USSoccer

I agree, which is one reason I can't see Hendry going with Mench or Kearns unless it's a last ditch, no other choice kind of trade. Hey, kinda like the Burnitz signing. If he's worried about overpaying Giles and doesn't want to give up the talent to get Dunn....he might as well get it over with and trade for Mench and put us out of our misery. No other choice is not an excuse. Of course it's not, but Hendry is a different kind of thinker than you or I. You or I would see Mench or Kearns as not enough. He would see them as toolsy players with big upsides.

The main issue is that if Hendry doesn't want to pay a 37 yr old Giles big money at the end of a contract, why would he pay Sheffield big money when he's going to be even older at the end of his deal?

Isn't it possible Hendry has had interest from other teams for one of those 4 catchers & if one is traded he would like to have 3 on his 40 man roster? Isn't Reyes fairly young & has the potential to be a ML catcher? What kind of year did Brownlie have & what type of ceiling do we expect from him? Brownlie had an okay year out of the pen, but lost velocity on his fastball that he previously had in college. I think he would have made sense to protect over Aardsma. Brownlie may not have the big fastball anymore, but he can still get guys out by pitching intelligently. Aardsma really can't do either, but he can throw hard.

Lewis was outrighted with Fontenot & Rochelik. Greenberg will be a Cub. Craig puts it well by saying that we have to wait for the process to go through. A couple of interesting points, Should we lose Fontenot then only Hairston (who is a bubble non-tender) is all to show for Sosa. The needed roster spots to open for FA will come with the non tender deadline, which (I believe) is also the deadline to move Wood back to the roster. For those who say that we should have risked losing Dope becasue he likely wouldn't stick is somewhat alarming. Many of us (me included) never dreamnt that Sisco would stick and he did. I would rather be safe with Dope at the expense of losing Sing or Fontenot then lose Dope (our #2 prospect remeber) for nothing. There's no way Dopirak sticks. He struggled mightily in A ball this past year. He's not going to make a ML roster, and besides, he's not our #2 propsect anymore. He's not even our #2 position prospect anymore. He's the player I'd most want used as trade bait out of our system, for a bunch of reasons. There wasn't really a good reason to roster him, unless there's a trade imminent that includes him. In any case, you can only go on what you know, and based on what we know right now, it seems like an overreaction to losing Sisco.

Sheffield is a player I'm not keen on. We'd almost have to give him an extension to shut him up once he was here, and if Hendry is leery of giving Giles years and money, why would he give an even older player years and money?

What doesn't make sense to me is protecting players like Lewis, Theriot and Aardsma. Lewis is not a prospect. He had a terrible, awful 2005, and his 2004 success came mostly because he repeated a level at an advanced age. Theriot is okay, but we have a bunch of middle IF's on the roster already. It would have been of minimal harm to the club to leave him unprotected. Aardsma being on there is the most defensible, but I really don't think he's much of a prospect anymore. And that doesn't even count Macias, who should have been de-rostered, because he truly has no role on this club now that we've brought Neifi back and Cedeno will be on the ML roster. Greenberg and Sing should have been protected, if for no other reason that Sing could have been an emergency callup should Lee ever get hurt, and Greenberg as a defensive 5th OF would have had some value. Fontenot also would have made more sense to protect than Lewis. Now, if Lee gets hurt who exactly would be the backup 1B? I doubt we'll sign a backup 1B to sit the bench this winter, so what if it happens? Sing could have been some insurance.

Nomar isn't going to happen... Ohh im well aware...but it should. Why? What about Nomar makes you think he still has the durability and range to be a major league SS? Do you really want to count on a guy who's missed the 2004 season due to an achilies problem that has not bothered him since and the 2005 season due to a freak groin pull? Not that he has any muscle, ligament, joint, or conditioning issues that would make you think he will get injured in the future. Fixed It was more than a groin pull. He tore the muscle right off the bone. Those things take their toll on his lateral movement. I do not feel comfortable counting on Nomar Garciaparra to be able to play SS defensively at anywhere near the level he used to. He probably wants far more money than he rightly deserves. He's not going to play 3B. He's not going to come back in a supersub role for less than $4m (which is the only condition I'd want him back) and it would be really dumb to put him in LF. If we don't have a position that he can play, and be better than players we already have at said position, than what's the point in bringing himm back? He's not the batting champion anymore. It sucks, but oh well. We took a risk on him, and got burned twice. No reason to make it 3.

I agree, which is one reason I can't see Hendry going with Mench or Kearns unless it's a last ditch, no other choice kind of trade.

