USSoccer

It's off topic, but your sign should really read "Kneel Before Zod".

Actually not a bad trade IF Guzman is truly over his injury problems. We get to keep Cedeno and Pie as well. If Guzman is not healthy, the deal ain't so great. Whether Guzman is healthy or not doesn't change the fact that we get absolutely fleeced. Hill and Bedard really aren't that different, Prior has a word I can't think of more value than Tejada, and we're throwing in Patterson. It's highway robbery. I understand your frustration by looking at the specifics of this trade in isolation, but put the trade in the overall context of the organization. The Cubs now have Tejada at SS, Cedeno at 2B, and Bedard and Guzman in the starting rotation for the next four years, Pie developing in AAA, and EPatt as trade bait (perhaps paired with Walker?). I can see why Hendry pulled the trigger - we're now a playoff caliber team for the next three years. He has enough bargaining chips to trade for another starter or upgrade in a trade involving Williams. There's not a single pitcher available with the talent and ceiling of Prior

I think you're right. Which is another reason this deal needs to be all prospects or non-core ML players, or we walk away. Can you minagine Prior with Mazzone?

Words cannot express the rage that is filling me up. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Cubs: :titanic: Here's hoping Angelos thinks like we do.

Per Bruce Levine the offer seems to have been narrowed to Prior, Hill and Patterson for Bedard and Tejada, pending Angelos's approval. And let me say: :wall:

Are you the guy who has that problem with his keyboard at work? I kind of doubt that Hendry would try to gauge the reaction that way. My guess is that either a) someone just made something up, or b) some person lower down that Hendry talks to told someone else. (much quieter) yes I am, I appologize I am just wishfully thinking Hendry is testing the waters so to speak..this trade idea makes me physically sick Quite possible. Perhaps they're trying to motivate Prior a little?? Who knows. Motivate him to do what? Dodge better? he needs to wear a cloak of positive agility! Or +1 Boots of Quickening. (glaven)

Even though, the one who you were responding continues to make the same repeated and repeated point used, that goes against the actual concept of a message board by fans for fans. I find this concept impossible to grasp, that someone can't offer up an opinion that might differ with what has been done, think every GM agrees with every other move another GM makes? Think every fans agrees with every move a GM makes? It's called a discussion among fans. I disagree with the concept that 10 posters whomever those are would make a better GM than even the worse GM in MLB history. So much behind the scenes stuff and the battle isn't doing well once you get there, it is getting there. The numbers game makes it the challenge. So many great scouts out there, god knows I've seen them at so many games, and those are area scouts and bird dogs. It's one giant pyramid. My statement was more "in a vaccum, 10 would be better", but i agree with you. it's impossible to get to that point to even be considered for a GM spot. Lots of hard work and long hours, and luck

So, what is a coach suppposed to do? Don't you think that they work with him? Don't you think that between Baker, Clines and Sarge that they have tried everything? He doesn't change his grip. He doesn't change his stance. He doesn't shorten his swing. AND - he still swings at pitches up at his eyes. It is not the fault of the coaches, I think this kid is uncoachable. Oh yeah! Remember when he said in the minors last year that nobody ever talked to him before about shortening his swing? Do you actually believe that? Why can D. Lee, a successful hitter, alter his stance and improve himself at his age, while a kid like Corey keeps failing time after time with no change in his approach? Oh yes, it's the fault of the coaches! -I do not believe for a second that Baker, Clines or Mathews have the skills needed to encourage plate discipline. Nearly every public statement they make regarding the offense preaches aggresiveness. -I do believe that no one talked to him about shortening his swing in the minors. He was never a top of the order hitter until he got here and the coaches saw that he was short and fast. Throughout his entire baseball career up until 2002 Patterson was developed to be a middle of the order run producer. Thus, there would have been no reason for anyone in the system to encourage him to shorten his swing. It would have been contrary to his supposed eventual role with the ML club. -Derrek Lee had a much more correctable flaw in his swing, and less baggage with which to deal with. He opened his stance to be able to turn on inside pitches. With Corey, at this point it would be like trying to alter the flow of a river. -And FWIW, Corey did make minor adjustmetns to his hand position and his stance. None of them were effective long term, because his role was constantly changing, and because once he began to struggle after making an adjustment, he'd begin to press and fall back into bad habits. Look, I don't think Corey will ever succeed here in Chicago. I think he needs a fresh start elsewhere, but that doesn't mean he's untalented or uncoachable.

