goonys evil twin

Stark was talking about the MVP races, and, while pimping Dye, claimed that "every single run driven in by Dye, every single one, has been a meaningful RBI." I'm guessing he was trying to say that Dye's team has been in a race from Day one, while Ortiz's team dropped out a while ago, Jeter's team wrapped it up a while ago, and Hafner's team was out of it long ago. But there's simply no way that every RBI Dye has driven in has "meant something". You're telling me he didn't drive in a run in a blowout? He never drove in a run in a loss?

You drive in runs with the glove the rest of the game.

3 starting pitchers isn't going to happen. 2 at most. Closer isn't going to happen. Another reliever isn't going to happen. RF is most likely not going to happen, and there's no way that LF and RF is going to be replaced. There's nothing unrealistic about letting Pierre walk. It blows my mind how many people think that would be a bad move. 2B, or at least a middle infielder of some sort, is the biggest need, aside from a solid starting pitcher. CF probably ranks 2nd on that list. The Cubs are getting the 12th highest OPS out of CF among all NL teams. CF is a problem on the team. Letting Pierre walk is not creating a new hole, CF already is a hole. And since the only way to keep Pierre is to overpay him, you'd simply be maintaining a hole at a higher cost, probably longterm. LF has let the team down, but Murton should outproduce what the Cubs have gotten this year from that position. Pierre, on the other hand, can only be expected to maintain his poor production next year, and maybe even take a step back.

I dont want him. He cannot stay healthy for a 162 game season. A lot of guys help a team without playing 162 games. Drew has a bad injury history. But he's also produced when he's played, and has played the bulk of most seasons. I think you can get a good 130 games out of him, giving him regular rest. The .380+ OBP and 850+ OPS over 130 games, with a legit shot for 900-1000 OPS, would probably be more valuable to a team than something like Jacque Jones and his expected 145-150 games of .320 or less OBP and 815 or less OPS. If you move Jacque to center, play JD in right and Murton in left, you have a pretty good OF. Mix in a guy like Jose Cruz Jr. to give Drew a breather and take some of Murton's at bats if he slumps. Or maybe go after Jason Michaels for that role. Have Pie waiting in the wings if you're forced to move Jacque over to RF. Keep Pagan as the 5th OF who can also help you rest some guys. It's not ideal of course, but it could work out well, especially if you can find some 2B production.

It's not his fault he's not good. But that doesn't mean the Cubs should compound the problem by bringing him back. What are the other viable/better options for CF and/or leadoff next year? Leadoff is not a position, and does not need to be addressed specifically. The Cubs need to find the 8 best position players they can get. There are several non-Pierre options out there.

I hadn't thought of him replacing Ramirez. That is a possibility, I guess. He'd probably be a better option than just about anybody else who would theoretically come into play if Aramis leaves.

i really don't think that ramirez will get 15 mil per, i really don't. the dogers might inflate his asking price a bit, but i'm not worried that we won't match it, we're already planning on paying him like 11 mil, right? what's another couple of mil to keep one of your best hitters? I also didn't believe that Furcal can get 13 million per year, but he did... I don't think Ramirez will get 15 either. I think what he's looking for is the Cubs to guarantee at least 2 more years, making his currently deal a 4 year contract, instead of 2. I think he'll get a boost from the 11-11.5 area to around 12-13 per, and it's just a matter of how many more years get guaranteed, and/or what kind of option/buyout is added to the end.

You're right, they did draft some guys. But from day one, they said the strategy was to draft and develop arms, and trade for bats later. And sure enough, more than a dozen years later and they've yet to develop a decent major league hitter. They haven't completely ignored it, but I'd say they've put about 5% of their efforts into developing bats. And when you put very little effort into something that you aren't very good at, the results are inevitably going to be awful.

I see your point, but I could swear there were multiple times this summer when the team had back to back, and even 3-straight home night games midweek. Part of the excuse is guys get worn out in the sun. But another part is that guys get screwed up by having to wake up early for day games and being on a different schedule. This shouldn't matter whether it's 95 in July or 65 in September. So if that were a true excuse, night games in September would also be "necessary".

so the cubs would have been better off without wood and prior? ridiculous. the problem was when wood and prior got hurt, they had no more talented pitchers. If you're going to keep putting words into my mouth, please stop responding to my posts.

It's not his fault he's not good. But that doesn't mean the Cubs should compound the problem by bringing him back.

Not at all.

Well, I'd do what I could to not have to use Pie, but I wouldn't be opposed if the options were slim.

Talent does not equal production. Semantics has nothing to do with that, and the Cubs are perfect examples (whether it's the tools over production practice, or specific players likes Wood and Prior). I think it's a mistake to say you can't have enough talented pitching. I think you can focus too heavily on pitching, and, if you create a logjam, you can detract from the pitching itself, and the team as a whole, assuming the pitching budget and hitting budget come from the same budget. The leadoff hitter argument is very different. A "leadoff hitter" is just a fast guy who doesn't have power, in the eyes of many. A number 3 pitcher, or number 1, or whatever example you use, is a pitcher who can be expected to provide a certain level of performance. By simply going after a leadoff hitter, you are opening yourself up to a wide range of production. By focusing on getting a number 3 starter, you are saying you want a guy who will give you 200 innings, maybe an ERA around 4.00 and a WHIP around 1.35. The leadoff hitter could be a .300 OBP guy with 60 steals and 40 caught stealings (and maybe a noodle arm to go with it). Or it could be a .400 OBP guy with 20 homer ability. A more appropriate comparison may be an innings eater and a leadoff hitter. A leadoff hitter doesn't necessarily have to be good to be considered a leadoff hitter, likewise, an innings eater doesn't have to be good to give you lots of innings. A number 3 starter, at least in my mind, would actually have to be a guy who stands a good chance of having a solid season. The innings eater, or leadoff hitter, would not.

