wastra

I think he's right. But the problem isn't just this offseason, it's 3 straight offseasons that left the team in this situation. GMs can't be judged based upon one offseason- years and years of mismanagement go into a roster this pathetic with a payroll this high.

Well, if JHJ can put up numbers anywhere close to his pre-injury numbers, we'll all be thrilled with him. I would hope the ankle thing isn't a load of BS- because I'd have to believe it would greatly affect everything from hitting to baserunning to defense; giving us legit reason to expect a bigger '06 from him. I was happy when we got him for Sosa (just unhappy he was the centerpiece AND we picked up Sammy's salary as well). Might make a good platoon partner for Walker.

They chose to overpay mediocrity. The Cubs have been a top 5 payroll team throughout Hendry's tenure. He's had plenty of cash to go out and make a great team, long before this offseason. You have to be able to accurately judge what the market will look like down the road. The Cubs should not be worrying about hampering further acquisitions. They sucked last year, and were in danger of sucking again without major improvements. The time for worrying about 2-3 years down the road was in the late 90's and early 00's. Now is not the time to be focused on the future. This regime should be gone long before any future is realized considering how terribly inept they've proven to be in the present. I was giving Hendry and co. the benefit of the doubt and saying "wait until we see the final roster." But at this stage, he's simply got to go. he's been a dismal failure as GM of the Cubs and no amount of spin can make it appear otherwise.

Yes, gleaned. Maybe not verbatim, but it definitely seems to be a much different scenario than Bruce's column. I agree with you. If Baker had actually been asked those questions, I have no doubt he would have been directly quoted (i.e. in quotation marks and all with no confusing introductions). But apparently, Baker was pretty upbeat and probably made a couple general comments from which this article is written. They're not Baker's words, but they're based upon the general sentiment he portrayed Thursday, IMO. So you think Baker gave the impression to those in attendance that Todd Walker was going to be the starting second baseman? Not per say. I think he likely was asked or commented on the possibility of further moves and other lineup changes from last year and said something like "I'm assuming our roster is set, and I'll be fine with it if so" and "I'm assuiming I'll play with what I've got today" in typical non-answer sports-figures-turned-politicians spin. I have zero doubt that both Hendry and Baker expect Walker to NOT be on this team at the start of the spring.

Best line in the article. Bar none.

Yes, gleaned. Maybe not verbatim, but it definitely seems to be a much different scenario than Bruce's column. I agree with you. If Baker had actually been asked those questions, I have no doubt he would have been directly quoted (i.e. in quotation marks and all with no confusing introductions). But apparently, Baker was pretty upbeat and probably made a couple general comments from which this article is written. They're not Baker's words, but they're based upon the general sentiment he portrayed Thursday, IMO.

You guys seem so paranoid. Why would a journalist misrepresent Baker in this situation? Because like others he is writing what he thinks Baker will say in the Q&A. The Q&A with fans hasn't happened yet, so it's rather impossible to say what Baker's answer to these questions from fans in the Q&A will be. How is this at all paranoid? It's paranoid because you're assuming that Baker's going to say the opposite of what he's here represented as saying. The quotations are in quotation marks. Why assume a responsible journalist would make those up? A journalist knows how to paraphrase. No they are not. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060112cubs,1,7990950.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines

I know this is tongue-in-cheek (sort of), but NOTHING worries me more about this roster than my deep-seeded (and I think justified) fear that this is EXACTLY what management is planning. I'm not sure NOTHING worries me more, but that is pretty close. I'm betting Neifi is in the 2 hole at least once by the 2nd week of the season. Other worries are that a slow start by Cedeno at shortstop will lead to a middle infield of Neifi and Hairston, while a slow start by Murton will lead to Grissom getting 100+ starts. There's also the worry that some random veteran will have an unbelievable April, but, while that will be great for the team in April, it'll likely lead to an unjustified number of PA the rest of the year. I'm also worried that Rusch will get 30 starts with an ERA near 5. There's also the chance that Pierre will sign some ridiculous contract extension that will bog down this lineup even further for years to come. These are all just fears of mismanagement, and I haven't even gotten into the fears of what could go wrong with the players themselves. I didn't mean that exact SCENARIO- just that the manager will AGAIN totally misuse his roster in favor of "his boys." That might be the most egregious of the ones you mentioned (other than Rusch) since I'm 100% confident Walker will outperform Neifi, but only about 95% confident that Murton will definitely outperform Grissom and Cedeno will outperform Neifi over the course of a season.

