b_wiggy_66

I still find Burrell intriguing. If Philly picked up a big chunk of that contract (which they will have to do to get rid of him) would you do Jones for Burrell?

I have heard that Schmidt would like to stay on the West Coast, but hopefully we can get him to come to the midwest. Even though people think he is oft-injured he has thrown at least 172 innings each of the last 5 years. 2002- 185.1 IP 2003- 207.2 2004- 225.0 2005- 172.0 2006- 213.1

All they were talking about at the end of the season was how much the fans liked Soriano and wanted to see him back in Wash. They also said how good of a teammate he was and that he was fun in the clubhouse. So I think comparing him to Sheff. is a little extreme. Zito would be no good at Wrigley. Huge walk numbers and a ton of flyballs are not a good combination to have there.

This from Newsday today: "Lee Elia, Lou Piniella's longtime buddy, has held talks about becoming the Cubs' hitting coach."

This is good news, Kuroda was mentioned again in the Trib today as well. I would like them to get someone who could leadoff at the position that Soriano is not at. If hes in CF get a leadoff guy at 2B and the opposite if hes at 2B. Someone like Dave Roberts in CF or Durham at 2B. I would prefer Soriano at least bat 2nd so that he has some RBI chances. It is also a good thing to have Prior, Miller, Guzman, Marshall, and Marmol all battling for the 5th spot. One of those guys would step up and have a decent year. It would also give us some starting pitching depth. Resinging A-ram is also a key component get rid of the last 2 years of this deal and give him a 5/75 deal Jim. Save some money to re-sign Zambrano as well, hes going to command at least and Oswalt contract. I don't know where Theriot fits either. It was a small sample size, but if you wanted to I guess you could try him as a starter and see how that goes.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. oh. my. so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most." I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won th....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting. How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said.

These arguments are going nowhere. I started this thread to show that Jim Hendry needs to put pitching as his number one priority. Winning a championship takes good pitching, timely hitting, solid defense, and a lot of things to go right. Just like in football they say defense wins championships, 9 out of 10 people will tell you that pitching wins champs. in baseball. Go get pitching and some hitting Jim. With pitching being priority number 1.

detroit's good pitching didn't shut down st. louis' good hitting. Well game 1 Verlander gave up 6 runs and they lost. Game 2 Rogers pitched good and they won. Game 3 they gave up 3 runs and Carp gave up 0 and the Cards won, game 4 they got some bad breaks gave up 3 runs and lost. And game 5 again bad breaks and gave up 2 runs and lost. So they pitched OK in the W.S., but the cards pitched better and guess what, the better pitching won. ugh...this is such after-the-fact analysis that i can't believe you don't see the flaw in your logic. let's take last night's game -- verlander vs. weaver. verlander is clearly the better pitcher, so going in you (using your pitching beats hitting philosophy) would say the tigers should win since they have the better pitcher. then weaver outpitches verlander and you say 'well, good pitching beats good hitting' and weaver pitched better than verlander. i don't see how anyone can subscribe to this idiotic 'good pitching beats good hitting' mantra and then cite the 2006 world series, in which the team with the team with the BEST PITCHING IN ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL got beat by a team with the 16TH BEST PITCHING IN ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. It's true. Good pitching always shuts down good hitting. In the postseason, Weaver was better than Verlander. I understand that the Tigers had the best pitching during the season, but over the last week they did not and the better pitching at the time won. Either way if I have my choice of a great rotation or a great lineup, gimme the great rotation any day of the week.

detroit's good pitching didn't shut down st. louis' good hitting. Well game 1 Verlander gave up 6 runs and they lost. Game 2 Rogers pitched good and they won. Game 3 they gave up 3 runs and Carp gave up 0 and the Cards won, game 4 they got some bad breaks gave up 3 runs and lost. And game 5 again bad breaks and gave up 2 runs and lost. So they pitched OK in the W.S., but the cards pitched better and guess what, the better pitching won.

The 2005 White Sox (3rd in the majors in ERA and 1st in the AL), 2004 Red Sox (11th in the majors and 3rd in the AL), 2003 Marlins (10th in the majors), 2002 Angels (4th in the majors and 2nd in the AL), and 2001 Diamondback (3rd in the majors) all had clearly better staffs than the Cardinals. Only the 2000 Yankees were close, but they were still one of the better pitching staffs in the AL. The top 8 pitching staffs in baseball this year were, in order, Detroit, San Diego, Minnesota, LAA, Houston, NYM, Oakland, and LAD. I love pitching, but it's pretty clear that the best staff didn't come out on top. Look, you listed 9 teams that were the top pitching teams in baseball and 6 of them were in the playoffs. Now how can any of you argue that pitching doesn't increase your odds of getting to the postseason. Now I'm not saying that offense is not important because obviously it is, but if you have good enough pitching 3-4 runs a day will be enough. It is who gets hot at the right time, but I believe your odds of winning are much better with great pitching than hitting. Good pitching shuts down good hitting.

I don't understand why they would sign him and then trade him for next to nothing. I would think the Yankees are expecting a little more than "next to nothing." I think they care much more about where he goes than what they get in return. Letting him become a free agent means there is a chance he could sign with Boston or the Mets. Picking up the option guarantees he won't go to Boston or the Mets. Sounds crazy to make a $13M move based on that, I know, but as one source told me: for George, it's all about the Mets and Red Sox. Yes it said in many of the papers that the Yankees didn't want him to go to Boston, which is where they think he would end up.

