goonys evil twin

Hendry won several titles in the 2000s? I take back my complaint, I was under the impression that the team Hendry put together actually came up well short.

Not according to this site. Quite possibly raw, or quite likely. However, if they are dealing, they have to be looking for both affordability and quantity. And I'm not sure a team like Seattle has interest in dealing Felix. If your goal was to erase any high priced players from your roster for a couple years (until the stadium/move is settled), but still field a full team, you would have to consider taking on quantity. Let's just say the Cubs offered: Pie, Murton, Hill, Pinto, Guzman, Harvey, Dopirak, Sing and Nolasco for Pierre, Cabrerra and Willis. That takes several million off the books for 2006, many more million off the books for 2007 and beyond. In return, they get a LF who can be decent in full time duty this year. A LH pitcher who could be decent in full time duty this year, along with 2 pitchers who could be great soon and another who could probably make their rotation by mid season. Plus, they'd get a CF star they supposedly covet, a couple Florida sluggers who might make the team once their stadium/move issue is figured out and another bat who can make their team this season and replace the Conine role (without the age or multi million dollar paycheck). If they do want to deal these guys, you would have to consider motive. I'm not sure those other teams would give up much more than their top guy. Of course, this is all completely insane and incredibly difficult to understand in the first place.

Both players have more than 2.5 years under the belt. If this is at all true, it shows that Florida is deathly afraid of paying these guys' arbitration money when they become eligible. The only people they would take back are guys who are nowhere near arbitration eligible, which means you have to trade only prospects who have had at most a cup of coffee in the majors. For the Cubs, Hill, Murton and Cedeno might fit the bill, since they all had less than a half year of big league experience. I'd package all 3, with Guzman, Pinto, Harvey, Dopirak and Pie. If they don't feel a need for Cedeno, considering they already got Hanley, fine, throw in any other combination of prospects to take him back. That would still leave the Cubs with money to spare, and the possibility to spin Willis to Philly for Abreu, solidifying the OF.

I've actually acknowledged that fact quite often. Hendry has vastly different philosophies than I do. But I've acknowledged that there is more than one way to win, and build a winner. I was fine giving Hendry the benefit of the doubt doing things his way. But the results are in from the implementation of his philosophies. He went hard after Baker, and it bit him in the ass, but I'm not even sure he knows it yet. Walks and OBP have been a longstanding problem on this team, and right now they are nowhere near being solved. Jim has had a top 5 payroll but came nowhere near a top 5 team in that time. Neither Jim nor the Cubs deserve the benefit of the doubt. This team and regime has failed far too often for me to sit here and just think everything will be fine in the end. I've seen this show enough to know the odds are not in our favor. Hendry had a chance to build a perennial top 5 team, and he's failed miserably. He has a chance this year to erase much of that failure, but, so far, he hasn't come close to accomplishing that, and there are no signs that he is close to accomplishing that. If you look at this team and are happy with where they are and the direction they are going, good for you. Personally, I want nothing less than a 90+ win season every year (for at least a reasonable stretch of years) several NL Central championships, a couple NL pennants and at least 1 world series win. Andy and his crew have been here for more than a decade and haven't accomplished those goals. I don't feel like I have to sit back and support every move they make, or stay quiet when I disagree, with a track record like that.

In short: You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable. The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness. Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF. I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

It makes some sense, but neither 5/50 or 3/39 makes any real amount of sense. Both deals were terrible, and Hendry was lucky his wasn't accepted. You are right though, I'd rather get out of the deal sooner if at all possible.

Mariano Rivera has 1 pitch, and he was untouchable his entire career. I don't care how many pitches a guy has, performance is performance. Hill has not performed, to date, like a guy who should hold up a trade for an impact player.

Baker does look like he's got a bun in the oven.

So, how many official Toronto/Burnett threads did we end up with here?

It still cracks me up that this argument keeps popping up now even though Neifi will make the same next year that he made in 2005. He was vastly overpaid this past season, but I don't recall anyone saying anything about it... You don't? It was said, a lot. But he was only making $1 million guaranteed in the beginning. After he started qualifying for the bonuses things got louder. He also has a 2 year deal now, taking him into his mid 30s, when he's likely to be as bad as he was when SF simply released him.

I agree with all that, I'm just saying they would still have holes to fill. You'd still need to make a move for a potentially solid LF, not settle for the PrestJuan Jonesnitz group.

From 94-2001 the Cubs had a legit reason to have a "do not trade" list, they weren't any good and were far from getting better. At the time, holding onto any and all prospects was the only smart thing to do. Now however, they are not far from being among the best teams, and should be willing to package any of their prospects in a deal that nets an impact player.

I don't think the Cubs are in a position where they can justify a no trade list of prospects. None of their prospects is good enough to justify holding back in a trade for a top notch player like Abreu.

that trade just moves the hole in the of from right to left. not very productive imo. LF isn't that covered with Murton. He is a pretty much unproven rookie. And Abreu is one of the top 15 players in the league. You create a hole in LF, but overall the team is much better in the OF. But it's still a hole nonetheless, and would have to be filled, along with the hole in CF.

