mul21

Living in St. Louis, I may have a little insight on this. What worries me here is the fact that Duncan has turned around so many pitchers, but the most common report down here was that Marquis just wouldn't listen to him and pitch the way he was instructed to. He's been characterized as hard-headed and difficult to work with. With that info in hand about a guy who just came off a 6+ ERA season, I'm leary of doing anything with the guy unless he signs a minor league or very low cost deal. I know LaRussa and Duncan aren't the most happy go lucky guys, but they typically don't have a lot of problems with players and they both have had enough of Marquis.

I think some of the speculation on here is probably right on that Hendry is trying to drive up value on Izturis to move him, then take Lugo and put him at SS with Soriano in CF. Whether or not Hendry can actually get that done is anybody's guess.

But he's going from Safeco to Wrigley and the AL West (Seattle, Oakland and Anaheim are pitcher's parks) to the NL Central. He's a good guy to take a risk on. He has good stuff. But his price tag is going to be pretty expensive - I'd at least take a look at Schmidt first and fail at going after him before moving to the Meche tier of FA pitchers. I haven't looked at numbers, but isn't Safeco regarded as a pitcher's park? And I also don't really see a whole lot of difference in talent level between the AL west and the NL central outside of the DH being there. The Angels and A's have both struggled offensively the last 2 years. Aside from Meche possibly figuring it out under Rothschild, I don't see a lot of reason for optimism, especially since he averaged less than 6 IP/start last year with a nearly 1.5 whip.

I just sent the following to Hendry. Flame away..... Dear Mr. Hendry, As a faithful and hopeful Cub fan buried in the heart of Cardinals country, I would like to offer up what I think would be the solution to the Cubs terrible record last year. My suggestions are as follows: 1. Sign JD Drew. Yes, I know he has had injury problems in the past and may not always seem to be playing the game as hard as he can, but these are numbers you can’t ignore: .286 avg./.393 obp/.512 slg/.905 ops. He can also play CF, which happens to be a need right now. Please go get him, yesterday if possible. 2. Rumor has it the Cubs are pursuing Cliff Lee or Jake Westbrook. Please get Westbrook. He’s better (by better I mean he walks less people and doesn’t give up as many HRs). 3. Sign Jason Schmidt. He may be expensive, but won’t be paid any more than he’s worth in comparison to the contract you just gave Blanco. Give big Z a little help out there. Please. 4. Send Cesar Izturis somewhere for a minor league position player with some potential and sign Julio Lugo to take his place. If you can do these things, you will have this lineup: Lugo SS Murton LF Lee 1B Drew CF Ramirez 3B Jones RF Barrett C DeRosa 2B And a rotation of: Zambrano Schmidt Hill Westbrook Miller, Prior, Marshall or whatever other young guy might be healthy and effective. By my calculations, you have around $30 million left to spend if the budget will truly be $115 million. Drew at 4 yrs/$52-60 M, Schmidt at 3 yrs/$36-42 M, and Lugo at 3 yrs/ $24-30 M. You save ~ $4.5 M by getting rid of Izturis for a net of somewhere between $28.5-35.5 M per year. Possibly a little over budget, but if you can win, I don’t think anybody will notice. Thanks for you attention,

I can't fathom why, after last year especially, Hendry would go and get a guy who averages less than 6 IP per start with a whip of almost 1.5. I agree, Yeche.

Wow, that is absolutely ridiculous. I just cannot fathom paying that much for one unproven player in the MLB. they'll make it back and then some in t-shirt sales alone. Aren't all merchandise sales redistributed equally to all 30 teams? Yes, but not TV revenues, which is where the big money is.

The way I look at it you've got this right now: 1. ? 2. Murton 3. Lee 4. Ramirez 5. Barrett 6. Jones 7. ? 8. Izturis I'd like to see Drew signed, which would bump everyone down one slot behind Lee. Then plug in either Iwamura, Durham, or Theriot at 2B and leadoff and that's a lineup that will be able to score some runs. I'm just leary of what Soriano is going to do after a big dollar contract is in his pocket and I don't like his peripherals anyway.

Conveniently both his free agent contract years. So did he conveniently get plunked last year? Interpret as you wish, this guy can turn it on or off like a light switch. He's that talented. I don't believe in clutch, but this guy's as non-clutch as ARod's portrayed to be. His knees are damaged goods. I don't see him even coming close to 3/4 of a season if he plays centerfield. I think the reason he wants to play CF is because it's easier on the body. I don't understand that. In theory, CF cover more ground than a corner spot. Is it because more balls are hit to LF and RF as opposed to CF? I think his claim was that all the starting and stopping and cutting you have to do in the corners was tougher on the body than just being able to go all out to get the ball when you're in CF.

