davearm

Where does Henry Blanco fit into this equation? Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer Soto+Kendall too, but nevertheless Blanco has to be accounted for somehow.

Perhaps Hendry was being told that there would be additional money available right up until the point that the sale was announced, at which time he was told something different, namely that no money would be available. In fact that's precisely what's widely believed to have happened. So you're saying he was a freaking moron for taking his bosses' instructions at face value. I'm saying he's a freaking moron if he couldn't put 2 and 2 together. The Cubs sale was speculated on for a long time. He had to have an idea that money may get tied up if something went down. He screwed up the team from 2003-2006, he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible and not just hoped he'd be able to fix it on the fly in July. Well now you're just being laughably irrational. Hendry just sat on his hands this past offseason, and made no effort to try and improve, figuring that he'd just fix things in July instead, huh? You'd be hard pressed to come up with something further from the truth than that. Of course I never said that but don't let that get in the way of your theory. Oh really? "He should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible." Aside from the fact that that's a useless throwaway line that is patently obvious and universally applicable to every GM in baseball, clearly implicit in it is that he didn't do enough in the offseason to improve the team. Of course the truth is that *the* story of baseball's offseason was the Cubs' top-to-bottom overhaul. Aside from the hiring of John McDonough as President, everything from the new manager and coaching staff, to the new LF, to the new pitchers, and on and on, was Hendry's doing. Nobody can deny that the makeover was extreme. Now if you want to argue that Hendry's plan or vision or whatever is flawed, then fine. Philosophically, you clearly see things differently than he does, as do many of us here. Just don't try and tell me that Hendry didn't do everything he could to go into 2007 with the best team *he* thought possible. That's just flat out absurd. I think what you meant to say was not, "he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible," but rather, "he should have done what I would've done."

Perhaps Hendry was being told that there would be additional money available right up until the point that the sale was announced, at which time he was told something different, namely that no money would be available. In fact that's precisely what's widely believed to have happened. So you're saying he was a freaking moron for taking his bosses' instructions at face value. I'm saying he's a freaking moron if he couldn't put 2 and 2 together. The Cubs sale was speculated on for a long time. He had to have an idea that money may get tied up if something went down. He screwed up the team from 2003-2006, he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible and not just hoped he'd be able to fix it on the fly in July. Well now you're just being laughably irrational. Hendry just sat on his hands this past offseason, and made no effort to try and improve, figuring that he'd just fix things in July instead, huh? You'd be hard pressed to come up with something further from the truth than that.

Perhaps Hendry was being told that there would be additional money available right up until the point that the sale was announced, at which time he was told something different, namely that no money would be available. In fact that's precisely what's widely believed to have happened. So you're saying he was a freaking moron for taking his bosses' instructions at face value.

That's my point. Most GMs operate under a budget and can't just add to payroll. You have to build a winner in those circumstances, no excuses. Now people are trying to excuse Jim's failures because of a perceived handcuffing by ownership, when he's really just operating under the same rules as everybody else. Fair enough, but you said it backwards. "Not being able to add money to the payroll is an excuse most GM's don't get to use." = most GM's are able to add money to the payroll.

It's too late. The trading deadline is a deadline for a reason. The only stuff you get off waivers is spare parts. The Cubs have needed impact bats for years and Hendry has ignored the need, instead focusing on nonsense like leadoff hitters, more left handers and utility players. I don't think this is the whole story. See my prior comments about Tejada and Beltran (to name two). I believe that if Hendry had been given the latitude to offer market-setting, Sorianoesque contracts to elite FAs from Day 1, this team would look much different today. You mean there'd be more grossly overpaid players who couldn't even come close to justifying their contracts? What I mean is that the need for more impact bats that you pointed out quite likely would've been addressed. Now whether the player(s) acquired to address that particular need would've worked out or not is impossible to say. However we do know that Tejada and Beltran were two guys that were both available and coveted by Hendry. So my theory is that if it was completely up to Hendry and Hendry alone, then one (or perhaps even both) of those guys would be Cubs today. So I suppose the answer to your question depends on whether you consider Tejada and/or Beltran to be "grossly overpaid players who couldn't even come close to justifying their contracts."

