nick23

What am I to say to this? Neifi sucked. The fact that he had to play so often hurt this team. The fact that he hit atop the order hurt this team. There were other reasons as well. SS and the OF (the entire OF) were useless, the bench was worthless, the manager was stubbornly anti-objective. Starting pitchers failed to live up to hopes and parts of the bullpen stunk. But there is no possible way to gloss over the fact that Neifi at SS was a bad thing last year. Cedeno was no guarantee to be good, but given his 2004 season and the start to his 2005 in AAA, he was an infinitely better option than Neifi. Neifi is fine for the bench at minimal cost (not necessarily the minimum, as it's hard to get any veteran to play for what the kids cost - $500k-$750k is about what he's worth). There is nothing wrong with having somebody like him on your roster, at the end of the bench. But there is something terribly wrong with giving him 600 plate appearances and letting him hit at the top of the lineup in more than half of those at bats. Neifi's presence on the roster didn't lose games, Neifi's over abundant presence in the lineup did. Great post. Let me define what is NOT great with that post, aside from all the parts you repeated from my previous post as issues and failed to notice. You CANT blame Neifi!!! He served his role!!! It's that simple, and if you can't grasp it, I'm glad you're not the GM of this team either!! Blame Hendry for all the reasons I stated before! Blame the health concerns of the starting pitching staff! Blame Crusty for his mis-use of Neifi! Blame the handling of the bullpen!! Blame Nomar for going down!! NEIFI JUST DID HIS JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: So did Burnitz, and he also sucked. Neifi did nothing to help this team make it to the playoffs last year. Who cares if he did his job if he sucked at doing so.

I think it's absurd to say Maddux is no more than a 5th starter. Have you actually looked at his numbers from last year? There pretty decent. I would be willing to bet that a fair amount of teams would take a 1.2 WHIP and a 4.2 ERA from their 3rd starter. In my opionion Maddux is a very good 4th starter. Maddux's numbers indicate he is a back-of-the-rotation innings eater. An ERA in the mid 4's is not good. I would have been so pleased to have had his option not vest, but oh well. Also, minor point to the earlier post: Unless Williams is traded, there's no way on earth Rusch can beat him out for the 5th starter's spot. His ERA wasn't in the mid 4's. It was 4.24 with a WHIP of 1.22. Those are 3rd starter numbers. He was ranked 36 in ERA last year in the NL. Just a quick glance on espn shows he had a better year than Javier Vasquez, who I'm sure is not considered a 5th starter. A pitcher who is in the top half of the league in ERA and WHIP is much more than just a 5th starter.

I think it's absurd to say Maddux is no more than a 5th starter. Have you actually looked at his numbers from last year? There pretty decent. I would be willing to bet that a fair amount of teams would take a 1.2 WHIP and a 4.2 ERA from their 3rd starter. In my opionion Maddux is a very good 4th starter.

Customize More Player News AL NL Marlon Anderson - 1B - Nationals Marlon Anderson's two-year deal with the Nationals is worth $1.85 million. He'll make $925,000 in each of the next two seasons. "Marlon Anderson has been one of the best left-handed pinch hitters in baseball the last three years," GM Jim Bowden said. "One of our goals this offseason was to improve our bench, especially from the left side of the plate. Marlon's signing addresses this issue, and adds a veteran presence in our clubhouse." Nov. 18 - 4:05 pm Wow, Perez must be a lot better than this guy to make almost 3 times as much money.

I forgot they changed the name. They've had a weird run, going from among the top, back toward the middle, toward the top and back to the middle. Either way, it's a better hitter's park than Wrigley, and Mench has been brutal away from it. Well, he does play a lot of games @ pitcher parks (Oakland, Anaheim & Seattle). He's pretty far down the list of who I want tho. Give me Giles or Abreu or Dunn or Floyd or Burrell or Ichiro or Drew instead. I'm asking this question because I have no idea. You just mentioned trading for Drew. I know the Dodgers are talking of drastically cutting payroll this year. Do you guys think theres any chance that they're shopping Drew this offseason? I would love to have him for right. Especially now that we're 1 year into his contract.

