goonys evil twin

Three things: Using just last year to define a hitter is not wise. While he did have the best numbers in the NL, he did so without enough PA to qualify, which takes away some value (ie. he's not a franchise catcher). There are multiple AL catchers who are better.

That's a good comparison as well.

Your wish came true. Seriously, Barrett is the most underrated Cubs player I've ever watched. Absolutely no one on any message board seems to think he's any good. Barrett is a good, but far from great catcher. He's solid offensively, but he still has many faults. Mainly, he is overanxious, swings at nearly everything, getting himself out or at least helping the pitcher. I think he's near the top of the list of fewest pitches taken per at bat. He doesn't walk much, so his production is nearly all in the AVG/SLG side. And he is at best an averate defensive catcher. I wouldn't have a problem seeing him traded even if they downgrade slightly at catcher. Unfortunately, as things stand, they don't have enough offense from the offensive positions, so they need his bat in the 6 hole.

That is not a good comparison. Drew actually put up good numbers, often, and has completely outperformed Patterson in their respective careers. What he said. Patterson will not walk and strikes out a lot. J.D. walks a lot and strikes out a little. I don't think he was comparing #'s, he was comparing frustration levels. When J.D. came up he was suppose to be the next Mickey Mantle with his pretty swing. The fans perception is he wouldn't play through injuries and when he was out there he'd dog it. TLR felt he was content with being merely good even though he had the ability to be great. I still don't see the comparison. Patterson never put up the numbers. He showed brief glimpses, but then completey fell apart. It was a lot more than frustration, it was utter disbelief and a complete lack of faith in him being even remotely productive. A better comparison might be with Pirates fans and Ramirez, who had some numbers, was banged up and viewed as lazy/content, then left to have his best year in an opposing team's lineup.

I hear this a lot and I can't make sense of it at all. Let's take for instance that game. The Steelers scored a lot and didn't win. Are they insinuating that scoring a lot means you will lose? The Bengals scored more and won! Weird how that works. To me it's the same as the argument, or insinuation, that big time hitters aren't necessary in baseball because the Rockies, Rangers and others score a lot but don't win, and all that matters is pitching and defense. There is a sort of macho man love for defense, while high scoring offenses are assumed to be more finesse. I think that is true across all sports, and drives a lot of the desire for defense over offense. Offenses have been prioritized across most leagues, knowing that scoring = ratings, and a lot of old schoolers resent that, so, like their reaction to Billy Beane & Co. they go overboard in their bashing.

I know I won't learn anything new or interesting, but I have it on. That 3-in-1 shot of Gammons, Phillips and Kurk was freaky, they got a little to close to Timmy's face.

The Howry signing wasn't official for several days after it was reported to be done. Lots of these moves take time between being finalized and being official. There's probably just physicals to get out of the way.

That is not a good comparison. Drew actually put up good numbers, often, and has completely outperformed Patterson in their respective careers.

I just hope this exchange never takes place: me - Hendry has done nothing to improve the team's biggest weaknesses, he is failing. somebody else - I'm reserving judgement until everything is finalized, besides, it's not even January yet.

They stocked the system with high ceiling pitching, but the question is, is that a smart move? A lot of times the lower ceiling but higher floor pitchers end up being the best pitchers. They did stock it with talent, but their job is not just to stock, but to develop and maximize value. The Cubs have never come close to maximizing the value of their resources.

Nobody ever accused me of being quiet before, but that's pretty accurate.

What I believe: If a free agent signs a multi year contract with a new team, and is then traded during that contract, he can respond by demanding a trade from his new team after the first season there, and if that demand is not met, he can become a free agent. I'm not sure exactly when you have that right and when you lose it. For instance, Drew signed a 5 year deal. After 1 year on the Dodgers I assume he retains that right. But what if he was traded following year 3. Could he still demand a trade after year 4?

Don't worry about that. I'm not possessive of any ideas on this board (except for the daily farm report that rawaction stole from me :wink: ), and I don't really think anything I write is all that original either.

Agree about Bradley being cut, but I didn't know if the Cubs could say, "hey, we'll give you lots and you can get sort of get something for Bradley in this scenario" Really I'm trying to come up with a way to convince L.A. to trade Drew, as I don't know that they want to. He's an injury risk. Big time. But, at this point I'm afraid the Cubs are going to have to do some serious dice rolling if they are going to be good next year. Going "safe" with Mench, or the like is just not a big enough impact. I hear you on the dice role. The Cubs ignored the easy fix, and they failed on their primary target. It might come down to taking a big gamble on a guy like Drew. But, he would also have the right to demand a trade after a year. And if he gives the Cubs 150 games of 900+ OPS, whose to say that some team wouldn't be willing to offer more than the 3/33 he would have left on his deal. I'd put a trade for Drew just behind a deal for Abreu, Dunn or similar on the priority list. But an OF of Murton, Bradley and Drew could be awesome in 2006.

