CubsWin

I would much rather have Greene than Theriot, but according to the numbers I can find, Khalil is not the better OBP guy. If anything, they are about the same with maybe a slight edge going to Theriot. Greene's non-Petco OBP last season was .322. Theriot's OBP was .326 last year. Basically, the same. Greene's career OBP away from Petco is slighly better at .335, but then again so is Theriot's at .341. That .341 career OBP is impacted by the freakish couple of months Ryan put up in '06, so let's throw that out and go back a little further to their minor league numbers. Greene didn't spend a lot of time in the minors, but his career minor league OBP is .341 while Theriot's is .352. Basically, they are about the same statistically with the slight edge going to Theriot when Petco is taken out of the equation. That said, Greene's power and defense are such great assests over what Theriot brings, that the comparison isn't even close.

If it keeps going like this, it may soon be the only thread in NSBB history. Never before has a thread's content been as much about the thread than it's supposed topic. It's become a blob-like movie monster feeding on itself, expanding, soon to absorb all other threads past and present. I love it.

Hendry was asked at the lunch-in about Marshall and replied "He's not going anywhere". That, combined with the reports that the players rumored in the Roberts trade was false, may give credit to that statement. Then on the other side of the ledger you have Steve Trachsel. Wasn't Marshall supposedly struggling from fatigue, or am I making things up? Nope, you are remembering correctly. Apparently, due to Marshall's injury history, he hadn't built up much stamina when it comes to pitching over the course of a season, so he just sort of lost it towards the end of last year. Anyone who thinks Hendry likes Traschel over Marshall or doesn't "like" Marshall because of that hurried acquisition late last season alone isn't basing their opinions in reality. Now there may be other reasons, but that trade is not one of them.

And, after 114 pages, we're right back where we started. Awesome.

If he is actually non-tendered today, and not resigned, this is a very sad day, indeed. You will be missed, Mark.

When I read this, it reminded me of when Dallas Green was quoted saying, "We got him! We got him! We got the Penguin!"

Or even 12 million of them...

:lol: YES Imagine Harry trying to get it right.Imagine Harry trying to say it backwards!

Has there been any talk on the Chicago sports talk radio on this subject today?

Hendry doesn't see Fukudome's OBP. All he sees is his left handedness. Untrue. He also sees that he has speed and is Japanese. He can also catch the ball. He doesn't even see that. He just sees that the Chunichi Dragons won the championship for the first time in 53 years, and he's hoping some of that streaking busting magic is still in Fuk's bat. After all, what the Cubs really need is timely hitting.

If the choices are really between Rowand and Fukudome, I'll take Fukudome. Either one would give the Cubs the option of playing them in RF or CF which is really important if they plan on bringing up Pie, but Kosuke has less of an injury history, likely better OBP, probably equally good defense if not slightly better than Rowand. Signing Fukudome will be a risk, most certainly, but there is only one way to find out if he's going to be more like Hideki or Kaz. Here's hoping he is signed by the end of the week. At the end of the season, pretty much everyone felt that an infusion of OBP at the top of the order and moving Soriano down is what the Cubs should realistically do this off season to improve their offense. Now it looks like they have a chance to do exactly that with Fukudome and Roberts. Come on, Jim.

Not really any new info, just another source...

Meph gives reasons for his opinions, too. You just have to be around for them because, quite understandably, repeating oneself over and over again gets old. I have respect for Meph's opinions on baseball. I don't agree with all of them, but I have respect for them. I have no respect for how he chooses to treat other people. But that is an unfortunate reality of life on the internet. Perhaps its the safety of being out of range that emboldens people to treat each other so horribly on message boards, but its likely not changing anytime soon. Unless, of course, there is a radical shift in what behavior is tolerated.

Unless we are moving one of Howry, Marmol or Wuertz, I dont understand why we would want Lahey. He'd be nothing more then a throw-in in a trade and that team would still have to keep him on the big league roster. They could have just picked him themselves if they wanted him that bad. Then asked the Cubs for some other prospect. I think I am going to stop trying to understand anything we do at this point. Well, the coobs went out of their way to make this deal/pick up this guy. Either they truly do see something in him or he is just a piece we are moving to someone else as part of a future trade. Or they are planning on moving another reliever in a deal. Perhaps Lahey is being brought in to replace another former catcher turned reliever who is going in a deal to Baltimore for Brian Roberts. Or maybe they just liked him and thought they would give him a try in ST. The rule 5 draft is largely a no harm no foul type deal. If the guy isn't ready and doesn't work out, you just return him. All you are out in $25,000. Or, in this case, the $25K + whatever we sent to Tampa to get the first pick. True that. And, darn it, you barely beat me to the Marmol theory.