Triple B, Vance, Hoops (and anyone else) - The price of poker is going up because of the weak free agent class and because all the teams have money to spend (even KC and Pittsburgh). Assume Giles won't come to the Cubs under any circumstances (I know you don't agree with this premise but just humor me). Also assume it would cost you $60 milllion to get Burnett (5 x $12 million) and the Reds won't trade within the division. Finally, assume a 20% premium over market value for the remaining free agents, that other teams will only make trades (fair for both sides) with the Cubs and that you don't want an "overpriced" Furcal. How would make the Cubs pennant contenders? If Giles won't come to the Cubs under any circumstances, then Furcal it is. I think that's the part that people don't see when I say forget Furcal. Once I've heard that Giles absolutely will not come to the Cubs, then we move on. The money is there to overpay for Furcal. After Giles, the next options for RF become fairly cheap, whether it be Mench, Bradley, Wilkerson, etc... The Abreu, Ichiro, Sheffield, Ramirez ideas just fall too far out of the scope of reason, whether it's if the teams would honestly trade these players, whether it's if the Cubs actually have value to send back or if the Cubs are willing to take on the entire salary of the players listed. If Giles is not an option, I'd contact LA and work a deal for Bradley. He's cheap, versatile in the outfield, has decent power and speed. I would then throw how ever many players necessary to get Aubrey Huff from Tampa. Not "good" players. Just players. They won't get Rich Hill or Felix Pie. But, I'd send Novoa, Mitre, and a few others if need be. I'd then get Huff locked up. Bradley won't get a deal because of his "past". With Pie coming, we wouldn't want to block CF anyway. Furcal Bradley Lee Huff Ramirez Murton Walker Barrett If Walker is being traded no matter what (though I really don't understand why they would do that), then stick Cedeno in at 2nd and call it a day. That's a good line up, either way. Who knows, it might even be better to go this route than sign Giles. It's a younger team with good balance throughout. I would love to do a Hill for Huff deal straight up. I'm not even sure if Hill would be enough to get Huff though. My ideal offseason moves from here on out would be sign Furcal, trade for Pierre, trade for Huff, then trade TWalk for a solid bullpen arm. Pierre Furcal Lee Ramirez Huff Murton Barrett Cedeno That's a much improved offense from last year. Assuming the rotation stays healthy, and the new bullpen guys have solid years, we should be strong contenders for a ring.

They were also willing to give Tony Womack their CF job last year.

And you called them great, which they were not, because Hendry hasn't come close to putting together a great team and doesn't yet seem to know how to. They were great enough to win it all IMO. You just can't overcome all those injuries (Sosa, Aram, Wood, Prior, Holla, Walker, Borowski, Remlinger, KGon. That team was good enough to win it all. And almost everyone on this board believed that.

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.

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.

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. Hendry doesn't make out the line-up card. And contrary to popular belief, Baker hasn't done enough to get fired. And as far as your theory about Pierre and Furcal's OBP's dropping because of Baker... Can you explain Lee, Ramirez, Murton, Walker, and Barrett? Because their OBP's either stayed at their career norms or got better last year. They must have just been tuning Baker out when he told them to just hack away.

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.

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.

But your just assuming better health, that's the same problem last year's plan created. You can't base your offseason improvements off of health. No, Giles is not the only option in RF. But he is clearly the best, and therefore he should be the priority. You can't just improve here and there and then just hope for better luck than last year. There is absolutely no justification for settling for mediocrity in RF. This team has the resources to greatly improve their chances this offseason, not go into the season with the same or similar chances they had last year. Settling for Furcal, Pierre and very little else would put them in no better position than they were in during spring training last season. Yes you can base your offseason on improvements of health. It didn't work out for us last year. Hopefully it will this year. It worked out fine for the Cardinals last year. They assumed Carpenter and Morris were going to be healthy. They assumed right. Look, I'm not saying don't sign Giles. I'd be thrilled if we sign Giles. I'm just saying he's not the only way to improve the team. I happen to think Furcal will greatly improve the team. You don't. We just disagree.

