davearm2

Puts me ahead of you, anyway.

I want you to prove that rotation is mediocre. You've said it repeatedly, you are wrong, and I'd like for you to produce some sort of evidence that Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall is a mediocre rotation. Here's what those five guys' career ERAs as a starter are, and how many starts you can anticipate them making (based on history): Zambrano 3.47 32 Lilly 4.34 28 Harden 3.38 17 Marquis 4.47 32 Marshall 4.67 17 That leaves 36 starts to be absorbed by other members of the pitching staff -- relievers, minor leaguers, whatever. We'll give that group of fillins a collective ERA of 5.00. Run the numbers and your starting rotation as a whole puts up an ERA of 4.27. Here's how a 4.27 starters' ERA would rank amongst NL clubs in the last 5 years: 2008 8 2007 5 2006 4 2005 10 2004 10 That's an average ranking of 7.4 out of 16. Looks mediocre to me. FWIW, Philly's starters' ERA in '08 ranked 7th in the NL; St. Louis's starters' ERA in '06 ranked 12th. Hope this helps.

I didn't want Lower that much, but I would have much rather have had him at 4/60 than Dempster at 4/53. Actually, I'd rather have saved the money and not had Dempster than just trhrow it away on him. Seriously, you're saying that it's better to give out a horrible contract than it is to not give one out at all. You really don't see a problem with that? What about when we're in need of a starter one offseason and Carlos Silva is the only guy avilable. Is it okay to give him 4/40? Hey, anything is better than what we have... right? Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41. Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26. Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster. So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract". One guy was a reliever and the other was a starter, first of all before 09....how many good years did lowe have as a starter. how many did dempster have? Pointing out that Dempster has been used as a closer and then following it up by asking how many good years he's had as a starter? That's your counterpoint? Really? How exactly was Dempster supposed to be good as a starter when he was busy being good as a reliever?

So no comment on the 2008 Phillies, no interest in comparing the rotations, no interest in providing the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever? Got it. WTF kind of evidence do you want, exactly? Mediocre rotations CAN win in the playoffs. It happens sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes -- and I'll grant you that. Just don't throw out two anecdotal cases and expect that you've proven any sort of cogent point. What we're talking about here is how best to construct a team, and far more evidence can be offered that shows building a championship-caliber team upon a mediocre rotation is not very often a successful approach. Heck didn't the Tigers finish in last place last year with a murderer's row offense and a rotation very similar to the one you're advocating? Or however many consecutive Rangers teams? Or last year's Yankees? And on and on.

I didn't want Lower that much, but I would have much rather have had him at 4/60 than Dempster at 4/53. Actually, I'd rather have saved the money and not had Dempster than just trhrow it away on him. Seriously, you're saying that it's better to give out a horrible contract than it is to not give one out at all. You really don't see a problem with that? What about when we're in need of a starter one offseason and Carlos Silva is the only guy avilable. Is it okay to give him 4/40? Hey, anything is better than what we have... right? Here are Dempster's FIP numbers for the last four years: 3.38, 3.79, 4.54, 3.41. Here are Lowe's: 4.16, 3.68, 3.97, 3.26. Lowe's 4 years older than Dempster. So remind me again why you'd be cool with giving Lowe more money than Dempster, but think Dempster got a "horrible contract".

It's one thing to spend money on good players that fill needs. It's another to spend money on a guy who had one good season (in a contract year) who is likely to regress to his career averages. Soriano, DeRosa, Lilly, and to a lesser extent, Marquis filled holes on the Cubs team by performing primarily how they typically had over their careers. We definitely overpaid for Soriano but we needed to make a statement. Giving Dempster that kind of money was/is insane. His current ERA is 4.99, right in line with his career average. He's a bad pitcher who had his career year at the right time and we're going to be paying a steep price for his mediocrity for the next 4 years. An inexcusable move by Hendry and Co. We'll see. I expect Dempster will pick it up and prove you wrong. The prediction here is, by the time the dust settles the guy will put in a solid year and be a key ingredient to the team making the postseason, just like last year.

Actually, yes, that's a rotation more than good enough to win a championship. LOL then I suppose you've got no issues with the Cubs' lineup bullpen or bench either, since sketchy/mediocre is "more than good enough to win a championship". You'd suppose wrong. Why not focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to deflect it. Would you care to prove that those guys are sketchy/mediocre as a group? You can't just say "HOW COULD YOU DO X, Y IS WHAT YOU NEED TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP?" and then act like anyone who disagrees with you doesn't want to win a championship. That rotation gives you two dominant starters, and at worst one good and two average ones. If that's not good enough to win a championship, Philadelphia and St. Louis better be giving back those rings they won in the last three years. Seriously, stack those five up against the 2008 and 2006 World Champions, and show me how they don't measure up? LOL, I knew I'd get the '06 Cardinals thrown in my face. If your objective is to build an 83-win team and then pray for a miracle, then you've got the rotation you need. Good luck with that. You'll excuse those of us that would prefer to set the bar a bit higher than that.