Wolf, You may know the answer to this: Did LaRussa and Drew have some kind of relationship issue? It seems to me that I remeber something along those lines, but I could be wrong.

So what is Boras's position then? Why does he think he can get Matsuzaka back on the market at age 29 for the real payday? Higher numbers in arbitration? Also may want to get him to prove he's the real deal at 3yrs/$15-20mil and then get the real payday of 5/$75 after those initial 3 years.

Have you looked at his last 3 years? He's played around 145 2 of the last 3 and the year he didn't was due to a freak hit by pitch broken hand. I think if he is signed to play CF, which he says is easier on his knees, he can be counted on for 140-150 games barring a freak injury.

If the geniuses who vote for HOF aren't smart enough to figure out that Bagwell would have most likely easily eclipsed the 500 HR mark had he not played in the Astrodome for 10 years (?), then they shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore. I don't think it should be a question considering he and Biggio carried those Astros teams by themselves for so many years and the leadership they both provided (yes, I know it's not measurable, but I think it should play a factor).

That list gets thin real quick. And how does he rate Frank Thomas and Barry Bonds ahead of Schmidt, Mussina, and Pettitte, just on the likelihood of being healthy the whole season, regardless of production?

I guess the question would be what qualified for a genuine interest in signing him. Would offering Matsuzuka a 6/30 deal qualify as genuine? I don't know and I don't know if the commisioner would agree or not. Definitely, Daisuke has no room to complain about a 6/30 deal. That wouldn't be a bad deal for a team. Submit a 50 million posting fee and then offer Daisuke 6/30. At worst, you have him for a cost of 80 million which is like 13 million a season. That's cheaper than offering a 30 million posting fee and then paying him 10 million a season. He may turn it down, but then he's kept from signing elsewhere. The only damage may be that he won't negotiate with that team when he returns as a FA next season. That's not taking advantage of the system though. If a team won with a 30 million bid, they could (and should) offer him a deal like that. Look at Ichiro for an example of a posted player's initial contract. What was his initial contract? I think it was 3yrs $14M

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

Both are free agents following this season. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say Wells, as a 28 y/o CF, has a better chance to stay highly productive, longer, than the 29 y/o C who has a long list of injuries and plays a position where guys break down quickly. Ack, that's the second time I've messed that up too. Barrett hasn't been catching that long, and hasn't been hurt in 3 years. I think his positional value and the fact he'll be (much) cheaper to retain than Wells wins out over being further into his prime. There's also the thing that making that trade makes it harder to improve the offense since finding a new catcher that can hit is much more difficult than upgrading CF. Barrett has to been a catcher for long. He's logged nearly as many innings there as AJP, and is at the stage of his career, nearly 6000 innings, when lots of guys start breaking down. And how can you say he hasn't been hurt in 3 years? He was hurt multiple times this year, as well as last year. He was healthy in 2004, but he's missed time in just about every other season, and he had only logged about 3000 innings behind the plate before that season. We have to stop pretending Barrett is relatively new to the catcher position. You have guys like Fisk and Rodriguez who lasted a long time as productive guys at the position, but they had the DH to rest themselves. Bench and Berra switched positions in their early 30's. The Cubs have a decision with Barrett coming very soon. And the wise one might very well be to let somebody else squeeze the last bit of juice out of his catcher's frame, or move him to another position. Barrett has been a ML catcher for a while, but hasn't been playing the position his entire life and getting constantly beat up like the other guys you mention. IIRC, he played a lot of 3B in the minors and didn't become a full time catcher until he was a couple years into his ML career. I think he may last a little longer than the avg. catcher and still be productive on offense for that reason. Plus, for whatever reason, his offense seems to be undervalued because he's not a great defensive catcher.

I soured on Sosa when some of the things about him came to light. I feel the same way about Bonds, Giambi, McGwire and any of the other idiots who may or may not have cheated. I want none of those guys anywhere near the Cubs, regardless of the fact it may get them to the WS.

I don't see a problem with counting on Hill, Marshall, and the decent veteran FA to be the 3,4,5. You then have to rely on Z and that key FA to be the 1-2 that you really need. If the offense is improved the way it should be in the off season, that combo should get the Cubs a lot of wins and stay fairly healthy.