Look at the last few W.S. champs: 2000-New York(Pettite, Clemens, El Duque, Rivera) 2001-Arizona(Unit and Schilling) 2002-Anaheim(Lackey, Washburn, K-rod) 2003-Florida(Beckett, Pavano, Urbina) 2004-Boston(Schilling, Wakefield, Foulke) 2005-Chicago(every starter, Jenks) 2006-St.Louis(Carpenter, Weaver, Suppan, Wainright) Pitching wins in the postseason plain and simple.

I know that there are a lot of people on here that want to spend the big money on a hitter for our lineup. After watching the Cards pitching shut down the Tigers in this series it shows once again that pitching wins in the postseason. We need to make pitching our number one priority this offseason. 2 starters is a must, but even 3 is what we really need. Bring in some reliable, durable starters Jim.

Bruce, do you think it gets done? Eventually, yes. The agent is doing a little squeezing right now. Thanks Bruce that leaves a little optimism there for something to get done.

From Newsday Today: "So renew the Yankees must, if only to ensure they can send Sheffield as far away as possible, perhaps for next-to-nothing to the Cubs, where he can be Lou Piniella's headache." With the talk of Ramirez and the CUbs not being close they are going to need some thump. I read somewhere that alot Sheffs 13million is deferred. If he could be had for next to nothing I say its worth a shot. Then try to trade Jones for some pitching.

Or, if we're lucky Z Schmidt Hill Kurodas Prior :) Sounds good to me

Heres a link to Kurodas stats (not sure if I can do this so get rid of it if I can't) http://www.japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=986&Year=2006&Part=1 Not as many innings as I thought. Doesn't seem like hes had the abuse that many other pitchers have had.

You make really good points. Maybe it would be better to spend about 5-7 million on Kuroda, 10-12 mil on a short 2-3 year contract with Schmidt and Weaver for about 7-9 mil. Then you get 3 pitchers just for the posting fee of Matsuzaka. You also have money to spend still on a slugger and the bench. I think I have changed my mind, I like this idea better. No to Weaver. I know hes not the greatest but he has had sucess in the past and he is very durable over 200 innings every year. We need that durability. Someone like Miller would be fine to. By the way nice pic Vance you got the Alou bandwagon goin again.

You make really good points. Maybe it would be better to spend about 5-7 million on Kuroda, 10-12 mil on a short 2-3 year contract with Schmidt and Weaver for about 7-9 mil. Then you get 3 pitchers just for the posting fee of Matsuzaka. You also have money to spend still on a slugger and the bench. I think I have changed my mind, I like this idea better.

Kuroda should not be more "intriguing" than Matsusaka. Beside him their is no really good pitching on the FA market. Zito walks way to many guys and that mixed with his high fly ball numbers make a bad combo at Wrigley. Schmidt is good, but he is already into his 30's and he has a history of injuries as well. Therefore, you have to go after Matsusaka hard and get him so someone can be there behind big Z.

I found it Process A player may be posted from November 1 to March 1. For a player to be posted, both the team and player must agree on the posting; usually the player requests to be posted. The team then notifies the NPB Commissioner's Office that the player will be posted, who then notifies the MLB, which notifies all of its teams. The MLB teams then have four days to submit a "silent" bid for the right to negotiate a contract with the player to the MLB Commissioner's Office. After the fourth day, the NPB team (via the Commissioner's Office) is notified of the highest bidder and has four to accept or reject the bid. If the bid is accepted the winning MLB team has thirty (30) days to reach an agreement with the player. If the bid is rejected, the player is not posted. If the player signs a contract with the MLB team by the end of the signing period, then the player becomes part of that MLB team and the NPB team receives the bid money. If the player does not sign a contract with the MLB team by the end of the signing period, the player is returned to the NPB team and the NPB team does not receive the bid money.

This from the New York Post today: Daisuke Matsuzaka, arguably Japan's best starter, is going to be posted by his Japanese team in the next few weeks. Essentially that means, every team will have 72 hours to make a blind bid not to sign the 26-year-old righty, but merely to gain the exclusive rights to negotiate with him for 30 days and have his Japanese team, the Seibu Lions, accept the bid. The most commonly quoted price you hear for just the posting bid is $20 million. But one NL GM whose team plans to participate said his staff has made the "under-over $33 million." There is a feeling that one rogue owner, a Tom Hicks from Texas, for example, could simply decide he wants the player so much that he bids extravagantly to assure gaining negotiating rights. Bidding is only 72 hours? I thought I read somewhere that it was 40 days.

There are much cheaper options out there such as with similar production: Eli Marrero- vs. Left: .415 vs. Right: .250 Gabe Kapler- vs. Left: .317 vs. Right: .238 Stats from MLB website player Bio page.

4-5mil is quite a bit for a platoon guy. Thats getting into Neifi and Rusch type money there. That mopney would be much better spent on our bigger needs(pitching and a slugger)

No matter who it is I don't think that Jones will be here next year so they would start anyways. If he is here they won't platoon anyways. Not many managers platoon players when they should. They like to have their main guys play all the time.