CubsWin

Good or bad, Hendry takes his job seriously. :shock: :shock: I think you should Rethink your sig for now. This signing isn't quite enough to make him worse than Isiah, but he's inching closer and closer. I think he means Hendry is not bad enough to be compared with Isiah. You have to show him some respect for his work ethic. If working hard just allows him to screw things up faster, I'd rather not pretend to appreciate it. Are you saying that he is screwing things up this off season? Or was that just a meaningless hypothetical statement?

Yep. Just saw it in the ESPNews scroll.

You are totally free to make whatever comments you want, but I find posts like this one very, very tiresome and old. Its not funny. Its not accurate. Its simply and only defeatist. What a non-contribution to the site. Here have some more of my defeatist attitude. And some more. And some more. And now back to our regularly scheduled program...

I sure think so.

If you look at the #s, "those geniuses" on this board were actually correct. In Hill's 1st stint with the Cubs last year, he had 15 walks in 19 innings. He was sent back down, and they tried a different approach with him. When he came back up in late July, after one shaky outing, he had 21 walks in 76 innings. Its not necessarily about scouting, sometimes its about coaching. Now only if we had a pitching coach at the Major League level. Call it coaching. Call it scouting. Call it whatever you want. Hendry's job is to determine which players are going to help his team the most. And Hendry saw that Hill would do that at the major league level before he was actually doing it at the major league level. Hendry got this one right. The words in the quote belong to Phil Rogers. No one in the Cubs front office was quoted in reference to Marmol. If it is accurate that Carlos is untouchable, then he isn't going anywhere and we'll have the ability to wait and see if Hendry is right on this one too. Personally, trading for Ryan Church sounds like a good idea to me. If Marmol gets the deal done and if Jones can bring in a decent starter in a package, I'd go for it. But I certainly do not have as much information at my fingertips as Hendry does. There is a lot more to this than just stats, though they should play the largest part.

Well put. Nothing wrong with letting teams know that someone is available in trade, but if you go all Corey Patterson on 'em and attempt to throw him in on every deal, you end up with Nate Spears. Atlanta is playing it cool with Giles. Colorado is playing it cool with Jennings. That's how Hendry should be handling Jones. True, but what in the article gives you the idea that Hendry is DETERMINED to trade Jones? Hendry didn't get a lot for Patterson. No argument here. The Sosa deal was handled poorly. Yes. He did a great job with Hundley and Lee. Okay. So what? None of those deals have much to say how he will do with Jones. And certainly nothing in that article can give us the impression without totally reading our own bias into it that he is giving Jones away. So where is all this coming from?

Where was Jim Hendry quoted? If that rumor is true, and Hendry is shopping him to everyone, and it's leaking, then how much leverage can he possibly have? What approach would you suggest Hendry take for moving Jones, if it's not to sit down with other GMs at the Winter Meetings and see what they'd give for him? Is he supposed to keep Jones' availability a secret or something? no but you could make it actually seem like the Cubs are willing to keep him in 2006, since his contract is pretty team-friendly. Instead, it looks like Hendry is desperate to get rid of him. Did anyone actually read the article? The phrase "Jones to anywhere" doesn't mean that the Cubs are desperate to trade him or that they are doing things that are resulting in Jones' trade value diminishing. The meaning of that one statement by itself is rather vague. It could mean that there are so many teams interested in acquiring him that we don't know where he will end up. Why no one took it that way I don't know. Why it was only taken as a sign that Hendry is screwing up again I don't know either. Why that conclusion was arrived at when just a few sentences later it was written that the Cubs would only trade him "if the right deal can be struck" is beyond me.

There goes one option. he's who I wanted of the not-Schmidt set. second time around the scroll didn't say anything, but I am 100% positive it said it a few minutes ago. Well, since it didn't say it the second time, there's a chance that they took it back, but if its true, I'm disappointed. He, too, was the top choice of pitchers I wanted if the Cubs couldn't get Schmidt.

