goonys evil twin

That quote is so infuriating to me because Maddux was here for 2.5 years and I don't think any young pitcher improved during that time. He can't teach them to pitch. Just like Jordan can't coach players to be great. I think Maddux helped them in ways that may not show up now but later. The Cubs had a bunch of kids up this year and I don't think we'll see the results until next year or the year after. It's not like some magic rub Greg gave them, just some tips on how to better themselves and we'll see how they impliment them to their own abilites. IMO, Maddux has a wealth of knowledge and you can't lose by listening to what he has to say. And I bet you don't really gain much of anything either.

Yeah, good point. I keep hearing about how it was a lack of hunger, or they choked, or were a disappointment. People weren't thinking of them as a perennial winner last season. It wasn't until after the WS that people decided, "hey, why don't I pick the Sox as my favorite in 2006", because most baseball experts are lazy, unimaginative and always late to the party. On the last day of the regular season last year, if somebody told them the Sox would win 90 this year, they'd have said, "sounds about right, they probably played over their head a bit this year, and will come back down a little next year, but still be good." But they get hot in the playoffs and all of a sudden they can't be stopped in 2006. Too many people just don't understand how foolish it is to allow small stretches of games to determine your predictions for future trends.

I'm assuming he's going to get the same amount. I think they can actually offer slightly less, and stand a chance at winning, but I'm not sure.

I'm already going bazonkers. If they win this weekend, I'll be boozonkers, and if they win next week I'll be boozoorific.

That quote is so infuriating to me because Maddux was here for 2.5 years and I don't think any young pitcher improved during that time. He can't teach them to pitch. Just like Jordan can't coach players to be great.

There's nothing 'sort of' about it. He came right out and said Murton should be the guy next year. And yet he won't start him everyday right now.

I read some quote about how watching him run is ugly, but that his swing was a thing of beauty. I don't get it, his swing looks awkward as heck right now. But I think it's cool that he's back and producing, and heading to the playoffs for a team that knows how to get cost-effective production.

Pay raises yes, buyouts, not sure. It's hard to say how exactly they account for those.

here here! As for Mabry, a lot of people talk about guys giving up, or quitting on the manager, but in only general terms. When I see Mabry, I see a guy who has given up, or at least is giving as little effort as possible. His swings have looked atrocious. After a horrible start, he had a nice June and July, but he disappeared in August and is hitless in September. He's in danger of returning to a sub 600 OPS on the season, which is something that should be inexcusable from backup catchers and middle infielders, let alone corner men. And it's not like this season was completely unexpected, he was brutal last season and is 35. Hendry has to learn that players don't actually improve in their 30s, and that mediocre players often lay themselves out of the game by their mid-30s. Just stay away from guys like that. If you want vets for your bench, find some 31-32 year olds with gas in the tank and a chance at producing if they need to fill-in for the starter. Otherwise, introduce more 23-26 year old decent minor leaguers to the roster and give them a chance to show something. At the very least, those guys provide upside. And there's no way they provide any further downside than guys like Macias, Perez and Mabry.

I've done in in my own notes, but I'm not ready to put down a preferred roster yet, I'm still up in the air on some things.

This midseason or next midseason? 2007 midseason. Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting a bad feeling about Izzy durability-wise. It sure isn't just you.

This midseason or next midseason?

Since 03, Hudson has become MORE hittable, he gives more walks, he strikes out few and few. In other words....as of 2006, Tim Hudson is a VERY MEDIOCRE #2 pitcher, and more likely at this stage is closer to being a #4 pitcher, then a #2. Wade Miller can give same type of production at a fraction of the cost. So unless ATL is willing to eat over 60% of Hudson's contract, I wouldn't even talk about trying to get Hudson. That's just not true. 2003 was a career year for Hudson, using that going forward as a comparison to show a decline is pretty deceiving. His K's have stayed similar, his walks have stayed similar since coming to the NL, and his BAA has been similar. His peripherals show his 2006 ERA and WHIP are pretty unlikely to repeat, that he's more than a 4 starter, and that he's most certainly better than Wade Miller. No matter how you spin it, Tim Hudson at this stage of ihs career is more of a 5-8 million dollar pitcher, NOT an $11 million dollar pitcher. So if the Cubs are interested in Hudson, ATL has to eat alot of money. I would rather just sign Jason Schmidt. I think the spin is that you'd take on Hudson in an effort to get Jones. That improves the pitching staff and lineup. Signing Schmidt doesn't help as much.

So you suggest making zero improvements to a piss-poor lineup that has been one of the worst lineups in baseball for years now? You're counting on a lot of ifs and coulds, but I don't see many shoulds. Pierre is as bad as he's been this year, and he could be worse, as he demonstrated last year. There's next to zero possibility that Izturis could end up having a great year, he's a terrible hitter, and fragile as a pitcher. And your pitching staff isn't nearly good enough to make up for that weak lineup. The 2006 team failed miserably, and it was destined to fail, and predicted to fail, early on. You are basically advocating the same team plus one pitcher. And Dempster in the rotation? He was a crappy starter to begin with, that's why he became a reliever. You don't fix a shaky reliever by making him a starter.

