goonys evil twin

Why not try and get Burnitz back for $3-4m? I mean, I'd hate to have Burnitz back, but Mench doesn't give you anything more.

Vance said there was $15m leftover after all was said and done. Add the $3m that Mench takes from you and I'll bet you could find a more productive RF.

But why Mench? He's not any good, his numbers away from Arlington are brutal, even when you don't consider he'd be your RF and hitting in the middle of the order.

Perhaps that reflects more on the need for a manager to bite the bullett sometimes and give his backend guys work, so as to save the good guys from breaking down. Unfortunately I don't see it happening. Dusty will find his 2 or 3 guys, and run them into the ground by July, when he'll whine about needing more relievers.

Mench is spare parts. He's a pretty crappy option for RF, given his Burnitz like numbers away from Arlington. I'd no doubt be upset if he was a Cub. The lineup as a whole could contend, just like the mediocre lineups of 2003 and 2004 were able to contend, but they'd need lights out pitching.

I think you're missing my point in calling him unreliable. I have no problem with him as the 11th pitcher (I would have a problem with him as the 12th pitcher, as it would be incredibly stupid to once again hamstring your offense just so you can keep a guy in the bullpen who will work once every 2 weeks). But the guy is unreliable. It's not a year-to-year thing with him, he's never had a good year in the majors. The bullpen, as it stands, is very far from a lockdown bullpen. Hendry is taking a risk if he keeps it as is, even if he adds another arm similar to the ones he has. But I'm fine with that risk, if, and only if, you go into the season with a great lineup. The White Sox bullpen turned out great last year, but it was "pull it out of your butt" great. You can't plan that sort of perfect timing of career years. I'm fine with Novoa as the 11th pitcher. I wouldn't be all that ecstatic about the state of the bullpen, but as long as the starters (offense and pitching) are solid, I'll take my chances.

No.

He's also got no history of great results. Why are people taking offense to calling this guy unreliable? He is unreliable. Practically every player who has never had success in the majors would be considered unreliable. I wouldn't call Rich Hill reliable, but I'd much rather see him in Rusch's spot than Glendon himself. If the Cubs bullpen had 3-4 really solid guys with a nice history of pitching well in the job, then a guy like Novoa would be an excellent option. But don't tell me you're going to focus heavily on the bullpen, then plan on going into the season with a bunch of guys who all have serious questions, and then add a collection of marginal arms for the backend to fill-in. I've got no problem taking risks with the bullpen. If you can't get a Rivera/Gordon combo, or find a way to add Wagner or Ryan, that's fine, it costs a lot to do that. But you better damn well find yourself an absolutely dominant offense if you're going to take that chance.

Oh, that wouldn't be a bad lineup at all.

Farnsworth has strung together some good seasons, that's a lot different than Novoa stringing together some good outings. He walks far too many, and doesn't strike out enough to make up for it. He's completely unreliable. That doesn't mean he's completely incapable of doing something good, but you'd be nuts to pencil him into the bullpen with any sort of expectation for solid performance.

There are no top tier starting pitchers out there. Taking a snapshot of this year's World Series teams and saying, "well, the Cubs have better X than them, therefore they don't need to improve it" is a baseless argument. In 2004 the Cubs had better pitching than Boston, and near identical pitching to STL. What did that get them? The only two playoff teams the Cubs scored more than this year were Houston and San Diego, the 6 other playoff teams all scored more. The contenders who fell just short all scored more runs. The Cubs were a bad team overall. They are also a $100m, top 5 payroll team. There is absolutely no excuse to put all their eggs into one basket and only address pitching, especially when it's the only area of the game where they have any sort of depth or any chance of filling holes from within. After Florida won the World Series, everybody said their team needed more speed to win. When Boston won, people were enamored with the 2 great starters/1 great closer theory. When Houston and the White Sox played this year, it was destined to cause a run on defensive baseball. Chasing the trend every year is a terrible way to build a baseball team. There is no one way to win in baseball. But the smart teams with money should try and get as good as possible in as many areas as possible. The only reason the Astros were a pitching team was that they didn't have the money to retain a solid lineup, as their more expensive players aged and some of their better players left. We need to quit pretending that the offense was just fine and dandy last year simply because they scored more runs than the NL pennant winner. In 2004 they weren't close to either World Series contender, while 6 of the 8 playoff teams scored more than the Cubs (with the early departing Dodgers/Twins as the only ones to score less), while at the same time, the Cubs were better than 7 of the 8 playoff teams at preventing the opposition from scoring. Offense matters. The Cubs can and should field a great offense and defense. There is no justification to even consider focusing only on one side or the other. You have to get in the playoffs first, then win in the playoffs. The best way to create a team that will get in the playoffs is by maximizing your expected runs scored and minimizing your expected runs allowed. I don't see Hendry going after a stud closer. There are no stud starters available. If they can somehow find a way to get rid of the Williams/Rusch combo and come up with somebody like Barry Zito to push Maddux to 5th starter, I'd be all for it. But they shouldn't just acquire pitching for pitching sake. A glut of mediore arms isn't going to make them a great pitching staff. While everybody in the league puts an extreme value on pitchers and thefore it's very hard to find and expensive to acquire, and defense has gone up in value the past year, it's the perfect time to acquire some offense. something to add: One year does not make a trend. Offense has been a problem for this team for many years. Pitching has not been. This has been a top 5 pitching staff in baseball 2 of the past 3 years. They've been a lower half scoring team every year. That's the trend that needs to be addressed most, not the "what won this year's World Series" trend.

