MPrior

I think they'd need more than that. Vasquez is not just a salary dump for them; he requested to be traded, so they're probably not going to accept lesser value than the package is worth. Quentin is at least as valuable as Williams or CPatt, and Vasquez is overvalued because he's been a stud pitcher before.

I'm not completely crazy about Eyre OR Howry, and I definitely don't see them as being worth contracts of this size, for all the reasons other people have stated. Thoughts on our bullpen pre-Eyre signing: 1. The reason it was bad was more because of mismanaging than because of lack of quality. On top of that, it was often overexposed due to the travesty that was our rotation this year. 2. Williamson, IMO, is not nearly as big a question mark as many think he is. Yes, he has an injury history, but if he's healthy (which I think he should be; he's not likely to need another TJS next season), he's absolutely sick. You might point to his very high ERA with us this season as an indicator of his question mark-ness. Consider this: first, he was just coming off surgery. That couldn't help. Two, it was only 14.1 innings. In that amount of time, he gave up 9 runs. I'm pretty sure I can find, in almost any pitcher's history, a stretch of 14.1 innings in which he gave up 9 runs. Third, he suffered from a truly terrible .444 BABIP against. Which is the converse of the Howry and Eyre situations; in those 14.1 innings, he was very, very unlucky. Fourth, despite all that, he still managed to K 23 guys in 14.1 innings, for a K/9 of roughly 14.5 (no, this isn't particularly meaningful because of the small sample size, but it's just as meaningful as his ERA). That's pretty sick. With an offseason to rest and rehab his arm, he should come back with a bit better control, and won't walk as many guys (6) or give up as many homers (3). 3. Wuertz is better than his numbers suggest. If used properly, he's setup material. We all saw how good he can be when he's rested. So, all in all, I think Hendry is right to want to improve the bullpen, but I think this might be a bit of overkill.

I wonder if we could do something where we hand a couple decent people to the Marlins (Wheelimus suggested Patterson and Hill; I think it might take more, but keep reading), send Lowell to the Twins but eat half his contract, and see if the Twins will send a good, near-ML ready prospect to the Marlins. This way, the Marlins get Lowell without the ridiculous salary, the Cubs get Beckett without giving up too much prospect-wise, and the Marlins get a decent haul of young talent between the Cubs' and Twins' offers. I like it. The trouble is you'd basically have to be willing to pay 4.5 Mill to Lowell for each of the next two years. But considering that Beckett's salary, even after arbitration, won't be too bad, I'd do it.

Would you be willing to take Beckett if there was a chance Lowell became a very expensive backup 1B/3B bench player? I don't see a whole lot of teams that are going to want him on their own. Beckett is too good of a talent to pass on lightly. Minnesota is interested in Lowell. Yankees want Torii Hunter. If I'm Hendry, I work out a 4-team deal a la the Nomar deal from 2004. Marlins trade Beckett and Lowell to the Cubs for Glendon Rusch, Adam Greenberg and a marginal pitching prospect, but with the Cubs picking up Lowell's entire contract. The Cubs turn around and deal Lowell, Walker, Patterson, a young pitching prospect and some cash (maybe $2M for Lowell) to Minnesota for Torii Hunter, and JC Romero. The Cubs then trade Hunter to the Yankees for Gary Sheffield. Net: Cubs get Beckett and Sheffield You seem to have forgotten JC Romero. We'd get him too. That deal really DOES seem too good to be true.

This may already be posted, I lost my place in this thread, and it is now WAY to long to read all the way through. However this was just posted on Rotoworld. Sorry if it is already on here. :D That would mitigate things a bit if I thought any team would take on his ridiculous salary. But it's still nice to see that the NTC isn't as extreme as we thought.

I think power is overrated. That lineup would score runs. Runs win baseball games. I think there are a number of pure power guys that you could add for RF as well. With the OBP that line-up would have, you might could even afford to bring back Burnitz for RF. You could look at Mench, but after getting Pierre and Castillo, I'm not sure what trading chips would be left. Preston Wilson might not be a horrible option for RF with that line-up as well. With that line-up, Encarnacion would be ok as well. Depending on how cheaply he could be had, player-wise, Bradley might not be a bad option in RF in that lineup. Keeps the OBP trend going, and he's got decent power.