I'm off this weekend and had delusions of taking my three year old son to one of the Detroit games, but face value was out of our price range for an impromptu trip like this. I knew scalped tickets would be really high, but I had no idea teams jacked up playoff tickets that much. I'm pretty sure MLB dictates a lot of the pricing for the playoffs. Not that the teams wouldn't gouge you anyway, but it's not entirely their fault.

I really think you have to like the Dodgers chances. They have Brad Penny, who is great if he can keep his cool. Derek Lowe, who has the potential to pitch very well and has post season experience and then you've got Maddog who is liable to come up with a gem at just about any time. If they can score a few runs I see no reason why they shouldn't be the favorite in the NL.

You mean kinda like the Marlins did with Uggla this year? I mean I don't expect mid 20 HR numbers from Theriot, but if he can hit .280-.300 with a .350-.380 OBP there's no reason not to play him everyday. I don't think you can pencil him in at 2B next year, but a solid year next year in the minors gives him a shot to be a really good bench guy or a starter in the middle infield and a contributor to a good team.

My bad, I was just excited about Hill's start. The kid is looking really good and his recent performances have me feeling much better about our potential rotation next year. If we could land a top of the rotation FA pitcher, I think the staff could be quite good. Z FA -- Zito, Schmidt, The kid from Japan Prior Hill Miller However, I'm not sure any of those acquisitions is realistic. Schmidt is probably headed to Seattle, Zito is going to cost a ton, and the kid from Japan has other more likely suitors. It may be worth it to pay for Zito and I would be in favor of keeping Miller at the back of the rotation to make it work since he would probably come cheap. I really hope we don't go into next season with both Prior and Miller planned in the rotation. One should be the #5 starter the other is the backup plan. If Prior or Miller could pitch 180 innings next season in the #5 slot the Cubs should be in good shape. Like I said earlier, what spot Prior should be put in is pretty meaningless. If Prior can pitch, the rotation could look like: Zambrano Prior FA Hill Miller/Marshall/AAA pitcher That would mean we'd need a good #2 pitcher from FA. If you don't count on Prior for anything, you'd need a good #2, and a good #3. The problem is, what two FA pitchers are out there whose salaries we could pay, and would be better enough compared to the kids to justify getting them instead of spending money elsewhere? Unless you think the Cubs are going to get Zito and Schmidt or completely rebuild, I don't see how the team's offseason plans would be any different with Prior in as the #2 or on the DL. I guess what I'm saying is, how do you think the Cubs should act differently than they would if they assumed Prior would be back? I don't think they need to act differently, because Prior shouldn't be asumed to have anything better than #5 starter stuff if/when he pitches next year. If you go about it that way, you have this: Z FA Hill FA or young guy/Miller Prior or young guy/Miller Whatever you get from Prior is a bonus and I think between Marshall, Mateo, Marmol and whoever else you want to throw in there you would have an acceptable back end of the rotation even without Prior. The biggest issue at this point is finding some offense without getting rid of the guys who are developing (Murton in particular).

I never said the Cubs aren't "one of the worst run organizations in professional sports", I'm saying they are not THE worst organization, but just ONE of the worst run orgnizations. There's a difference, Jeff. They are bad, but there are in the collection of really bad organizations, and you are singling them as they are the ONLY team that is run badly.[/u] I'm not singling them out. There are many franchises that are poorly run. However, none are run as poorly as the Chicago National League Ball Club. So you are saying the Knicks and their $120 million dollar team salary (over half are generously gift to the BACKCOURT and are about 60 or so million over the tax line) ain't nearly as badly runned organization as the Cubs? Why don't you, Jeff take a peek at some of the newspapers clippings of the NY papers this past yr (or two yrs), and see if you don't change your perception that the Cubs are not the WORST run organization in sports, merely ONE of the worst run organizations in sports. In other words...the Knicks are RIGHT THERE, Jeff, as to being a poorly runned org. How hard is it to see the fact, Jeff? Who are you talking to??????? :D

It's really pretty simple baseball economics. Guys tend to get paid for what they have done, not what they are going to do. Plus, it's not easy to find guys who pitch 200+ inning every year without getting hurt and having a sub 4 ERA. I agree that he's not woth it, but that's just kind of the way the cookie crumbles.

As much as I can't stand him hitting 2nd, that was a nice turn on the DP by Bynum.