goonys evil twin

I'd much rather have Wilkerson than Pierre.

It's a fair one, if they end up getting somebody of the caliber of Lugo, and then push Neifi to strictly a bench role. Whatever direction they go, if they end up with Neifi starting 100 games this year, they screwed up.

I can't believe how asinine Hendry sounds in today's papers with his "we're happy with the 3 guys in the middle infield" talk. He blatantly lays it out there that Walker is not in their plans. He's once again undervaluing his own player, not even pretending there is a chance Walker could come back next season, when he is the best of the middle infield bunch. I guess there is a chance that every single reporter that quoted him on this subject was wrong in stating that the 3 he was talking about was Neifi, Ronny and Jerry, but I highly doubt it. I've never agreed with Hendry's gameplan for building a team, but I always thought he was at least good enough to have some success with his innefficient style of spending for lots of mediocrity. But I still have to see some positive results before I give him the benefit of the doubt. The Cubs are better off now that they didn't sign Furcal. It sounds funny that the Cubs are sort of whining that LA just offered an insanely overpriced contract, when the Cubs themselves were offering Furcal way more than he is worth. LA saved the Cubs from a bad contract. The question now is if Hendry can wisely spend all that money he has, and if he can get any production in a trade of all that talent he has in the minors. Things still might work out for the Cubs, given their financial situation, but Hendry still has a ton of work. But, if this team ends up with Pierre in center, some Burnitz clone in RF, Neifi, Ronny and Jerry splitting time in the middle infield, and Rusch starting 20 games, the 2006 Cubs might be worse than the 2005 version.

Rogers has been trying to trade Wood to Texas for 5 years.

I haven't read a single thing that said he'd be ready. I've read that they hope he's ready, but they really don't know. I highly doubt he'll start on time in February. He probably won't be ready by opening day. Of course, they'll never admit their stupidity with the bullplen thing that is largely responsible for all the doubt.

I stand by my belief that not much good will come from this marketing ploy.

It's not all his fault, but that pretty much is the definition of setting the market. This guy apparantly got less than the guys Jim signed anyway.

Why not? Neifi and Rusch have both played in more than enough games with the Cubs for us to judge their worthiness. Howry and Eyre are established and have a long enough track record for us to judge them as well. The latter two are fine additions to the team, but when you look at their contracts coupled up with the bad deals for the others, and look at the enormous need for massive upgrades elsewhere, the big picture doesn't look that great.

it's a serious misuse of power. His power isn't that impressive, It's great for a CF but I don't think it would stop him from leading off. I wouldn't call it more of a waste of power than when Rickey Henderson hit leadoff. Not that Bradley is as good as Ricky, but their power is similar and Milton in the 1 spot would not be a waste of anything.

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff. Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about. Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs.

That's a mighty big IF. The thing with Hendry is we've already seen his results. I'm not judging Jim just on what he's done this offseason. I'm judging him on what his stated beliefs are, what he did as asst GM, what he's talked about liking in a player and what he's done so far as GM. I've fully acknowledged that there is more than one way to build a winning team. But the fact is Jim hasn't built a big time winner here. They achieved some postseason success in 03, but they were only an 88 win team that season. They won just 89 in 04 and 79 last year. The results are in. The teams he has assembled have not done particularly well. If you are wondering what I would have been happy with, it would have been more like an 85, 90 and 95 win team. But this team was bad in 2005 not just because of bad luck and freak injuries, they had several faults and came up way short. They were many of the same faults, only amplified, as the team in 2004.

As the assistant head coach, I believe his position means you can't get him out from under his current contract. And while it certainly sounds good, I'd much rather Lovie find a guy he knows can run his system rather than try to relive the glory days by going after the right name. If Mike is available and Lovie thinks he can do the job, I'm all for it, but he did ignore Singletary when he first put his staff together.

That would be fine by me. If they want to overpay Raffy, I'd much rather get serious upgrades in the OF and stick with Ronny at SS.

Sure, you'd regret it b/c they would have likely regressed if they traded Walker after Castillo was traded. But, I fail to see that scenario taking place over the original fact that Hendry traded a player who is productive, inexpensive, and fills a huge need as far as hitting at the top. I think it is a moot point inserting Castillo into the equation beyond trading them straight up for each other. It's hardly a moot point the day the guy was traded.

Since Colletti took over I've been thinking he'd talk with the Cubs about a deal. He has pretty strong ties to this team, and the Cubs dealt with SF off and on when he was the asst there.

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out. If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals. Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team. He "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" this year, and based on what he's done since taking over the job, I don't feel the any responsibility to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll suddenly address issues that have plagued this team for years. Extreme? I don't think so.

