RichHillIsABeast

Aramis just doesn't hustle. He's not lazy like Eyre. What's Eyre's offseason fitness plan? Twinkees and ding dongs? Aramis just needs someone to put fire under his *ss during the season. Dusty was too touchy feely for that. It wouldn't have taken much. Look at how much Aramis improved defensively since he came over from the Pirates. He can put in the effort and he wants to be a better ballplayer.

that lineup is terrible. It's not supposed to contend in '07. Thanks for your constructive and articulate insight though. :)

In addition to 20 million being cleared off the books, the Cubs appear willing to add an additional 20 million to the payroll, for a grand total of 40 mill to play with this offseason. Lets say Diasuke gets 15 million per season plus figure 5 mi/season of the bidding fee amoritzed over the life of the contract(its possible they won't even hold this "bidding fee" against the payroll budget") Where is the rest of the $$$ going. That's what I'd do, not what I think will realistically happen. If we want to spend more, I'd nab Kuroda or Saito type guy and Soriano. I wouldn't touch Carlos Lee, Matthews Jr., or Pierre with a 10 foot pole. Guys like Zito and Schmidt should be passed on for the likes of Matsuzaka.

Actually it is. It's not like he was the groundskeeper before and ticket seller. He was in charge of the farm, then he was asst GM, then GM. His paws are everywhere. This is his team. I'm not singling out any one individual, just the one remaining individual from the triumverate of failures that led this team into the toilet. Andy, Jim and Dusty. Jim is as guilty as any of them. What does that even mean? Do you want to sit on the $40-60m available to spend until a new core is in place? The core is in place. Zambrano, Ramirez and Lee are the core, with Barrett and Murton along for the ride and guys like Hill, Wuertz and others very capable of contributing now and the future. Midseason they should have gone after Bobby Abreu for the garbage Philly was looking to take back. I don't know what other midseason spending you are talking about, but that would have been a very smart move. Abreu isn't worth the 15M next season and 16M option in '08. If we're going to blow that kind of money, it should be on a player that gets you more wins...a front of the line starter. Abreu wouldn't have gotten us the playoffs. I'm talking about hypothetical moves in the future, not this past season. We were cooked before the ASB. If the core stays healthy and the new kids step it up, we make a move for that extra bat or arm. Abreu doesn't help us down the road 2+ years, which is our new window. We're not going to the WS next year and picking up bad contracts right now isn't a great move. My '07 roster: Z/Matsuzaka/Hill/Miller/Prior or deserving kid Barrett / Lee / Lugo (or Giles) / Izturis / Ramirez / Murton / Pie / whomever I'd take a flier on Woody and see if he can close once his arm gets used to the workload. Jones should be shipped out or platooned. Spend the money overseas (maybe even another arm from Japan) on a guy who can help you for years to come (Matsuzaka is 26). Our rotation could be quite good going into '08 with Z/Matsuzaka/Hill. Once more trade for a quality SP and then we can really nail down the holes in the offense (RF, SS, bench). We need to spend the money at the right time. Spending money after the season is over by the ASB on a guy like Abreu is ridiculous.

Does Jason Grimsley look stacked to you? I didn't think so. What's your point? You point to physical attributes (which are not uncommon btw) as proof but then you point to the absence of them in another case? You can't have it both ways. Different steroids work different ways. Some can be used for body mass and others can be used to heal faster (modern medicine uses them all the time to rehab injuries). The total meltdown Prior had points to something drastic happening (Giles, linedrive, etc), not the lack of steroids/HGH, which would tend to manifest later in the season after his body wasn't recovering as fast as normal.

