goonys evil twin

And then what if Pierre has another crappy year, and Pie isn't ready for 2007, and Hendry once again panicks and overpays for his own mediocre players with an undeserved extension? And I'm not so sure Pierre is going to get the Cubs a draft pick. If he sucks again, his rating will decline, and the Cubs would be stupid to offer him arbitration. No sane GM is going to get all giddy about signing him prior to the arbitraiton date. Yes, there is a chance this could all work out. But it's an extremely small chance because, once again, the Cubs have overemphasized a relatively small part of a player's overall game, in this case, Juan's speed. He doesn't catch the ball, so this probably increases the chances that Hendry emphasizes defense in right field, which would again hurt the offense, which is still not good after Pierre.

Why should he? He's not good. He could easily suck again. Those guys could have been traded, along with a Williams or other pieces, for a much much much better player.

I agree whole heartedly. Pinto - control issues, he can be good, can fizzle Nolasco - I like him, but the way the Cubs are he isn't going to get an extended look in the rotation, he'd be up and down but never stick just like Mitre Mitre - if included, wasn't going to make the team and had no options, I have a soft spot for Surge and am glad he would be going to a place that needs him. You forgot a major part: Pierre - Not any good. None of these guys were prospects that can't be traded. Unfortunately, Pierre isn't a guy that's going to make this team much better. If it truly is all 3, that's just plain stupid, as Pierre was by far the worst of the players Florida traded, and this package compares with the ones they got for much better players.

I agree that Pie is not better than Pierre right now. I completely disagree with the rest.

fiscal responsibility isn't a theory Spending more won't solve the problems if the Cubs keep spending the way they have for years. It's the inefficient use of the payroll that hurts much more than the supposedly underfunded payroll.

I just voted for him. Not seeing too many Urlacher is overrated remarks this season. Hopefully the injuries and Paris Hilton affairs are gone forever.

The Favre, the? I've watched that hit at least 50 times already. Isn't that German? Anybody who speaks German can't be evil.

I think that's a very good idea. I think he made $3.5M last year - would you be willing to come up another million from your figure? $2.75 base, $0.75 incentives. Maybe match that and base the incentives off of "games finished". (in case he takes Dempster's job)

31, but he'll be 32 next spring.

It probably doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you were apparantly just walking around Nutty Street in the middle of Crazytown.

I could have sworn I responsed in this thread, but I can't find it. Raw sums up my thoughts pretty well. I wouldnt' be thrilled, but it wouldn't be a bad option either. It would hopefully leave room for other help (bench, RH platoon for Huff if he falters as starter, pitching) and would improve some weak positions. Ok, what I don't get is that you stress OBP, amonst other posters whose opinions I actually value, but then when a chance for two HUGE OBP guys is talked about, you're not thrilled? I just don't get it. We aren't gonna get Dunn, we aren't gonna get Abreu - we aren't giving up Prior or Z. So Let's move past those two pipe dreams. I just don't get how these two don't fit the exact bill that you argue for. Which ones are the "HUGE OBP" guys? My problem with this scenario is that RF is the biggest hole, and Huff isn't exactly the biggest solution. He's no guarantee to be better than Burnitz (but at least he does have that upside). I like Wilkerson (that is who is being talked about, right?). And I don't really think that Lugo is guaranteed huge improvement over Cedeno. But he's good enough to help the team, and as long as this all didn't cost the farm or the entire payroll, and that they brought in better bench help and maybe some improved pitching (I'd love to not see Rusch ever start another game for the Cubs).

I could have sworn I responsed in this thread, but I can't find it. Raw sums up my thoughts pretty well. I wouldnt' be thrilled, but it wouldn't be a bad option either. It would hopefully leave room for other help (bench, RH platoon for Huff if he falters as starter, pitching) and would improve some weak positions.

He's going to warn Hendry about all the internet chatters pining for his job.

He hired Baker, and hitched his wagon to him, that's his own fault. And I completely disagree that he brought in great players. He started the 2005 season with an absolute joke of an OF. Baker made things worse, but Hendry didn't give him much to start with.

1 year $2.5 million? Sure, that'll make it easier to include young relievers in a deal for Abreu.

