davell

A fair point that it might matter some. However, if it costs you a game or two at the absolute most, wouldn't you more than likely get back that game or two from poor chemistry in the opposing team's dugout? You know, sorta like winning half of your season's games by 1 run. The other teams benefited from the other half of those 1 run games. That's like saying having a crappy #5 starter is OK because so does the other team. Well you can gain an advantage on the other team if your #5 starter isn't crappy. So let's strive to have a good #5 starter. And by the same principle let's strive to gain games based on good chemistry rather than give them away based on bad chemistry. Yes, I do think that the chemistry thing could very easily go both ways. I'm sure that other teams have some issues as well, so to say that that kind of evens out over the long run could very well be correct. If not, and our team truly is or was, the mess of all messes, I still don't see how it affects us in actual quantified game losses all that much. On the other hand, if we had the money to get a true 1, 2 or even 3 starter to place against another teams 5 each and every start for the season, I think that WOULD make a hell of a difference as far as wins and losses goes. From those games in which said 1,2, or 3 started all the way down to the fact you'd expect him to pitch further into games, to where your pen was more rested as well, giving you an advantage during other games as well. Comparing the two doesn't seem to make any sense to me anyway......

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

no carpenter??? i'd think he'd have to make the top 14. Throw him into the top 15, but where he fits 11-15 is up for debate for me. I have a few concerns for him: - he has been a year too old for his levels, until AA last year where he went 0-3 and posted just average numbers, - his numbers in college never showed much (I know about his injury history...), - I think guys like Rhee, Archer, and Raley may ultimately have better stuff, Reasons for including Archer, Rhee, and Raley: - Chris Archer was amazing at Peoria last year as a 20 year old. More K's than IP, very few hits, 0 HR's in 109 IP. - Dae-Eun Rhee was the Cubs #4 prospect last year and had success in 40 IP at Peoria. High signing bonus/solid scouting reports. I'm a little worried about how he recovers from surgery, though. - Brooks Raley had a good college career, high signing bonus, and is a lefty with great stuff. - Chris Carpenter seems to fit well in that group - which order would people put these four guys & why??? For now, I think you have to go by their most recent accomplishments. Which, for me would put them Carpenter, Archer, Rhee, and Raley, in that order. Carpenter had a very solid year and although his age is a tad high, he's been hurt some, which contributes to that. Archer was great last year, although I would have liked to see him go deeper into some games. Hopefully that happens this year. Rhee WAS great in 2008, but now is a question mark obviously. Raley would be last for me, because we really have nothing to go on of him, other than college. After the upcoming season though, I'm going to predict we look at these guys in THIS order here......Archer/Raley/Rhee/Carpenter. If Archer has a good year at Daytona, he'll start moving up lists quickly. I DO think Raley will succeed, especially with him concentrating on pitching for the first time in his career. I have no idea what to think of Rhee, other than AZ Phil's reports at the end of the season. I figure he comes back but won't have his true stuff until 2011. And although I have Carpenter 1st if I rank them right now, I don't see him staying healthy enough longterm to where we can count on him for anything more than middle relief. Going into the 2010 season, my top 10 looks like this: 1 Castro 2 J Jackson 3 Vitters 4 Lee 5 B Jackson 6 Cashner 7 Burke 8 Carpenter 9 Watkins 10 Archer But, I really think we will see something completely different next year, as I expect Castro and one of J Jackson or Cashner to graduate.......And I think we'll be talking about Lee as a consensus top 50 guy, with Burke making a run at the top 100 as well. I think Antigua, Kim, Raley and LeMahieu all have an excellent chance at finishing next year in our top 10 as well.

Good question, I've been asking myself the same thing. I'm not even sure they know what they are up to. A very sad and scary statement, but unfortunately one that I think is true. Whether we like it or not, we are really hamstrung here. Who wants to come in with a lame duck head coach? Probably not anyone with a good name. Unless they think that they can benefit by this and eventually become the next head coach. But even that's a double edged=sword. because if they truly make a difference, then it's likely all they're doing is saving Lovie's job for him. Hiring retreads or hiring a little known guy who we hope can turn things around offensively is about the only options we have right now. I am resigned to the fact that 2010 is going to suck and hope that it's enough to get Angelo, Lovie, and the rest of the staff out of here. If this IS the case, then I wouldn't be disappointed if we aren't all that active in free agency THIS year, with the intention of giving the new guys in 2011 alot of money to work with, so a complete overhaul can be done, if needed......