I mentioned this way, way back in the other Roberts thread, but I have a real problem with this idea that DeRosa would somehow get that many at bats with this potential line up. Let's just say the Cubs get Fukudome and Roberts. Fukudome, Soriano, Roberts, Lee and Ramirez basically all play the most ideal positions that DeRosa would supposedly sub. Which of those guys do they realistically expect to give a day off each week to start DeRosa? Some of these guys are 8 figure salary per year guys. There are days off scheduled all season long. And if DeRosa is sitting on the bench everyday because none of these guys are coming out of the line up while Theriot is starting everyday at SS, I'm gonna be pissed off. Ramirez and Soriano each spent time on the DL last year. Lee spent time day-to-day with nagging injuries and was suspended for 5 games. Roberts has had a significant injury history. Also gotta figure Derosa will start vs. all LHPs, either in RF w/ Fukudome moving to CF, with Pie on the bench in the above scenario or at 2B for the LH hitting Roberts. So, we are assuming all those same things will happen again this coming year? That's what makes DeRosa on the roster a good thing. But, you can do the same thing with him when he's needed elsewhere other than SS. Ramirez is known for being slightly brittle and having to play hurt. Giving him a day off every other week, might keep him healthier longer and maximize his potential. Prior to last season, Soriano played almost everyday, but he's in his 30s now and it might be a smart thing to sit him down every other week or so, as well. Injuries happen, they always do. Acquiring Roberts allows DeRosa to fill in for that injured player without Cedeno or Fontenot entering the line-up. True, if DeRosa isn't given a minimum of 400 ABs and hopefully more, that will definitely limit the impact of acquiring Roberts. But its not just the Cubs big contract guys that he would be covering for. With Pie playing CF, the Cubs will want to sit him from time to time against the tough lefty or if he struggles and move someone (hopefully Fukudome) over to center which opens up right for DeRosa to play. He would also be giving Roberts a rest when the match-up warrants it. Depth on a ballclub is important. With the ability to keep Ramirez, Soriano, Roberts and even Lee fresh on top of his major role of filling in for Fukudome in right when the Cubs sit Pie, it seems rather likely that DeRosa will get a minimum of 400 ABs. And if anyone should get injured, he will approach the same amount he had last season.

Unless we are moving one of Howry, Marmol or Wuertz, I dont understand why we would want Lahey. He'd be nothing more then a throw-in in a trade and that team would still have to keep him on the big league roster. They could have just picked him themselves if they wanted him that bad. Then asked the Cubs for some other prospect. I think I am going to stop trying to understand anything we do at this point. Well, the coobs went out of their way to make this deal/pick up this guy. Either they truly do see something in him or he is just a piece we are moving to someone else as part of a future trade. Or they are planning on moving another reliever in a deal. Perhaps Lahey is being brought in to replace another former catcher turned reliever who is going in a deal to Baltimore for Brian Roberts. Or maybe they just liked him and thought they would give him a try in ST. The rule 5 draft is largely a no harm no foul type deal. If the guy isn't ready and doesn't work out, you just return him. All you are out in $25,000.

O_O, I thought the bull sea lion thing was funny by itself, but what was really hilarious was the second picture of the sea lion when his bucket is being taken away matches up perfectly with the pic in your sig of Mangino. Same angle, same look on their faces, same body shape, everything. Hi-larious.

That's about all I've got, too, besides the depth that would be added by making DeRosa the supersub. That depth is no a small thing, however. DeRo would likely end up getting about 400 ABs just rotating as the supersub, and even more if he filled in for someone due to injury which almost always happens. I don't see adding Roberts as an upgrade over DeRosa, though. It's really an upgrade over who ever would play 2B on days when DeRo was filling elsewhere due to injury or giving a guy a day off. Theriot would slide over to 2B and Cedeno would play SS on those days, or Fontenot would play 2B, if he's even on the team. So we are really talking about the upgrade of Fukudome over Murton, Roberts over DeRosa and DeRosa over Cedeno/Fontenot. I guess you could also throw in the value of keeping players fresh with regular days off (if that even has a noticeable impact on a player's production), and the value of the having the minimal drop-off of DeRosa being the injury back-up for the OFers and corner IFers. But for the life of me I still can't figure out the value of having left-handers break-up a string of right-handed hitters in a line-up. Is it the supposed comfort level of the opposing pitcher? Causing managers to burn through their bullpen faster making good match-ups? What is it?

