fromthestretch

Both are capable of hitting up to 15 homers. Both are capable of stealing 30+ bases. Both will most likely put up an OBP of around .340 or higher. They are very similar defensively, although Furcal has the better arm. Both have had some off-field problems in the past. The only real differences are that Lugo is a couple years older, costs less salary wise, and would require the Cubs to part with a prospect or two to get.

I think a better comparison is Juan Pierre. In my opinion, Ichiro is Juan Pierre with more power, a MUCH better arm, and a higher salary. Both are capable of good OBP if they hit over .300. The difference is that Ichiro doesn't hit under .300, although he came close this year.

Ichiro isn't exactly a CF. Not saying he couldn't handle it, but he seems to be very comfortable in RF.

I'd even be willing to eat half his salary if it will help keep him off the Cubs roster. I really, really, really don't want Milton to set foot on the Wrigley field mound unless it's as a visiting pitcher or part of a tour group.

Yet another reason why the Cubs shouldn't get rid of Walker.

Walker Career .348 OBP 2006 Salary = $2.5 million Already a Cub Pierre Career .355 OBP 2006 Salary > $4 million Cubs would have to trade talent to get him Keep Walker and bat him leadoff. If you get furcal, bat Walker second.

I've heard/read numerous times that the Mets are looking for a closer AND they are willing to trade Heilman. Heilman didn't have much success as a starter. After seeing him pitch in college as both as starter and reliever, I always thought he was more effective out of the bullpen and always wondered why the Mets were trying to make him a starter. When the Mets moved him to the bullpen this season, he thrived: 46 G 66.0 IP 49 H 1 HR (only ONE home run allowed) 24 BB 72 K 2.18 ERA He even had five saves (in six chances). Now maybe it's just me, but perhaps it would be a good idea for the Mets to keep Heilman and use him as a closer. From what I hear, they may offer Billy Wagner a boatload of money. Might not be a bad idea to use that money on some other less expensive, yet effective, bullpen arms and let Heilman close. There has been random talk on here about whether or not the Cubs should try to get Cameron or Floyd from the Mets. If the Mets are serious about dealing Heilman, and the Cubs actually do make an offer for one of the outfielders (purely hypothetical), it might not be a bad idea to try and get Heilman, as well.

Colorado is not what it use to be. They do something to the balls to deaden them a little ( I can't remember the name of the device used). FYI, The Cell is very much a hitters park, I wouldn't expect Rowands numbers to increase that much. Don't they keep the baseballs in a humidifier? I could have sworn I read that. Maybe that's what they call it. Meant to say humidor. Same principle. But I believe that's how they deaden them a bit.

Colorado is not what it use to be. They do something to the balls to deaden them a little ( I can't remember the name of the device used). FYI, The Cell is very much a hitters park, I wouldn't expect Rowands numbers to increase that much. Don't they keep the baseballs in a humidor? I could have sworn I read that.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mackowiak is non-tendered. Unless the Pirates make him a full-time starter, he's going to get 2.5-3 million in arbitration and that will be a lot for a utility player on a team like the Pirates. That being said, I'd love to have Mackowiak for the bench. Rob Mackowiak would have been a much better way to spend $2.5 million per year than Neifi...assuming he's available.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Here's the thing, the Cubs can match or exceed pretty much any offer for Giles this offseason. And, assuming he's willing to sign if the money is good enough, the Cubs won't have to give up any players to get him. If there's no way that Giles would sign with the Cubs, then yes, a trade may be the best option to take care of the outfield situation. Keep in mind though, if you do make Williams part of a trade for an impact bat, the person coming back to the Cubs in the trade is probably going to be making a decent amount of money. So the Cubs are taking on salary there. Then, they'd probably want to go out and sign a starting pitcher. To get a good one, they're going to have to shell out more money. I think all that money would be better spent on the outfield. My biggest concern is that they'll just include Williams in a trade for someone like Juan Pierre. I don't want that to happen.

No brainer. I would substitute Washburn in for Byrd if it was roughly the same cost. Neither Washburn nor Byrd are worth near that much. How about taking that $7 million, adding another $3-4 million to it and getting Giles? Can't argue with that, in fact I would much prefer it. I was just looking at alternatives to the spots filled who would cost about the same, and be more productive (imho) I'm just not of the opinion that the Cubs need to go out and get another starting pitcher. We all know the health problems this team has had, and of course, Hendry should always keep that in the back of his mind. However, if we can believe the progress reports on Wood, the Cubs are looking at a front four of Zambrano, Prior, Wood, and Maddux next April. I see no reason why Williams can't be the fifth man, unless he is part of a deal that brings the Cubs a very good outfield bat. Williams is no Cy Young candidate, but approx. $500,000 for a 23-year old fifth starter with a career ERA under 4.00 is nothing to sneeze at. If someone gets hurt, Rusch can start for an extended period of time. Guzman, if healthy and producing in the minors, could get a shot. Hill is still here. So is Mitre, although I'm not as high on him. Perhaps Pinto or Nolasco could make a start or two if needed (as a last resort). There are plenty of options there. Instead of spending $7 million+ on another starter, the best move IMO is to use that for a big-time bat in the outfield.

