MPrior

So I'm lying in bed. It's 2 AM, and for whatever reason, I can't sleep. So what's the only thing to do? Naturally, I come to NSBB and see if anything interesting is going on. This thread may have been funny to some of you, but I guarantee it wasn't quite the trip it was to someone half-awake and delirious (you know when it gets late enough that everything is funny?). This was incredible. I particularly enjoyed the public (and often creative) demand for a stoning, especially when pictures were involved. Priceless.

Did I miss something really big? Or are you just speculating?

Before I say this, let me say that I want Cedeno starting over Neifi as much as anyone, and that I really like Ronny. However, Ronny will not be Lugo, in that he probably can't leadoff. He's a bit of a free swinger, so his OBP is highly reliant on his AVG. For the past year or so, his average has been obscenely high, but that's not likely to be maintainable on the ML level. Now don't get me wrong - he'll make a serviceable ML SS - maybe even a very good one, if he learns a tad better plate discipline (or just becomes one of those guys that'll hit .300 on a regular basis), and I'd love to have him in the lineup next year, but I probably wouldn't bat him anywhere other than 8 (7 if Blanco or someone is playing). I'm still not crazy about Lugo, though. I'm not sure we need another MI, especially when we can find someone to leadoff elsewhere (or just keep Todd Walker, but whatever).

Maybe Hendry is driving up the price to get St. Louis to spend more, which would then prevent the Cards from getting Hendry's prized possession: Jacque Jones. That's gonna replace the whale in my nightmares. I don't even know what you're referring to (if anything), but that made me laugh out loud.

I'm sure you'd agree that it's a good thing he didn't match the Dodger offer, though. I am pretty bummed, but I am glad we're not shelling out 13 mil/yr for Rafael Furcal. It's not my money, so oh well. Everybody's overpaying nowadays. Wait around for Walker deals and we'll get no one. Calling $10M per year for Furcal a "Walker deal" is ridiculous. That's a serious offer -- and *way* more than Furcal is worth. It's a poor FA market, and consequently those FA's worth anything are getting deals that I wouldn't offer. Sorry, but I don't thinkFurcal isn't that much of an upgrade over Cedeno -- certainly not $9.7M worth. Edited for typo How did you comprehend that?? I didn't mean Furcal @ $10 mil. was a Walker deal. Walker's deal is well under what's he's worth. Few guy's screw themselves out of money like Walker. It's also worth questioning how you determined that the rest of this board is only looking for "Walker deals" just because they don't want to pay 13 (or, in some cases, even 10) million dollars a year for Rafael Furcal.

I agree. The offseason isn't lost yet. Sign Abreu and get a decent stop gap for Pie (although I worry Pie will never live up to what we want him to be) CF-Lofton 2nd-Walker 3rd- Aramis RF-Abreu 1st-Lee C-Barrett LF-Murton SS-Ronny With Z and Prior the Cubs have the 1-2 punch needed to win in the playoffs. If they get anything from Wood it is gravy. The bullpen looks better and Dempster continues to have success. This team will win consistently. What's with Lee batting 5th?

So my wife saw me laughing at this thread, and wanted to know what Pierre looked like. I did a google image search, and I found this: http://www.heritagekonpa.com/images/Juan%20Pierre%20of%20Florida%20Marlin.jpg That's incredible. I wonder if Hendry can stipulate in a trade that Pierre grows it back out again.

I really don't think they can get that much for Casey, though. He's in the last year of his contract, and is owed 8.5 mill, right? The point is that he alone won't bring in much pitching. And do the Red Sox have the pitching to give? (I'm asking; I really don't know)

Well, it's kind of awesome that NOBODY actually knows what's going on - but it's not awesome that we might be paying Furcal all that money. Secondly, the word "asque" (used in reference to Pierre's hat) is awesome. (I'm not ripping on whoever it is that used it - it just took me a minute to figure out what it was, and then I laughed)

I'm actually glad we didn't get Furcal - why tie up the budget to that degree on somebody who's not that great? What does worry me, though, is that Hendry will see all the money he has freed up, and spend it all on more mediocre crap, rather than on something substantial that will help the team.

Wow. There's a lot of NSBB bashing over there. Crazy. I'd never really paid much attention. On a second note, that was pretty funny.

Hopefully something smart Ha. Good one.

I agree with you. I may be in the minority, but I really think a Furcal-Pierre one two combination would be great for this team. If I had my choice, I would get Furcal and then trade for Luis Castillo. It's unfortunate that the Twins had the idea of Castillo first. I'm not sure you're necessarily in the minority when you say you think they'd be good for the team; I think most objectors to Furcal-Pierre take issue with the fact that similar production is out there at a reduced cost (be it in players or salary), not that the two of them are awful players.

[-X Well, South Carolinians should be jealous of their northern counterparts, since NC is the greatest state in the nation (yes, I've spent nearly all of my life in Asheville, North Carolina). All right.... let's not be stirring up any wars between the Carolinians, as I'm on my way to SC even as we speak !! i always love some NC bashing :) A good college buddy of mine is from Charleston, and we would get in drunken (friendly) fights about which of the Carolinas was better. Then we'd team up against all the midwesterners (so many of them!) and tell them how much better the South is than the midwest. It was awesome.

