Blueheart05

Why do you say that? I'm Furcal's agent: Jim, hi. Great. And you? Fantastic. Say, listen Raffy and I were talking and he really likes the Cubs offer but the Dodgers are willing to go another 3 million per year. What do you have to say about that? Jim, hello? Jim. It's actually easy. Because that call could be a bluff. Hendry might decide not to increase his offer but there's no reason to take it off the table when in all actuality Furcal may want to come to the Cubs but is hoping to bleed a few extra million in the process.

Pierre isn't a lock (lots of other teams are after him as well) and frankly, Furcal is a better leadoff man and defensive player. The Cubs have gone too far to take the offer off the table.

At noon tomorrow.

Reportedly, Furcal is torn, in part, because he likes the Dodgers 3 year offer. Specifically,the idea of 13MM per year and having the ability to be a FA in 3 years versus the stability of being locked in (at the same salary) for 5 years. I think the Cubs need to restructure their offer so that it includes a player option in year three. I also think they need to increase the money by a million or 1.5.

At no time did The Score report that Soriano was coming to the Cubs. In fact, they never mentioned Soriano's name at all. Certainly someone in Sugar Land can look into your computer for the source of these imaginary reports. That's not exactly true. Soriano's name was mentioned both by the hosts and callers. However, Laurence Holmes corrected the caller and said, according to the rumor, Soriano would go to Oakland and not Chicago.

While the rumor could be far fetched or even bogus, let's not forget there are always ways that teams can get players to waive their no trade clauses. In one of the the "dumbest" moves ever in recent times , Andy MacPhail agreed to give Fred McGriff an extra year if he would waive his NTC. In recent years, I recall Shawn Green, Jim Thome and several others who did waive. Texas or anybody else for that matter could agree to pick up Wood's 2007 option as an example of how to get him to waive his clause. That option is something like $13.5M - Wood might find it hard to turn that down, especially if he believes the Cubs have no intention of picking it up. That's not what I'm saying. Also, I haven't read Rogers column so he may have mentioned the NTC. I only know about what was said on the radio. From my perspective, it has to be mentioned anytime trade talk comes up about Wood... I called there (The Score) to comment on the NTC and the phone screener told me it wasn't true and hung up on me. It's like he didn't want to put me on the air to disseminate misinformation. :roll:

I agree about the Dodgers chances right now but I have a feeling that Hendry is going to up the ante in the 11th hour (I hope so anyway). It's hard to say, publically, that a guy is your number one offseason priority then let him go without a fight.

Well, it's not really that. It's that people talk about trading Wood like it's easy. First off, he's coming fof a shoulder surgery. He doesn't have all that much value right now. Why would you trade low like that? Also, ignoring the NTC is stupid and lazy journalism. His wife is from Waukegan, they're expecting their first child, so why would he waive it and move his family to Texas? That's what it is. I just look at it as a trade rumor . No need to take shots at Phil Rogers or the Score, they are simply doing the same thing many of us do on the board everyday, which is to speculate or discuss trade ideas. The idea of trading Wood to the Rangers is one that has been floating around for awhile, presumably because Wood is from Texas and Texas needs pitching. First, if you're going to speculate, do at least the bare minimum of research if you're hosting a radio show. That's what they are paid to do, and that's what should be expected of them. Next, just because Wood is from Texas and Texas needs pitching doesn't mean beans. Everyone needs pitching, and no one on our roster is from Chicago except for Hairston. Are there ill informed rumors about them? People have had it out for Wood for a few years in this town. I'm not shocked that people would pick up on such an obviously stupid rumor and run with it, but professionals should know better than to spout ignorant and poorly educated opinions. Sorry, but I don't see this rumor as being any worse than some of the other garbage reported this off season. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Cubs are shopping Wood. If Wood has a NTC, they would have to at least send him to a team they thought he would accept a trade to (which Texas is probably one of them). BTW is Wood's trade clause a full no trade or a partial no trade? It is a full NTC for 2006 and that is the point. Lou Canelis said "send him anywhere that will take him." That's not how it works buddy! Even rumors have to be plausible.