Williams is probably a tier below all of those guys right now, except Wang. And none of them is a 1-2 starter in the MLB right now, though Bedard and Backe have the best chances eventually IMO. I'm not Williams fan, but I'd put him up against Marquis any day.

Paul I kind of understand. He's really not that good. He starts out hot every year, and routinely fades in the 2nd half. I don't think there is a big market for him. The Castillo/Pierre difference, however, is the supply/demand issue. There are several teams looking for a CF. The Cubs showed their hand by expressing how desperate they were for a stereotypical leadoff hitter. The Yankees have been openly searching for CF help for 3 years. Boston has a CF question of their own. Aside from Minnesota, however, there aren't a ton of teams desperate for 2B help, especially not big market spenders looking for help. And everybody knows the Cubs are going to sell Walker for less than he's worth, and Texas has been rumored to want to get rid of Soriano for a while, so they didn't have much of a position to build up Castillo's value. They took the first reasonable offer they could find. Now that they have shed all this payroll, they no longer "have" to trade Pierre. So, they can get a bidding war going with the Cubs, Yankees and possibly others (White Sox?), and always hold the stance that even at a reduced payroll, they can afford to keep Pierre if nothing comes up that entices them.

Yup. Don't ever doubt that franchise, btw. They always know whats going on. Cubs could learn so much from Schuerholtz and Jocketty. I would say the Cubs should learn so much from them. But after watching more than a decade of MacPhail's system, I'm not so sure they have the ability to learn any new tricks. In the 90's the Cubs set out to emulate the Braves, building a team that was entirely based on the pitching staff. I think they ignored the part where Atlanta kept developing top notch offensive talent from within their own system, and they didn't do a very good job of building a reliable pitching staff either. It's been a decade with this regime, and the results speak for themselves. Moderate progress coupled with serious setbacks and major disappointment.

Stark has a very strange definition of front line starter if some of those names are accurate. Zito and Schmidt fit the description, but I think Jason's front-line status was revoked a couple years ago. Not many of those guys are any better than Jerome Williams.

I would think that any trade of Abreu would result in them spending cash on a pitcher and shuffling their own OF personel to fill the spot. I could see them go with Burrell, Rowand, Michaels, relying heavily on Utley and Howard for offense. They could also afford a make good deal with Nomar to be their third baseman. In fact, if I was Philly I'd be making a play for Nomar at 3B right now. I don't see them getting anybody close to a Zambrano/Prior for Abreu. So quantity might take precedent over quality.

What is a "true" leadoff hitter. Paint a picture for me. Give me some numbers to work with. If he's saying not a true leadoff hitter in the Cubs eyes, I think I understand. The Cubs have their central casting version of the true leadoff hitter, and when they are focused on one thing, they usually get it. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a true leadoff man, and narrowing down your search for greater production to fit the mold of your scouts' preconceived notions of what each position should look like is only doing a disservice to your team. If he is saying that Wilkerson isn't a good option for leadoff, then I completely disagree with him.

That would be acceptable production for RF, but it's not close to a guarantee, and wouldn't even be top notch. Wilkerson, if anything, is likely to be in the low to mid 800s in OPS next year, very solid for a CF. Couple that with Abreu in RF and suddenly you've got a very good offense, with good production in the OF as a whole.

Jeff Blake?

Ever see A Beautiful Mind? The "memos" are all in the magazines.

At this point, the only reason you keep playing Orton is because you think you can't change a good thing, assuming there is some sort of cause/effect with Orton starting and the Bears winning. If that's the case, then you probably want to wait until you lose again before making a change. On the other hand, you could make the aggressive, "we're going for the gold, not just a medal" decision, and make the change before you lose, in an effort to win every game. At this point, the only thing holding back the Bears from greatness is the QB position. The defense is awesome. The kicking situation as settled. The running game is pretty good. The receivers are making some nice catches when the ball is somewhere near them. But the freaking QB play has been awful for several weeks in a row. I never thought this team was a potential NFC champ, which is why I was more than happy to see Orton get playing time, to develop for a possible run in 2006. But it's pretty clear this team can beat anybody in the NFC. They are in prime position to steal home field advantage, at least in the first game, and possibly throughout. We know what Orton brings, and it's not enough. This team is on the verge of greatness, and NFL history has shown you must grab the bull by the horns when your time comes. This defense might have only 1-2 years of greatness left in it's current form, injuries can happen at any time, and football players can decline awfully quick. If Rex is healthy, he has to start in Pittsburgh. Orton can take a break, review film and see if he can learn anything from his first exposure to the NFL.

Saving money isn't an issue now. The Cubs have money to spend, but don't appear focused on spending it very wisely. Weakening the team to clear a little space in payroll isn't going to help when that space isn't used to increase production elsewhere.