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time. I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake? It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place. You have no idea how a baseball organization runs. Hendry doesn't tell Wilken who to draft, for example. When Hendry's job title changes, his responsibilities change. So does what he can be held accountable for. When someone isn't left in a position long enough to evaluate the results, it's pretty hard to blame him for everything. What you get is a cumulative effect. Singling out one individual who has had many EVERCHANGING leadership roles as the ultimate culprit ignores the complexity of what is going on in the Cubs org. It's not about how much total time Hendry has spent in the organization. MacPhail you can blame for everything. He set the organization-wide agenda, but your method of blame placement isn't accurate. My comment about not spending money was related to this team at the ASB. No Prior, Wood, or Lee makes that a pretty obvious call, especially with Pierre's lackluster 1st half. That wasn't a problem that could be fixed with money. I have no problem spending money once the core is in place. But you have to develop the core first.

High rate of turnover? Andy and Hendry were in charge for 12 years. How the hell can you possibly claim the problem is with the high rate of turnover in leaders when the two most prominent leaders were in place for 12 years. Andy was part of the problem. He set the agenda for everyone below him. I'm glad he's gone. He was way too conservative and it showed with his lack of flexibility. Hendry switched titles several times in that 12 years. Hendry has nothing to do with the draft now, for example. Job responsibilities changed. Not only have they changed for Hendry, but baseball is extremely against micro-managing. You let people do their jobs. Blaming Hendry for long term problems (like 20+ year problems) when he was only in certain roles for a several years is ridiculous. That's not how baseball organizations work. Yes, the problem is a high rate of turnover. We can't even begin to fix the many problems further down in the organization without quality steady leadership. MacPhail was steady, but not quality. Let's see what Hendry can do with a free hand now that MacDonough is basically going to rubber stamp the baseball department's decisions. If it doesn't improve drastically in the next two years, it's all on Hendry.

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time. I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

You seem like somebody who likes to come to conclusions without much evidence. I've followed the Hendry era very closely. I was strongly against the whole "we're going to be the Braves" thing long ago. I advocated many many years ago a much stronger effort be placed on developing hitters. I was all about the farm system long before it became par for the course to be all about the farm system. But you cannot simply build around young pitching, because it is the single most unstable thing in all of baseball. Young pitchers drop like flies, and pitchers in general are not the most consistent bunch. I'm all about having young pitching. But building through the farm system does not mean you can't spend $100+ million on good pitching and good hitting today. I don't see what you seem to be advocating. You talk about the need for developing with young players, but then you also talk about not going with a Zambrano + rookies rotation. What are you looking for? There's no reason why the Cubs can't continue to build from within, while at the same time spending to build with players from outside the organization and contending today. 10 years ago, a guy like Jacque Jones would have been your 2nd best position player, now we have 3 hitters who are much better, plus a young player that is just as good and probably soon to be better. This isn't a hapless bunch where you'd be better off dumping everything and building for 5 years down the road. This is a team that can contend, with the right moves, now. They can be a 95 win team, and still keep building up the farm system. They can, and should, get as many good hitters and pitchers as they can. They should not sacrifice hitting for pitching because of some cliche about great pitching. We tried to build from within and caught some bad luck. It takes time to rebound from that. Just going out and spending money when your core has just taken a serious hit isn't smart. It's reactionary. Hendry was a little slow realizing Wood would give us next to nothing these last two years. That's his only major mistake. Prior went down b/c of cumulative freak injuries. Lee went down b/c of freak injuries. A healthy Z, Prior, and Lee take this team to the playoffs. Our record looks very poor compared to the talent we had on the field b/c of all the young pitching (not ML ready) we threw out there.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. Holy smokes. If that isn't the biggest cop-out BS remark I've ever read in reference to Hendry and his performance then I don't know what is. It sounds like something that would come out of this Administration regarding the war in Iraq. Even with all this supposed talent and close to 100 million dollar payroll the Cubs made they playoffs once. And never managed to win 90 games. This year they almost lost 100. The Cubs have done nothing but go backwards since Hendry was given the job of GM Read my above post. I explained my remark there. Hendry is the problem. It was painfully obvious that changes needed to be made by the all-star break but Hendry didn't make them. It was obvious that the Cubs needed some run producers in this line-up and he didn't get them. Those are just two of the myriad examples of Hendry's incompetence. Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season. Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time. This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it. I'm talking about firing Dusty. And it is not just this year. Why do you insist on being obtuse in regard to Hendry? He is terrible and has been since he took over the job. Instead of firing him they gave him an extension. Then MacPhail leaves. I don't know if he's taking responisbility or not? But the last thing he should have done was fire Hendry on his way out. He and Andy created this mess. Hendry hasn't been great, but there's a lot more going on than just Hendry making the wrong moves. MacPhail was a big part of Hendry's turn to the conservative. Early on Hendry was making great moves frequently. Then Andy reined him in. In some ways maybe that was a good thing, but it really curbs Hendry's skills. Hendry is a gunslinger. I think we'll see that again, especially with a lot of free payroll and holes to fill. Hendry has been terrible since getting the job? OMG. If you're not even going to be the slightest bit objective on this subject, go ahead. Lee, Aramis, Nomar, and Hill were all terrible decisions/acquisitions! Fire Hendry now!