Standard procedure. Get caught attacking the poster and hide behind the old, you don't matter to me. I wasn't upset. If I'm not significant enough for you to have it out for me, then why is this the third or fourth time you have singled me out for behavior that others around us, whom you happen to agree with, are doing far worse than I am? If my comments haven't gotten under your skin, then why write that I'm not "significant enough" for you to care about, if you're not trying to jab at me? Banning me would have been far less of a public display on your part. Whatever. I'll take care of the banning part myself. Go Cubs.

lol - again, maybe you should re-read goony's post before talking about people's reading abilities. The original post I responded to said nothing of resources. The post I responded to read simply 383-385. He later mentioned resources. To which I responded with the example of applying won-loss record to Detroit's Dave Dombrowski, who's team's payroll is similar to the Cubs. Detroit ranks 9th in overall payroll according to ESPN with 95 million, just under the Cubs, who rank 8th with 99 million. The resources are there in Detroit. So, of course, resources matter. But, in this example, that is a moot point. I mentioned people's reading more closely because they started putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding my use of Dombrowski as an example. Do you agree with abuck's post and how he responded to that example? Or do you think he was putting words in my mouth? If you agree that he is just being argumentative and putting words in my mouth, are you going to respond to his post like you've responded to mine? abuck wasn't criticizing people's ability to read while doing so himself. Which is, you know, what made your post kinda funny. :) Do you have it out for me? First, you wrongly accuse me of not reading Goony's post closely enough to understand what he was saying. Then, when I respond showing you how I did respond to his "resources" comment thus fully understanding what he wrote, you completely ignore it in your response. Nice double standard, Tim. I got no problem you picking on me, just have the facts to back it up.

I agree. I think the Cubs were in a far more favorable position in 2002 than they are now. In 2002 the team was stocked with young, cheap talent and didn't have the potential millstone contracts the current squad is saddled with. It sickens me to think what might have been had Dusty Baker not gotten his claws into Wood and Prior. Sammy's contract was no picnic, but he was still producing 5 years ago. As for the contracts now, I think only Soriano's is unmovable as is. Barring an injury, I think Z and even Lee could be moved to a New York team or Boston as an in-season deal. The only potential millstone I see is Soriano. I agree.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous. 88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later. What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs. What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM. Good. So then we agree that what Goony posted is not the be all end all of judging a GM. That's the point I have made. Are you disagreeing with it? The trend of those wins and losses should be taken into account. The wins and losses of the seasons immediately preceding that GM's tenure should be taken into account. Other extenuating circumstances should be taken into account like major debilitating injuries at unusual rates should be taken into account. I think when these things are considered, Hendry has clearly improved the Cubs team he took over in July of '02, but that doesn't mean that he is a great GM or given a contract extension. It depends. If Gooney is saying overall win/loss + resources is the only way to measure a GM, then I don't agree. But I seriously doubt that's what he meant. Win/loss + resources is the way to judge a GM, though sometimes the win/loss may be overall or seasonal. In this case, I'm guessing Gooney quoted the overall mark because it's simpler and the seasonal record isn't more favorable to Hendry. Goony and I have had several conversations about this in the past and he has always said that won-loss record stands alone when the team has the resources the Cubs have. I disagree and remain surprised that he continues to stand by this claim.

lol - again, maybe you should re-read goony's post before talking about people's reading abilities. The original post I responded to said nothing of resources. The post I responded to read simply 383-385. He later mentioned resources. To which I responded with the example of applying won-loss record to Detroit's Dave Dombrowski, who's team's payroll is similar to the Cubs. Detroit ranks 9th in overall payroll according to ESPN with 95 million, just under the Cubs, who rank 8th with 99 million. The resources are there in Detroit. So, of course, resources matter. But, in this example, that is a moot point. I mentioned people's reading more closely because they started putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding my use of Dombrowski as an example. Do you agree with abuck's post and how he responded to that example? Or do you think he was putting words in my mouth? If you agree that he is just being argumentative and putting words in my mouth, are you going to respond to his post like you've responded to mine?

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous. 88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later. What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs. What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM. Good. So then we agree that what Goony posted is not the be all end all of judging a GM. That's the point I have made. Are you disagreeing with it? The trend of those wins and losses should be taken into account. The wins and losses of the seasons immediately preceding that GM's tenure should be taken into account. Other extenuating circumstances should be taken into account like major debilitating injuries at unusual rates should be taken into account. I think when these things are considered, Hendry has clearly improved the Cubs team he took over in July of '02, but that doesn't mean that he is a great GM or given a contract extension.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. you're right. comparing hendry to dombrowski is ridiculous. Never compared them. Please quote where I did. I only applied the same simple and ridiculous standard to both of them. That is not comparing them. That is showing how the standard of using only a GM's won-loss record to determine how good of a job he is doing simply doesn't work. Face it, its a bad way to judge a GM.