Actually, yes, that's a rotation more than good enough to win a championship. LOL then I suppose you've got no issues with the Cubs' lineup bullpen or bench either, since sketchy/mediocre is "more than good enough to win a championship". Stop deflecting. You implied that it's okay to make a bad decision/desperation move as long as you really need that position filled. That is a terrible way to build a team. I didn't imply any such thing. I was merely trying to point out that the folks bemoaning the Dempster deal have conveniently forgotten to offer up a cheaper plan that would've put the Cubs in a better position to contend. Seriously. Going with what we've got (minus Dempster) would've put the Cubs in worse shape. Hoping to find the next Kyle Lohse at the risk of finding the next Wade Miller or Adam Eaton or Jeff Weaver instead would've, too.

A horrible deal that isn't getting enough attention. Dempster was a nice story last year and did a nice job but there was no way in hell he was going to repeat that (especially 4 more times)! That thing is an albatross of Chan Ho Park proportions. Yep should've just gone with Z Lilly Harden Marquis Marshall. That's a championship-caliber rotation if I've ever seen one. Probably would've won like 120 games. lol So it's okay to give out a horrible contract to a crappy as long as it's to a player who plays a position that you need. If the alternative is missing the playoffs, it is. Maybe you can recall back to 2006, when the Cubs went budget-friendly at SS (Cedeno/Izturis), 2B (Cedeno/Neifi/Hairston/Womack) LF (Murton/Pagan/Bynum), RF (Jones), the rotation (too many stiffs to count; after Z and Hill it was a total disaster) and the result was they lost 96 games or whatever it was. Then that winter the money flies, and back-to-back division championships follow. Not handing out the big money for proven production seems smart right up to the point where you're watching the playoffs on Fox instead of from the bleachers.

Actually, yes, that's a rotation more than good enough to win a championship. LOL then I suppose you've got no issues with the Cubs' lineup bullpen or bench either, since sketchy/mediocre is "more than good enough to win a championship".

A horrible deal that isn't getting enough attention. Dempster was a nice story last year and did a nice job but there was no way in hell he was going to repeat that (especially 4 more times)! That thing is an albatross of Chan Ho Park proportions. Yep should've just gone with Z Lilly Harden Marquis Marshall. That's a championship-caliber rotation if I've ever seen one. Probably would've won like 120 games.

I honestly believe the both did. I don't really know how anybody can try and pretend Hendry did not. Of course both did. So I'll go back to what I said in the first place: It's amazing to me that all of this nonsense is being dumped in Hendry's lap. Piniella deserves a share of the responsibility. IMO more than half, but the exact ratio is irrelevant. Regardless, people are acting as though this is all Hendry's making, which is nonsensical. I might agree with you on this one, but let me ask you this question.... Who was it exactly that hired Lou Piniella? My understanding is this: The Tribune hired someone named Dennis Fitzsimons (or somesuch) to be chairman and CEO. Fitzsimons (or more likely a predecessor to him) hired Andy MacPhail to be President of the Cubs. MacPhail hired Hendry to be GM. Hendry has since reported to two other Presidents: John McDonough and now Crane Kenney. Hendry hired Piniella to be manager. So you tell me what the point of who hired who is. Do all of the above folks share in the blame for the misguided quest for a more lefthanded lineup?

I honestly believe the both did. I don't really know how anybody can try and pretend Hendry did not. Of course both did. So I'll go back to what I said in the first place: It's amazing to me that all of this nonsense is being dumped in Hendry's lap. Piniella deserves a share of the responsibility. IMO more than half, but the exact ratio is irrelevant. Regardless, people are acting as though this is all Hendry's making, which is nonsensical.

It's amazing to me that all of this nonsense is being dumped in Hendry's lap. Lou (and Dusty before him) is the one setting these agendas, by and large. This whole getting more lefthanded business mostly Piniella's idea. Hendry's options are: a) construct the team in the way his manager wants it (what he's doing now), or b) fire the manager and hire one with a different philosophy (what he did when Dusty's gameplan wasn't working). Regardless, the GM and the manager need to be reading from the same playbook, and that comes predominantly from the manager. In a sense, my previous post was tongue in cheek. However, all of those things are not things I just randomly made up for the heck of it. This team did NOT need to get more left handed this past offseason. They sucked in a playoff series much like they have pretty much sucked all year long this year. They were extremely sucky this past week. It had absolutely nothing to do with what side of the plate people hit from. That Hendry would even use that as an excuse and then spend time this offseason attempting to actually get more left handed makes people question his intelligence level and whether he should have such a powerful job for a major league organization. Do you honestly think Hendry was the one who felt the need to make the lineup more lefthanded, and not Piniella?

