USSoccer

Fools. I'd be thrilled have that sort of "dissapointment" with Hendry.

Almost too good of a deal. That's about $20m less than what he could command in the open market. If true, that puts a giant hole in our offseason plans. There's just not another OF out there worth spending money on, and I'm not crazy about selling the farm to attempt a trade.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy. If health is a concern, you can platoon Hairston with a Lofton or some other backup CF. But keep in mind that this past season he missed time only because he tore a ligament diving for a catch. It's not like he had nagging hammy issues or something.

Oh dammit. (if true)

All Night Long by either Billy Ocean or Lionel Ritchie?

That's cool, again if that's the expectations then I think over paying for Giles makes a lot of sense. Just trying the help frame the debate. CardFan, Keep in mind that the day Aramis Ramirez got hurt, he was leading the Cubs in HR's, and RBI. If he works with his trainers this winter, and regression from Lee will more than likely be picked up and then some by Ramirez.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance.

I'm beginning to think we might need a new GM, or at least a new assistant GM to get a new voice in there. If Hendry keeps looking for old-school "tools" guys we're going to have to count on health and luck to win.

Pierre and Patterson. Corey made 2.8m and Pierre made 3.7m last season. It's not a huge difference. I think a beter question would be which player Hendry would value more; Michaels or Pierre.

It depends on what you are giving up, though. If Florida said they'd take Corey for Pierre, straight up, would you do the deal, knowing that Corey has little chance of success in Chicago and Pierre keeps Pie in the minors away from Dusty? You know I think Pierre's overrated, but will we do better for Corey? Michaels is a better option, but could he be easily had? What would his player cost be? Lofton is the cheaper option, and probably thr best if platooned with Hairston, but the Cubs didn't seem thrilled with Jerry this season. Too many variables. I'd trade CP for Pierre, I'd be disappointed with the upgrade, though b/c it isn't a significant upgrade and part of that salary difference copuld've gone towards Giles. I consider Pierre to be of a last resort, similar to Burnitz, where they'd have to settle for below avg. production. Philly is in an intersting situation, they have 2 1B, all-star quality players in LF and RF, '05 AAA MVP in CF (Victorino), Michaels, and Lofton wanting to return. If they could bring back Lofton and platoon him with Victorino and get some players in return for Michaels, they should do it. Philly seems to undervalue him. I think Hill and a prospect could get Michaels and he is a possibility of being had. What is the salary difference between the two? It cannot be more than $2-3m. Also, is Michaels the kind of player that would pique Hendry's interest?

The Cubs will go into the offseason with the expectations of Lee doing well, Wood healthy, Dempster repeating his performance, etc. I don't agree with that, I'd take the opposite approach. The only player I don't expect to miss as much time is Aramis. Everyone else you listed is a legit question mark, and the Cubs need to prepare accordingly. If they do that, they can contend.

Precisely the reasons why I am all for going after Lofton. Giles, Lofton, Nomar, bullpen help, bench help, starting pitching. In my mind, those are the targets in order of importance this off season. To be fair, trading for Pierre does not block Pie. Pierre is a FA after 2006, so in all likelihood it keeps Pie in the minors in 2006 where he belongs (IMO) Which makes trading a quality left handed pitching prospect (remember Dontrelle Willis and Andy Sisco) for a 1 year rental a bad idea. Especially when Kenny Lofton comes cheaper and won't cost any prospects. Pie shouldn't be blocked, period. A shift to right or left wouldn't be a good idea, because he'll likely be +production for a CF, but minus production as a corner outfielder. CF'ers are hard to come by. You just don't move a blue chip prospect CFer to a corner if you don't have to. No, I agree, Hill is too steep a price to pay for a player like Pierre. If they want to take a rule 5 guy and Corey, I'd probably do it, but we could do better with Hill as a trading chip.

It depends on what you are giving up, though. If Florida said they'd take Corey for Pierre, straight up, would you do the deal, knowing that Corey has little chance of success in Chicago and Pierre keeps Pie in the minors away from Dusty? You know I think Pierre's overrated, but will we do better for Corey? Michaels is a better option, but could he be easily had? What would his player cost be? Lofton is the cheaper option, and probably thr best if platooned with Hairston, but the Cubs didn't seem thrilled with Jerry this season. Too many variables.

No arguments here. It's just that as much as I think Pierre is overrated, I know he's still better than Hairston. That was the extent of my point -- either way, forget Pierre and focus on Giles and RF (at least as target No. 1). Which is why if you replace Hill with a lesser pitcher, and make it Corey and Leicester for Pierre, it's a much better deal relative to what you are giving up.

