goonys evil twin

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement? All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? I don't really have to list them for you, do I? I think you know what the good moves he has made have been. But we are in agreement that it certainly hasn't been enough the past two seasons. Listing them is pointless. He's had a couple decent moves, but only when you look at them without considering the big picture. Concentrating on bullpen, speed and defense was an absolute failure of strategy, no matter how well Eyre and Howry have pitched. Top notch relievers are pointless when your lineup and rotation suck. Jim Hendry is an awful GM. He not only has failed to win a WS, he's failed to field a competitive team. He's also been the most inefficient GM in the league, with the highest payroll/win ratio. It's stunningly pathetic how poor of a job he has done. This isn't just a GM with a mid range payroll building a .500 team. This is a GM with an upper echelon payroll building a way below .500 team. I repeat. Nothing in his past suggests he is capable of making the necessary moves to turn this team into a winner.

I'm not asking for more. I'm asking for something less destructive to the team than Izturis, his pathetic production and his contract.

Pierre and Izturis are likely 1 and 2. I Pierre gets his OBP up to about 340 this year like he is on pace to do he is a pretty solid leadoff hitter. If the intent is to bat Izturis 2, then this trade was not smart. Izturis is nothing more than a 7 or 8 hitter with incredible defense. Pierre, even at .340, is not a solid hitter, no matter where he bats. They've hit Neifi in the 2 hole more than any other spot this year and last. I believe they think Izturis is a better version of that same thing.

People said the same thing about the stock market in 2000. The Cubs attendance is negatively affected by bad play. It is positively affected by good play. The nearly unprecedented success of 2003/2004 (in comparison to past Cubs teams) brought about an unprecedented response from fans who thought the big one was coming and didn't want to miss out. Back to back sub .500 seasons will negate much of that. Eyeballs are already leaving the broadcasts, butts are already not filling in all the seats, even though tickets were sold in February, when there was hope.

Pierre and Izturis are likely 1 and 2.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement? All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? Nothing in his past suggests he will make all the right moves to turn this team around. It's not going to be one move that makes it work. I'm not saying all his moves will be bad. I'm saying that all odds are that when all is said and done, the entirety of his work will result in failure, as usual.

I doubt he is leaving as well. Although I've thought all along he'd opt out, because he can get better than 2/22 on the free market. Jim will just have to pay more for Ramirez and give him a longer deal. I'm guessing something creative like a 4 year deal with another opt out clause and a dual option with a buyout.

I'm more concerned with Murton than Cedeno when it comes to what players this organization has given up on. The fact that Phil Nevin received plenty of playing time since his acquisition while Murton's time on the field gradually decreased at first signalled a possible trade to me. However, unless a waiver deal is in the works, that does not seem to be the case. I like Murton quite a bit and hope he can put together a solid August and September to make a case for a starting job next year. However, I have to wonder if that will be the case... Murton isn't really the type of player that could pass through waivers. Most guys who pass through are guys with bad contracts. Murton is cheap and has a decent track record. Somebody would claim him.

I'm not saying this is it either. But I think it's highly unlikely that he traded for Izturis with the intent of getting rid of him. He's the prototypical Hendry acquisition. Overpaid, athletic, incapable of getting on base, etc. I just don't understand how people who saw what he did with Rusch and Neifi could possibly look at this move and not think he intends on keeping this guy. Hendry does not mind overpaying for mediocrity. He strives for it actually. Just look at this team. You've got Pierre's .326 OBP, Jones and his .315. Hendry doesn't feel the need to move him later due to his bad numbers because Hendry doesn't realize he has bad numbers. Hendry will always take the best numbers that a player ever achieved in his career and act as if he is a near lock to repeat those numbers, and maintain them over time. He probably doesn't even realize Izturis has an OPS+ of 69 for his career or that he's only stolen 65% of his attempts. He'll look at one season of a .288 AVG (not even looking at OBP) and say that's not all that bad.

That's what scouts seem to hang their hat on. Baseball is a game of failure. Just like most great hitters fail more than half the time, baseball people fail in personel moves quite frequently, and it is accepted. If you sign one guy who does well then you're in the respected club, no matter how much money you've wasted on garbage players. Baseball is an incredibly inefficient sport, because baseball men refuse to evolve. It's a great sport, but it's run by backwards relics.

But the Cubs didn't get something, they got less than nothing. They got a terrible baseball player who is also very expensive. That's a bad thing. Not all players are assets. Teams are forced to dump players all the time because they make a lot more than their production should warrent. Izturis is awful. He is exactly the wrong type of player for this team. He doesn't get on base and has no power. This team has about a dozen guys just like that.