You do realize not a single NL RF with over 400 PA's hit that minimum mark you set, right? Two guys (Giles & Jenkins) hit over .290, five had an OBP over .350, and one guy (Jenkins) had a SLG over .500. While I agree with you wholeheartedly on Jones (he does suck, and will likely continue sucking) the numbers you set as a minimum for RF are a bit lofty. I know you qualified it with the fact that the other positions are weak, but you stated that it should be even higher because of that. I just don't think those numbers are realistic. In essence you are saying our starting RF should have to produce at a level above all other RF's, as a minimum. Edit: If you lower it to 200 PA's, you add 1 guy to AVG, 4 to OBP, and 3 to SLG. Still no one meets the .290/.350/.500 line. You do realize that I wrote "something like". I never said that he had to have a minimum of a .290 AVG, or .350 OBP or a .500 SLG. If the guy hit .285, or .270, he could still be something like that 850 OPS RF, which is not that difficult to find. If a guy slugs .490, but has the other numbers, he's something like what I'd be looking for. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word minimum. But I did try to phrase it in a way that would express my desire for RF. And it was in response to somebody asking what would make us happy with Jones, and the line he listed 285/315/425, is just abysmal for RF. It's not good for an OF position, but clearly not RF. [Hendry rationalization] But, Gooney, it should be 8th highest in the league among right fielders with more than 120 strikeouts and between the ages of 28 and 32. :? :roll: [/Hendry rationalization]

Walker.

I only PRAY that the media takes off the kid gloves when dealing with this management staff and starts really challenging this idiotic approach to baseball. Some of them, like Bruce, already ask the tough questions, but far too many others just want happy soundbites to put in their articles instead of really challenging them to respond to real questions that it sickens me.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek (sort of), but NOTHING worries me more about this roster than my deep-seeded (and I think justified) fear that this is EXACTLY what management is planning.

That's the absolute perfect explanation of what's wrong with this management team. Instead of working to get better, they always pick out a scapegoat (Alou, Stoney, Walker, Sosa, etc) and their focus is on dumping them, not upgrading anything. So we get these offseasons of "convenience" signings and trades. These things kinda fall in our laps and we take them. We stand fast, trying to dump someone (Burnitz, Walker) and then just wind up signing whomever is left at the end of the day (Jones) instead of focusing at the start of the offseason on ACQUIRING players X and Y and then making room for them by dumping others when necessary. it's asinine.

I read that article, and I'm not sure that's an actual quote, rather kinda a "I think this is what he'll say based on his attitude this week" article due to this paragraph before the Q&A: Then again, he may have been saying "these are likely the QUESTIONS he'll be asked and he answered them already today" Either way, I hope it's true. Walker is the only logical candidate to hit second for us this year. If it's neifi day-in and day-out, I'll scream. Neifi is a good BACKUP ss, and Hairston makes a good RH 2b to back up walker. That's the best use of this infield roster, period.

