wastra

My biggest reason for wanting Girardi (or someone of his stature) is that it wouldn't cost much to get him. We see what happens when you sign a big-name manager to a long contract for sizeable managerial bucks...it's tougher (for spineless GMs like Hendry) to financially justify letting him go early.

I don't count him because we didn't develop him...we traded for him after the Red Sox drafted/developed him.

That could be true. I might be used to such an overwhelming feeling of pessimism that I mistook the lessening of that for optimism :twisted:

I'm curious as to what he'd do with an older rotation and more talented bullpen, in that case. I couldn't say. Again, I get this second hand, obviously, from three big-time baseball fans who live in Miami and watch the Fish as often as possible. But I have to think that if he likes making pitching changes, a roster with a lot of good relievers would be better to do that with. And my buddies never mention the sac bunting thing, but IIRC they were fans of the mid/late 1980s cardinals (Coleman, McGee, Ozzie, Herr, etc) who ran and bunted like crazy, so they might not take notice of that anyway.

I agree with that. On a lot of rosters, you can bury 1 or 2 of those guys. But it makes no sense to have 3-4 of them on the same roster when you have a manager who openly proclaims that he wants to use all of his bench as often as possible. That's bad strategery to not make the roster match the managerial style.

The comlaints I hear from my buddiesi n Miami are about his pitcher usage. They complain that he yanks starters too easily and brings in bad bullpen arms instead. Teh Fish ahd good starters and a weak bullpen this year. They also said WHO he brought in from the pen often defied wisdom- bringing in the worst of the relievers in tight games with everyone rested instead of the better pitchers. I guess you could look at that two ways- good for protecting starters, but bad for winning strategy. That's what i hear from them, I haven't watched enough Fish games to know that to be true or not, and I don't know how that would go on a team with a deep bullpen like the Cubs, but I have to think it would be better with our pen than theirs.

I'm all for spending more both on the payroll and on player development. Looking at the yanks, for example, there are a lot of guys they've bought, but there are also 3-4 home grown guys who are better players than almost anyone on our team (Jeter, Posada, Cano, Bernie a few years ago, etc.) The yanks are exceptional at trading the homegrown players who are borderline and keeping the ones who are going to be real good. We do the opposite, it seems- trading away guys who become solid major leaguers and keeping guys who flop. We'll have Z, Hill, a reliever or two, and that's it next year, most likely. So we're spending less than the yanks, and probably doing a worse job developing our own guys. That's not a good mixture. Disclaimer: A lot of my perceptions on the Cubs' minor leagues is irreparably colored by the minor league 3rd base logjam/fiasco of several years ago. ugh.

LMAO. Surpassing expectations isn't anything to tout. we EXPECTED him to royally blow. he was royally average instead. Whoopee!!!! Only two RFers in the NL had a higher OPS than Jacque this year. He was hardly average. But that's okay, go ahead and bash him anyways. His OBP is horrendous, and that's FAR FAR more telling than OPS (which vastly overrates slugging). You can live with (if necessary) players who have high OBP but don't slug a whole lot, but guys with poor OBP are not good not matter their slugging because they make outs far too often. OBP is far more important. And Jacques makes far too many outs. And on top of that, WHO CARES if he plays right, left or center? Because of the way our roster is assembled, we needed right to be a big-time hitter, not just "okay". Aside from that, you can take nearly ANY otufielder and stick them in right. If you're willing to accept Jacques' terrible arm, no one is too bad to put out there. He is 15th out of 19 qualified MLB RFers this year on OBP. that's just bad. He ranks 45th among qualified major league outfielders. Again, that's not good. Period.

LMAO. Surpassing expectations isn't anything to tout. we EXPECTED him to royally blow. he was royally average instead. Whoopee!!!! At a position in which you NEED a gret deal of offense, a team with a $90 million payroll shouldn't be looking for good "production for the dollar." They should be looking for good "production." We only came into this season knowing we had two truly top-caliber offensive players in Lee and Ramirez. Murton was a question mark and in his first full season. Walker was solid, but nothign spectacular. Barret is very good 'for a catcher' but not the caliber hitter who can be a stud. We haven't even TRIED to bring in a top-caliber corner outfielder since the Alou fiasco. That's unacceptible for a team that has struggled to score runs for 5 years considering it's probably the easiest offensive position to upgrade in the majors. We settled for someone we EXPECTED to be bad, but turned out to be mediocre-to-average. that's not a recipe for success.