I love it when people start picking the Cards 3rd. Works like a charm every time ;) I would agree that the Cubs and Cards off season has left a lot to be desired so far. That said, the Astros have done nothing, and I think the Brewers are still a year away imo. This is still the Cards division to lose. I agree. They were head and shoulders better than everyone the last 2 years, and even with them at status quo they have a big leg up on the rest of the division.

The facts are that Hendry didn't do anything to change the fact that we're going to have to rely on luck and health to win 90 games. With a $100m payroll, that's a poor job. Sure, if we get some breaks, no one regresses or misses signifigant time and Wood, Prior and Z stay healthy all year, we'll compete, but that's leaving an awful lot to chance, and again, we have the payroll to avoid counting on chance.

The IF's down there can't be all that great. I wouldn't put a ton of stock into it. Also, is Ronny playing 2B, SS, or a bit of both?

Would you make the same argument about a GM like Jim Bowden? Does the fact that every GM holds a GM position automatically make them well qualified and more baseball intelligent? And Bowden is just evidence that once you're inside the inner circle of MLB, you can stay there for a long, long time. regardless of how one gm compares to the others, i think its safe to say that not one person on this board has the slightest clue as to what it takes to be the gm of a major leauge team. baseball intelligence is one thing when it comes to throwing around idea's on a message board and quite another when one is dealing with a real business, real players and real $. I think there are probably 10 posters who could make better GM's than a few of the ML GM's right now. Its not brain surgery or rocket science. Or even Rocket Sauce. :P It's knowing baseball, having an understanding of economics, task managing, time managing, planning ahead, staying focused and having a good staff to support and augment your strengths and weaknesses. Let's not make running the personnel side of a baseball team out to be the most impossible thing ever. Sure, it's hard. But it's no more or less demanding than any administrative job. It's just a different kind of administrative job.

I agree with everything you said, except that line. Whether the Cubs pull a White Sox and win 100 games and take the World Series, it still doesn't make us wrong about the moves being bad. It makes the Cubs lucky. *note, I'm not saying in anyway that the Sox moves were bad or they were lucky. How about "I hope we're all wrong in what we think these moves will result in"? :D

It's statements like that that make me shake my head. Where do you get the idea that he's a pig-headed, uncoachable kid? Has any single Cub coach come out and said that? Has it been uttered or leaked by anyone in the front office? Was it a rep of his in the minors? Most importantly, has anyone ever said that Corey doesn't work hard? A lack of results does not mean there is a lack of effort. A lot goes into being a succesful athelete at any level. I know that I was never the same soccer player after getting a couple concussions at the college level. My confidence was shot. That affected my entire game. Corey struggled, pressed, struggled some more, got booed mercilessly, got sent down, struggled, came back up, struggled, and got booed some more. Do you think that it was as simple as Corey just "wanting" to be good? Do you think he wants to be a .220 hitter? I don't. Saying Corey is uncoachable and pig headed is a thing that's been regurgitated ad infinitum by sports talk radio until it's all of a sudden conventional wisdom. Just like his imaginary "it's just a game statement" (that tape from that very stations reporter refuted!). Coaches can helt open or close your stance (see Derrek Lee). They can adjust your hands (see Sammy Sosa circa 1998). They can help train you to keep your head and your eyes focused straight ahead. No, they cannot get in his head and force him to lay off pitches, but they can certainly do more than just tell him to lay off pitches out of the zone.