I think it's very cynical of you to read what people have written about these deals and think they are nothing by cynical. You are suggesting that we are incapable of seeing a good move and being happy about it. I take offense to that. I know crappy baseball when I see it. And that's all I've seen for 2 years. Hendry has given us nothing to offset the negativity that he has created. That's right, we didn't create the negativity, he did. Do you think I like hating the Cubs? Well, I don't. I wish there was something to be positive about, but when you take an objective look at the Cubs situation, and factor in these moves, there simply isn't any. Sure, maybe some day in the future they will rectify all the mistakes and make a series of stunningly brilliant transactions that lead to glory. But nothing in Jim Hendry's past suggests that is possible.

Wait, wait... Are you saying the Cubs are picking up Izturis' option in 2008 as part of this deal? No, but there's the $300K buyout at the very least. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hendry pick up the option, though. If they have a new GM, hopefully that guy would pay the buyout. But at this point, I'd have to say I'd be shocked if Hendry didn't pick up that option. He'll probably offer to increase the salary as well.

That's the trouble of ever thinking that signing a middle reliever is a great move. What's the point of having a great starting 5 if the bullpen f's it up every other game? I don't think there would be a point to that. Nor do I think it makes any sense to call the signing of a middle reliever to a 3 year deal a great move. The vast majority fail to maintain whatever success they had to earn the contract in the first place. Middle relievers are failed starters who aren't good enough to dominate in short stints year after year (which are the few closers worth the money).

Then you would suck as a GM. And, wow, you have the authority to dole out such opinions. There's a reason why Hendry is a GM and you're sitting in a lazyboy, I dont care how many posts you have. I don't care how many posts I have either, nor do I care about the antiquated thoughts of a bunch of people who put a great deal of faith in fat old men who stare at young boys all days and come up with silly adjectives to describe how they move.

That's the trouble of ever thinking that signing a middle reliever is a great move.

Then you would suck as a GM.

That's just because he sees Neifi in there. This is par for the course for Hendry, I don't see why anybody would think it's anything than what it looks like on the surface. Didn't Hendry say Rusch was ready to start on Thursday? I doubt he's forcing Baker to showcase kids, he's never done it before.

I don't think either is particularly good on defense. You can only measure players against their peers, not the general baseball playing public. While both make me look foolish with the glove, they are no better than your typical major league shortstop, but they are two of the worst hitting players in the game, which means they will hurt this team a lot.

Defense isn't why this team sucked last year, and it's not why they suck this year. "Not striking out" is not important. It's useless when you just make a ton of outs.

Surprised? Really? All Hendry cares about is ceiling. What he nevers gets is anybody capable of reaching their ceiling. I expected a AAA reliever or a toolsy no hit slick-gloved middle IF. I expected an A ball reliever with a 2.9 WHIP who can't strike anyone out, but is tall or looks good in a uniform. Call me surprised as well. At least this kid misses bats. It's refreshing to see a Cubs pitching acquisition who has some results rather than just projectibility. Plenty of Cubs pitchers miss bats, they also miss the strike zone, just like this guy.

To be fair, most people on Cubs.com seem to like it. The ignorant masses would eat this one up. So many Chicago fans are so gung-ho about defense, that they think it's the only thing that matters. Trouble is they can't distinguish between football, basketball, hockey and baseball. They just want to see defense because it comes with the more manly tough guy image. Scoring is for pretty boys and pansies, real men play D and stop the opposition from scoring. They will buy into all the middle infielder defense BS as well as the former all star garbage and live it up. Plus, most of them come with the "I don't care about the money, it's not mine" mindset because they aren't capable of understanding that if the team has a budget and spend X amount on one player, that is X amount that will come away from other areas.

It's early, other teams aren't ready to deal yet, it takes two to tango. Actually, Phil Nevin sucks and nobody thought he could help them besides Jim Hendry.

You are wrong. Best case scenario is Cubs package Cedeno, and Murton, for a better fielding left fielder than Murton. That's pretty much my scenario, actually. There will be no top hitter involved.

Cubs package Cedeno in a deal with other players for a top pitcher or hitter in the offseason. They'll have the depth at 2B/SS with guys like Fontenot, Theriot, Izturis, and Neifi able to play there. Cedeno has the highest ceiling of the four and might be able to attract some interest from a team looking to add cheap middle infield help. You are wrong. Best case scenario is Cubs package Cedeno, and Murton, for a better fielding left fielder than Murton.