That is not even close to the truth. Look, I'm not a Soriano fan. I was initially intrigued when all he was was a name with the hype in the minors. But after seeing his game, I quickly soured, and his change of age didn't help matters. However, last year he hit .268/.309/.512, in 2004 it was .280/.324/.484. For his career he is at .280/.320/.500. Now, none of this is amazing, worthy of $10 million or all the hype he has received. But, he is nowhere near horrendous or very bad. He's a good baseball player who can help a team if used properly. He's no leadoff hitter or top half of the order guy. He is basically Corey Patterson if Corey hadn't fallen off the cliff. Throw him in the 6 hole with a decent threat behind him (Barrett or Murton) and he could help the Cubs. Interestingly, in 2001, at the age of 25, Soriano put up an OPS+ of 92, the year before in limited duty he was at 35. In 2005, Corey, at age 25 put up an OPS+ of 56, the year before he was at 92 (116 in 2003). Juan Pierre was 84 last year, and is just 87 for his career. He has Willie Wilson written all over him. Willie had some decent years in his mid 20's, only to turn into a has been pretty quickly. Only Willie actually had some good SB skills, maintaining an 80+% rate throughout his career - Pierre is well below that benchmark. If the Cubs can't get Wilkerson or Bradley for CF, I think they have to consider that their best option might be to try and go big in RF, and settle on Corey with competition in CF, batting 8th. Have Hairston and Greenberg ready to step in anyday, with Pie as the carrot on the end of the stick.

No it doesn't. If you go 1/50, are you bring value because of that 1 hit? No, of course not. It's not just adding up the counting stats that matters, it's the rates, and Macias's rates have been abnormally low for a major leaguer who plays as much as him. He makes far too many outs and brings no defensive value, making his "value" negative.

Define established. Marquis is rumored to be in the talks, he's been around a bit, and has established the fact that he's just a mediocre pitcher, no better than Williams.

Simply being on the team doesn't mean you bring value. Just like having a manager think you can play any position doesn't mean you can actually play any of them well. It can be argued, quite easily actually, that Macias has brought negative value to the Cubs, seeing as how his production has been well below what a typical replacement player could bring, and his paycheck has been more than twice the minimum, which would be the cost of a replacement player.

You'd have to get Wilkerson or Bradley in CF (or maybe Drew......) to ensure some decent production. Kearns at his worst is no better than Burnitz, and better than his worst is no guarantee.

Exactly. I'd rather have Murton than Kearns. I would rather have Murton than Kearns as well. But I'd rather have Kearns and Abreu than Murton and Jones/Encarnacion/Burnitz

Why not? .302 .359 .436 in 82 games for a RF? That stinks.

If thats what they were seeking, I'd counter offer with Mitre and Wellymeyer. Why,Nolasco hasn't pitched a day of ML ball? I know Welly is inconsistent but he has to be worth more than Nolasco. Wellymeyer could probably fit in as a back of the rotation starter (somewhere) next year. Save Welly for another deal. Pie hasn't appeared in the majors yet while Patterson has, but I bet Pie has much more trade value. Same could be said for Macias/Eric Patterson, or Rusch/Gallagher, and many other "experienced" players vs unknowns. Welly's service time hasn't exactly been steller.

There's a lot of delusion, don't the Phillies want a front line starter for Abreu, they don't need antoher outfielder (Rowand, Burrell, Michaels). I also so someone say to offer Mitre & Nolasco for Dunn in response to that for Kearns which is ridiculous. The Phillies talked of front line starters, but Florida has talked of Pie and Hill for Pierre. I don't think they will get anything close to a Z/Prior caliber pitcher, and a lot of the pitching that has been discussed by the experts has been no better than Jerome Williams. Boston's Clement/Nixon potential offer is right now standing as the best, but I don't think it's that impressive, or unbeatable. I bet Boston would consider trading Nixon for Murton straight up right now, given salary, age, health and likelihood for future production. Throw Murton in with some decent young, cheap pitching and a prospect or two, and you have a package that could net a lot of production in return.

Gee. Maybe you could just trade Mitre for Abreu. ABREU IS NOT GOING TO BE MOVED FOR A PILE OF DIRTY SOCKS! (not that Murton is a pile of dirty socks, but come on people!) I love you man, some people in here a delusional. Where is the delusion coming from? Considering that ridiculous rip of my suggestion that Murton might be included in a deal for Abreu is what you are apparantly applauding, it seems to me that you think my suggestion is delusional. Explain that to me.

Kearns' decline caught me completely by surprise. But, unlike the decline of Patterson, Kearns had a history of very solid numbers, and didn't completely disappear. He's still a question mark, which is why I would think it's unwise to let Kearns to RF equal your biggest offseason improvement.