I think a little context is relevent. From everything I have read, it is the years on the contract (and thus bottom line total value), and not the per year value of the contract that scares Hendry. At Giles age of 35, I think Hendry is very comfortable paying Giles top dollar for a 2-3 year contract (total value 30 million or so). I think he is very uncomfortable adding a 4th year or beyond (total value high 30s or low 40s). I believe someone had posted the idea of a front-loaded contract for Giles, which, if Giles is open to it, is not a bad idea. If you're planning on paying him $10 million a year, and you're comfortable giving him only three years at this time, how about something like this: 2006: $11.5 million 2007: $10 million 2008: $8.5 million 2009: Team OR Mutual option for $9 million If Giles is interested in playing for a winner, you can sell the idea to him like this: The Cubs know how much they have to spend in 2006. They don't know how much they'll have available in 2008. This keeps them in a position to have a little extra money available then in case they need to add another piece to the puzzle to help maintain a winning team. The option for 2009 should be a team or mutual option. If Giles is still somewhat productive and the market on outfielders is thin after 2008, then the Cubs can pick up that option. It's less than the annual average of the contract, but more than the final year of the deal. It's also more than he made this season. If he wants more money, throw in some bonus incentives for 2007 and 2008.

I don't know if anyone has posted this or not, but this is a line from the most recent post on The Cub Reporter (http://www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter/index.html) Whether you agree with the point of the statement or not is irrelevant. It's just a funny statement.

I'll take a wild guess that the labels idiot, stupid and moron have been used over 100 times in the this thread. There's no decorum today. Hmmmm guess it's just your typical Neifi/Dusty thread. ;) Since Neifi being signed was announced, Hendry was called an idiot, stupid, or a moron 5 times total, by a total of 4 posters. Maybe even 4 and 3 if you don't consider this: "If Neifi Perez is our starting shortstop or second basemen next year, I might just have to take a season off of watching baseball. Just, jesus, how can you be so stupid? " to be calling him stupid. Without looking it up, I would wager that there are more people are calling the signing stupid then there are calling Hendry stupid. Calling a decision stupid and calling the person that made that decision stupid are two completely different things.

I would like to go on record and say that if Furcal signs with the Cubs the ire on this board over his baseball performance will rival if not exceed that of Neifi F. Perez. Can't see that. There isn't overwhelming support for Furcal here, but many seem to like him. Can't say the same for Neifi. Thus can't see Furcal getting Neifized, as people would basically be ripping themselves too. I would think that if Furcal doesn't at least have an average Furcal season, most of the people that would be criticizing him would be people who have already stated they don't really think he's the #1 priority for this team. I personally don't see him as the top priority right now. They need to address the outfield situation before they worry about middle infield, considering that we already have decent options at both 2B and SS.

No brainer. I would substitute Washburn in for Byrd if it was roughly the same cost. Neither Washburn nor Byrd are worth near that much. How about taking that $7 million, adding another $3-4 million to it and getting Giles?

I'd feel a lot better about this signing if both of the following take place: 1. Furcal isn't signed, Walker is kept to start at 2B, Cedeno starts at SS, and Neifi is the primary backup at SS with Hairston backing up 2B. 2. The money that would have been used to sign Furcal is instead used to address the outfield situation. I will never be happy with the money that Perez is getting or the fact that he was signed for two years. BUT if Cedeno is given a legit chance to start at SS and Walker isn't dealt, then Neifi is fine as a backup. He actually does have some value in that role. I personally don't think that value is $2.5 million though.

Whoa. The line for Corey bashing usually forms right behind me, but this is a bit much. The fact that he is going at all should tell you something about his "mindset." He's a professional athlete for goodness sakes. I'm sure he doesn't enjoy being awful at the plate. Let him go work on it, show up early for spring training- again, and let the winter play out. At least there is an effort to improve. Playing a 1/2 season of winter ball doesn't tell me anything positive about his mindset. It says he will do just enough to get his critics and Hendry off his back, but not as much as a player who really wants to reach his potential would. And I'd hope he doesn't enjoy being awful at the plate, but if I were in his shoes when asked by reporters if I'd consider winter ball, I'd enthusiastically respond with a: "YES! I'm having a very poor year and I have disappointed Cubs fans and the team, but I know I can do better. I plan on getting better by playing the game when most MLB players aren't: in winter ball." "But my game isn't the only thing I need to improve on. I'm also going to adjust my attitude, because there were times when I just didn't care about the game. Remember my 'It's just a game' comment? I'm going to work on my intelligence too." Yeah. You'd say that. Right. You're reading way too much into his 1/2 season of winter ball. Besides, why is winter ball the cure for all his ills? Who's to say that one-on-one personal instruction down in Mesa wouldn't be better for him? He's working on his game this off-season. That's the bottom line. He had a lousy season, and he's working to get better. That's all you can ask of him.

