You seem to think Howry has turned a corner in his career at age 32. No one here disputes that Howry had a career year, but do you actually believe that one year represents what he is likely to do in the future? Yes, I do. 2005 was a career year, no doubt, but look at 2004. 44IP with 2.74 ERA. Far above average. Then the next year he further improves. If you can get anywhere in the ball park of his 2004 numbers, you'll have a very successful relief pitcher. He pitched 79 games at a 31/32 year old, so I hardly think he is wearing down yet. As far as the contract situation: Howry simply was a benifactor from a market that desired relief pitching. It would have been the same no matter who you went after. You could have gotten a pitcher for lesser money, but it would have been a lesser pitcher. It just seems no matter what happens, something negative is always found in it. I'm not just saying this situation, because there are some real reasons for complaining, but this isn't the only example. It's not like the Cubs just made a move and people decided to think of something negative. Relievers have short-shelf lives. Outside the best of the best (Wagner, Rivera, Hoffman etc), your typical reliever's career is extremely up and down. They don't get 3 years until after they've had some success, but then after they've had some success, their peak is probably already past. The Cubs are paying guys for what they did before as opposed to what they are likely to do for them in the future. You may be annoyed by all the perceived negativity, but I for one am quite annoyed at all the pleas for people to just be happy with whatever they do. It's been explained over and over why there are drawbacks, and why those drawbacks can't be ignored. This is a very risky move without a ton of upside. It's not like they are overpaying potential superstars. And while it's fine to pay a guy like Howry what they are supposedly paying him, it's not fine to just do that with several players, as the Cubs have done. If $5-6m of your payroll goes into overpaying role players, then that is $5-6m you can't spend on a player who can be an actual difference maker. And we Cubs fans are all too familar with the Cubs tendancy to fall a few million short of signing or otherwise acquiring difference makers. Did I say that you should be happy about anything? Remember, you are complaining about a free-agent signing, not a trade. Huge difference.