Matthews Jr. - Another career-year guy who hasn't proven he's worth much at all... we'd be once again overpaying for mediocrity. Vernon Wells - Jays are gonna probably demand Barrett back in a trade... it's a lateral move at best. Andruw Jones - Yeah... he's a solid option. But what would it take to get him? I guess the whole point behind my philosophy is that when a guy like JD Drew, who fills every hole we could hope for somebody to, is available in free agency... he's worth overpaying slightly for. I realize I can't judge Hendry now, as I don't really have all the info... but if history is any indicator, we're S.O.L. right now... over 3 million over 2-3 years. In the grand scheme of things, it makes no sense to make such maneuvers unless we're already well aware of JD Drew's intentions...

Soriano, Murton, Lee.

Say hello to Gary Matthews Junior on a 4 year deal.

This whole "matching" business is stupid. We're matching the money. We aren't matching with the team already on the field. Given a choice, I'm sure Drew would probably rather play on a winner if the same amount of money is at stake. Throwing in an extra year or another couple mil per is much more likely to bring him into the fold than "matching" their offer.

I know this is a useless exercise... but as far as lineup construction goes, I just looked at who was available as a FA this offseason plus who we've already got. CF - Soriano RF - Drew 1B - Lee LF - Bonds 3B - Ramirez 2B - Durham C - Barrett SS - Lugo P - Zambrano How nice (and extremely expensive!) would that offense have been?

Are you on a quest to have crappy pitching? Marquis and Meche are not good. "Not good" is being far too kind. They're pretty horrid. I can see cases for Westbrook, Lilly, Padilla... but Meche, Marquis, and Batista should be nowhere near a pro ball club (except for the cardinals). The way you guys want to throw money at hitter's, there is going to absolutley no money to spend for pitching. I would hate to see the Cubs go into next year having to out slug their opponents 10-8 every game. That is not the way you build a baseball team. I'd rather throw the money at hitters that can make a real difference than pitchers that aren't a wonderful bet to outperform our young cheap guys. JD Drew is guaranteed to be more productive than Pie in the outfield... Jason Marquis is not anywhere near guaranteed to be more productive than Guzman, Marshall, or Marmol. You can't build a baseball team by throwing tons of money at guys who you can't be sure are even going to help. I'd rather have to outslug our opponents 10-8 every game than have an offense that can only generate 3 runs a game and then ask Marquis to hold on to that lead.

Are you on a quest to have crappy pitching? Marquis and Meche are not good. "Not good" is being far too kind. They're pretty horrid. I can see cases for Westbrook, Lilly, Padilla... but Meche, Marquis, and Batista should be nowhere near a pro ball club (except for the cardinals).

By my calculations, DLee makes about $80,000 per game. Figure about three hours a game... he's making near $450 per minute. Sorry, but you're coming up a little short.

uhhhh...no. Why? Outside of his anomoly of a season last year in a hitters paradise, DeRosa was never really good. I know it was a small sample size, but Theriot was pretty damn good last year when he got a chance. Theriot also showed a great approach at the plate from what I saw, so I don't see him entering a Cedeno-like slump. Fact is that if Theriot was really all that good of a player, would Jim have felt the need to get DeRosa? Probably not. Theriot isn't likely to hit 100+ points above his average minor league slugging again. DeRosa has been pretty good since changing his swing , has done it for a full season, and can play pretty much anywere on the field. He does more for the team then Theriot. Theriot will still get his chances anyway, unless he is horrible in the spring. That's like saying the Phillies wouldn't have grabbed Jim Thome cause they didn't think Ryan Howard would end up being a stud. By all accounts, they knew he would be... they just thought Thome was a decent signing for that time. Only difference is, Thome was worth risking the money on.

Indeed.

Are you kidding me? Jocketty can make the playoffs with a team he bought using the money he found in his couch...

Any time that I get the opportunity to make a snide remark, you can't speak badly of the thread.

better? You suck.

Assuming for a second that what you said actually makes sense, what the hell does it mean? Hendry appears willing and ready to go out and pick up as much trash as possible. The first drop in the bag being DeRosa. Man, are you always this negative? You ready to eat SERIOUS crow if DeRosa puts up good #'s next year? He doesn't have to eat serious crow if DeRosa puts up good numbers next year. He only has to eat crow if DeRosa puts up 13 million dollars worth of numbers over the next three years.

especially if Liriano is out for an extended time I thought Liriano just had TJS... if so, he's certainly out for an extended time. Halladay and Matsuzaka are the only ones in the AL I think will be able to compete on a year-in, year-out basis.

Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, which first basemen do you see as being better than Bagwell?

The Braves must have asked for Chris Young instead.

I'm wondering if this quota system is even in the new CBA. I haven't heard anything about it either way... but the way Hendry is going about his business suggests to me that either he doesn't know about the system or it's been disbanded.

I'm not sure Hendry can get all those guys. There is a limit to how many A/B guys he can sign. DeRosa counts as 1 already. Are we sure this rule is a part of the new CBA? From the way Jim Hendry is wheeling and dealing, and all the rumors still floating around, I have a hard time believing it is.

I'd give him a bottle of tequila and a note saying "Thanks for all the memories," but that's about as generous as I get. Simply put, we've got enough of a starting pitcher crunch in the minors that we don't need a scrub like Marquis wasting space in Iowa, let alone Chicago.

does "and" mean hendry would want both? there's no way they could afford drew and soriano... I don't know, I'm too happy (and drunk) to think straight.

I would honestly rather lose my left nut than watch Marquis desecrate a Cubs uniform next season.

I don't think so. The new CBA gave the clubs another year of control before players become eligible for the Rule V.