goonys evil twin

Yes, but average is average. I'm still talking about twice the average pay, assuming a premium for pitchers. There are lots of average to above average pitchers who make less than what Suppan is likely to make in free agency.

Our bullpen wasn't a strength last year either. It was very mediocre. If anyone with stats can prove my next statements wrong then so do it, but there were a lot of young starters who would only go 4-5-6 max innings (and then maddux) so you'd get into the "long relief" group of Novoa and friends quite often. I think if the starting rotation is built correctly, the numbers will put the bullpen in good light. But that just reinforces the point that starting pitchers are more important than relievers. A strong bullpen is not going to win you many games. You need a strong team. It's great if you can afford to add arms to the bullpen, but bullpen arms are not stable, and strong bullpens often come out of nowhere to become strong.

But none of this required Izturis to be acquired in the first place. And if a starting pitcher can be traded on July 31st of a losing season, then the starting 2B could have been traded on August 20 of a losing season.

While it might be true that Hendry wouldn't have made the Neifi move without first getting Izturis, that is not a defense of the move. Rather, it's an indictment of his priorities. They could have not acquired Izturis and still trade away Neifi. Besides, Cesar was banged up at the time of the Neifi trade, and went on the DL shortly after. So it's not like they waited to find a stable middle infield option before dealing Neifi.

Even if he was demanding one, that's no reason to make the deal. And if you did cave to his demands, then you could still do it for something that doesn't hurt you in 2007.

My lack of interest in Andruw would then dwarf my lack of interest in Carlos Lee.

I read that the new rules start now.

The Cubs would be foolish to not explore trading a bullpen arm or two.

Ok I can at least see the argument with the Giants, though I still wouldn't say they're the best in the NFC, I'll agree that they're right up there. But you're losing me here on Dallas. They've been overhyped all season long. Philly and the Giants are the class of that division. Overhyped yes. Woeful? Let's reserve that tag for the Tennessees, Detroits, Arizonas and Oaklands of the NFL. I think Dallas is a couple steps from falling down to that level. This is Parcells 4th season, and they aren't going anywhere. You probably won't see them picking in the top 5 year after year, but Parcells has already piloted one 10 loss team there, and he just switched to Tony Romo as his QB. Anyway, I was specifically referring to the Monday Night game, which is what Theisman was using as a reason to say the Giants are the best in the NFC. He wouldn't have said that the week before. Dallas looked pathetic. TO was dropping balls, Bledsoe was standing around looking clueless, and then Tony Romo came in and played like Tony Romo. They are a mediocre team that looked woeful last night. And it wasn't just because the Giants are an unstoppable force, because they clearly are not.

They just switched from Drew Bledsoe to Tony Freaking Romo. they're woeful. If the media didn't have their heads so far up Parcells butt, they'd be ripping his mediocre results. Losing close road games to teams that have since proven to be mediocre, isn't a great way to disprove your own woefullness.

Marshall and Guzman both have to go through a full healthy and productive season.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He also said they don't "giveaway" games. They beat the Cowboys, big freaking deal. That team is in dissaray. The Giants have some impressive wins, but they've also lost at home to the Colts and got destroyed by Seattle. They've beaten their division and Atlanta, which is admirable, but doesn't erase the losses. They're 4-2 and have beaten the two best teams in their division on the road. Yes, they got destroyed by Seattle and lost to the Colts, but road victories at Philly, Dallas and Atlanta are nothing to laugh at. Their schedule has been an absolute bear so far, and they've weathered the storm. They easily could have been 2-4 with the schedule they've played; instead, they're positioned as huge favorites in the division. After cupcakes against Tampa and Houston the next two weeks, they'll be 6-2 and still have home contests against the Cowboys and Eagles. I didn't say they weren't good. But he completely ignored their losses, and overhyped a victory over a woeful Dallas team.

All of the above could be true but it still does not explain taking on another all-glove-no-bat middle infielder for anohter year and a half. I'd rather they not traded Maddux or gotten a couple of AA level roster fillers. What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world It would mean the Cubs won't be wasting 4 million dollars on a redundent player. A player who has little value to the Cubs. If they can trade him for somthing, that would be good. But my guess is he will be the starting SS for the Cubs in 2007. Not only is their a benefit of not having Izturis on the roster. But it also shows you won't just cave to a team that tries to screw you at trade time. The decision to make should always be the one that best helps the Cubs. It should not be the one that best maintains the relationship between Jim Hendry and a veteran player.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He also said they don't "giveaway" games. They beat the Cowboys, big freaking deal. That team is in dissaray. The Giants have some impressive wins, but they've also lost at home to the Colts and got destroyed by Seattle. They've beaten their division and Atlanta, which is admirable, but doesn't erase the losses.