Well, I don't agree with the "he doesn't work hard" comments. And while like any immature American male, I do giggle at some of the donut jokes, I think they are pointless. I think Hendry works his butt off. But much like his use of the Cubs payroll and this team's offensive philosophy, I think he's terribly inefficient at his job, working too hard for the results he gets (or should I say getting much worse results than what his work ethic should achieve), spending too much for the production he acquires. I do question Andy's level of "trying". He's all about "competing within the division", and I think that hampers Jim to a degree. But he can still work within those parameters to field a better team than he has so far.

The A's haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, just like another team some of us follow. I wouldn't say "just like", they won more games and did so with little more than half the payroll. Since 2000 Oakland has won 571 games, the Cubs won 476. I think Oakland is doing something better than the Cubs.

Well, I think it's not that hard to differentiate between the catch-all "they all sucked" and what I consider to be the more rational "these specific people failed at their jobs and need to be replaced, although the core of the team is just fine". Mike Downey can go off in the paper and suggest it's beyond reasonable for any stupid fan or media member to complain about Kyle Orton's production at QB and call for a change, or a more reasonable person can actually look at the situation, weigh the different sides objectively and come to a reasonable conclusion that doesn't depend solely on impassioned rhetoric or half-assed use of stats.

I think you are misconstruing what people are saying. Nobody compared it to mastering a McDonald's counter. Practically anybody who can walk, talk, chew gum and count can do the latter. But some are treating a GM position like its similar to being a CEO of Ford (absolutely absurd - although Ford is being run into the ground much like many baseball teams....). You also don't know the educational background, the current jobs or just plain old intelligence of any of these people talking about Hendry. I think, given the parameters I laid out before, that I could do the job. I also think there's 1000s of other people similar to me who could do a similar or better job. If somebody thinks they couldn't do it, fine. If you think I can't do it, fine. If you think others can't do it, fine. If you think there's only a tiny fraction of the population that could possibly master the complexities of the job, fine. Hopefully the competition for a job will be all that much smaller when I win the lottery and can justify changing careers.

Gee, that sounds easy enough. Anyone can do that. I didn't say it would be easy. You have to be somewhat lucky to get your foot in the door and to be in the right situation. Plus, you have to be willing to make next to nothing for quite a while and work in an environment that is still very much predicated on the good ole boys. The hardest part of being a GM is getting the job, not actually doing the job.

What exactly is the problem you speak of? That some people in the younger generation don't automatically bow down to the wisdom of a guy who got the job of GM? That's a problem? Thinking you could learn to do a job that requires no specific degree after a reasonable amount of proper training is somehow a problem? Flying airplanes is much more complicated than being a GM, but it doesn't take a mensa member to learn to fly airplanes. Any non-idiot who can stay focused and calm under stress can learn to fly an airplane.

Entirely different and pointless comparison. Being a Hall of Fame pitcher takes an extremely rare god given ability. Being a decent GM does not.

I think any reasonably intelligent person with a firm grasp of logic, reasoning, economics and the game of baseball could be turned into at least an average GM given 5 good years working in a front office. Nobody is going to come off the street with no background and be great, just like you couldn't find somebody with no experience in the field to successfully manage a restaurant right off the street. But managing a restaurant isn't surgery, neither is running a baseball team. Your biggest obstacle would probably be all the jealous lifers who think they are somehow entitled to the position because they put in the time with the good ole boys and no the ins and outs of the conventional wisdom of baseball. Being field manager would be much different, of course, and I wouldn't even think about trying it. But if I didn't need my current paycheck, I'd be very confident that after taking a job with a well run front office for the next half decade, working 15 hours a day, being exposed to all aspects of the organization, I could take on a GM role somewhere with an above average team and as good a job as many GMs who have been in the game in recent years. Unfortunately, baseball prides itself on its ability to pay new guys crap, and I'm not in a position to accept that.

Pie, Hill, Williams, Walker, and two additional pitching prospects for Cabrerra and Pierre. :D And we'll pick up everyone's salary for the next two years, if need be. Won't Florida be in line to take in as much as $30-40m in revenue sharing? Could you imagine if the Cubs took off their last remaining big contracts, then paid for the ones they took back. 25 guys making the minimum would cost them under $10m.

What is with the infatuation with a leadoff hitter? Hey Jim, try putting together a lineup with 8 good hitters, then worry about where they bat.