kroth1342

Co-sign ^^^^^^ That's real talk.

We don't loose a 1st rounder since we are in the top 15... of course, we're just going to use it on another pitcher which we will wait years on and then either misuse him or trade him for some mediocre player. Thanks for the correction, my mistake.

This is what really bothers me about the Jones signing: Felix Pie, a highly regarded CF prospect by the Cubs resides in our farm system, and by most accounts he will be ready for the majors within one season. You trade pitching prospects for Juan Pierre, a CF with one year remaining before he is eligible for FA - fine. But then you announce you want to sign Pierre to a contract extension. Wait, doesn't that block the path for Pie? You then, after finding no other options for RF, sign Jacque Jones to a 3-yr deal. You lock yourselves in for three years to a player who is already 30 and will definitely in his physical decline at the end of the contract. A player who, by most accounts, is living off of one quality season 4 years ago. In addition, by signing Jones, you give up your first round draft pick (as well as lose other early round picks in other FA signings), which, as evidenced by your farm system's alarming inability to produce position players, you might kind of need. And I am assuming there won't be a trade market hungry for Jacque Jones in the near future. The bottom line is that Jim Hendry, for his strength as someone to be able to make a deal for players that other teams don't want, has a glaring weakness: an inability to provide a medium to long-range plan for a club and execute that plan. All of a sudden, we learned Hendry "likes guys who can catch the ball." Since when, watching the Astros/White Sox WS? GMs and organizations that try to ride the coattails of what worked last year will always find themselves doing that, trying to copy what worked for other clubs - as it will never work for them.

We can't trade Neifi for several months because he just signed as a FA - step your thread game up!

Huff's OBP and SLG have seen a continued downward trend in the past three years: 2003/04/05 OBP: .367 .360 .321 2003/04/05 SLG: .555 .493 .428 Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence

Plus I don't think any teams might have had post-steroid dropoff concerns for Thome unlike a certain Dominican outfielder.

This just doesn't make any sense to me - why would we take on Finley's $7 million contract just to rid ourselves of Patterson? Couldn't we just non-tender Patterson and acquire a cheaper CF (Milton Bradley, ex.)?

According to theCubReporter and ChicagoSports, we've traded Jermaine Van Buren to the Red Sox for a player to be named: http://all-baseball.com/cubreporter/ http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051201cubs,1,7663269.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines

^^^ Co-sign. For the against, I would specifically mention the Japanese Leagues and the players that have played here. What the hell does that mean? I understand how the Japanese Leagues show that the World Series isn't really the World's Series. But then you mention Japanese players playing in the MLB. Your comment basically is for and against. I really hope you are five years old, cause your point is just plain stupid. Anyways, good luck on your paper!!! I was merely trying to provide a support example for the Against. He could attempt to make the claim that since Japanese players have had success in the MLB, that lends support to the idea that a true "World Series" would put the MLB winner against a Japanese winner for example. And if you read the kid's original post, he had to find support for the "FOR" and "AGAINST" arguments. That's what I was doing. Who's stupid now?

I don't see any positive effects of acquiring Joey Gathright. His only value is as a late inning steal specialist and the Cubs are not at the point now where the only championship piece missing is Dave Roberts redux.

^^^ Co-sign. For the against, I would specifically mention the Japanese Leagues and the players that have played here.

To me overpaying is paying more money to a single player than the franchise can afford. This means paying more than the player contributes to winning, spending too much when comparable cheaper options are available, weakening other positions by spending too much on one position. Market value is not necessarily relevant. If you need Furcal to win the WS, then you should spend as much as you can and need to, to get him regardless of market value. If he only adds 3 wins to a 77 win team, then perhaps he isn't worth as much. I think he'll add more than 3, and I think you were just loosely using those #'s as an example. I think the addition of Furcal (over perez at SS) would add about 10-15 more wins. Considering Furcal totaled around 9 wins (via BP's WARP3 figures) in 2005 compared to Neifi's 5, I think "10-15 more wins" is kind of a stretch.

I don't know if I'd consider Loria a "good" owner, considering how him and David Samson treated the Expos with such malice. Read the Baseball America expose on them both and then tell me he's a good owner.

That's exactly what I was going to say. Baker never saw Walker as a leadoff hitter last year, and I don't think that will change. Furthermore, I don't think you can pencil in Cedeno in any lineup at shortstop. Dusty didn't play him when we were out of the race last year, so why should we expect him to play Cedeno when we have something to play for? Unfortunately, the best we can hope for would be a 60/40 split between Cedeno and Neifi, but I'm not sure even that is possible. Co-sign^^

The interesting thing about this is that his contract was extended only until April 2006. What kind of a message does that send - make horrible signings during the off-season and get fired before you can see the results?

I wonder if Scoop Jackson voted for Governor Rod?

What happened to Clemens?

Just thinking that myself, you never know when he'll really drop off (with 3 days rest).

Agreed. Thanks and congratulations to everyone who makes this board a pleasurable experience!

I absolutely agree with the idea that being at Wrigley is an experience in itself, as there is no other way I prefer to spend my time than at a Wrigley night game. That being said, being at a home loss truly sucks, and no scenery or ambience makes up for that. Regardless of the changes (big or small) attending wins is a hell of a lot better than attending losses.

I'm sure I speak for lots of us, but I would be very grateful if anyone can post pictures during the construction process so we can all get an idea of what is going on. Architectural mock-ups are nice, but for those fans who can't see the work in progress, pictures would do a great service. My biggest concern is how the restaurant will blend in with the rest of the OF seats. If they can do anything at all to conceal or mask the exterior to make it blend in with the rest of the bleachers, all the better.

Thanks for the link UK.

I disagree. In my opinion, the Cubs world is completely different from the Sox world. The Cubs are able to focus on selling out Wrigley and continuing to have amicable relations with the Lakeview neighborhood, while at the same time not having to focus as much on putting a championship contender on the field - not to say that people in the organization aren't trying, Hendry certainly is. On the other hand, the team that the White Sox put on the field has a much stronger influence on their organization (payroll, public perception, popularity, etc.). Not to say Cubs fans don't care, but I think we can all agree there is a certain population of fans/Wrigley-goers that is there for the atmosphere - I'm more than happy to take their money and re-invest it in the club. Longwinded post aside, the White Sox are more heavily dependent on the Cubs, especially the interleague games at the Cell. One of the primary unifying characteristics of Sox fans (or at least as their PR is trying to make it look) is an intense Cubs hatred. The Cubs do not, and will not for the foreseeable future, have to use White Sox animosity as a selling point. Finally, although Chicago is a large media market, it is not Los Angeles or New York, where payrolls can be ratched up as part of an intra-city rivalry. It just isn't.

You mean the Fontenot with the .807 OPS in Iowa? Forgot about him.

Assuming Walker is done for the rest of the year, our middle infield is solidified by the bats (and gloves) of Neifi and Macias. I bet the Astros are disappointed they play us six more times. Imagine Patterson, Blanco, Perez, and Macias in one lineup (without Zambrano pitching because he has a higher SLG than some of them).