Well, it's not really that. It's that people talk about trading Wood like it's easy. First off, he's coming fof a shoulder surgery. He doesn't have all that much value right now. Why would you trade low like that? Also, ignoring the NTC is stupid and lazy journalism. His wife is from Waukegan, they're expecting their first child, so why would he waive it and move his family to Texas? That's what it is. Exactly!

The Score's George Ofman is reporting that Furcal will make up his mind by Noon tomorrow. This is gut wrenching...

So have half the hosts on the Score. I just called The Score and when asked what my comment was going to be I told them that because of Wood's NTC the Cubs have to get his permission before a trade can be completed. The phone screener asked someone else in the room if Kerry had a NTC (insulting), then came back to me and said no he doesn't because he's not a 5-10 guy! I insisted that he did and that clown disconnected my line. I wish someone else would tell those fools the truth. Holmes and Cannelias are talking like the Cubs can ship Kerry out without his consent. :? :x Lou Canelis is a low rent loser. He's been fired numerous times. He hasn't even read the paper. Just a loser, but then again, he fits in with the score. Blueheart, just email them. Maybe then they'll bother to research their banter before putting it on to the air. I just sent the email with links to the truth. They are serious clowns! :twisted:

So have half the hosts on the Score. I just called The Score and when asked what my comment was going to be I told them that because of Wood's NTC the Cubs have to get his permission before a trade can be completed. The phone screener asked someone else in the room if Kerry had a NTC (insulting), then came back to me and said no he doesn't because he's not a 5-10 guy! I insisted that he did and that clown disconnected my line. I wish someone else would tell those fools the truth. Holmes and Cannelias are talking like the Cubs can ship Kerry out without his consent. :? :x

How do we know that the Cubs weren't only going to commit 8 mil a year to Furcal, and upped the offer to 50 million to deal with the competition? I don't like the idea of giving Furcal 50 or 55 mil, but I won't go nuts if it happens. That said, Furcal isn't so great a must-have that we should up the offer to these proportions to outbid the Dodgers for his services? The Cubs supposedly offered 5/50 before the Dodgers came into the picture. Again, they've gone this far so I don't see why they should fold if the deal can get done for an extra million a year.

Atlanta Journal Constitution writer David O'Brien was just on The Score. He said he spoke with Furcal's agent earlier today and Rafael is apparently torn between the Dodgers and Cubs. He likes the idea of having the opportunity to be a FA after three years. The Cubs deal does not provide a year three option... O'Brien suggested that the Cubs increase their offer by at least a million a year to compete. I agree with O'Brien. The Cubs have already committed approximately 50MM so it makes no sense to lose out on this deal for an extra million or so dollars. I would also restructure the purposal so that there can be a player option for year 3. At this point, who cares if it's 50MM or 55MM? Just get it done so we dont have to concern ourselves with plan B (which has no guarantees and will require losing talent from the organization). What do you think?

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned previously but it now looks like the Marlins are insisting that the Yankees include Robinson Cano in any trade involving Juan Pierre.