I think you can. He built a team that would need trades, and he isn't able to figure out how to get one done. I highly doubt he's been told he can't make trades that add marginally to the payroll. Besides, he's the GM, he needs to figure out how to make the team better. The excuse of not being able to add money to the payroll is an excuse most GM's don't get to use. If he could only improve the team by significantly increasing payroll, that just exposes a major flaw in his ability. This critique could apply to all 30 GMs in baseball, especially in the context of this year's trade deadline. The only contending team that really did a lot to help themselves (the Braves) took on a ton of salary, and gave away several top prospects in the process. I don't see any other contenders that did anything significant to help themselves, save for perhaps Boston with Gagne. And you're 100% wrong that "not being able to add money to the payroll is an excuse most GM's don't get to use." Every GM in baseball operates under budget limitations imposed by ownership, and very few GMs would have the complete latitude to make a trade with significant payroll implications (especially ones stretching into future years).

It's too late. The trading deadline is a deadline for a reason. The only stuff you get off waivers is spare parts. The Cubs have needed impact bats for years and Hendry has ignored the need, instead focusing on nonsense like leadoff hitters, more left handers and utility players. I don't think this is the whole story. See my prior comments about Tejada and Beltran (to name two). I believe that if Hendry had been given the latitude to offer market-setting, Sorianoesque contracts to elite FAs from Day 1, this team would look much different today.

Sounds about right. Thank God someone else recognizes that. It's pretty obvious that this is the case to me. Thirded. The Hendry bashing may be warranted in many instances, but not in this one... especially since the passing of the July 31 deadline. He made his bed in the years leading up to this season. He spent a crapload of dough on a crappy offense long before he was held back by any ownership issues. It's his own damn fault this wasn't a good offense going into this year (let alone 2006, 2005 and 2004). We're talking about a team that has, at its best, been middle of the road in scoring and OPS, due to Hendry's poor management decisions. There's no reason to start giving him a break now because he might be handcuffed. By many accounts, Hendry's been handcuffed for quite some time -- MacPhail and/or the Tribsters wouldn't allow him to spend what it was going to take for true impact FAs like Tejada in 2003 and Beltran in 2004. It was pretty telling (to me anyway) that this now infamous $300M binge came just weeks after MacPhail's resignation. Now that said, the general philosophy and approach to roster construction under Hendry, especially on the hitting side, has been fundamentally flawed for quite some time. Hence my comment, "the hendry bashing may be warranted in many instances." Ripping on Hendry for failing to acquire another impact bat after 7/31 is not such an instance.

I thought Lou's plan to spread around starts to lots of different guys, and give the big guns regular days off, was done expressly to prevent this team from wearing down in August.

Sounds about right. Thank God someone else recognizes that. It's pretty obvious that this is the case to me. Thirded. The Hendry bashing may be warranted in many instances, but not in this one... especially since the passing of the July 31 deadline. The notion that a true impact bat would slip through waivers is exceedingly unlikely. There's almost certainly nobody noteworthy available now, even if Hendry was trying to give away Pie, Hill, and Zambrano.

They aren't a top 4 NL team by any stretch, but they could still very easily make the playoffs. I'll accept the fact that they "could" make the playoffs, but I don't think it would be easy and if I were a betting man, I'd say they don't have the horses to do it. Outside of Lee (not having a typical year), Ramirez and Soriano (who's now out for awhile), the rest of the offense is made up mostly of retreads and "hopefuls." Just look at the lineup's each night and the number of moves up and down to the minor leagues. As someone else said, I think they're just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something sticks - that to me is not the sign of a team that will make the playoffs. That said, I hope I'm wrong and that we get in and find a way to finally get the monkey off our backs before we hit 100 years of futility. If offense was the only element that mattered, then I'd agree with you. But fortunately the Cubs have been, and can reasonably be expected to continue outpitching their primary competitors.

Having read this post, I can't help but wonder how you would've viewed the 2006 season if you were a Cardinal fan. That Cards team was every bit as flawed and disappointing as this year's Cubs, and probably moreso (as 2007 is proving): overpaid, underachieving players; questionable managerial choices; finger-pointing at the GM; infighting; and horrific play late in the year that nearly led to a historic collapse. I wonder if, as a fan, their October success would have been enough to overcome all of that suffering and disappointment, or whether you would've remained miserable to the very end, frustrated that a run of good luck, and not dynastic superiority, was the key to success. You don't seriously want to compare them do you? The Cardinals regularly fielded great teams that came up short in the playoffs. Then they got lucky with a mediocre team that finally won. I'd have been happy as hell if the Cubs went on the kind of run STL went on from 2000-2006. If the Cubs won 95+ games 4 out of 6 years (93 and 85 the other two), I wouldn't be in anywhere close to the same frame of mind about the Cubs. You can't seriously be trying to compare the situations. My lord, how ridiculous. I'm just comparing the Cardinals' 2006 season to the Cubs' 2007 season, and seeing many similarities. You're telling us that this year has been predominantly disappointing, so it would stand to reason that you'd have been disappointed last year as a Cards fan too. You say you'll be satisfied with nothing less than greatness, and the Cards were not great last year. I didn't think such a comparison would depend at all on years prior. Implicit in your dismissive respose is the conclusion that apparently your ability to find any enjoyment or hope in this year's Cubs season has already been destroyed by the failures of past Cubs teams. That begs the question of why you bother yourself with it in the first place, if your disappointment is already preordained.