That's insane. No matter who? Contrary to popular belief, offense does matter. You have to score runs to win. While the White Sox made it seem like all you need is pitching and defense that's not a wise way to build a team. The Cubs were bottom half in runs scored last year (repeating a multi year trend due to never addressing the OBP/BB problem). That was primarily due to OF production. Yet, contrary to another myth, LF was the least of the problems. LF wasn't good, but it ranked higher in the NL than both CF and RF did (16th/15th respectively). 3 of the top 5 pitching teams in the NL last year didn't even make the playoffs. Simply getting healthy in the pitching department and moving up to a top 5 spot there does nothing to guarantee success. Offense must be improved, and improving SS alone won't get it done. If all the rumors are true, and we sign Furcal and trade for Pierre, the offense is already greatly improved. That means we've big time improved the SS position and leadoff hitter. Pierre is a huge improvement over last years CF situation. Murton is a big improvement over last years LF situation. The only downgrade we have is 2B if we move Walker. Our playoff hopes for next year don't rest on the signing of Giles. All we have to do is improve RF somehow(which shouldn't be hard) and we have a much improved offense. Ad that with healthy SP and bullpen help and you have a vastly improved team. Do you agree?

That's insane. No matter who? Contrary to popular belief, offense does matter. You have to score runs to win. While the White Sox made it seem like all you need is pitching and defense that's not a wise way to build a team. The Cubs were bottom half in runs scored last year (repeating a multi year trend due to never addressing the OBP/BB problem). That was primarily due to OF production. Yet, contrary to another myth, LF was the least of the problems. LF wasn't good, but it ranked higher in the NL than both CF and RF did (16th/15th respectively). 3 of the top 5 pitching teams in the NL last year didn't even make the playoffs. Simply getting healthy in the pitching department and moving up to a top 5 spot there does nothing to guarantee success. Offense must be improved, and improving SS alone won't get it done. Sorry double post

Why not let Ronny start at SS and spend the money on a difference maker? There's also guys like Lugo out there who is a small step down from Furcal, but much less expensive. I love how you don't even consider Furcal a difference maker. I'm sure there are some people in Atlanta that might disagree with you. On this Cubs team, Furcal alone won't be a difference maker. I think that is what Goony has been trying to say. If the Cubs sign Furcal but miss out on a Giles-like upgrade in RF, the Cubs won't have any better of a shot at making the playoffs than they did this season. That's insane. If we don't get Giles or someone better we're not making the playoffs? Healthy rotation, bullpen help, and we make the playoffs no matter who we sign for right.

Why not let Ronny start at SS and spend the money on a difference maker? There's also guys like Lugo out there who is a small step down from Furcal, but much less expensive. I love how you don't even consider Furcal a difference maker. I'm sure there are some people in Atlanta that might disagree with you.

I should just note that in the end those BOTH count as ONE WIN. Its not a very strong argument. At all. Say we go into that game into September two games back instead of one and we could look back at that game against the Pirates (which was lost by one run), if I went "DAMMIT that failed stolen base attempt against the Pirates cost us so much," would I be wrong? In the end a win is a win, and a game in September only has meaning if you were winning before it. Once again, I was just responding to a post that said stolen bases aren't valuable. I tend to disagree. I never said sign Pierre because hypothetically he could win us a game with a stolen base. Pierre being fast is not going to hurt this team. Speed is a good thing. Just looking at his SB% doesn't tell you everything. He is a good leadoff hitter who had 1 down year. I think he'll bounce back and be a very good for this team next year. He's an OK leadoff hitter that has had TWO down years...2002 and 2005. He doesn't walk much, which means that if he doesn't hit over .300, his OBP is going to be less than desirable. Well, good thing he's a career .305 hitter then. Also, he walks just as much as Todd Walker, and a lot of you were and still are calling him a good leadoff option.

I should just note that in the end those BOTH count as ONE WIN. Its not a very strong argument. At all. Say we go into that game into September two games back instead of one and we could look back at that game against the Pirates (which was lost by one run), if I went "DAMMIT that failed stolen base attempt against the Pirates cost us so much," would I be wrong? In the end a win is a win, and a game in September only has meaning if you were winning before it. Once again, I was just responding to a post that said stolen bases aren't valuable. I tend to disagree. I never said sign Pierre because hypothetically he could win us a game with a stolen base. Pierre being fast is not going to hurt this team. Speed is a good thing. Just looking at his SB% doesn't tell you everything. He is a good leadoff hitter who had 1 down year. I think he'll bounce back and be a very good for this team next year.

750 OPS. Yes, he's clearly 2nd tier. Miggy, ARod, Jeter, Young. I might even put that Peralta guy up there, but it's probably too soon. Furcal is in a group with Lugo, Renteria, Rollins, Guillen, Crosby and possibly Green. Furcal is being grossly overvalued this offseason. Atlanta sure sounds like they want him back pretty bad. But what does their GM know? Maybe, just maybe he thinks Furcal had a little bit to do with Atlanta winning those last 6 division titles. Granted strong arguments can be made that Giles fills a bigger need. Truth is, we just don't know what Hendry has up his sleeve. He could be in serious trade talks about a RF as we speak. No one knows. What we do know is Furcal would be a very good signing, and a major upgrade from last season.