I have large calves compared to my thighs. I guess I'm on HGH too. 8) If Prior was on illegal substances, more than his calves would be developed, especially his thighs, as he's a power pitcher. Prior is not developed at all. Dude had some freak arm injuries...and he's had subsequent problems. There's no conspiracy theories or illegal substances behind it.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. And as the person responsible for that department, Hendry deserves and receives the blame for its failures. Yes, I realize that's how we think about things in America. Unfortunately, that mentality doesn't fix the problem many times. It takes time to identify problems in the lower reaches of the organization. Simply replacing the heads of departments just ensures that doesn't get fixed. Blaming Hendry for a problem that wasn't of his making and he hadn't had time to fix (or maybe even identify) is silly. It doesn't matter who's to blame. What matters is that the problem is fixed. I'm sorry, maybe I assumed something you didn't know. Hendry was the one that was the head of scouting and development before he became GM. It was most certainly his problem. Yes, I did know that. I was debating where the blame falls in an organization. If you keep blaming the leaders and have a high rate of turnover (like we're doing), you're not giving your leaders time to identify and fix the problems lower in the organization before being re-assigned/let go/whatever.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. Holy smokes. If that isn't the biggest cop-out BS remark I've ever read in reference to Hendry and his performance then I don't know what is. It sounds like something that would come out of this Administration regarding the war in Iraq. Even with all this supposed talent and close to 100 million dollar payroll the Cubs made they playoffs once. And never managed to win 90 games. This year they almost lost 100. The Cubs have done nothing but go backwards since Hendry was given the job of GM Read my above post. I explained my remark there. Hendry is the problem. It was painfully obvious that changes needed to be made by the all-star break but Hendry didn't make them. It was obvious that the Cubs needed some run producers in this line-up and he didn't get them. Those are just two of the myriad examples of Hendry's incompetence. Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season. Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time. This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

Actually, he was the one leading the charge to try and keep the team in the wild card in 2004. Aramis isn't nearly so lazy as the hack-job journalists would have you believe. *cough* Bruce Levine *cough*

LMAO. Now there is a physical profile of HGH/steroid users based on calf size?

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. Holy smokes. If that isn't the biggest cop-out BS remark I've ever read in reference to Hendry and his performance then I don't know what is. It sounds like something that would come out of this Administration regarding the war in Iraq. Even with all this supposed talent and close to 100 million dollar payroll the Cubs made they playoffs once. And never managed to win 90 games. This year they almost lost 100. The Cubs have done nothing but go backwards since Hendry was given the job of GM Read my above post. I explained my remark there.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs. And as the person responsible for that department, Hendry deserves and receives the blame for its failures. Yes, I realize that's how we think about things in America. Unfortunately, that mentality doesn't fix the problem many times. It takes time to identify problems in the lower reaches of the organization. Simply replacing the heads of departments just ensures that doesn't get fixed. Blaming Hendry for a problem that wasn't of his making and he hadn't had time to fix (or maybe even identify) is silly. It doesn't matter who's to blame. What matters is that the problem is fixed.