Having read this post, I can't help but wonder how you would've viewed the 2006 season if you were a Cardinal fan. That Cards team was every bit as flawed and disappointing as this year's Cubs, and probably moreso (as 2007 is proving): overpaid, underachieving players; questionable managerial choices; finger-pointing at the GM; infighting; and horrific play late in the year that nearly led to a historic collapse. I wonder if, as a fan, their October success would have been enough to overcome all of that suffering and disappointment, or whether you would've remained miserable to the very end, frustrated that a run of good luck, and not dynastic superiority, was the key to success.

You were the one that made this issue relevant with your misinformed statement that "teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter." That's untrue. Many teams do, and are, as I just showed, and you now concede with your comment about "alot of stupid GM's." Marquis' 2006 stats are indeed included in my analysis. Go back and read again. The point I've made repeatedly, and you've missed repeatedly, is that just maybe 2006 is the anomaly, and 2004 and 2005 is the norm. Similarly, perhaps the handful of 2007 starts that you're so worked up over are anomalous too, and what Marquis showed over his first dozen or so starts is the norm. You've yet to even address, let alone disprove this hypothesis. Earlier you asked, why is it so hard for people to understand trends? I guess my response should've been, why is it so easy for people like you to misunderstand/misapply trends. Let me ask you point blank. What do you think Marquis' ERA will be over his 8 or 10 starts to close out the regular season? Just give me a number. 6.00? 8.75? 15.00? What does your fancy trend analysis tell you that number is going to be?

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis? If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth? And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons? Why is it so hard for people to understand trends? He has been on a downward spiral for 3 months now, but people still refer to his April 2.35 ERA, but then ignore the fact that every month since then has progressively gotten worse. The odds are that he continues getting worse, and not goes back to his April, or even May. If the situation was reversed and he had started the season pitching the way he is now, and then turned it around and was pitching lights out then I could understand the thought of him continuing it. However thats not the case and right now all we can hope for is the offense to score alot of runs in his starts, or Lou gets tired of watching him get rocked, and they give Gallagher his shot. And please quit saying Marquis is a 5th starter. Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter, and right now he is slotted in the #3 starter. Why is it so hard for people to understand the problems inherent with small sample sizes? You're focused on 6 starts, and calling it a "trend". Meanwhile you're ignoring some much more reliable and meaningful statistics that are rooted in much larger sample sizes, to wit: - a 3.71 ERA over 32 starts in 2004 - a 4.13 ERA over 32 starts in 2005 - a 3.46 ERA over his first 16 starts in 2007 - an "all in" ERA of 4.56 covering every last one of his 120 starts from 2004 to present. And you must be joking if you don't think large-market teams like the Cubs are forking out $7M/yr or more for #5 quality starters. As evidence I give you Matt Clement (BOS), Kei Igawa and/or Carl Pavano and/or Andy Pettitte (NYY), Randy Wolf (LAD), Jose Contreras (CHW), Bartolo Colon (LAA), Ramon Ortiz (SF now), Jeff Weaver and/or Jarrod Washburn (SEA), Adam Eaton and/or Freddy Garcia and/or Jon Lieber and/or Jamie Moyer (PHI), etc. etc. Wake up and smell the coffee, bud. Here in 2007, plenty of guys a lot worse than Marquis has been are getting paid even more than he is.

Unfortunately neither position in the field or the batting order matter in this case. Theriot, IMO, should be leading off even when Soriano is playing. He's much better at getting on base anyway. And there are enough other outfielders that can play LF that Pie can play CF. So frankly those reasons don't really work for me. You asked me to give my point of view, not your point of view.

Seems pretty safe to assume that KW wasn't proposing that as a straight-up trade. Contreras would simply be a salary-balancer. That's even worse, sending them a player that has no value and then making them pay $20 million. Why doesn't he just tell the Orioles that he will take Miggy off their hands and they can pay his salary. By "they" do you mean the White Sox, or the Orioles? Because suggesting that the Orioles would be better off just paying Tejada's $26M instead of taking Contreras and his $20M back seems quite strange. Worst case is they simply DFA Contreras, and end up $6M ahead.