Or he may curl into a ball and hand 50 million to Macias to play CF. Jose is a corner guy, RF or 3B.

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out.

No I am not. I started out pro-Hendry, as I was a big fan of his since he led the farm resurgence. This also coincided with a time when I was very much a conventional wisdom type of guy, looking for clutch players, intangibles and all the rest. I started to change my thinking the more I've read about the objective analysis involved in newer forms of player evaluation. This caused me to raise some doubts about Hendry as he moved into the asst GM job, but I was still largely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even after he started making moves I didn't like, I still thought he'd be fine overall. But in recent offseasons I've started to like less and less of what I've seen, to the point where I have next to no faith in the guys' ability to put a champion on the field. That lack of faith in his work is largely what I've talked about here. I am not criticizing him for not getting Castillo, instead just offering up a possible scenario where you'd look back at this lack of a move and regret not getting one of the few guys that could offset the loss of Walker's bat. 2B has not been a concern of mine at all. Well, it's been a concern to the extent that so many things seem to be pointing to a trade of Walker and the possible inclusion of Neifi in the lineup on a regular basis. But I never pined after Castillo, so I've got no reason to criticize him for not getting Castillo right now. If he holds onto Walker and improves this team elsewhere, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

When dealing with a team that is being run by an apparantly maniacal team president and no real GM, you should be able to steal a decent prospect.

Or just like many Cubs fans.

I'm not criticizing him for not getting Castillo. I want to stick with Walker.

More excuses. Hendry has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure, and thanks to much of his work as farm director last decade, he had a ton of talent at his disposal. All GMs have a tough job, but Hendry has not been in a tougher position than any other GM in the league. Fandom aside, I would have taken the Cubs job over just about any other the past 3 seasons simply because of what a great position they were in to succeed. A GM has to be judged on the collective results during his tenure, not individual trades, or just this year. I don't care about excuses about why he couldn't get a guy, or how a team wouldn't trade with him. Lots of people have known exactly what has held back this team from being great as opposed to above average (88/89 wins) or below average. And, SO FAR, Hendry has done nothing to fix that problem. It's up to him to solve the problem, not us to assume he'll get the job done. You can call it what you want but we are dealing with the here and now. If you can look back and point to his shortcomings will you also highlight his accomplishments? In your desire to make your point I guess it was lost on you that I didn't say he shouldn't be criticized but i do have a problem with the idea that he isn't trying to do anything. By the logic in your argument, it must be up to us to assume he won't get it done. If that's the case, we shouldn't be outraged (much less surprised) by any non deals. The difference between me and you is I'm not trying to tell you how to judge Hendry. I'm merely offering up the logic behind my judgement of Hendry as less than adaquate at his job, which is based on his inability to failure to fix glaring weaknesses for a very long time. What I don't get is why there are so many people out there who want to tear apart those of us who don't like the job Hendry has done. If you like what he's done, fine, I'll disagree with you, but my problem is with Hendry, not you. On the other hand, when somebody says something negative about Hendry, you get much more of an attack against the negative than real positive support for Hendry. I will assume Hendry will fail until he proves otherwise. 3 years ago he got the benefit of the doubt. After 2003 he got the benefit of the doubt. But this regime has shown me enough for me to have a pretty fair idea of what type of strategy they are trying to employ this offseason. Now, Hendry could blow me away with an acquisition for a very productive RF, and a series of moves to improved the longstanding lack of BB and OBP by the offense. And in that case, I'll be very happy to say I'm impressed with the job he's doing. But I can only judge Hendry on what he's accomplished so far on the job, that includes the past.

But in your example, the mistake wouldn't be not getting Castillo. It would be trading Walker for .75 on the 1.00 and going with a MIF that includes Neifi. ....when Castillo was an option. I haven't criticized him for not getting Castillo. I have criticized him for failing to improve the team for a couple years in a row and so far not doing a thing to improve the biggest hole on the team.

What if that move was combined with acquiring Milton Bradley? Then, Bradley-CF Murton-LF Lee-1B Ramirez-3B Soriano-2B Barrett-C Mench-RF Cedeno-SS Mench is not good. Murton will not hit 2nd. Cedeno will be replaced by Neifi often, and is a risk to underperform himself. OBP is still a problem with that team. And that's a pretty disappointing offseason to me, given the resources at hand. At the very least you have to find a platoon partner with Mench who can hit agianst RHP, and you'd probably have to find a good starting pitcher to justify such unimpressive improvement on offense.