Guess who was head of player development and scouting right before Hendry took over as GM? He's a delegator. It's the guys on the ground that aren't doing their jobs.

I don't think the Cubs ignored offense so much as they just weren't able to develop any on their own like the Braves. That's not a GM's fault. That's player development and the scouting department not getting it done. What elite offensive players did you want at the time for the amount they got? We didn't think we were going to develop 3 healthy aces from our system. They just dropped in our lap b/c of our poor records (high draft picks) other than Z. It's not likely we'll have that happen again. 2 isn't out of the question, especially if we keep Z (who's obviously not making the league min anymore). But that's what we were dealt at the time and we understandably went from there. What would you have done with a rotation of Prior/Z/Wood going into 2004? Traded one for an elite bat? Come on.

It is a poor plan because the odds of developing a staff of great and healthy pitchers are slim. The Cubs tried to emulate the Braves, forgetting that what the Braves did was unprecedented, and that they developed hitters. The Cubs were free to pursue elite offensive players, and they chose not to. It's not smart to think you are going to develop a rotation of 3 healthy aces from within your organization. You can't contentrate that much on pitching and ignore offense as much as the Cubs have. Hindsight is great, isn't it? The only guy with health issues going into 2003 was Wood. There was no reason to believe Prior or Z would have health issues. We were looking at the best 1-3 in baseball, with two guys making the league min and becoming arbi eligible. Wood's contract isn't even that bad, especially if he was healthy. With those 3 pitchers, we could have filled out the rotation easily with a veteran innings eater and developed a young guy in the 5 spot while easily making the playoffs, assuming the offense wasn't atrocious. That's a lot of money to spend on offense. You seem like the stereotypical second guesser to me. It can't be fun being that negative.

You'd have to work really hard to not get good pitching and hitting out of $100 million. Just because Hendry has done it, doesn't mean everybody can. I don't understand how anybody can look at the financial situation in baseball, and advocate that the Cubs skimp on one side of the ball in an effort to emulate some smaller market teams that had to. Do you really think Beane would settle on mediocre offense if he had $100+ million to spend? Beane also knows the most important thing is to develop your own talent. He wouldn't be able to do anything without a farm system consistently producing ML talent (or ML talent via trade). It helps when you have guys making the league minimum producing at average or above average levels. It's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it. You want to go out and buy a team via FA and trades? Your 100M isn't going to amount to squat. You'll be loaded with bad contracts for older players. If something goes wrong along the way (injuries, slumps, etc), you just blew something more important than money - time. Each year, the dollar doesn't go as far in baseball. I never advocated the Cubs "skimp" on one side of the ball. Simply buying a team like you advocate won't work consistently, if at all.

Where did I ever say baseball is pitching only? It's tough to win with good pitching and no run support (look at Clemens last year). Baseball is about scoring more runs than you give up. There are many ways to to that. You can limit runs scored with defense and pitching. You can score more with offense. No, it's not a poor plan. A *healthy* rotation of Z/Wood/Prior (barring freak injuries to Prior and Wood imploding) gets us to the playoffs every year...with a middling offense. With a solid offense and defense (which would have been there considering amount those 3 were making) that team is one of the best in baseball. Pitching isn't expensive when you develop it yourself, like we did. It really frees you up to pursue that elite offensive/defensive team, especially since those players are moved much more often via trade/FA than elite pitchers are. * We need to develop position prospects too, but unfortunately, we're inapable of finding and deveoping the likes of Reyes, Wright, and Jeter.