I might bat Pierre 8th instead of Barrett, but that might just be because I hated that Dusty insisted on batting Barrett 8th all season, where his production was more or less wasted. That said, his production wouldn't really be wasted in that lineup, so I don't mind too much.

I actually voted for Michaels the first time, and I think I will the second time, but I am concerned that no one seems to think he's worth more than platoon/4th OF status (no one in the Philly organization, that is). Why is that? Does anyone have a convincing reason why he shouldn't be given a starting CF job? As in, doubts about his durability over an entire season, or really really bad R/L splits? Otherwise, I think he's a great fit for this team, especially since (in our little ideal world which we've created) we still don't have a leadoff hitter (for those of you who weren't around or don't remember, this thread, which was started quite a while ago, is about what WE would do at each position - and we opted to keep Nomar, with Cedeno backing him up, I think).

I don't think Castillo is that much worse than Walker offensively. Castillo: .301/.391/.374 (2005) .293/.370/.356 (career) Walker: .305/.355/.474 (2005) .290/.348/.441 (career) Walker has more power, but Castillo gets on base a good bit more. I'd love to have Castillo leading off (or batting second, I guess, but I'd rather have him lead off, considering the dearth of power).

I would welcome Derek Lowe, he would be great in Wrigley (despite the odd amount of HRs last year), especially if we have an improved middle infield. I'd trade Walker and JVB for Lowe and Bradley. You have to sign furcal. I'd then trade for Abreu and if reports are correct that Bradley may not be ready by the time the season starts then also get Michaels. Patterson, Mitre, Williams, a pitching prospect and (if its in the next ten days) Greenberg. I wouldn't mind going into next year with this roster Furcal Bradley/Michaels Lee Abreu ARam Murton Barrett Cedeno Z Prior Wood Lowe Maddux Dempster Williamson Eyre Wuertz Ohman Rusch Michaels/Bradley Perez Hairston Blanco Sweeny Branyan (or RH equivalent, Wigginton?) That puts us at the 110M range and acheives Hendrys vision of having a surplus at every position. Frankly the only way he can do it is to slightly raise the payroll. I know this is a ways back, but talk about understatement. It would be a miracle if we go into 06 with anything like that roster. And no, there's no way we're getting Zach Duke. Which is a shame.

Was that a joke by Eyre? he didn't specify which millenium, did he? fixed

Greenberg was DA'd? That's terrible! Unless I'm not remembering how getting designated for assignment works. Somebody tell me we didn't just completely get rid of Greenberg.

no, i do too. i don't think Larry should have said what he said the way he said it. I disagree. I don't think it's disparaging to anyone. He's not saying anything bad about Wood - he's just saying that, as an organization, depending on a guy who just had shoulder surgery and has a history of injury to be healthy isn't a good way to go about things. It's not a knock on Wood, or an insinuation that Wood won't be able to stay healthy; it's merely stating that counting on it would be foolhardy, to say the least.