If we add an impact RF, and get a serviceable CF, then Cedeno/Walker with Neifi getting occasional time would be passable, provided that the CF can lead off, and Walker or Murton bat 2nd. Neifi needs to be down in the lineup, like 7th or 8th, if he's going to play.

Hmm..after a very dissapointing season, you raise ticket prices? That makes no sense. I really hope the 2006 budet is above the 2005 budget, or else this is a very stupid, greedy move.

Nomar isn't going to happen... Ohh im well aware...but it should. Why? What about Nomar makes you think he still has the durability and range to be a major league SS? Do you really want to count on a guy who's missed most of the last 2 years due to leg injuries?

If Hendry decides to non tender Macias, I would hope that Neifi become the 25th man. I wouldn't mind Hill on the team as a PH/utility guy, but depending on other moves we have Cedeno, Perez, Hairston, Walker and technically Macias. How many more middle IF do we need?

this just keeps getting better and better.

Those stats are good, but we have nobody in the bullpen to get that cruical out. Not to mention, it would be nice if the Cubs can have a full season of pitching from the twin ragdolls. First of all, Scott Eyre is a nice reliever. He's not worth the years and money we gave him though. Coupled with the other 2 signings, it's bad money management. Next, if you want to question Wood's ability to stay healthy, that's fair game. But Prior has been hurt 4 times as a Cub. 3 of them have been complete freak things. It's a bit unfair to label him a rag doll. Also, Giles's best asset is his batting eye. That generally stays with players as they age. And I haven't seen any offer longer than 3 years yet for him. That's the same number of years they just gave to Scott Eyre, who's about the same age, and who plays a position where guys drop off the face of the earth production wise at random. That's true only if the Cubs payroll is low enough that it prohibits Hendry from acquiring the kind of players the Cubs need to win. You are making a sound and educated guess, but you are forgetting to qualify your statement as only a guess. We don't know what the Cubs payroll will be next season and we don't know that the players Hendry will eventually acquire will have the team win or not. It may be bad money management. It may not be. I think that even if payroll stay at $105, or goes up or down an additional $5m it's still bad money management. You don't pay a premium for something that you already have in bulk, and something that isn't really in demand, either. Neifi and Rusch were not going to get close to what they got in the open market. Rusch, maybe, but even if he goes, you have a slew of guys that could be a spot starter or a long reliever. Rusch isn't a better 5th starter than Williams, so why bring him back at 10x the cost of one of the many pitchers we have in our system? Neifi, well...utility IF that can field and not hit are pretty easily found. Heck, even if Cedeno crashes and burns he's still every bit as good in the field as Perez, and again, he's 10x cheaper. So it's needlessly throwing away money, and I'd hold that belief even if the Cubs payroll was $200m. The fact that it's likely to be around $105 just makes it more glaring. I will tell you one way Hendry can sort of make up for this: make sure he non tenders Macias. With Cedeno at $350k and Neifi at $2.5m, you cannot tie up more money in a utility player who's 3rd on the depth chart. If Hendry does that, it will lessen the blow from Neifi and Rusch signing for what they did.

If the breakdown of Eyre contract has been posted, then I apologize, but the bolded area gave me :shock: ](*,) . When does a solid, but unspectular reliever get a "no-trade clause?" Something tells me, the Cubs were the only team to even offer a no trade clause. Wow. Combine the NTC and the player option for 2008, and we're likely to see a very old , very costly lefty specialist in 3 years. Why would you pay more, then give a NTC on top of that? Why not one or the other? I just don't get it.

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.

The Red Sox's payroll is $160m. The Yankees is $200m+. It's much less of an issue, but I'd bet they would do better by trying to develop some cheap talent to complement the higher paid players.

I'm pretty sure there's not going to be a stat that shows that. You might find a stat that teams score a lot in the 6th and 7thm but that's usually because a starter is out and the team's middle relief sucks. Like I keep saying, Eyre is a nice player, a nice reliever. But is he 10 times better than Ohman? Will he be 10x better than whoever is an option in 2007? I doubt it. Middle relievers and setup men are best developed and not bought.

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.

From what I've heard he's had increasingly improved seasons, and has had 3 other well above average years. His whip has gone down consistently, his BAA has been always great with lefty's and has improved for the last couple years (NOT EVEN counting last year). Remlinger was old and decrepid. Eyre isn't. I think Hoops posted this, but his ERA in even numbered years was in the hugh 4's. In odd numbered years it's in the 3's. That's a sort of consistency, but not the sort you'd like to have. But again, Eyre on his own isn't the issue. It's Eyre at the rate we signed him at + Neifi and Rusch's deals. That'sa a lot of money for incremental improvement.