Neither of these observations make any sense. Whether Aramis opts out of his contract or not, why do the Cubs need to move Lee, Barret, Jones, Izturis, Murton, Zambrano, Prior, Hill, Eyre, Wuertz, Howry, Dempster, etc.? During the offseason we're likely to see 3 or 4 news-worthy acquisitions and a few bench players. If Aramis opts out, this team's minimal 2007 chances would probably disappear. 3-4 newsworthy acquisitions doesn't mean anything, the team would still suck.

Seriously, let Theriot play 2B and leadoff for all I care. Theriot Murton Arod Lee Ramirez Barrett Jones/Platoon Pie (or a stopgap CF) Quick question, who exactly are we trading to get ARod? You have give up something to get him. Exactly. I'm sure they would take Carlos Zambrano for him. Meanwhile, the Cubs would be trading away their best pitcher and getting a guy who would consume a quarter of the team's payroll. Thanks, but no thanks. The Cubs wouldn't be taking on $25m per yer, Texas has already eaten a huge chunk of that, and NYY would eat another chunk. And I'd bet you could get him for less than Zambrano, if he became available at all.

That's what we did this year and they were awful. The Cubs have a lot of good arms, but nothing all that great for next year. It's not Padilla love. It's acknowledging that Hendry is very likely to go after a guy who stands a good chance of throwin 200 effective innings, while realizing they aren't likely to get a Cy Young candidate. Padilla can give the Cubs more than what Maddux gave them the past 2 years. And they do have, at the very least 2 starting spots to fill, and more likely 3. And that is counting on Hill to be a steady guy. You have to be prepared for the possibility that he takes a step back. You can't go Zambrano, Hill, Prior, Marshall, Mateo, Guzman, Marmol next year. It would be negligent, as that same staff was awful this season. They have to bring in somebody, and quite possibly, two somebodies. While it would be nice to get Schmidt and Zito, both of those guys have their own risks, will cost a ton, and most likely won't be Cubs anyway. Padilla is just a name that fits the bill of what I think Hendry would want, with some capability of being good, as opposed to the plethora of crap veteran pitchers out there. He's nothing special, I realize this. And hopefully he won't get the standard 3/27 that so many pitchers have signed in recent years. I'm not in love with the guy. But I'm resigned to the likelihood that the Cubs will get somebody like him, and I believe he is probably the best of the group of pitchers "like him".

He's the kind of guy I'd expect Hendry to describe as somebody who has shown he's capable of throwing 200 IP and winning 15 games with a 3.50 ERA. It's one thing to be capable of a certain stat line, and another thing to be likely to put it up, like claiming Izturis is capable of leading the league in hits and Jacque is capable of hitting .300. Marquis has had 2 good seasons, one under the game's most successful pitching coach, and the other with a coach who routinely gets the most out of previously mediocre pitchers.

Gil Meche ERA+ (had half seasons in both 99 and 00) 2003- 97 2004- 86 2005- 85 He's never thrown 200 innings in a season. Padilla ERA+ 2002- 116 2003- 114 2004- 96 2005- 96 He's thrown 200+ twice (his first two years as a starter, and is pretty close this year) VP is also have the better 2006 season. I don't think he's worth all that much, but I think he's the type of guy who could help a team that's biggest pitching weakness has been finding guys who can throw every 5th day. He's racked up major innings, and been pretty effective in 3 of his 5 big league starting seasons. GM has been decent this year, but he hasn't been as effective, nor as durable as Padilla. I use Padilla's name because on the list of free agent pitchers who are a decent bet to give you 200 innings next year, but probably aren't going to break the bank (likely making them unattainable for the Cubs), he's probably been the most effective pitcher. He's not exactly a sexy pick, but if he could come to the Cubs and thrown 190+ innings with an ERA+ around 110 next season, that would be something only Zambrano has given this team recently.

Will Pitt be keeping Altoona as well? yes, so the Pittsburgh Short-A and AA teams will be just 42 miles apart. They are both owned by the same owners group I assume that's a deliberate attempt to get more central PA residents emotionally invested in the Pirates young players, who are going to continually account for a significant portion of the roster.

I could easily see it, although I'm still holding out hope that this won't happen. Trachsel would be a disaster. Floyd, I would hold out slim hope that he could give you a .273/.358/.505 line over 350 at bats, and that Murton would still get 500 between LF and RF. But I think a big thing for Hendry when going after guys this winter will be durability. Trax and Floyd are both coming off injury marred seasons, and have had injuries in the past. I think he's going to go after a pitcher who at least pitched 200 innings this season or at least got very close, and/or has done it in the past. Trax was a consistent innings eater back in the day, but 4 of his past 6 seasons have ended well under 200 IP.

Or you could just lose the day before.

Will Pitt be keeping Altoona as well?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=35505&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 viewtopic.php?t=35505&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 A lot of this is discussed in the above thread.

Like the White Sox of last year in the WS. I think the WS were more like a team that got a great performance out of good pitchers, not mediocre, or great, just good.