You seem to be arguing that $100m won't be able to buy us a good all-around team, and we should therefore focus almost exclusively on pitching. You claim OBP and SLG is expensive, but pitching always has been, and probably always will be the most expensive part of the game. The Cubs can afford to, and need to, field a great hitting and great pitching team. A 100M team with two aces that miss pretty much the entire season isn't going to play like a 100M team. You can't just go out and purchase the equivalent talent to make up for those losses (offensively or with pitching)...not in one season anyway. Aces are pretty much developed in house and don't reach the trade or FA markets until they are very old or very overpaid. Pitching is expensive and that's exactly why we weren't going to do much w/o Prior and Wood this last season. It can't be replaced easily. The offense that we'd need to acquire to win with a rotation of Z/Maddux/scrubs would need to be ridiculous. OBP and SLG are expensive. Just ask Billy Beane. He shifted strategies to win. Flexibility and openness to new ideas is a good thing. There isn't one way to win baseball games, but it's pretty freaking difficult without pitching. There's no way the Mets make the playoffs without Pedro, Glavine, and Hernandez. There's no way the Cards make the playoffs without Carpenter. Once you get into the playoffs, whatever. Guys like Schuerholtz and Beane both think it's a crapshoot have very different philosophies on constructing an offense. But all their winning teams had great pitching... Both pitching and offense (well, OBP and SLG) are expensive, but we should be able to field both on a 100M payroll? Are you serious? We'd be hard pressed to do one now that Z's cheap years are long gone.

See Cardinals/Mets. The Cardinals made it in a crappy division with a Cy Young candidate going once every 5 days. The Mets made it with Pedro, Glavine, Hernandez, etc. They weren't exactly pitching devoid. Z isn't even close to the pitcher Carpenter is, or Pedro for that matter. So you discount the Yankees winning 97 games without great pitching. STL is in the same division as the Cubs, has less money to spend on hitting, and just as many crap pitchers. Carpenter is not much better than Zambrano, they are very close. The Mets didn't get anything out of Pedro this year, he had a sub 100 ERA+ in 130 innings. The 2005 version of Mark Prior was much better than that. El Duque was average with the Mets, and hasn't been in the playoffs at all. Glavine was good early, but nothing special the rest of the year. Their best pitcher the past few months has been a virtual rookie with no history of major league success. People like to spout off about pitching because it's a great cliche. But the 2006 NLCS has put to rest any notion that you absolutely must have great pitching to go anywhere in the postseason. These teams are routinely throwing out retreads, has beens and nobodies, and succeeding. Why? Because they built good overall teams, and didn't foolishly focus solely on filling out a cliche. How can I discount the NYY when I specifically mentioned them? Their lineup is unreal. That kind of offensive talent is expensive...far more than we can afford. It takes that kind of lineup to win w/o pitching (although Wang was ok). What other team is going to field a lineup that stacked? The Cubs aren't, especially not on 100M. The Mets also have two stud infielders developed in their own system. That frees up a lot of payroll. Their pitching was fine until the injuries. People like to spout off about pitching b/c it's a great cliche? Wake up dude. That's people on both sides of the isle, stats and scouts. Beane certainly knows pitching wins games. All his successful teams have had great pitching. He's had 3 run homer teams that couldn't field a lick and teams that couldn't hit their weight but had incredible defense. Pitching made them all win. No pitching, no winning. Why are you even citing success in the playoffs? It's a crapshoot. Even Sergio Mitre had a couple good starts in a row. Even the 2006 Cubs scored more than 10 runs in a games. Sample size.

100M should be enough to build a solid 1-8 and pitching staff. Not when you lose two aces to injuries it isn't. OBP isn't cheap nowadays, niether is SLG. How many legit aces were traded or acquired in the past season? Those guys aren't replaceable. Playoff teams: New York Mets $101,084,963 Los Angeles Dodgers $98,447,187 St. Louis Cardinals $88,891,371 Detroit Tigers $82,612,866 San Diego Padres $69,896,141 Minnesota Twins $63,396,006 Oakland Athletics $62,243,079 I'm not arguing that 100M isn't enough to put a winning team on the field. Read my comments again.