Other than his stubborn refusal to admit that Remlinger should not be used as a LOOGY and his decision at the beginning of last year to go with Rusch in the bullpen and Dempster in the rotation, how has Baker "mismanaged the pen?" Don't get me wrong -- Baker's faults are legion. Yet, his "mismanagement of the bullpen" is a purported fault that is repeated ad nauseum despite the fact that I have not heard a single compelling argument (other than the ones cited above) as to why this is so. He has a repeate history of: overusing guys while leaving others with many day between outings. Bringing the wrong guy in to face a batter Using a guy for one batter who should be used the entire inning. Double switches for no good reason Besides isn't the part I bolded enough? Plus: Getting some guys work in a blowout when the Cubs are winning that haven't pitched. No reason to have a starter still pitching when the score is 8-1 and you have 12 pitchers on the staff. Overusage of pitchers that just came off surgery. Putting young players in difficult situations in their first time up and then not pitching them for around 10 days. If they fail how does this help them? Systematically destroying any use that Mike Remlinger, LaTroy Hawkins, or Chad Fox might have had on this team. Overusing guys like Michael Wuertz - who is actually really good - to the point that he was no longer effective, and may have actually damaged his career through overuse. Letting a young guy in ONCE. And if he doesn't perform perfectly, never seriously considering him as an option out of the pen again. The other side of the Weurtz issue is this - when Wuertz isn't being overused, and is on his game, he is filthy. In these situations, when Wuertz is blowing through the Cardinals lineup, for example (this happened), what does Dusty do? As soon as the lefty Larry Walker comes up to bat, he takes Wuertz out for Remlinger, who not only fares poorly against lefties, but who has had particular trouble with Larry Walker (who is over .400 lifetime against him). How about pitching an old guy (with a SERIOUS elbow injury history who has just come off a surgery) two days in a row to protect a 7-run lead? If I were Chad Fox, I'd want Dusty's head. Chad Fox's career is over, and it probably didn't have to be. Having so little faith in his bullpen that after Z has pitched 7 spectacular innings, and begins to get into a tiny bit of fatigue-related trouble in the 8th, rather than going to the bullpen, he just lets Z stay in there, damaging his arm and giving up three runs in the process. Which not only tires Z out, but it sullies his otherwise incredible start, often gives up the lead (or at least makes it a tighter game than it should be), and inflates his ERA. It also doesn't instill much confidence in the young bullpen arms. Allowing Hawkins to close again and again and again and again, no matter how many times he has demonstrated that he can't do it. Deciding to keep Rusch in the pen, Dempster in the rotation, and Hawkins in the closer role despite Hawkins' previous performance and Hendry's desire that Dempster be the closer. If it weren't for Dusty Baker, we'd have a damn good bullpen. Dempster would have been closing all year (and no, he's not as good at it as his save pct. indicates, but he's definitely good), Hawkins would have been setting up, which he is exceptionally good at, and Remlinger would have been used effectively, and would have been making a significant contribution to our bullpen. Not to mention Michael Wuertz, who could probably set up now and then to rest Hawkins or Remmy, and would make one mean middle reliever if used correctly. Ohman would be a good LOOGY (at least Dusty hasn't screwed that up totally). And, to top it off, Chad Fox might still be contributing.

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. No trade clause ????????? Is that a common relief pitcher contract clause ??? I wonder if Perez has one too. The good thing about being Neifi Perez (other than the existence of Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker, and their InNeiffable man love for him) is that he already kind of has a no trade clause. Just in case this was too subtle a point, what I mean to say is WHAT GM IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD GIVE UP TALENT SO THEY CAN PAY NEIFI PEREZ $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS???

Some of their righties have good splits against lefty hitters (too lazy too look up stats, but Shields comes to mind). Also, when your bullpen is just that flat-out filthy, who gives a crap if they're all righties? I'd take their all-righty bullpen any day of the week.

I would be very disappointed with that outcome, but to be fair: Cedeno would be an upgrade over Neifi 05; Pierre would be an upgrade over Patterson/Hairston 05; Soriano would be an upgrade over Walker 05; and Encarnacion (for example) would likely be an upgrade over Burnitz 05. With Murton obviously an upgrade over Hollandsworth 05. If the pitching staff were significantly strengthened, the field upgrades might be enough to get it done. Clearly I'm hoping for much more in the field, as is everyone else here, but the "worst case" scenario "upgrades" you list would still be upgrades from what we trotted out there last year. If that's worth a half-dozen wins, and an improved bullpen and healthy starters are worth a half-dozen wins as well, suddenly you're a 90 win ballclub. And that's the WORST case scenario? Things could still turn out pretty well, here. Give it time. I agree with most of this. Except what's in bold.

Not that I think he'll be on the team next year, but aren't you forgetting Corey Patterson?

Hammond got 2/4.6m after a 0.95 ERA in Atlanta, from George Steinbrenner. Enough said. hOW MUch must all the other managers hate hendry at this point? Just a few days in and he's signing all these not-terribly-good/poor players to sizable salaries. Ha ha. Maybe this is his strategy - just make all the top tier players unsignable by ANYONE. As terrible a strategy as that would be, it's better than any other strategy I can conceive of that includes signing Neifi, Rusch, and Eyre to bloated contracts early in the offseason.

You're TRYING to make me unhappy, aren't you?