So is assuming how people on this board would react to Patterson getting that kind of a contract. I'd wager that very few people would be happy if Patterson got that kind of a deal after his poor performance last year. It's one thing to be comfortable with Patterson in CF until Pie is ready provided that the rest of the outfield is upgraded. It's something completely different to be content with giving him a raise to perform badly. I'm willing to wait until we see the final product before I call for Hendry's head on a stake. That said, this was a bad signing. It was a pointless signing. It's hard to be optimistic when you consider: a. Hendry said in spring training that Dempster would be a closer. Only Baker started him six times before he was finally moved to the bullpen. b. Hendry said that Dubois would get a legitimate shot. Right. c. The Cubs already have three players that can play 2B (Walker, Hairston, Cedeno...five if you include Theriot and Fontenot). They have at least one that can play SS (Cedeno), and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone other than Baker (and yes, that's speculation) that would rather have Perez start than Cedeno. Perez was a pointless signing. If you want to upgrade at SS, fine...do so. Use Cedeno as your backup. Perez fills the same exact role that Cedeno could fill if you signed a starting SS. d. This will most likely lead to Walker being dealt. If the trade actually brings back someone that can be a valuable asset to the team, then great. But Walker himself is a very valuable asset. Above average offense at 2B, left-handed bat that gets on base at a decent rate and has some pop, all for $2.5 mil...oddly enough, the same amount they just gave to a guy with a .298 OBP this season.

There are lots of places to look, but in the interest of promoting this site, why not look at They Call It Small Ball For A Reason written last year by one of our own regulars. Now the data in the article shows definitively that small ball is questionable in any situation other than 1-run games. But it supports usage in one-run games, even despite the fact that the article is clearly arguing against the usage of small ball. Personally, I promote responsible usage of small ball, which is sparingly and just the situations described previously. I also promote OBP and power. Unfortunately, in my experience, the anti-small ball crowd dismisses this combination and assumes for some reason it's impossible to have balance, and never appropriate to play for one run. This isn't on Hendry though. The GM has to assume the manager is responsible and only plays for one run in the late innings. And btw, I watch baseball daily, and I rarely ever see what you're describing, except for the last week of the season and the playoffs when desperation and pressure sets in. Apparantly, you didn't watch many Cubs games when Baylor was managing. The Cubs had 117 sacrifces in 2001. 117. Fifty of those came from non-pitchers. There were numerous occasions where Ricky Gutierrez was called on to bunt after a lead-off double by Eric Young. Nobody out, man on second, early in the game, and the Cubs were bunting. Jim Leyland is another manager that likes to bunt...a lot. Bunting in 2001 was a smart move. I think Baylor knew as much as anyone that there was no way in hell the Cubs were scoring many runs if they tried to outslug teams so he played some small ball. It worked out pretty well, didn't it? A very mediocre Cub team talent-wise nearly made the playoffs. How can you say it was a smart move when we'll never know what could have happened had they not bunted. Bunting in first inning of a game with contact hitter up, nobody out, a fast runner on second, and Sammy Sosa in his prime due up is simply not good strategy...ever. As for being a mediocre Cub team, they got on base at a .336 clip. Not great, but still much better than the 2005 team. That team outscored this season's team by 74 runs. They probably could have scored more had they not given up 117 outs. I do agree there are situations where bunting isn't a bad option. But I don't trust Baker to judge when those situations are.

Despite the fact this is way off-topic, let me ask - where are those guys now? Who ever said Baylor was a good manager. It's like you're putting words in my mouth. I already stated before that I think it's irresponsible for managers to act that way. You also said: That's what I was responding to. You said it rarely happens, and I was giving examples of it happening. I didn't put any words in your mouth.

Any GM whose chief offensive concern is "timely hitting" has absolutely no buisiness making personnel decisions for a professional baseball club. (Competitive or otherwise.) Aside from the first two points (which aren't bad) that's a plan for mediocrity even in the best of circumstances. It also the plan that won the world series for 4 of the last 5 years. I'd be very curious to know how you plan for timely hitting.

There are lots of places to look, but in the interest of promoting this site, why not look at They Call It Small Ball For A Reason written last year by one of our own regulars. Now the data in the article shows definitively that small ball is questionable in any situation other than 1-run games. But it supports usage in one-run games, even despite the fact that the article is clearly arguing against the usage of small ball. Personally, I promote responsible usage of small ball, which is sparingly and just the situations described previously. I also promote OBP and power. Unfortunately, in my experience, the anti-small ball crowd dismisses this combination and assumes for some reason it's impossible to have balance, and never appropriate to play for one run. This isn't on Hendry though. The GM has to assume the manager is responsible and only plays for one run in the late innings. And btw, I watch baseball daily, and I rarely ever see what you're describing, except for the last week of the season and the playoffs when desperation and pressure sets in. Apparantly, you didn't watch many Cubs games when Baylor was managing. The Cubs had 117 sacrifces in 2001. 117. Fifty of those came from non-pitchers. There were numerous occasions where Ricky Gutierrez was called on to bunt after a lead-off double by Eric Young. Nobody out, man on second, early in the game, and the Cubs were bunting. Jim Leyland is another manager that likes to bunt...a lot.

Santana was the better pitcher.