goonys evil twin

I attacked your annoying habit of insulting everybody on this board who happens to think the Cubs situation isn't all peachy right now. If you took personal offense then maybe you should think about it. If you think everything is just fine and dandy, good for you. But other people think there are bad clouds hanging over the 2006 Cubs right now, and not enough is being done to clear them. Your continued insistence to rag on the discussions people have about those problems is quite unfair, and unnecessary, and completely against the point of having a message board. This is here for people to discuss the Cubs. And they have the right to discuss them in whichever way they want without somebody pretending they are all a bunch of whiny complainers with no reasonable opinions.

If you consider their future to also include the financial side of things, then they should do all they can to build on the momentum of building a fan base. Growing the loyal season ticket holder base, and making a mark in the ratings over the next 2-3 years is far more important than a couple prospects will be in 3-4 years. Garland is in the perfect sell high situation. His reputation is based on that record more so than how well he actually pitched. I don't see them missing Garland at all next year. Uribe is obviously replacable. And while Cotts and a prospect have value, Tejada is the type of value you go for. Their window would be much more than just next year.

I wonder if he could be had for 5-6M. If we can pull that off then we might as well bring him in unless Philly stops thinking they can get a Prior or a Santana for Abreu. FYI this has been discussed a lot already. viewtopic.php?t=27632 Why sign him? He's as crappy as all the other crappy options. I wonder what makes you think they "might as well sign Wilson" if the Abreu thing falls through. Take the Cubs lineup as is, and add Wilson to it. What do you have? About five different 6, 7 or 8 hitters. Wilson would end up 5th in that lineup, where he does not belong. Leadoff is already well off the "ideal" level. Only Lee and Ramirez in the 3 4 spots are good for their spots. Walker could be a good 2nd hitter, if he's still here. If not, then you got Neifi in there everyday. Murton and Cedeno can't be counted on to pick up the slack. That is too many questionable bats to hide, and not enough guaranteed production to make up for all the question marks.

Uh oh. Some objectivity. Can you seriously stop with this stuff? You act as if nobody here speaks with any sort of objectivity, and everybody is making a big deal out of nothing, speaking only from passion and with hyperbole. Do you honestly think the Cubs aren't in a bit of a sticky wicket? Do you really think everything is perfectly fine with this team right now?

Or he didn't see the question, or he would rather write about it in his paper.

Maybe he just needs the right motivation and environment to maximize his gifts. That excuse holds some weight with a 24 or 25 year old, not a guy who will be 32 this season.

It cures the GM from needlessly wasting more time looking for those players, and cures Dusty's current excuse-o-meter. Although he'll just find a new one by May.

That was a trade made by a crappy team with no hope for the near future. The Cubs don't have the benefit of being able to wait for opportunity to come along. The Cubs management has a responsibility to make this team as good as possible now.

My thoughts exactly. Murton is a nice $350,000 option for a team with a solid lineup, not a guy you can count on to make up for the lack of production elsewhere in the OF.

and higher than Juan Pierre's career average.

Okay, that's not even close to the truth. Of course it's in the back of your mind. But it's a bit steep to call him enigmatic. People have bad seasons. You'd like more consistency (like you get from Abreu), but only the best players are consistently great throughout their 20s. Look at Damon, he's looking to get something like 5/50 at a later age than Burrell is, and he had an off year at both 27 and 29. I wouldn't consider Burrell ideal. But he's much much better of an option than just about anybody the Cubs are likely to end up with.

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it. Here... we.... go... again.... Where we going? Down hyperbole lane listening to the same ol broken record. So now it's hyperbole to say that the Cubs currently don't have any options for RF other than Mabry and Patterson?

Ummmmm....He does realize we don't currently have a RF, right? Unless he considers Patterson or Mabry to be it. Here... we.... go... again.... Where we going?

Is that really true, or just assumed because of his one off year? From 23-25 he got better every year. He had a bad age 26 season, then rebounded at 27, and was even better at 28. His 2003 really weighs on his career averages. Without it he's probably somewhere around .270/.370/.500, with an OPS+ around 120. Over the next three years I think he's a pretty safe bet to be around those numbers, which are good. But in 07 and 08 he'll be overpaid. My whole Abreu idea sprung from the fact that Bobby and Pat combine to make a large percentage of the Philly total payroll, and the team has not had as much success as they had hoped with those two guys (because they have no pitching). If Pat was a free agent, I'd rather pay him 3/36.5 than sign any of the available players out there. However, he has a full NTC, he's younger than Abreu and is their sole source of RH power. I'm guessing Philly wants to keep Pat and deal Abreu. And I still think that Philly will come off their demands for Abreu once they realize nobody is offering up a pitcher like Zambrano or Prior, and many other teams will already have their payrolls maxed out soon.

I heard the same thing in November, I heard the same thing before the winter meeting. I heard the same thing during the winter meetings. I heard the same thing in April, May, June and July last season. I heard the same thing last offseason. I've heard about the need to be patient for years. The time for patience was 94-99, when Andy was overhauling a joke of a franchise. This team is no longer a joke. This team no longer has the excuse that the previous management group bled the franchise dry. This management team doesn't have the benefit of patience. It's now or never, do or die, or whatever else you want to say.