What other word could you use to describe him? He's got good stuff, and at times could have a great outing. But overall he sucked. His WHIP was 1.6. That's the very definition of reliable. If he was reliable, you would be willing to bet pretty good money that he'd put up a solid line next season, and I would be willing to bet there aren't many people willing to do that. He's unreliable. You have no idea what he'll give you next year, or on a day-to-day basis. Inconsistent would be a better word. I'm not ready to hand him the closer's role or anything. But considering his stuff, his age, and his low pricetag, I have no problem with him in the bullpen. He certainly doesn't have to be the first, second, or even third person used. Let's face it, with Dusty managing, this team is probably going to carry 12 pitchers for at least a few months of the season. I'd rather him be the 11th or 12th man, than someone making $3 million+ a year who isn't guaranteed to perform much better than Novoa. I don't see how anything you wrote refutes the statement that Novoa is unreliable.

Money is most definitely an issue. It's always an issue. This is not the Yankees. There is a budget. Every dollar spent on mediocrity is a dollar that cannot be spent on the pursuit of excellence.

What other word could you use to describe him? He's got good stuff, and at times could have a great outing. But overall he sucked. His WHIP was 1.6. That's the very definition of reliable. If he was reliable, you would be willing to bet pretty good money that he'd put up a solid line next season, and I would be willing to bet there aren't many people willing to do that. He's unreliable. You have no idea what he'll give you next year, or on a day-to-day basis.

No, it shows he was effective last year. The history of baseball, especially the past 10-15 years, is littered with marginal relievers who have had 1 or 2 good years, surrounded by several seasons of garbage. We're talking about a guy who has been less effective out of the pen than Kyle Farnsworth, who was run out of town after supposedly being too inconsistent for somebody making $1.5m. Would anybody have been willing to go 3/11 on Farnsworth? I really liked the guy and wouldn't have considered it.

Mitre, Novoa, Welly, Koronka and JVB are completely unreliable. The pen right now is Dempster, Eyre, Williamson, Wuertz, Ohman. None of which has a history of consistent great pitching in the bullpen. Rusch/Williams are both garbage time relievers or long guys (while both might be starting in the rotation in April). That being said, if Hendry is just going to keep signing marginal relievers, I'd rather he just ignore it and hope things work out (which is essentially what he's already doing) and focus exclusively on the offense. If a good starter emerges, feel free to improvise.

For which spot are you talking about with those guys, top of the order or 5? The Cubs have 3 holes right now (and seem to want to create a 4th). If they get one of those two for leadoff, they're still looking to fill 2 more spots, one of which has to be a really good hitter.

Red Sox fans as a whole were unhappy with the Renteria signing of 4/42 (I believe that's what it was) even before Edgar proved he wasn't worth that much money. They were upset because they could have had Cabrera for less and had basically the same production. So yes, we're not crazy for being a big-market team's fans who want the organization to spend wisely. I never implied craziness, I don't enjoy spending money for crap either (rusch/neifury) I was just curious about the viewpoints of other fanbases. I've never heard a Yankees fan complain about overpaying for a guy, at the time of the signing. What you do hear all the time is, "And we're paying him how much?", usually after the first year he fails to live up to expectations (see, Pavano, Johnson, Giambi, etc). But it's a completely different situation. If the Cubs operated on the budget of Boston or the Yankees, I would be completely in favor of going 5/60 on Giles, 5/50 on Furcal, 5/55 on AJ, and 3/30 on Wagner. Obviously that's not the case. The Cubs work under a budget, and while it's been steadily increasing every year for quite a while now, and is among the top 5 in baseball, it's still a rather strict budget that cannot withstand too much inefficient spending. Sometimes I feel a GM with a $75-$80m payroll is better off than a GM with $100m, simply because the former would be forced to avoid overpaying for mediocrity on a regular basis. It seems to me that all the extra cash does for Hendry is remove that voice in the back of his head that says, "Hey, we could probably get similiar production for much less cost if we go elsewhere."

And yet on the other hand, 3 of the best pitching teams in the NL didn't even make the playoffs. The Cubs did not have enough offense to win, and they can't just add "whomever they want". Ignoring the offense would be a terrible decision.

Well then they have to sign at least one other Type A to justify such a move.

I hadn't thought of this yet, but I'm sure his fan club has. Mercker vs Eyre Discuss.

Not sure if this has been addressed with the Eyre issue. However, I assume he's ranked somewhere in the Elias ratings, is it high enough to cost the Cubs a draft pick if he signs before the arbitration date? I'd hate to see this team lose another high pick for signing a reliever.

I don't really care about "some good moves". I want him to create a great team, and unlike 70% of the league, he has no excuse to fail to create a great team. I'm not interested in him simply doing well for the most part. I don't want to see another 88 win season. This has to be a championship caliber team, and it should be a 90+ win team every year for the next 2-4 years. That doesn't mean simply acquiring a couple good players. It means making a series of great moves, not overpaying for mediocrity but then offsetting it with a nice role player. There is no reason why this team can't be a top 4 run scoring team and a top 4 run preventing team in the NL. I agree. In fact, I would say that most Cub fans agree. What I was getting at earlier was, we don't know if he's in the process of building a great team. Let's wait until the offseason ends before deciding if he's a fool or not. Yeah, well, I'm reserving final judgement until things are, of course, final. My feelings so far are based on what has happened to date and how that affects me opinion of what is likely to happen.

I liked everything about Karros except how often he was allowed to play.

I don't really care about "some good moves". I want him to create a great team, and unlike 70% of the league, he has no excuse to fail to create a great team. I'm not interested in him simply doing well for the most part. I don't want to see another 88 win season. This has to be a championship caliber team, and it should be a 90+ win team every year for the next 2-4 years. That doesn't mean simply acquiring a couple good players. It means making a series of great moves, not overpaying for mediocrity but then offsetting it with a nice role player. There is no reason why this team can't be a top 4 run scoring team and a top 4 run preventing team in the NL.