Paid attendance or actual. Paid will be well over 30k. Actual is tough to guess, but I predict under 30. There is rain in the forecast.

And if you go with Pierre in CF, you'll have much less financial flexibility to get that power.

I got lost somewhere along the way here. Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

That's a good and fair question. But how did those veteran, big-name managers _ Don Baylor and Dusty Baker _ do with the Cubs? So yes, I think Hendry might "risk" it with Gonzalez. Will he? I don't know. Hendry's past actions makes me think he wouldn't risk going with the unproven guy. But as Bruce points out, that hasn't exactly worked for him so far. Will he treat it like the Izturis situation (defense didn't work for him before, maybe he should just get more of it), or will he treat it like Alou (big name slugger didn't pan out, let's go a different route)? I still think that if it wasn't for Baker actually wanting to leave, Hendry would be more than happy to bring him back, which would seem to indicate he's not in a try something new sort of mood.

Well, in that case, I'm way ahead of you. I formed an opinion a while ago. Now I just hope that in a couple years I can declare my opinion wrong. :P

I'm not ready to state my case for a full lineup. I don't need much support, however, to scoff at the idiocy of resigning Juan Pierre to the type of contract he will get. There's a big difference between obsessing over getting a specific player, or specific stereotype player, and simply letting a free agent walk. It's not something you need to focus energy on, it's not something you need to put effort into. It's not something you need to invest resources in. You simply let him walk. The 2B priority is in no way related to the situation. Juan Pierre would never be the #8 hitter on this team because as long as he is on the team he will be the leadoff hitter on this team. Because that's the way "you're supposed to do it". The Hendry way.

I'm just throwing out names, as I haven't been paying too much attention to baseball recently, oddly enough, except for some Hill starts. I just know Padilla was a relatively consistent 100+ OPS+ guy for a few years, then suffered a downturn, which I believe was due to going straight from bullpen work to 200 inning as a starter in back to back seasons. And I thought he was having a nice bounce back season with a low 4 ERA (good in Texas) 7+ k/9 and low 700 OPS against. I see him as sort of like that prototypical innings eater who is also relatively effective, as opposed to Traschsel, who can give you 200 innings, but suck in the process. It doesn't have to be Padilla. But there a quite a few pitchers who the Cubs could get, that they could rely on to give them many solid innings. Hill could give them many solid innings as well, but his range of expectation is going to be quite wide, and the Cubs can't afford to expect too much out of him. They've got to build with him as frosting, not part of the cake.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The Cubs need good pitchers. No it's not, not even close. Maybe if you are haphazardly assigning numbers it is. Rich Hill is going to have a certain level of expected production next year. Whether they sign Jason Schmidt or Steve Trachsel, that level won't change. If they get Zito and Padilla to add to Zambrano, there's no way you can label Hill the 3 starter. If Prior proves healthy all spring, there's no way you can label Hill the 4 starter. That would be because you have 4 pitchers who one would expect to be better than Hill. That would be a good thing. If you go into 2007 with only 2 pitchers expected to be better than Hill that would be bad. Rich Hill in 2007 is not going to be Rich Hill the crappy AAAA loogy with one pitch. Nor is he going to be the great pitcher of the past couple months. What you will get is a mix of both, hopefully a little closer to the latter. But it would be a fatal mistake to expect 15 wins out of him (for several reasons), and stupid to set up your rotation with only 2 pitchers you would expect to be better than him.

Juan Pierre would never be the #8 hitter on this team. You seem to be switching back and forth to abstract and specifics, and from what the Cubs should do, and what is the best we can hope for with Hendry. Juan Pierre should not be on the 2007 Cubs. However you want want to explain it, that would be bad. Not resigning Juan is an easy move to make, that doesn't require a dancing partner, or significant investment. It should be one of the first moves made, whether we're talking ideal world or Hendry world. Juan Pierre is a net drain on this team. At his inevitably higher cost, he will be an even bigger drain. You cannot bring him back if you care about improving the offense.

Yes you can. Talented doesn't guarantee success. And a boatload of talented pitchers hasn't done much good for the Cubs. Plus, if money spent on pitchers takes away from the hitters, then you can't dedicate it all to the arms. They need to go get effective pitchers, enough so that they don't need to rely on Rich Hill to be the equivalent of a 15 game winning number 3 starter.

You don't have to focus on replacing him. Just don't resign him, then shift Jones to CF. And since when can you only make 2 moves in an offseason? Jim's a big boy, he better be able to handle thoughts about multiple holes, since he created them. The focus of the offseason should be on getting better. More specifically, better utilizing resources. With that in mind, resigning Pierre would just makes things worse, and make the rest of your job more difficult. Locking into mediocrity, or worse, whether it's for 1 year or more, is never a good idea.