Not getting Thome is not the reason we're in such a predicament. It's really not. Nor is failing to get any other major free agent. It's failing to get ANY of the major free agents. Since Hendry took the reins, guys changed teams as free agents like Carlos Delgado, Vlad Guerrero, Miguel Tejada, Jim Thome, Billy Wagner, Pedro Martinez- the list is as long as my arm, and that's just a portion of one or two years of it. Who did we sign? Greg Maddux in a good-PR, Bad-baseball signing, Jeromy Burnitz, Neifi Perez, Jaque Jones, and a couple decent-though-unspectacular signings in Todd Walker, La Troy hawkins (decent signing at the time) and the reclamation crew of Dempster, Williamson, Rusch, et al. You want to know why we're not owning the NL Central? Our management won't sign the kind of guys that put you over the top. They'll trade for up-and-comers (Lee, Ramirez), but they won't sign the premier names. To top all that off, we're still SPENDING money like we have a team of top-level free agents. It's unbelievable. It's like Hendry is running the team with a small-market, small-budget philosophy except with a large-market, high-budget payroll. Seriously- look at our roster and explain how THAT can be a near $100MM payroll compared to the premier rosters in the NL, many of which are even LOWER! We throw money at mediocre players instead of throwing money at marquee players.

They have new ownership and a new GM. I don't think the book is out on them yet. Good to know. Can they send us Huff too then. :) Might I suggest Jaque jones for Huff and Lugo? :wink: :D

Actually, I think we're an 85 win team, tops. 90 would surprise the * out of me. We have a POTENTIALLY great top 3, a weak 4 and 5, and a solid bullpen. But our lineup and bench will be below average. I just don't think 3 starters and a pen is enough to win 90 games. actually, given last year (including career years as well as injuries and poor performers) and looking at us on paper, I'd say that the chances are jsut as good that we'll finish under .500 as win 90.

Look, folks. I know many of us are hoping for the best, but the moment they signed Neifi to that 2 year deal, the writing was on the wall. He'll start at either short or second with Cedeno backinghim up, and I'll even wager that we see Neifi at short and Hairston at second more often than any of us are comfortable with. This organization has always be enamoured of good-clubhouse, poor-on-the-field-performing veterans from the day I first started watching them. Walker may not want to be a backup, but you don't sign backups to 2 year deals for the money they're giving Neifi, either. They may want to move him between short and second on a daily basis, but they most definitely see him in the lineup on a near-daily basis.

I'm still flummoxed that we'll have a near $100 million payroll, and if hendry can find a taker for Walker, we'll be starting BOTH Jones and Perez. I don't know how you overcome that because for the life of me, i can't understand how you ever GET that for $100 million. So I have no idea where we go from here.

Really? I like the idea of seeing great players playing for more than money. I like the idea of seeing how japanese pros match up against major league pitchers and vice versa. And on top of that, I think we might get the opportunity to catch first-glimpses of future MLB players. The injury thing is obviously a risk, but I'm actually pretty excited to see the WBC, even if I'm not convinced the format and execution will be perfect.

If Walker is on this roster and playing BEHIND Neifi Perez, I'm quitting this team until Hendry and Baker are long gone. I mean that.

I vote yes.

He's as good as his shooting. when he hits his shots early, he plays more within himself and more under control. he doesn't TRY to do things beyond his abilities. When he's off, he tries to make up for it by trying things he just can't do. Assuming Rondo retuns next year, UK should be better by attrition. They'll add 4 star guards Jasper and Meeks, and will have Morris all year.

As a UK grad and rabid fan, I should point out that if ANYONE thinks Sparks is a star, they're fools. Really. he couldn't guard a man if you sewed his face to the player's jersey. he's a good shooter, a poor defender, and he's slow. That's from a Rabid fan. He's also about to lose his starting job to sophomore Ramel Bradley. I would trade Sparks for Hansbrough RIGHT NOW and never think twice about it (and I hate UNC). And for the record, he hasn't been around UK forever. This is only his second season with the Wildcats. (he tansferred as a junior).

Angel Echevarria must be about 63 years old, having spent 44 of thos years in about 19 different stints with the Cubs' minor league system. I think Baylor wanted him called up once in a September because he had something like 13 homers in AAA.