I believe the range is much higher. I think he's already looking at 3/27 easy, and could go to the $10-12m per range with a great WS outing. I don't think a shelling will put him down to $5m per either. If you can get a slightly above average pitcher for slightly above average pay, that's great. Average pay is around $2m though, right? A $4-5m guy who throws 200 IP with an ERA+ of 100 is going to be valuable to the team. I'm warming slightly to the idea of getting an average starter or two.

Very interesting stuff. I like the move.

Bonderman is younger than Z, but Z was much much better at the same age. Bonderman might not be much more than a slightly better version of Jon Garland. No way would I trade Lee for just that.

Questions that don't need an answer for $1000 Alex.

The sad thing is, had they decided to hold onto Maddux, there is a decent chance that Rich Hill wouldn't have received the opportunity he got after the trading deadline. Hill was recalled on the 27th and had a bad outing, then came back with a good one on Aug 1st. The rotation after that went Marmol, Mateo, Zambrano, Prior. If Maddux was still there, would they have kept Hill around? Their previous usage of Hill suggests no. They were calling guys up left and right to avoid recalling Hill as long as possible. And now he's the Cubs #2 starter.

So the answer to the question in the title is no, correct? There has been a slight modification to the compensation, but losing a star will still get you picks.

I look for Girardi to sit out the year as a broadcaster, take the Marlins money, and then take over the Yankees job next year when Torre retires. The NY media and fan base have moved past Girardi and are focusing on Mattingly right now.

This is the type of game you watch on mute in a loud crowded bar.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar. The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me. As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth. Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders. Did you intend to be condescending? Your "umm, ok" does nothing for your argument.. Who is being condescending? People who think Hendry is a bad GM do so because they are capable of looking at the standings and stat sheets and see what a bad team he has put together.

I completely agree. No team will trade a 25-27 year old top of the rotation pitcher for Crawford. They will be willing to trade a 20-22 year old pitcher who is still in the minors that has the potential to be a top of the rotation guy. With that said I think Veal, Mateo and Marshall would get the job done in a heartbeat and if I were Hendry I'd offer that as soon as he can. Side note: The more I think about the more I like it. I'd love to trade for both Crawford and Burrell and then sign Lugo. Lugo, Crawford, DLee, Ramirez, Burrell, Murton, Barrett, Theriot/Izturis has me salivating. I maintain some doubts on Lugo. His OBP is barely acceptable as is, around the .340 level, but going into his 30's, he runs the risk of some downside there, without any upside like a Carlos Guillen had when he went to Detroit. 3 names that pop up on his "most similar by age 30" category scare the crap out of me. Blauser, Neifi and Dunston.

You are ignoring the very bad games from before he was hurt. He actually got some wins in bad games, which probably caused people to overlook his performance. Marshall was not good. He had good games, but the Cubs don't need pitchers who have occasional good games. The results were not good before or after the injury. And the injury was no fluke, it's a recurring theme in his career. I'd put him ahead of those guys as well, probably, but none of them should be considered anything close to a lock for the 2007 rotation. Is Hill a lock in your book? He started the year with some awful outings. He and Marshall seem to be opposites. Hill started out poorly but made some adjustments and ended the year strong. Marshall started out better than Hill and finished poorly. If you're looking at the body of work, both had some good and bad outings. I suppose it's possible that I'm putting too much emphasis on the good and too little on the bad. Maybe "lock" was too strong, but Marshall should get a good chance to see if he can build on his limited success at this level. Assume 1 FA's this offseason goony, who fills the other slot? Hill is quite different. He's older, more experienced, has a longer track record of success at higher levels, had far greater major league success, and has been less prone to injury. Marshall stunk this year at the major league level (before and after the injury), and received a much greater chance and far longer leash than Hill. I would consider Hill to be a near lock, unless they acquire 3 guys and Prior proves to be 100% in the spring. Marshall didn't start out better than Hill, Marshall started the year with a chance, while Hill did not. Marshall had a good first game, but 2 bad ones soon after. Body of work was clearly in Hill's favor (111 ERA+ to 83 ERA+). If Hendry only signs 1 FA, then he better hope to heck that Miller and Prior are both 100%, and make a 2nd acquisition via trade because Marshall needs more seasoning, and has no business as the 4th starter next April. If those guys aren't healthy and he doesn't get more guys via trade, you are looking at: Zambrano, FA, Hill, Marshall, Guzman/Mateo, and that might not be any better than this year's rotation, which stunk. Hendry needs to do what he can to field a team with 5 starters significantly better than what we could expect to get out of Marshall next year.