It's the first time in three years that I have a good feeling going into an offseason. A lot has to do with today's personnel changes. It seems like FINALLY the team has decided that losing is not acceptable for the organization or with fans any longer. I'm only GUARDEDLY optimistic about our future, given tha Jim Hendry is our GM, but I'm at least mildly optimistic that changes are brewing. I am optimistic because I beleive Juan Pierre wants to leave since Dusty is gone. I am optimistic that Jaques might also leave (via trade) since he cited Dusty as the reason he came here in the first place, making it easier to upgrade our offensive outfield without dealing or benching Murton. And maybe I'm just naive to think it will be different this time. I don't know. You'd think with all the management changes we've been through, I'd learn not to get hopes up, because one incompetent group jsut seems to replace the next every time we go through this. But I think thinngs have changed from the Trib's perspective since the last whoelsale management changes we've had. They're investing more in the franchise now, and paying a higher and higher payroll every year. And with the pressure they're getting to sell the team (which is as much a PR asset to the trib as a financial one), they have to realize that "loveable losers" isn't goign to cut it any longer.

I have to be honest. OPS is a great- unless it's the result of an abnrmally high ratio of slugging to OBP. OBP is, by and large, the most important offensive stat. You can hit the crap out of the ball with good regularity, but if you're making outs 77% of the time you come to the plate, you're likely not helping the team as much as you suspect. The first and foremost goal in hitting is to NOT MAKE AN OUT. Jones, in one of his best years this year, was pretty average in that respect. And comparing his production to other RIGHT FIELDERS is bizarre to me. I don't care what position he plays (and he should be playign left anyway), because when he's at the plate, that has pretty low bearing on his success. At best, he should be compared to CORNER outfielders, since right and left fielders are more or less interchangeable for most teams. I haven't looked to see if this helps or hurts his case- just a bit of logic in the discussion.

Son of a %$# :x Anyone that thinks that the problem with the Cubs is Tribune ownership just doesn't get it. get what? explain yourself? I dont' care if they authorized a 90+ million dollar payroll. They have no interest in brining in compentant leadership that will spend it wisely. They have also been terrible managing the leadership/vision of the farm system. I disagree. I think they THOUGHT MacPhail would be a big winner here. he has a long baseball pedigree and some success in Minnesota. They can be criticized for not putting him on the hot seat earlier, but I almost think, by the sound of his resignation, that he felt a lot of heat from above for a while now. IMO, the Tribune gave him what was required to win, he and his hires (and their hires) just failed miserably at it. The best news for us, as fans, is that the Hendry was "his guy" and hopefully will be on a MAJOR hot seat this season. Philosophy and farm system is not the fault of the Trib, aside from not firing MacPhail. That's all baseball operations- which means it's a management issue (Andy), not ownership (trib). All the trib really does is budget and hire the president. From there on down, that's the President's responsibility.

Over/under on how many times he predicts the hitter K's on a slider low and away? I'd LOVE to see Stone back in the booth. I don't mean to single you out vance, but I think the low-and-away slider joke has been overplayed. It's not as if Stone never offered a LOT more interesting and non-trivial insights than that. I don't think it's overplayed. I think Stone's use of that was overplayed. He offered a lot of interesting insights. But by the end, he was just calling for sliders low and away on every pitch. By the way, Stone wouldn't be back for PBP (play-by-play), he'd be the color man, or analyst. Len is the PBP guy. I almost felt like he was just mailing it in the last month or two he was in the booth. You could tell he wasn't happy with what sides the organization took and their approach to the whole Players vs. Stone issue. I'd love to see him back, but I also feel like his heart isn't into being a full-time color commentator. He's left that position TWICE now in ten years, for different reasons, but I think it's obvious he WANTS to be front office.

I want Wood brgouht back IF it's at a good price. If he wants something like $5 million, he's gotta walk. I think $2-3million base with incentives if he closes full time or starts a lot of games that can make it up to maybe $4m (closing) to $6m (starting). And I don't think they should be performance incentives, but durability incentives (i.e. he shold get bonuses for starts, appearances, IP, etc, but not wins or saves.)

I'm going to guess Theriot just because he's been red-hot since his callup. But that's probably too obvious- so I'll go with... Does Z have 100 at bats, lol? J/J Gotta be Ramirez.

Dusty did nothing manager-like to help PREVENT the demise of Patterson, Wood, and Prior. he certainly didn't PROTECT any of them in any meaningful way. How much he actually CAUSED their problems is debateable...highly. I think the big problems with Patterson rest in the fact that he didn't spend enough time in the minors and he was never taught the right way to play.

I think the biggest problem with the Trib is the same problem with MacPhail- there just never seems to be any repercussions for pathetic on-field performance. Macphail hires Hendry and spends a ton of cash, the cubs suck, MacPhail is still the "golden boy" due to profits. Hendry spends that money terribly, the cubs suck, he gets an extension. Dusty uses the poor players in the worst seeming ways, the cubs suck even more, and he finishes out his ENTIRE contract when no other organization in baseball would have let him finish out this season. Neifi is on of the worst offensive players in baseball, Rusch is at best a mediocre pitcher, and they both get two year deals for twice their market worth. It's like no one in the organization really CARES about winning ballgames. I can't think no another organization of any sort on the planet that actually seems to reward failure like the Cubs do.

To be more concise, I think the singularly biggest failuer of MacPhail's tenure has been that they don't REQUIRE more in terms of on-field success from anyone from the GM on down to the towell boys.