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff. Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about. Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs. I don't disagree that it's his staff but he had no control over their injuries. He was caught off guard in 2004 with Wood's injury and Prior's freak injury. In 2005 it looked like a repeat performance and I do fault him for assuming pitchers (Wood in particular) would be healthy but there were other problems. The team went into 2005 without a legit RF'er (there's no excuse for that), the Bullpen was completely useless ( who would know that they would all be injured or just plain bad?), Nomar had a catastrophic injury, Corey completely failed, Walker got hurt, then much later Aramis was injured. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for some of that but much of the problems with last year's team had to do with failed pitching and using bench players because the intended starters were injured or ineffective. RF-- Legit gripe anytime Holly/Dubois were out there CF-- Patterson bombed and Hairston/Macias started 2B-- Walker was injured and Neifi started SS-- Nomar was injured and Neifi started Bullpen-- Borowski broke his hand in ST, LaTroy Choked, Remlinger fell off the map, and Chad Fox's arm fell off before they brought in/up Wuertz, Novoa, Ohman etc Starters-- Same deal with Wood and Prior caught a liner. Koronka, Mitre, Williams, Rusch--a hodgepodge Let me put it this way, the Sox would have been no where without their pitching last year. They stayed healthy and were lucky to boot. However, the Sox did not have a well rounded offense. If a team is pitching dependent (like the Cubs) problems will be exposed when they don't pitch well and don't execute (good pitching can sometimes overcome stupid mistakes). At the same time, many of the batters Hendry was relying on either didn't produce or got injured for stretches of the season. Like I said earlier, if Hendry goes into 2006 without addressing those problems he should be crticized. right now I expect him to do all the things he said he would this offseason Attempting to mirror the 2005 White Sox is not the best of plans. Every team has a different make up. Each team has its strengths and weaknesses. Utilizing the strengths while hiding the weaknesses is exactly what the White Sox did last year. They didn't bat guys with .330+ OBP's at the bottom of the order, they hit them at the top. The Cubs, day in and day out put garbage OBP guys at the top of the order. They didn't utilize a strength, they utilized a weakness. A week goes by, two weeks go by, and Patterson isn't getting any better. Walker has been a respectable lead off hitter everywhere he's been. He didn't bat lead off on the 2005 Cubs. Why? Later in the season, Matt Murton was blazing the ball and his OBP was practically twice as good as Neifi or Macias, yet Macias and Neifi got the top of the order at bats. Why? The White Sox put decent OBP guys in front of the meat of their order and they maximized their limited offensive potential. The Cubs did not. In the end, the White Sox pitching stayed healthy and the team won a lot of close games to win their division. Same thing that the Cubs did in '03. Since '03, the Cubs have added more than 20m to the payroll and they have regressed. The pitching has regressed because of injury. I won't complain about that. The offense has regressed because they fail to put a team on the field that has the capability of scoring a lot of runs. The Cubs seem to have this appeal for driving a guys value into the ground, and THEN trading him or letting them go for little to no return. Farnsworth, Sosa, Patterson, Dubois, Juan Cruz, Choi, Hawkins, Nomar, Hairston if he is sent packing, etc....... They need to change this line of thinking. It isn't working. I certainly wasn't talking about mirroring the Sox but the Cubs team was constructed to be pitcher reliant and when that failed they weren't left with anything to fall back on (just as the Sox would have been if their pitching had failed).. Also, I was only commenting on Hendry's portion of things. While he was ultimately responsible for Baker's presence, he had nothing to do with the game to game lineups.

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff. Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about. Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs. I don't disagree that it's his staff but he had no control over their injuries. He was caught off guard in 2004 with Wood's injury and Prior's freak injury. In 2005 it looked like a repeat performance and I do fault him for assuming pitchers (Wood in particular) would be healthy but there were other problems. The team went into 2005 without a legit RF'er (there's no excuse for that), the Bullpen was completely useless ( who would know that they would all be injured or just plain bad?), Nomar had a catastrophic injury, Corey completely failed, Walker got hurt, then much later Aramis was injured. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for some of that but much of the problems with last year's team had to do with failed pitching and using bench players because the intended starters were injured or ineffective. RF-- Legit gripe anytime Holly/Dubois were out there CF-- Patterson bombed and Hairston/Macias started 2B-- Walker was injured and Neifi started SS-- Nomar was injured and Neifi started Bullpen-- Borowski broke his hand in ST, LaTroy Choked, Remlinger fell off the map, and Chad Fox's arm fell off before they brought in/up Wuertz, Novoa, Ohman etc Starters-- Same deal with Wood and Prior caught a liner. Koronka, Mitre, Williams, Rusch--a hodgepodge Let me put it this way, the Sox would have been no where without their pitching last year. They stayed healthy and were lucky to boot. However, the Sox did not have a well rounded offense. If a team is pitching dependent (like the Cubs) problems will be exposed when they don't pitch well and don't execute (good pitching can sometimes overcome stupid mistakes). At the same time, many of the batters Hendry was relying on either didn't produce or got injured for stretches of the season. Like I said earlier, if Hendry goes into 2006 without addressing those problems he should be crticized. right now I expect him to do all the things he said he would this offseason