Precisely the reasons why I am all for going after Lofton. Giles, Lofton, Nomar, bullpen help, bench help, starting pitching. In my mind, those are the targets in order of importance this off season. To be fair, trading for Pierre does not block Pie. Pierre is a FA after 2006, so in all likelihood it keeps Pie in the minors in 2006 where he belongs (IMO)

Because Wood is no longer reliable. If pitching is their strength, it needs to be the kind of overwhelming strength that can carry the team through low points with the offense. A rotation of Z/Prior/Wood/Maddux and then a Millwood/Zito/Lowe with Williams as the swing man is better than the current 5 man rotation with Rusch as the swing man.

I think I would go 4/$52. That a serious bid, and might get it done.

Isn't Pierre a FA after 2006? If he is, I don't see how that blocks Pie. If anything, it keeps Hendry from the temptation of bringing him up too soon.

If it were Patterson for Pierre straight up with Florida picking up a million dollars, i'd probably take the deal. It's more than I anticipated Corey being traded for anyway this winter, since i really think Hendry would give him up for a decent prospect at this point. And considering that I really don't like Pierre at all, that tells you what my expectations are for what Corey could net in a trade. Including Hill in that deal? Pass. Maybe Corey and Leicester, or Corey and a couple of the Rule 5 guys. Not Corey and Hill. I don't think Pierre is worth giving that much up for, as he is just not that good.

We don't have the ML ready or young ML impact firepower it would take to land him. It's the same story with Abreu as with Manny-Boston and Philly will look for impact ML players or near ready blue chip prospects. The Cubs don't have any ML impact talent, unless you want to trade Aramis, Z, Prior or Lee for him (which you wouldn't, since it would end up being a letral move) and our minors have lost of good talent, but very little great talent. It would probably take Pie, Nolasco, Pinto and Sing to land Abreu if we were just trading prospects. If we took Thome and tried to send him to another team, you could probably halve that cost and just trade Pie and Pinto. But then you'd have to make sure you found a taker for Thome, and that might be difficult. In other words, I don't think it's worth ditching the best players left in our system to try and get him.

I don't see the Cubs making any moves for any of this guys, unfortunatly. I don't think Hendry properly values the far east, and especially the Japanese leagues.

I hate Bernie Mac, and still curse at the TV every time he comes on it.

Someone tell the Astros that it's okay to make contact.

That game broke an agonizing losing streak in which the bullpen was completely shot. I saw that one as justifiable because, at the time, the Cubs needed a big shot in the arm and that CG win was absolutely huge. They needed to break that losing streak if they wanted any chance at actually competing for the WC/Division. Of course, that turned out to be a completely moot point. Everything looks completely obvious in hindsight, ya know? That said, there were plenty of other instances in which I was incredibly pissed off at Dusty for overworking the arms. I don't know. I was at that game, and I think you could have gone to Dempster in the 9th, when it was clear that Z was done after the 8th. Who knows, though. Z has been very durable so far *knocks on desk* I had Zambrano's pitch count for that day (08 May) at 136 (from ESPN) rather than 139. Not a big deal. Dempster was probably not available for relief duty on that particular day. He had just made his last start 4 days earlier (04 May), and didn't make his first appearance out of the pen (10 May) until 2 days after this game. He was warming up in the pen during the bottom of the 8th. I have to believe he was ready to come in had any more runners reached in the 9th. I think the point, though, is that Dusty, Pole, Rothschild or Hendry need to take better care of these arms. Prior and Z are the 2 of the 4 players we can not afford to lose long term if we have any designs on contention. That means paying attention to pitch counts, and especially not allowing our pitchers to throw high PC games in blowouts (The philly game wasn't close, but there are numerous examples of this)

If I'm recalling the trades properly: Oakland traded Tim Hudson for Dan Meyer, Juan Cruz and Charles Thomas. Then, they traded Mark Mulder for Danny Haren, Kiko Calero and Daric Barton. If Beane is consistent, ask yourself how does Rich Hill compare to Meyer and Haren; how does Sergio Mitre compare to Cruz and Calero; how does Brandon Sing compare to Thomas and Barton? I like Zito a lot too, but I would have questions about his post-season mental toughness - Hudson and Mulder didn't look great in October. I don't think Hill, Mitre, and Sing compare favorably. They have similarities, but I think the three guys we would offer each fall a little below what Oakland received in the other deals, especially when you consider the value those players were perceived to have last fall. Yeah, I agree. Of the three players, Mitre bears the most similarities between Cruz and Calero, but it's still not an equal comparison. And I think Tim is right; we'd have to give Oakland Murton. So it would maybe end up being Nolasco, Murton and Hill, and I don't like Zito that much. I would rather spend the money on Millwood than give up Murton. He's the one player I don't know that I'd give up in any trade that wasn't a bona fide IMPACT trade.