Tice may very well be an upgrade for us, but unless we get some new linemen for him to work with, it isn't going to matter very much at all.

I'm perfectly fine with that. I think he SHOULD be involved. Hell, I think he should be involved in whether or not we go after any receivers at this point honestly. If he thinks we're OK in that department, then I say we stand pat there too, but if he thinks we need a true 1, then I hope we go get him one......

I remember him telling DP one time that he tried to fart while Will Clark was on first but accidentally pooped. He was leading off the next inning and went to bat with down his pantlegs. No word on what became of the at bat.

PFT speculated that it would be a good idea for Lovie to consider the UT job. Mainly because he's certainly on the hotseat as far as Chicago goes......No idea if he'd have any interest in coaching college football or not, but I'd like to see him gone ASAP here anyway and since we didn't fire him, this may actually be a shot at ridding ourselves of him anyway.....

Same here. Especially that Jay isn't getting invited.

If I remember correctly they brought him to AAA to avoid another conflict with the AA pitching coach, which is where the issue arose. Maybe it depends in part on where that pitching coach is now. I don't remember ever hearing exactly WHY he was sent down. Was that ever discussed and brought out into the open? For some reason, I was thinking I had read he was missing curfews and it pissed off Sandberg.......Definitely could be mixed up here though.

I wish Bruce would stop by and let us know if something has changed on this front, by the way......It could very well just be Sullivan with some lazy journalism right here, seeing Rosenthal picked us to wind up with Sheets. The reason I bring this up, is because Bruce made it sound like it MAY be something we consider only if he's still out there unsigned come mid-February and is willing to take a VERY incentive-laden deal at that point. Bruce seemed to say that we were scraping together money for a veteran reliever and POSSIBLY a 4th OFer. Hopefully though, this is the Ricketts seeing a possible great value laying around late in the offseason and giving the OK to bump payroll a bit in order to get it done.

We NEED Sheets. Losing Harden, but adding Sheets would basically be a wash as far as I'm concerned honestly and we need to replace Harden as our rotation needs an upgrade. Adding a Contreras type, as has also been talked about does nothing for us. This is the type risk-reward move we truly need. I don't care if it's him or Bedard, but we really need one or the other......

They already punished Jackson last year by demoting him to Daytona and he tok the demotion well by pitching great down there. Plus, they brought him up to AAA for his final start and he pitched well then too, so my guess is he's almost a lock to start off in AAA.

Would we rather have Maddux as our pitching coach eventually or our GM? I'd say pitching coach personally.

So Maddux=George Costanza? Anyway, I really like this move and agree that this is my favorite addition of the offseason. And yes, it's pretty sad that a special assistant to the GM is the most exciting thing we've done all offseason. Even more sad is that our 2nd best move is adding a hitting coach......

Very nice list. The guys I could see starting elsewhere possibly, would be the following...... Castro- I know he didn't have 150 plate appearances in AA, but I could really see the Cubs putting him in Iowa, especially if they think he'll be ready soon after. Although, he could obviously be called up from Tennessee as well. Cashner- I don't think it's a slam dunk he gets moved up to Iowa that quickly. I'd say he's 50-50 on whether or not he starts in AA or AAA next year. I definitely think he'll finish in Iowa, if not with the big club though..... Castillo- I know he struggled with the bat in AA, but it looks like alot of it was bad luck and he was supposedly working on defense mainly this past year as it is. It wouldn't startle me to see him on Iowa's opening day roster...... Coleman- I think he IS a slam dunk to start in Iowa personally. He did about all he could do last year in Tennessee for what he does...... Flaherty- It wouldn't surprise me to see him skip Daytona, partially because of his age. It also would have to do with us having a glut of middle infielders and his status could also be determined on whether or not some of the other guys are considered ready for higher levels as well. Searle- He pitched an entire year in Daytona already, albeit at a young age and with varied success at times. But, it wouldn't surprise me to see him in Tennessee's rotation from the start. Lee- While I do think he'll start the year in Peoria, they could "challenge" him and move him to Daytona right off the bat as well. Of course, him and Watkins seem like a package deal right now and are very comfortable with each other too, so maybe they don't want to break them up and it's unlikely that the Cubs would see them BOTH as being ready for Daytona right now and there's no need to rush them as it is..... Rhee- Total wildcard here. If the Cubs see him as being back, I could see them putting him in Daytona from the start. Again, they'll probably err on the side of caution, but I think it's possible anyway...... Antigua- He pitched very well in his audition with Peoria already and although he's very young, he seems to me like the perfect candidate to "challenge" this year at a higher level....... Rusin- Because of his age and his college pedigree, he could be bumped to Daytona as well. Although, they didn't do it with Shafer, so I guess it all depends on how he looks early on......