To be fair, he didn't call for them to extend Baker, he said not making a decision either way is symptomatic of the lack of top-down leadership the Cubs suffer from. I think he's right. If Bake was "the Man", he should have been extended. If he wasn't, he should have been fired. Not deciding just added to the circus around this team in the same way that the President of the company not telling his on-field manager and color commentary to act like adults shows a lack of overall direction. Basically, he's saying MacPhail lacks direction. Hendry seems to blow with the wind- whatever wins the past world series is what he rushes out to sign to free agent contracts. Speedy team wins? Sign fast guys. Good defensive team wins? Sign "guys who can catch." it's no different in any other decision this organization makes, including the manager's job. It's all short-term and short-sighted without any cohesiveness or consistancy. That's an organizational failing moreso than an operational one, and that's squarely on MacPhail's shoulders as Prez. Changing philosophy to rely moreo n actual meaningful stats instead of "can catch" or "athlete" is more operational- i.e. Hendry's department as GM. And while I agree with you that he should have told Jim years ago to learn what OBP was, that's more a case of "bad hire" than ongoing problems with Andy's role as prez, becausde to do anything else would be to take the reins of the GM and do that job himself. He's not supposed to be doign that part of the job, he's supposed to hire (and extend in a timely manner, when necessary) the right people. Again, he shows a lack of leadership in that role, too.

And Les Walrond. Well played. Ryu kidding? I Juan Jim to Rusch Glendon out the door, and Mabry I'll buy tickets again. Howry we gonna compete? That's Rich. Ohman. I LOL'ed. If I had read that Prior to taking a sip, I Wood not have spit coffee all over my computer screen.

Then they will need to replace both CF and RF. Doesn't matter, either way they needed to replace 2 guys out there, IMO. I always come back to my idea of platooning Murton with Jacque with the idea he'd hopefully be able to take over RF after a year or two. Get big bopper for LF a la Dunn, C-Lee, etc. and haul up Pie. That, or Jacque in CF. What about getting Matthews Jr for CF and Durham for 2B? that leaves quite a bit of money available for 2 pitchers, that I think are more needed.

I remember a few boneheadedp lays where he flat-out whiffed on fielding some simple grounders and thurned singles into doubles or worse, too. He's had decent range, adequate glove, terrible arm. All in all, he's not exactly a plus defensive player, but he's far from the worst in the league. Dusty is overplaying the job he's done in right, but he's no Phil Nevin in the outfield.

I don't like the idea of committing $100 million and COUNTING on Mark Prior to be a starter. I think you have to sign 2 starters, and use Marshall/Guzman/et al as the emergency starters if/when someone goes down. I know they have potential, but none have shown me they can be a regular starter on a contending team YET.

While I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post, or the main gist of it, I think you're missing an important consideration in the line above. I have more faith that Theriot could provide adequate play at 2b NEXT YEAR than I do in many of our young pitchers providing adequate play as starters NEXT YEAR. But I have more faith that one or more of those young pitchers will provide above average play as starters a couple years down the road than I do that Theriot will ever be more than just adequate. Plus, with our injury history, it's probably a certainty that there will be plenty opportunities to get starts at the major league level next year for these guys even if they begin the year in AAA. Yet I don't think Padilla is necessarilly the best option. But the issue becomes if Padilla or someone like him is brought in, that pitcher will be here for three years in all liklihood. If Zambrano is signed long term, and Prior works out his issues, then a number of those pitchers will have to be let go. If they aren't able to establish value in the majors, many will be let go cheaply to realize that possible ceiling somewhere other than Chicago. I'm willing to gamble that one of a possible five can become valuable next season more so than I'm able to gamble that Theriot will become something than no one has ever really projected him to be. I'm less worries about blocking a pitcher than I am not fielding a good staff next year. One thing about pitchers- if they're halfway decent, you can unload them fairly easily as long as you don't sign them to outrageous contracts. I have no problem with overstocking our staff, and then making deals later to make room for young guys who've shown their ready when the time comes. I've seen far too many other teams sign free agents ahead of major prospects, and have little trouble unloading them to make room. Our issue is signing crappy guys like Jones to contracts higher than we should be, and thus destroying their marketability. You sign a decent pitcher for 3 years at a salary commesurate with how he produces (instead of a Rusch-like signing), and you can find takers if Guzman suddenly finds his control, for example, and starts dominating.

While I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post, or the main gist of it, I think you're missing an important consideration in the line above. I have more faith that Theriot could provide adequate play at 2b NEXT YEAR than I do in many of our young pitchers providing adequate play as starters NEXT YEAR. But I have more faith that one or more of those young pitchers will provide above average play as starters a couple years down the road than I do that Theriot will ever be more than just adequate. Plus, with our injury history, it's probably a certainty that there will be plenty opportunities to get starts at the major league level next year for these guys even if they begin the year in AAA. Yet I don't think Padilla is necessarilly the best option.