Blueheart05

So says Rotoworld If this happens the Mets would be overwhelming favorites in the NL East which could, in a strange way, affect the Furcal signing.

Sorry, I don't have any news about Greenberg but your post did prompt me to check Cubs.com's transaction page: Hmmmm, something's wrong with this picture: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/transactions.jsp?c_id=chc One of these things does not belong here...

I disagree. I don't think his bat outweighs his defense. Walker costs the pitching staff extra pitches and has made errors during crucial times of the game (i.e. Nationals at Wrigley). His range and inability to turn a doubleplay effectively is a serious issue. Personally, I'd rather have a solid defensive second baseman with a serviceable bat than one who is lacking defensively.

You're welcome :D Meat & England, I'm curious why you two think the interest in Bradley means Hendry is confident about Furcal. Is it more related to trading Walker?

ESPN AM 1000 just reported that the Cubs are in discussions with the Dodgers for a Bradley for Walker deal. I wonder if this is a backup to the Pierre plans or in lieu of that deal?

There's no incentive for the Marlins to take on Corey's salary in exchange for Pierre. The whole idea of trading Pierre, from their perspective, is to reduce team payroll and get prospects that are ML ready or who can blossom quickly on a rebuilding team. Juan Pierre is a free agent after next year, I don't see how it benefits the Cubs to give away THREE guys with Major League service time for him. The Cubs can work a seperate deal to rid themselves of Patterson, if that's their plan. BTW, I'm not for giving them two ML players either. If the Cubs have true interest in Pierre they should be willing to part with no more than one ML guy and a couple of kids.

I would say that 27 is the beginning of many position player's prime years, but it's certainly not the peak. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study, but I highly doubt that 27 on average is the most productive year for most players out there. That's actually exactly what somebody did. 27 is the average prime year. That doesn't mean guys fall off cliffs at 28 or 29. What usually happens is players reach their peak at 27, but they can stay relatively close to that peak for several years after, a sort of plateau after the highest height. I find that hard to believe. Gotta link? Unfortunately, since I last read about all this at least 5 or 6 years ago, I don't have a link, but I can back up goony on this. In fact, I thought it to be common knowledge. Sorry, I still don't buy it. Look at the last 10 (different) MVP winners. Look at the All-Star game roster from this last year, and for anyone over 32, what were their most productive years? You had Bonds, not even close. Kent's most productive years were 29-32. Chipper Jones...27, you got that one. Sammy...2001 when he was 32. Larry Walker...30-32. Caminiti...33. Bagwell's best years were 29-33, other than the fluke season when he was 26. Go down the all-star rosters, league leaders in OPS, past MVPs, you'll find the majority of them do NOT have their best years at or before 27. The only explanation I can think of for your claim is your average role player who never does anything significant might peak at 27, and that's why they never did anything significant. I don't know. But looking at the quality players in the league, they don't peak at 27. I don't think Pierre, by any means, has necessarily had his best year. One could argue that some (or all) of the players mentioned were chemically enhanced which allowed them to perform at advanced (athletic) years.

To be honest, this is something I thought about as well when reading the terms of the signing. Think about it, it's one thing to close games in May and June, it's another to close them when the games are of extreme importance. It reminds me of Lidge who, as we all know, was lights out during the regular season yet seemed to crack in the postseason. Who would have really predicted it? Of course, it's yet to be seen how Ryan will perform in "big" games but it's hard to argue that the years and money are not a huge gamble for a guy who's largely untested as a closer.

For what it's worth, yahoo has also listed this rumor: Link That's the same exact "article" that appears on ITI. Tim has already mentioned that yahoo carries the ITI stuff automatically via RSS feed. Well, I see that now. I hadn't gotten that far in my reading...

For what it's worth, yahoo has also listed this rumor: Link

FIXED :D Anyway, I guess this means we can all cut Hendry so slack about his bullpen signings. It seems this offseason is record breaking as it relates to the money and time given to relievers.

I will be happy if he's merely servicable in 2006 because we don't seem to have any other LF options.

Hmmm, I thought this thread was about Grudz seeking a three year deal. :roll: :wink: :lol:

Offload? I'll take that offload any day of the week. This helps the Red Sox pen too. Mota wanted out of Florida. This was a theft. Yes, they offloaded him because he was ineffective and costly.

The deal has been finalized. The Marlins found a way to offload Mota as well. No article is available yet.. MLB.com

Or he's waiting for additional confirmation. Yesterday when all the local outlets were speculating about a completed Howry deal, Bruce wrote that the Cubs "might pursue" him.