As an aside, I think people overreact and criticise because they care, not because they don't. I disagree with just about every single personnel decision Hendry has made this winter in some way, but I'm still going to root for the team like the die hard I am. I hope we're all wrong about these moves in the end. I think that if everything breaks our way, we can win 87-90 games. But absolutely everything has to go right. Murton and Cedeno have to be the pros we all think they are. Jones has to not completely suck. Pierre has to rebound to career norms, at least. Lee can't regress all the way back to 2003-4 numbers. Aramis has to buy into the conditioning and not miss signifigant time. Baker has to not completely torpedo the team in close games. Perez has to be a backup. And above all, Wood, Prior and Zambrano all have to make more than 25 starts apiece. That's a lot of things that have to break your way. Remember, we may have only been a couple under .500 last season, but we were what, nearly 20 games worse than St Louis? They aren't going to completely come back to the pack. Milwaukee is going to be good. Houston will give us trouble so long as there's a chance Clemens, Pettite and Oswalt are in that rotation May 1st. Cincinatti and Pittsburgh don't figure to be good, but we can't suck against them like we did against the Reds last year. IMO, too much is left to chance, and I see us at about 84 wins as currently constructed. Which is awful for a $100m team. It's been managed into mediocrity on and off the field. But we'll see.

Bruce, Any chance Eric Byrnes is on Hendry's radar?

[silver lining] From Rotoworld: The Orioles and Jeff Conine have reportedly come to terms on a one-year deal worth about $1.75 million. Conine chose Baltimore over Atlanta, where he wouldn't have been a regular. The Orioles could make him an everyday player in left field or at first base. [/silver lining] Whew. That's a good thing.

If I were the Cubs, right now, I'd sign Eric Byrnes to a $1.5m contract to be a 4th OF and platoon with Jones. I'd offer Jeff Weaver $7.5m with a club option for $10m or a $1m buyout. I'd offer Pie, Williams, Novoa, Welley and Patterson for Tejada. I'd make every effort to sign Prior and Z throught their arb years to a fair contract. I think the Cubs will, right now, do the following: Trade Patterson for a PTBNL Trade Welley for a PTBNL Sign Jeff Conine to a $4m deal with a club option for 2007 or a $2m buyout to be the 4th OF and platoon with Jones. Invite Kirk Rueter to ST as a NRI. Offer Walker, Pie, Guzman and Cedeno for Tejada. Extend Jim Hendry thru 2008.

After sleeping on it, I'm still really upset about the signing, but what makes me angry is the length of the deal. If Hendry felt Jones was the best available RF, fine. I disagree, but fine. However, why 3 years? Why lock yourself into mediocrity at best for that long? I really don't care for the signing (I was hoping for someone better), but I also agree that the Cubs can still be good if the starting pitching holds up (not bloody likely, but that's the Cubs the last few years). I don't see the contract as that terrible. Sure, three years is more than I would have liked, but roughly $5M/year is not an unwieldy sum if the Cubs wanted to move Jones in year three to play Pie even if they had to eat a bit of salary. But now you basically are in a position where you have to count completely on health overall, and luck with the pitchers in order to contend. The goal of this offseason should have been to balance the team out, make sure the offense could score 4+ per game consistently, so as to not force the pitchers to throw gems every time out.

I think Wilson or Encarnacion at one or two years would have been a better short and long term move than Jones at 3.

Vance, Prior was apparently arb eligible, so his salary will probably be higher than 3.5m

IIRC it's always harder for hitters to transition than it is for pitchers, although interleague and free agency have helped a little.

After sleeping on it, I'm still really upset about the signing, but what makes me angry is the length of the deal. If Hendry felt Jones was the best available RF, fine. I disagree, but fine. However, why 3 years? Why lock yourself into mediocrity at best for that long?

Just a quick pet peeve: Audio tape proved that Corey Patterson did not say "It's Just a Game". Corey Patterson said "It's just the game" in response to a question about his ups and downs. There a giant difference between those two statements, and one that needs to be cleared up.

agree. this move just made it a lot more difficult.