Seriously, to you and every Cub fan that wants to commit mass cult suicide together based upon 2 weeks of nothing exciting, relax, calm down step off the ledge. Only 1 MAJOR signing has occured so far this season - Godzilla. Before committing suicide over inNeiffable, Rusch, and Eyre (who's a solid reliever) lets all take a collective deep breath. What do you expect to happen 2 weeks into the post season? No deals have been made. It's quite frightening to see the stress levels of fans this early into the post season. Second, and someone whose said "11 million, sickening" please explain why it matters if the CUBS overpay. We'll be spending 105 million this off season, we CAN overpay. Reacting to the years, I understand, but reacting to the pay, I don't. Hendry still has 25-30 million to spend. As long as the big deals are real good, these little ones don't mean squat. These 3 signings mean that there's an extremely high probability that the cubs will have a bad outfiield in 2006 unless a player or two hass an unexpectedly fantastic season. Ok, then please explain to me how these 3 insignificant signings in ANY way lead you to believe we have a high probability of a bad outfield? Do they directly affect the outfield? No. Do they affect how many position players we have? Yes, but only by one bench player. Do they impact how much money we have to get said good players? NO. We have 30 million, we could have Giles and Furcal and Burnett (maybe) for that amount of money. We most certainly COULD get those guys, so the signings themselves have NO effect on the outfield. No, the organizational philosophy has more of a bearing on that and Hendry's newfound obsession for players who can catch has a bearing on that, but not the 2 scrubs and 1 good reliever. You're making the assumption that Lee doesn't get extended, and that Zambrano doesn't get a big arby raise, and what about our bench? Do you want the same bunch coming off to PH late i the game this year?

Those stats are good, but we have nobody in the bullpen to get that cruical out. Not to mention, it would be nice if the Cubs can have a full season of pitching from the twin ragdolls. First of all, Scott Eyre is a nice reliever. He's not worth the years and money we gave him though. Coupled with the other 2 signings, it's bad money management. Next, if you want to question Wood's ability to stay healthy, that's fair game. But Prior has been hurt 4 times as a Cub. 3 of them have been complete freak things. It's a bit unfair to label him a rag doll. Also, Giles's best asset is his batting eye. That generally stays with players as they age. And I haven't seen any offer longer than 3 years yet for him. That's the same number of years they just gave to Scott Eyre, who's about the same age, and who plays a position where guys drop off the face of the earth production wise at random.

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.

Seriously, to you and every Cub fan that wants to commit mass cult suicide together based upon 2 weeks of nothing exciting, relax, calm down step off the ledge. Only 1 MAJOR signing has occured so far this season - Godzilla. Before committing suicide over inNeiffable, Rusch, and Eyre (who's a solid reliever) lets all take a collective deep breath. What do you expect to happen 2 weeks into the post season? No deals have been made. It's quite frightening to see the stress levels of fans this early into the post season. Second, and someone whose said "11 million, sickening" please explain why it matters if the CUBS overpay. We'll be spending 105 million this off season, we CAN overpay. Reacting to the years, I understand, but reacting to the pay, I don't. Hendry still has 25-30 million to spend. As long as the big deals are real good, these little ones don't mean squat. I think the point is-and Vance made it the best-is that overpaying once is okay. Doing it 2 or 3 times makes it a lot worse, especially considering we aren't a better team for it. The Cubs have spent 20-30% of their available money for this winter on these 3 players, and only have a bullpen upgrade to show for it. You are correct in that there have been no major signings, really. But what I see here is the beginning of a bad trend. I *hope* i'm wrong, just like the rest of us that see this pattern hope we're wrong.

yes. As far as the Dempster thing goes, well, given all the hassle Tim and the mods had with the anti Corey, anti Sosa, and then retalitory anti everything else, I can see why calling Dempster by that nickname would be skirting the line (not that I think that was your intention). As far as optimism vs pessimism, it seems to me that the great majority of the "pessimists" (myself included) seem to qualify most of their posts witha "so far this offseason" line, or something like it. I don't think there's anything wrong in pointing out a pattern that will almost assuredly lead to our team's success depending on health and luck in 2006. I don't think anyone wants to go down that road. Thus, those of us that see a pattern are crying foul about it. There's nothing wrong with a disagrement, but we aren't jerks just because we've seen this path before, and know it won't likely lead anywhere good. There's nothing wrong with looking at the moves so far and being alarmed.