It amazes me that people think the argument that Hendry completely abdicates his job to a subordinate is a legitimate defense. Nobody's saying that, though. Look this year the Packers fired their D Coordinator and hired Dom Capers. To noone's surprise, Capers switched the Pack from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense. With his first two picks in the draft this year, Ted Thompson picked defensive players he thinks are well suited to play in Capers' new system, BJ Raji and Clay Matthews. So tell me. Did Ted Thompson "completely abdicate his job to a subordinate" there? Is he a "puppet on a string", as the other poster intimated? Reconstructing a batting order to get more lefthanded is very much like what the Packers are going through. I mean seriously, nobody thinks that was Hendry's idea and not Piniella's, do they?

It's amazing to me that all of this nonsense is being dumped in Hendry's lap. Lou (and Dusty before him) is the one setting these agendas, by and large. This whole getting more lefthanded business mostly Piniella's idea. Hendry's options are: a) construct the team in the way his manager wants it (what he's doing now), or b) fire the manager and hire one with a different philosophy (what he did when Dusty's gameplan wasn't working). Regardless, the GM and the manager need to be reading from the same playbook, and that comes predominantly from the manager. Dusty was never fired. We let him railroad a season instead of firing him. His contract ran out. That distinction is irrelevant to this discussion. If Hendry was satisfied with Dusty, he would've kept him by offering him a new contract.

It's amazing to me that all of this nonsense is being dumped in Hendry's lap. Lou (and Dusty before him) is the one setting these agendas, by and large. This whole getting more lefthanded business mostly Piniella's idea. Hendry's options are: a) construct the team in the way his manager wants it (what he's doing now), or b) fire the manager and hire one with a different philosophy (what he did when Dusty's gameplan wasn't working). Regardless, the GM and the manager need to be reading from the same playbook, and that comes predominantly from the manager. Hendry's job is to build the best team he can, it is not to get the manager whatever he wants. And that is especially true when your manager routinely runs off perfectly capable guys and you are forced to waste resources on replacing those guys. The GM sets the agenda. He hires the manager, he acquires the players. Hendry needs to give Lou what he wants to give Lou. "This gets dumped in Hendry's lap" because that is exactly where it belongs. This is pretty naive when we're talking about a manager in the Piniella, LaRussa, Torre, Cox, etc. category. If you don't think behind the scenes those guys are calling the most important shots on matters pertaining to the major league club, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's amazing to me that all of this nonsense is being dumped in Hendry's lap. Lou (and Dusty before him) is the one setting these agendas, by and large. This whole getting more lefthanded business mostly Piniella's idea. Hendry's options are: a) construct the team in the way his manager wants it (what he's doing now), or b) fire the manager and hire one with a different philosophy (what he did when Dusty's gameplan wasn't working). Regardless, the GM and the manager need to be reading from the same playbook, and that comes predominantly from the manager.

What's worse is that it appears no one really discovered the extent of the damage to his shoulder for quite some time. Had it been found and repaired sooner, he might be healthy now. Then again, shoulder injuries can be difficult to come back from, so who knows. I strongly suspect whatever persistent shoulder damage Prior suffered was a result of the repetitive stress of pitching, not from the Giles collision. Then every pitcher with 300 ip (or so) should be injured too, right? What kind of junk logic is that? Not every body is equally susceptible to repetitive stress injuries. Or any type of injury. Some wind up like Clemens, and some like Prior.

What's worse is that it appears no one really discovered the extent of the damage to his shoulder for quite some time. Had it been found and repaired sooner, he might be healthy now. Then again, shoulder injuries can be difficult to come back from, so who knows. I strongly suspect whatever persistent shoulder damage Prior suffered was a result of the repetitive stress of pitching, not from the Giles collision.

I'm sure Hendry's fielded calls asking about guys like Soto and Marmol this offseason. Do you think he should hurry up and trade those guys ASAP just in case they wind up like Pie and Hill? Yeah, didn't think so.

What, 5 pages and still no "these prospects must be guys Kevin Towers likes"?

I'm sure that's what his agent has been saying, and the answer apparently keeps coming back "no".

Looks like you're right, Heilman's got two years to FA. I was going off of something someone said earlier, which apparently was wrong.

Sure is a lot of love for Garrett Olson on here all of a sudden. Haven't seen anyone mention that Heilman could wind up a Type A FA and land the Cubs two high picks in the 2010 draft. IIRC Heilman was in the Type A range on this year's list.