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out. If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals. Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team. Sure, if you compare the 2005 team to 2002, that's an improvement. But this team made a lateral step in 2004 and took a clear step back in 2005. The offensive problems of '03, '04, and '05 were all related to a serious lack of team OBP. Hendry didn't upgrade the team in this manner in '04, and he downgraded the team, effectively, in '05. And for '06 we've seen no improvement (or even a visible attempt to improve) the overall team OBP. Signing a no OBP guy like Neifi, bringing back Hollandsworth, and signing Burnitz were not steps forward last year. Likewise, rewarding Nefi and Rusch with multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts is not a step forward. Personally, I don't look at 2002 as the benchmark. I look at the team in 2003 -- 5 outs away from the World Series -- as my benchmark. 2004 and 2005 were terrible disappointments, and much of the blame lies at Hendry's feet. I want a team built to win, and win now. Not to be "competitive" within the division. Why is this too much to ask? Hendry's had his chance, and his philosophy doesn't work. It's based on toolsy guys who swing away, rather than guys with plate discipline who are willing to talk a base if there's nothing to hit. We know the Cubs need to improve their team OBP -- so why haven't the Cubs made a concerted effort to do so for the past three years? Frankly, 2002 has to be the starting point because Hendry became GM on July 5, 2002. It's hard to agree when you say his philosophy doesn't work. There is a degree of luck involved in winning. The Cardinals have been much more than competitve within the division over the last two years yet they don't have a championship to show for it. Also, championships have been won by teams with less than stellar offensive attacks so securing high OBP players isn't a guarantee of success. I think the failures of the pitching staff (specifically the starters) is much more tellling about the problems of the last two years. It was the pitching that propelled the team to the playoffs in 2003 and it has been the lack of healthy pitchers that has contributed to the current problems. It is up to Hendry to rectify the problems and provide safety nets against injuries. He has already mentioned that he'd like to get another starter, bullpen help, and guys who can "catch the ball." I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now; Heck, the Winter Meetings haven't even started yet. Next week we may feel better about the team's position. In either case, Hendry will deserve criticism if he allows this team to go into 2006 with the same glaring holes it's had over the last two seasons. Right now, he still has time to fill them.

Here's a thought. As a starting point I go back to a 3-way trade rumor I brought to the board weeks ago where the Dodgers, Cubs, and Marlins would play musical chairs with Lowe, Bradley, Lowell, Castillo, Walker, Patterson and Cubs pitching prospects. Obviously, the Marlins did get rid of their players. I still keep hearing that if the LA signs Furcal, they'll want to dump Bradley and Lowe in the name of salary (but also because of clubhouse reasons). What if they traded Bradley and Lowe for some package involving Corey or Walker and some pitching prospects, and Hendry turned around and shipped Lowe and a prospect to the Phillies for Abreu? If we ended up with Bradley and Abreu and only lost Walker, Patterson, and a couple of prospects...I think I might need a new pair of pants. :lol: :lol:

Here's a thought. As a starting point I go back to a 3-way trade rumor I brought to the board weeks ago where the Dodgers, Cubs, and Marlins would play musical chairs with Lowe, Bradley, Lowell, Castillo, Walker, Patterson and Cubs pitching prospects. Obviously, the Marlins did get rid of their players. I still keep hearing that if the LA signs Furcal, they'll want to dump Bradley and Lowe in the name of salary (but also because of clubhouse reasons). What if they traded Bradley and Lowe for some package involving Corey or Walker and some pitching prospects, and Hendry turned around and shipped Lowe and a prospect to the Phillies for Abreu? For what it's worth, there are reports that the Dodgers may consider keeping Bradley or at the very least, try hard to get something of value for him.

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out. If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals. Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team.

Yeah, this has been rumored all day. Rotoworld says the prospects are pitchers Sean Henn and Scott Proctor. It seems like the Marlins could have gotten more for him. I think this goes to show that they were looking to move him to the AL quickly.