My point of view is that Piniella knows more about this stuff than anyone here does. The guy's managerial track record speaks for itself. That's not to say that he's perfect, or that he makes the right choice 100% of the time. Regardless, whether the Cubs make the playoffs or not will neither prove nor disprove this perspective. The Cubs could win despite Lou's ineptitude, or lose despite his brilliance. Calling up Patterson instead of Pie doesn't bother me, no. Soriano is a LF and a leadoff hitter. Pie is neither. Patterson is the latter, and at least tries to be the former. I had no problem with Floyd facing a righty last night, either (if that's what you're referring to). That certainly seemed like the right choice for that situation, regardless of how it turned out.

You've apparently made up your mind about what other people think, so I can't convince you. You're completely wrong though. You didn't answer my question. Do you see it as realistic to expect any meaningful segment of this board to lobby for Jones over Pie in CF, or Kendall over Soto at C (to name just two)? Are those plausible scenarios to you? Of course. Have you read the threads about them? There's plenty of people who think Kendall's OBP over the rest of the season will outweigh his power and defense disadvantage v. Soto, and there's people who think that Pie still needs to work on his plate discipline in AAA. For example, Truffle is the biggest proponent of Soto around and he wants Pie to stay in AAA. Fair enough. My feeling is that the folks that hold those opinions would constitute a distinct minority around here, enough so that those opinions are virtually completely drowned out by the sheer ubiquity of the "grass is greener" majority.

Based on what? That's what people are waiting for. It's not enough to assume that rookies will automatically suck when comapred to "proven, older players". You have to actually have a basis for your argument. So what do you base it on? Limited ML sample sizes, or large minor league samples and skillsets, when comapred to the players they'd be replacing? LOL. You're the one making assumptions here, with such definitive assertions as the young guys "can't possibly be worse" than the vets. So it's an impossibility, huh? What the heck is *that* based on, is what I'd like to know. Now as for me, I'm not assuming that all rookies will automatically suck. I'm looking at what these specific players have done so far in their bigleague careers, and reaching the conclusion that despite their upside, there's a strong chance that they'll underperform the established vets with known track records that are in those jobs now. I listed the relevant OPS stats that contributed to this opinion. I'd be happy to repost them if you missed them the first time.

You've apparently made up your mind about what other people think, so I can't convince you. You're completely wrong though. You didn't answer my question. Do you see it as realistic to expect any meaningful segment of this board to lobby for Jones over Pie in CF, or Kendall over Soto at C (to name just two)? Are those plausible scenarios to you?

I can't believe I missed the "can't possibly be worse" quip. How perfectly symptomatic of the completely unrealistic expectations some folks have for these young players. It's much more than just possible. In some cases, it's probable.

This is an enormous pet peeve of mine. Just because you hear calls for all of those players at one point does not mean it is the same people calling for him. Some people may think Pie and Murton should be starting while they think Kendall and Fontenot/Floyd is better than putting EPatt or Cedeno out there. Others only would like to see Murton out there. Others still Murton + Soto. People having varying opinions on which prospects they think should be up does NOT equal a unified demand for a lineup consisting of Lee+Ramirez+kiddies galore. Stop stereotyping a large group of people to fit the opposite of your argument. Oh please. You honestly expect me to believe that somebody is going to stand up and say "Pie should not be starting in CF, it should be Jones instead?" Or "Soto really does belong at AAA, stick with Kendall back there?" The fact is that there will be folks complaining so long as Jones, Floyd, Pagan, Kendall, K Hill, and now, seemingly, Fontenot, are in the lineup. DeRosa's got one foot in the doghouse these days too. But you'd hear hardly a peep of complaining or second-guessing if every last one of those guys was benched in favor of the lineup I showed above. Plenty of people would be thrilled, though -- for the first week at least.

I'll play this game. Imagine a lineup of: Theriot Murton Lee Ramirez Floyd DeRosa Soto Pie vs a lineup of: Theriot Cedeno Lee Ramirez Floyd Jones Pagan Kendall Which one consists of 4 players that are completely useless, with no upside, and which one has 4 players in their place that at least have the potential to be better, and can't possibly be worse. Try again. Both of those lineups have a mix of young and old. Put a lineup together using Lee and ARam as the only vets, and I'll be happy to show you an older and much better one.