Unless Hudson was willing to sign a one year deal, I don't see us being all that interested, although I would love it if we were. In the end, I think that the Cubs WANT to see Theriot at 2B, once Castro is ready and since it's very possible that it's going to happen this year, unfortunately that eliminates Hudson, in all likelihood. Sheets or Bedard would be great and could basically offset the loss of Harden for us. Hopefully Ricketts sees it this way too and gives Hendry the OK to go get one of them. I'm iffy as to whether or not that will even be the case though, as it seems all we're after is a 5th starter/swing guy type, a 4th OFer, and a veteran pen guy. Personally, I'd go with exactly what we have and either Sheets or Bedard, than adding these other 3 things, which will probably cost around the same amount anyway......

I'm pretty sure the Panthers will make Deangelo Williams available this offseason.

It'll take a 1st and a 3rd to get Marshall from the Broncos, since he's a restricted FA and then give him a large contract as well. Cutler and him were very tight in Denver until Cutler left, then Marshall had some pretty negative things to say about him. I wonder if they've buried the hatchet personally? I doubt Denver finds anyone willing to give up the 1st and 3rd for him myself, so then they'll take a look at what offers are out there......A 1st in THIS draft will trump ours from the following year, first and foremost, so we'd be behind the 8-ball and have to offer more in terms of picks......I'm not even sure that we'd go hard after him anyway, with the comments about our receivers not being our problem(which I agree with, to an extent anyway), but if we do go after him, I gotta figure Hester would be part of the package we'd offer for him......

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million. If they want to trade him they can always include money in the deal. So there's really no advantage to paying him more up front. If he stinks then they likely will have to pay him to go away. If he's good they might not have to pay as much or they won't mind keeping him. The reason I said that, was looking at it from a future payroll standpoint. It could give us a few extra mill to spend next year and the year after, since it doesn't appear as if we're going to do that THIS year. It would also make it easier to trade Byrd and get value, instead of dealing him away for nothing and/or paying money as well in the deal.

I remember thinking that when the DeRosa trade happened, we'd be sending some of those prospects to San Diego as part of the Peavy deal. I wish we could have found out EXACTLY what the offers were, what they wanted from us, and why it fell through.......

They're usually the smart thing to do with a contract like this and a team that's under somewhat of a budget crunch. This is hardly unique to Hendry and is very common around MLB with most GM's. Plus. in his case, he's maximizing everything he can do and won't be here to see the ramifications of his work, in all likelihood. He's just putting the best(in his mind) on the roster, which in turn, will be someone else's mess to clean up, assuming the longterm deals that are backloaded inevitably don't work out. Still, like was just said, it's a common practice......

Wow. He's pretty much contradicting himself. Ha! That's funny! He has to know how stupid that statement sounds after last year....... Also, the more I think about this signing, the more I wish we had actually front-loaded it. It doesn't look like we'll be going after anything else significant this offseason(middle reliever, spot starter, 4th OFer) and our payroll won't touch the 140 mark. Should be right at 135ish actually. Basically, if this winds up being the case, I wish we had structured it 8/4/3, instead of the way it's backloaded at 3/5.5/6.5. Byrd at 2/7 next year or 1/3 the year after is a much easier commodity to trade(and possibly even get value for) than he would be at 2/12 or 1/6.5......It'd be nice to see a little less money on the books longterm and at some point, whether it's Hendry or his replacement, I hope they employ this strategy from time to time. If done correctly, you just wouldn't be as hamstrung at any point, like we are right now......

3 mill for this year should give us room to make more moves for now. But, I guess the worst thing about this deal is actually that our OF is now going to be Soriano/Byrd/Fukudome for the next 2 years almost assuredly. I can't see us going after Crawford or anyone else that may be available over that time frame.

In Levine's article, he mentions we are after a veteran reliever and mentioned Jason Fraser as a possibility. He also mentioned going after a 4th OFer and a swing starter/long man......(What the hell is Sean Marshall anyway?) To me, for this offseason to be considered ANY kind of success, we need to go get one of Hudson, Bedard, Sheets, or Chapman and it doesn't seem very likely.