More excuses. Hendry has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure, and thanks to much of his work as farm director last decade, he had a ton of talent at his disposal. All GMs have a tough job, but Hendry has not been in a tougher position than any other GM in the league. Fandom aside, I would have taken the Cubs job over just about any other the past 3 seasons simply because of what a great position they were in to succeed. A GM has to be judged on the collective results during his tenure, not individual trades, or just this year. I don't care about excuses about why he couldn't get a guy, or how a team wouldn't trade with him. Lots of people have known exactly what has held back this team from being great as opposed to above average (88/89 wins) or below average. And, SO FAR, Hendry has done nothing to fix that problem. It's up to him to solve the problem, not us to assume he'll get the job done. You can call it what you want but we are dealing with the here and now. If you can look back and point to his shortcomings will you also highlight his accomplishments? In your desire to make your point I guess it was lost on you that I didn't say he shouldn't be criticized but i do have a problem with the idea that he isn't trying to do anything. By the logic in your argument, it must be up to us to assume he won't get it done. If that's the case, we shouldn't be outraged (much less surprised) by any non deals. The difference between me and you is I'm not trying to tell you how to judge Hendry. I'm merely offering up the logic behind my judgement of Hendry as less than adaquate at his job, which is based on his inability to failure to fix glaring weaknesses for a very long time. What I don't get is why there are so many people out there who want to tear apart those of us who don't like the job Hendry has done. If you like what he's done, fine, I'll disagree with you, but my problem is with Hendry, not you. On the other hand, when somebody says something negative about Hendry, you get much more of an attack against the negative than real positive support for Hendry. I will assume Hendry will fail until he proves otherwise. 3 years ago he got the benefit of the doubt. After 2003 he got the benefit of the doubt. But this regime has shown me enough for me to have a pretty fair idea of what type of strategy they are trying to employ this offseason. Now, Hendry could blow me away with an acquisition for a very productive RF, and a series of moves to improved the longstanding lack of BB and OBP by the offense. And in that case, I'll be very happy to say I'm impressed with the job he's doing. But I can only judge Hendry on what he's accomplished so far on the job, that includes the past. LOL, I responded to a message by RynoRules and you didn't like what I wrote which sparked a side discussion about Hendry. This is my statement that you quoted in your first message to me: Sorry, I'm not telling you how to judge Hendry but I do stand by my earlier comments. It's hard to say he isn't doing anything we just haven't seen the fruits of it yet. edit- for grammar

More excuses. Hendry has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure, and thanks to much of his work as farm director last decade, he had a ton of talent at his disposal. All GMs have a tough job, but Hendry has not been in a tougher position than any other GM in the league. Fandom aside, I would have taken the Cubs job over just about any other the past 3 seasons simply because of what a great position they were in to succeed. A GM has to be judged on the collective results during his tenure, not individual trades, or just this year. I don't care about excuses about why he couldn't get a guy, or how a team wouldn't trade with him. Lots of people have known exactly what has held back this team from being great as opposed to above average (88/89 wins) or below average. And, SO FAR, Hendry has done nothing to fix that problem. It's up to him to solve the problem, not us to assume he'll get the job done. You can call it what you want but we are dealing with the here and now. If you can look back and point to his shortcomings will you also highlight his accomplishments? In your desire to make your point I guess it was lost on you that I didn't say he shouldn't be criticized but i do have a problem with the idea that he isn't trying to do anything. By the logic in your argument, it must be up to us to assume he won't get it done. If that's the case, we shouldn't be outraged (much less surprised) by any non deals.

He sat on his hands last offseason, and while he might not be sitting on them now, he has not yet used those hands to make any meaningful improvement to biggest problem area on the team, and some options are beginning to disappear. Let's deal with this year. We don't know if MacPhail made it difficult for him to make moves until he delt Sosa. Also, he made several moves inseason to completely change the bullpen. It takes two to tangle and when put into perspective, there have really only been deals by a hand full of teams. Unfortunately, I think Hendry is caught in a tough postion. There are teams that would be more willing to deal with him if he didn't have so many untouchables (like Pie and Hill) yet, with the uncertainty of his pitching staff, in effectiveness of some players, and possible FA vacancies in 2007, he can't afford to sell them off either. Like every GM, he will try to get the best available commodity as cheaply as the market will allow. Getting back to the topic of this thread, it makes more sense to me that the Marlins would try to peddle their players to AL teams. After sending Beckett, Lowell, and Mota to Boston I was shocked that they moved Delgado to the Mets. Frankly, that a Pirate-type move.