Sorry but I have to laugh :lol: What makes you think the Yankees are trading A-Rod? What exactly do you think we'd have to give up to get the AL MVP?

670thescore.com

Joe Bartosh said " The Cubs continue to work on getting Juan Pierre from the Marlins." He just shortened everything after talking about the Thome deal. That doesn't diminish the deal (if true). Jessie Rogers is going to talk Hot Stove next perhaps he will give more information, if available.

The Score has mentioned that a deal with Pierre is in the works during every Scoreboard Update. Listen around 20 or 40 after the hour.

In case anyone missed it, Cubs.com now has a new article about Eyre which shows the money break down: Link

Kerry Wood. Games 1 and 5, 2003 NLDS. Entire month of September 2003. Carlos Zambrano. ERA below 3 after the ASB from 2004-5. Mark Prior: Games 3 NLDS, Game 2 NLCS. I think your hyperbole got ahead of the facts. And actually, there are a few members here at NSBB I think could do an effective job at being a GM. Also, I'm not sure how Scott Eyre qualifies as a "big game proven pitcher". He's a reliever. He's not a closer. He's not a starter. He's a setup guy at best, Those guys don't win you divisions. Unfortunately, I have to disagree on your last point. A good setup guy or guys can be the difference between winning and losing. Look no further than the Sox to see how valuable relievers like Politte (and to some extent Cotts) can be as a bridge to the closer. Politte was at best mediocre, at worst crappy in every single season of his career before 2005. Cotts's ERA went from 5.65 in 04 to 1.94 this year. I'm not saying they weren't valuable in 2005, I'm just pointing out that neither of those guys should have been expected to be a bridge to anywhere except mediocrity. One addendum to that: Usually, teams that win have really good bullpens? Why? Because they aren't exposed as often as bad team's bullpens are, because winning teams almost always have starting pitching that gets you to the 7th inning. If a team can stay out of their middle relief, chances are they can win a lot of games. Both points are valid but career numbers and having a solid starting rotation notwithstanding, middle relief/setup/closer are all valuable. The starters won't finish most games and even sparingly used relievers can be bad (either because they are just ineffective or rusty). A good setup man can be the difference between winning and losing. Unfortunately, with a starting staff like the Cubs (high strikeouts/high pitch counts and walks) middle relief in the 6th and 7th innings will be important.

Kerry Wood. Games 1 and 5, 2003 NLDS. Entire month of September 2003. Carlos Zambrano. ERA below 3 after the ASB from 2004-5. Mark Prior: Games 3 NLDS, Game 2 NLCS. I think your hyperbole got ahead of the facts. And actually, there are a few members here at NSBB I think could do an effective job at being a GM. Also, I'm not sure how Scott Eyre qualifies as a "big game proven pitcher". He's a reliever. He's not a closer. He's not a starter. He's a setup guy at best, Those guys don't win you divisions. Unfortunately, I have to disagree on your last point. A good setup guy or guys can be the difference between winning and losing. Look no further than the Sox to see how valuable relievers like Politte (and to some extent Cotts) can be as a bridge to the closer. But look what they signed for. You find bullpen guys on the cheap. They're not sound investments. I agree that stability and production are needed in the pen, but you cannot convince me that a middle reliever is going to be a difference maker to the point you have to overpay for one. The cost issue isn't what I am debating. The value of the setup man on the team is my argument. Personally, I don't view a setup man as a typical middle reliever. Perhaps 2005 would have ended differently for the Cubs if Dempster had closed the entire season and Eyre setup for him (yes,I am well aware of the other problems on the team). In reading Hendry's comments I think it's fair to say he's counting on Eyre to setup because he pointed out that Scott could pitch most everyday. Also, this may sound crazy but he does have the ability to close so Hendry may have gotten him as an insurance policy against Dempster faltering or being overworked.

Kerry Wood. Games 1 and 5, 2003 NLDS. Entire month of September 2003. Carlos Zambrano. ERA below 3 after the ASB from 2004-5. Mark Prior: Games 3 NLDS, Game 2 NLCS. I think your hyperbole got ahead of the facts. And actually, there are a few members here at NSBB I think could do an effective job at being a GM. Also, I'm not sure how Scott Eyre qualifies as a "big game proven pitcher". He's a reliever. He's not a closer. He's not a starter. He's a setup guy at best, Those guys don't win you divisions. Unfortunately, I have to disagree on your last point. A good setup guy or guys can be the difference between winning and losing. Look no further than the Sox to see how valuable relievers like Politte (and to some extent Cotts) can be as a bridge to the closer.

Nah, I don't like that name. May I call you greenie?