Actually, I'm not. You said and I quote "Hendry didn't even reconsider resigning Alou or others blah blah blah". He most certainly did, but was handcuffed in case he couldn't get rid of Sosa. Also, please pass me whatever it is you're smoking (unless it will turn me into a completely negative fan) when you insinuate Alou would even shake Hendry's hand for 6 million. If you continue to claim that Hendry didn't consider resigining alou, then you are lying. No if's and's or but's about it. He did, and he's been on record as saying it. Obviously, you don't know a thing about me, but from every post I've seen of yours, Hendry is a moron no matter what he does, and you take every opportunity to call him out as not having a clue, being an idiot, being a moron and other name calling which shows me a definite level of immaturity (that's what name calling is). I have no problems being critical of certain moves, but I certainly have pespective. I think Hendry has done plenty of "wrong" things - resigning, Rusch, Neifi, the handling of the entire Sosa debacle, but he's certainly done some GREAT things as well (Lofton, Simon, Ramirez in 2003; Lee for Choi; Barrett; Williams for LaDumpster; Nomar and Murton for a bag of balls; Getting walker at dirt pay; Grudz and Karros for Hundley; Even getting Clement - No one had a clue Willis an A baller would be what he was- was a solid deal). In other words, I'd say he is less of a moron than you say he is, and has a clue, but tends to overpay for what he really wants. I kinda think you're both right. Hendry did say he wanted to re-sign (NOT resign; that always confuses me) Alou, but that the Sosa situation made it difficult for him. And Alou would have come back to the Cubs for $6 mill, I think. For one, he signed with the Giants for 7 mill, and he said on multiple occasions that he wanted to stay with the Cubs, and would even take a pay cut. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Burnitz's contract for $5 mill, not 6?

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that he would be 37, 38, and 39. That's cool. Go ahead and jump on the "Sign Giles" WGN. Honestly, I don't think we've seen the best that Giles can be. He had no one hitting around him in Pittsburgh (other than Aramis), and he played in an extreme pitchers park in SD with no real offensive threats around him. Imagine what he might do with Lee and Aramis protecting him. :wink: I'm SO with you here. Then again, I've been on the Giles BandWGN since well before the end of the season, so this is nothing new. His walks might go down a bit, as he'll probably see better pitches if one or both of those two are behind him, but he'll probably hit better and for more power (Giles-Lee-Aramis would be SICK).

For those of us no longer in the Chicago area (and without cable to boot), please keep us updated.

I disagree with this statement. Clearly, the Remlinger signing didn't work out. He was good and performed well under pressure in '03, but then his age set in and so did injuries. He never performed well after that. Giving a three year deal to a 37 year old is clearly a risky move. LaTroy was worth the money spent on him...as a set up man. He had great stuff and got the job done...as a set up guy. He didn't have the mindset to be a closer, and he admitted it. Yet, he was used that way and his failures as a closer is how we remember him most. However, the money spent on him was well worth it by virtue of the Giants giving up someone like Williams to get him. In his time with the Cubs, Hawkins posted a 2.76 ERA and his strong performances far outweighed in sheer volume his weak performances. So it is inaccurate and unfair to him and Jim Hendry to say that his was a bad signing. Eyre is 33 at the time of this signing. Remlinger was 4 years older. Eyre's struggles during the early part of his career were in large part due to undiagnosed attention deficit disorder. Since being diagnosed and properly treated, his career has turned around. Here is what STATS, Inc. had to say about him after the 2004 season... I don't think he is being paid like a "great" reliever. Check B.J. Ryan's contract for that. But he is being paid like a reliable, veteran reliever who is more than just a lefty-specialist. After taking a closer look at his stats, they support that he is exactly that. Holy cow dude, did you just compile all my posts? The Latroy point kills me, because nobody seems to know/care that it really wasn't a bad idea. The remlinger signing - was just being duped by Leo Mazzone. It's happened to everyone seemingly, they never think it was JUST Leo, but it turns out that usually it was. The other thing, 3.6 mill a year (if that indeed is what it is) is not that much for your 2nd best reliever at this point. I would still LOVE for us to get BJ Ryan, but I can already imagine 20 pages of disbelief at paying a RP $7 mill+ a year. If things work out right, Williamson will be our second best reliever. If he's healthy, he's way better than Eyre. A lot of people shy away from his high ERA in his limited outings this year, but I read on BP (and was encouraged) that he suffered from a woeful .444 BABIP against. That's purty durn unlucky.

I agree, for two reasons: a) the Cards don't have the money. b) Jocketty isn't that stupid.