Hendry did say that he has no intention of playing Rusch out of the pen anymore. He may have been making it up, but he did say it. I don't really know what that means, though, as he also told Rusch that all he was guaranteed was a shot at a rotation spot.

I would not do that trade. Zito would be nice, but he's not good enough to warrant trading our top prospect plus a very good starting pitching prospect (not so much because I'm high on Pie as it is because I think we could get something better for him).

Double post.

Has anyone ever seen or read the play Oleanna by David Mamet? If you haven't, ignore this comment, but for those of you who have (if there are any), I think it's worth thinking about in the context of Milton Bradley. For those of you who haven't seen it, what I'm saying is basically this: it's certainly possible that Bradley isn't as guilty or as crazy and violent as he is made out to be. We don't know. So I guess, if I were a GM, I would do everything I could to find out the truth - not the media's version of it - and act accordingly. Secondly, yeah, he had problems with Jeff Kent, but who doesn't have problems with Jeff Kent? The most important thing to say, I guess, is that it's a bit unfair to judge him either way without first getting the whole story.

[-X Well, South Carolinians should be jealous of their northern counterparts, since NC is the greatest state in the nation (yes, I've spent nearly all of my life in Asheville, North Carolina).

Two wonderful points. I do agree that some of the Hendry bashing may get a bit out of hand, but it is important to acknowledge that the point of this particular board is to discuss transactions, specifically those of the Cubs. Are we not allowed to criticize these transactions? And are posters not allowed to decide that, given some of the recent transactions that Hendry has been responsible for, they no longer trust him to make good decisions as the Cubs' GM? Personally, I'm not a huge fan of these signings, but I haven't given up on Hendry yet. That's my opinion. And that's okay. Others' opinions might be that Hendry is wonderful and should be praised, not criticized. That's also okay. But to bash other posters because they've commented negatively on some recent Cubs transactions on a Cubs transactions board is pretty asinine.

You got it right in that specific statement, stick with that. They should be used as a compliment; denying that Podsednik was nothing short of a critical part of a World Series team is pretty crazy IMHO. If Posednik was so critical, why did the White Sox score fewer runs in 2005 than in 2004. I think the White Sox success was more indicative of their phenomenal pitching than anything the offense contributed. I'm not debating if pitching or hitting was more crucial to their championship, I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm not trying to attack here, but this seems a bit silly. Someone (in this case Vance) makes a good point that is contrary to your assertions that Podsednik was critical to the White Sox's success, and instead of responding to it and defending your thus far unsubstantiated position, you skirt the issue and refuse to comment on it. Vance didn't even use any complicated stats to back himself up. I think, if you are going to call people who don't think Podsednik was essential to the White Sox's success crazy, then you better defend that position with something other than blind assertion. If you want me to address it open a new thread. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You made an assertion, and when people (rightly or wrongly) questioned it, you responded by: first, restating the assertion, still without any evidence; and second, refusing to reply to others' responses to your original assertion. Now, when I ask you to address it, you do the same thing - refuse to address the issue for the ridiculous reason that I haven't started a new thread on it. I remind you, once again, that you made the original assertion which was being questioned, in this thread. You were willing to talk about it earlier in the thread, but not now, when people are questioning your viewpoints. All I want is an explanation of your viewpoint, because as of this moment, I don't understand it. And I don't appreciate being called crazy by someone who refuses to tell me why.

You got it right in that specific statement, stick with that. They should be used as a compliment; denying that Podsednik was nothing short of a critical part of a World Series team is pretty crazy IMHO. If Posednik was so critical, why did the White Sox score fewer runs in 2005 than in 2004. I think the White Sox success was more indicative of their phenomenal pitching than anything the offense contributed. I'm not debating if pitching or hitting was more crucial to their championship, I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm not trying to attack here, but this seems a bit silly. Someone (in this case Vance) makes a good point that is contrary to your assertions that Podsednik was critical to the White Sox's success, and instead of responding to it and defending your thus far unsubstantiated position, you skirt the issue and refuse to comment on it. Vance didn't even use any complicated stats to back himself up. I think, if you are going to call people who don't think Podsednik was essential to the White Sox's success crazy, then you better defend that position with something other than blind assertion.

Far from ideal, I think, but way better than some other options that have been thrown out there (Mench, Kearns, Burnitz again).

Going into the 2004 season, the Cubs had the strongest roster in the league, IMO. Most predicted the Cubs would win the central, and with good cause. What happened in 2004 was a firestorm of managerial ineptitude and injuries. In 2005 the personnel just wan't there. I completely agree with everything you said. Going in to 04 being a Cards fan in Chicago wasn't fun. :? I feel really sorry for you. I know 2004 wasn't fun for Cards fans. As a disclaimer, I'm just kidding around. And, for what it's worth, I really enjoy having you on the board, Cardsfan - I tend to agree with you on just about everything, and you're very respectful of the fact that you're a fan of the Cards on a Cubs board. Secondly, I agree about 2004. That team was STACKED going into the season. Dusty, injuries, and Sosa's decline really killed us.

Hopefully this means they're wrong about the Pierre deal. Pinto may be our best pitching commodity in the minors, as he's got great stuff, isn't constantly injured (a la Guzman), and is relatively close to the bigs. To give him AND two other prospects up for an overpriced, potentially awful Juan Pierre coming off of a bad season for 1 year is absolutely ridiculous.