Making personel decisions based on theoretical specific individual future plays is an absolutely terrible way to go about building a team. You have to get to a position for that stolen base to be meaningful to justify going after a guy strictly for that. Boston had an amazing offense, so they were fine adding a strict stolen base specialist (who by the way was a bench player, not a multi-million dollar starter). If you want that 1 stolen base in the 9th inning in September, I'd be far more interested in calling up Dwaine Bacon for the bench, paying him $300,000 per year and seeing him do his thing, then trading away talent and spending big money on a marginal player when such huge holes are still very evident. And how the hell can you possibly assume that while he might get thrown out in May, he'll clearly be safe in September? Pierre is neither an OBP specialist (.326 in 2005, .355 career) or stolen base god. He's not a guarantee for anything. With Giles, you're guaranteed huge OBP, and at the very least, solid power. Which is why I used the word potentially. By the way I didn't say sign Pierre because he can steal a base in the 9th inning of a playoff game. I was responding to a post that said the stolen base is not that valuable. I was giving a specific example of when the stolen base was extremely valuable.

and guys who can steal 50+ bases with a potential .370+ obp. but more importantly, guys who can catch the ball. Just like dem White Sox. See, the Sox showed Hendry that if you score less runs but appear to be "scrappy", you'll win the whole shebang. I hate to say it but I think the Sox winning the World Series pushed Hendry to acquire speed this offseason, so he can 'Southside' the offense. #-o Why is speed so bad? The stolen base, when attempted at the right time, is a valuable weapon. The stolen base isn't all that valuable. Especially when you acquire players who steal bases at borderline acceptable rates, and have very few appealing qualities outside of speed. Tell that to the Boston Red Sox and Dave Roberts. I could care less if Pierre gets thrown out trying to steal in the 4th inning of a game against the Pirates in May. I care about the base he'll potentially steal in the 9th inning of a 1 run game in September when we're fighting for the playoffs. The Boston Red Sox aren't even in that situation without all the OBP and power in their lineup. We're going after players who aren't really great at either, and potentially terrible at both. Pierre is just as likely to get caught in that 9th inning situation, but coming up with obscure hypotheticals doesn't change the fact that stolen bases as a whole have significantly less value than other traits we should be targeting. Actually, he's not just as likely to get thrown out in that situation. But my original post was just to ask the question of why is speed a bad thing to have. If used in the right situations, it's actually very valuable. I don't think Hendry is targeting Pierre because he can steal bases. I think Hendry is targeting a guy that just 2 years ago was one of the premier lead off hitters in the game. I happen to agree with Hendry and think that Pierre is going to bounce back this year and post solid lead off numbers. The fact that he can get Pierre at a discount is just an added bonus.

and guys who can steal 50+ bases with a potential .370+ obp. but more importantly, guys who can catch the ball. Just like dem White Sox. See, the Sox showed Hendry that if you score less runs but appear to be "scrappy", you'll win the whole shebang. I hate to say it but I think the Sox winning the World Series pushed Hendry to acquire speed this offseason, so he can 'Southside' the offense. #-o Why is speed so bad? The stolen base, when attempted at the right time, is a valuable weapon. The stolen base isn't all that valuable. Especially when you acquire players who steal bases at borderline acceptable rates, and have very few appealing qualities outside of speed. Tell that to the Boston Red Sox and Dave Roberts. I could care less if Pierre gets thrown out trying to steal in the 4th inning of a game against the Pirates in May. I care about the base he'll potentially steal in the 9th inning of a 1 run game in September when we're fighting for the playoffs.

and guys who can steal 50+ bases with a potential .370+ obp. but more importantly, guys who can catch the ball. Just like dem White Sox. See, the Sox showed Hendry that if you score less runs but appear to be "scrappy", you'll win the whole shebang. I hate to say it but I think the Sox winning the World Series pushed Hendry to acquire speed this offseason, so he can 'Southside' the offense. #-o Why is speed so bad? The stolen base, when attempted at the right time, is a valuable weapon.