I don't know. And I apologize for responding without actually knowing the truth here. But I really think he can be traded. He didn't get to free agency. He signed with his old club before teams had a chance to talk to him. He signed in October. It might depend on when he officially declined that player option for $2m. Perhaps Hendry told him that if he signed right now, and didn't actually go to free agency first, then he could get a little more from the Cubs than they'd be willing to pay if he waited. Rusch wants to start. If he realized there is a chance he might not start with the Cubs, maybe he passed on the chance to officially be a free agent and therefore gave up the right to not be traded after signing. And I think the whole can't trade thing might be for players who sign with a new team. That being said, I'm not sure Hendry wants to trade him, and I'm not sure he could get the Cubs anything good.

Horrid. Agreed. But the team is probably no worse than if Wilson, Jones or Encarnacion were in right.

Lee is overrated. I wouldn't want him at his next contract. He's no better than Jermaine Dye. These careers numbers from a corner OF don't solve the Cubs problems: .284/.337/.488 He'd be a fallback option if they can't get really good players. But by no means should he be a focus.

I would be disgusted with Preston Wilson in RF, for 1, 2 or half a year.

Yeah, Craig, that makes too much sense. I'm much happier here in the "Hang Hendry" mob. :wink: Well, it's either the Trib secretly slashed the payroll and Jim has been handcuffed, or Jim is incompetent. If you believe Hoops' theory, that would be somewhat of a defense for Hendry (although it would really bring into question the overspending on mediocrity).

Wrong. I believe he can greatly influence results. And I believe Jim's moves greatly influenced the collapse of the Cubs, just like KW's moves greatly influenced the results of the WS. What is a good decision? How do we judge a good decision? How can we look at what KW has done and say he hasn't made good decisions? As for your question, it depends on what you mean by similar. Do you mean, a GM that has gone out with a mediocre payroll and had his team win 81 or more games every year and won 99 games and a WS and kept improving his team? Yeah, take all that into account and any other GM who got that job done under those circumstances has to be considered to have done a good job. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that GM's play no role in the results of their team. Now, if we're talking about a NYY GM with their payroll finish every year like the Sox have finished under Williams, I wouldn't say he's done anything special. When you can spend 3 times the average, it's not hard to win.

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote? Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5? No one has ever said he doesn't deserve credit. He made some moves and they worked out. So you're telling me that if Hendry signs Jaque Jones to play RF this year and then Jones goes out and puts up a .700 ops, but we somehow end up winning the WS, you'll give him credit for the Jones signing and then say he's done a great job so far as our GM? Actually a lot of people are saying he doesn't deserve credit. They attibute the wins to luck, and insinuate that Williams is incompetent. There is a big difference with the team Kenny had at the beginning of 2004, and the ones the Cubs would have with Jones. First off, nobody that's dissing Kenny has addressed the simple matter of that Pods/Lee deal. He turned Lee into Pods, Dye and Iguchi. Lee, an extremely overrated corner outfielder, who is only respected by Cubs fans because he has a knack for beating the Cubs. He ended up with a better version of Lee for less money. And he got a very good 2B from Japan, a market some GMs don't appear to what any part of. He started the season with multiple closer options, and more than enough starting pitcher options. He had reinforcements in the minor leagues, and along with his manager, was not afraid to use them. And he did all this with much less of a payroll. Frankly, with Jim's top 5 payroll, there is no reason why the Cubs can't be a top 5 teams most years. That means 90+ wins. That means finishing ahead of the rest of the division, every year. This is a major reason why Jim and Kenny aren't judged on exactly the same line, and why Kenny deserves even more credit. He does more with less.

What does any of that have to do with anything I wrote? Are there any good GMs in the world? Does any GM deserve any credit for anything he's done? If Kenny doesn't deserve credit for his team's success, than what GM is worthy of some sort of credit? Are there more than 5?

It's called missing the forest for the trees. To ignore the end result is completely unacceptable if you are trying to put forth any reasonable judgement on a GM. The job was done. Who are you or I to say it was done poorly. Sure we can have opinions on individual deals. But no GM makes all the right moves. Nobody is saying Kenny is the greatest GM ever. But there has to be some sort of ranking of who is a good GM, who is mediocre and who is bad. If you take a middling payroll, come up with 5 straight .500 or better seasons, win 99 games and a WS one year, and keep making your team better, I don't see how you can be ranked anywhere but among the better GMs. I have a lot of strong opinions about the moves Hendry makes. But at least I'm not so arrogant as to think that even if he showed repeated success and ultimately won the big one within 5 years, that he didn't do a good job. If Kenny didn't do a good job, then who did? And if you can judge a GM based simply off of individual deals while ignoring results, why don't you lay out your rankings and support those claims?

You don't have to say he did a great job, and you don't have to base it solely on the fact that they won it all last year. But look at the big picture: 5 straight seasons of 81 wins or more, with nothing but a middle of the road payroll. Included in there was one great season and that WS. Plus the fact that he is still aggressively improving his team this year, and still has enough prospects to both fill into the roster this coming season and either develop for future years or trade for future players. If you can look at those facts and not say he's done a good job as GM, you're either just a strict anti-White Sox fan, anti-Ken Williams, or just plain old not fair. Furthermore, given those facts, you'd have to say he's done a better job than Hendry, to date. You can knock any individual deal all you want. A lot of people looked at Pods for Lee as stupid. Pods isn't as good as Lee. Fine. But for the cost of Lee, he got Pods, Dye and Iguchi, plus money left over. Dye was more productive than Lee on his own, Iguchi was a fantastic little middle infield addition, and while Pods was nothing special last year, he was better than the previous season, and as productive as Juan Pierre has been on average in his career. If you can't look past your own personal opinion of any one deal or group of deals, and look at the big picture of results at the end of the season, or group of seasons, then you aren't doing a good job of analyzing what matters.