I think he is worth more than Lilly. Suppan's ERA+ has been over league average 7 out of the last 8 seasons and the one year it was below 100, it was so by only 3 points. Lilly is far more inconsistent, but also has a higher ceiling. Lilly posted an ERA+ of 120 in '02 and '04. Suppan hit 120 in '05 but is consistently between 103-112. On the contrary, Lilly's ERA+ was 80 in '05 and 98 in '03. He has been following the pattern of good in the even years and bad in the odd. Suppan can also throw a ground ball much better than Lilly can. Sup's GB% lives at around 46% while Lilly's is only 35-36% while giving up significantly more flyballs. Lilly will make them miss more often with a higher K total and lower BAA (Suppan is clearly more hittable though not by a lot), but Lilly's flyballs in the NL Central could be dangerous. Wrigley is made for a groundball pitcher like Suppan. Suppan is only one year older than Lilly almost to the day, so age shouldn't be that much of a factor. If their costs are similar, the numbers seem to show an advantage to signing Suppan over Lilly.

I'm in the Lilly will "not be great, but won't be bad" group. But I rather have him, then say....Jeff Suppan or Jason Marquis. My camp is expanding to: "Lilly=bad, Suppan & Marquis=also bad." They're average-ish guys who are likely to be even worse in Wrigley (especially Lilly). Not worth the money. Padilla would be almost worth the money, but I've heard of too many character issues with him. Pass. ok, so who do you want the cubs to get then? Those are my feelings exactly. When only focusing on the negatives, no one will look good. Zito is too expensive (when compared to the markets of the past, not the future) and apparently he is poised to breakdown. Schmidt won't be worth what he will get paid (again when comparing his possible contract with ones signed in the past which is an invalid comparison in changing times) and he has injury concerns. Lilly is a flyball pitcher who will cost too much. Padilla has character issues of all things. Anyone who is listing these things as reasons for not signing someone is focusing on the wrong stuff. What we should be looking at is will they improve the Cubs over what they currently have and can the Cubs afford to pay them. The latter is a difficult thing to accurately discuss because no one here really knows what the Cubs are willing to spend this off season. Though it is safe to say that there is a limit and it is likely somewhere under 140 million and above 110 million, maybe just above. Any and all other concerns or discussions are pointless window dressing. Every GM has to deal with the same realities. Talent is limited. Trades are difficult to pull off. And every player has their warts. To listen to some of the comments here, it seems like some aren't being very realistic. This isn't fantasy baseball. It doesn't only come down to numbers. There is a very real human element involved and resources are limited. That said, the Cubs have more money than excess talent (both minor and major league) so they are more likely to sign players than trade for them. Given the rumors we have heard about the Cubs' spending limit, I doubt they are getting both Schmidt and Padilla or Schmidt and Lilly. If thats accurate, I want Schmidt or Padilla depending on how much they cost and who they'll be able to get with what is left over. I believe both are the safest bets to be worth the money they will get paid due to their statistical histories. Padilla's floor has been an ERA+ of 96 with a ceiling of around 115. He is almost 5 years younger than Schmidt, but has never been as good. Schmidt's numbers speak for themselves.

link Doesn't mean Murton is untouchable. I'm sure he could be had for the right price. Still, it is VERY encouraging to hear. Three cheers for not trading Murton!!!! :D Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! I'm glad to hear it, but I was never given any reason to think that JH was going to trade him. Just because Hendry is talking about getting a left-handed bat for the OF didn't mean that Murton was on his way out. Contrary to popular belief, Hendry is aware of what statistics are and is also aware of the numbers Matt put up in the 2nd half last year.

The only thing decent about signing Sturtze is the fact that only 350,000 is guaranteed. So the Braves are wasting very little money, but it is being wasted none the less. When has Sturtze ever been good? He is 36. His career ERA is 5.21 with a career best ERA of 4.42 which was posted 5 years ago. I'm not seeing the draw.

Based on that report And others. There is one on Cubs.com and one on ESPN.com, too.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6226820 Yeah, sign me up for JJ for JJ. Lets look more closely at the first paragraph. According to Rosenthal, take that for what its worth, the Cubs options are Schmidt and an unnamed "back-of-the-rotation type" guy or one of Lilly, Meche and Batista plus another pitcher acquired via trade. So that means, according to this article anyway, that its either Schmidt and what, Marquis (?) versus Lilly (since they've offered him a contract and we would much rather have him over Meche or Batista) and Westbrook/Jennings. What other possible combinations are there given the Rosenthal choices. Who else would fit into the "back-of-the-rotation type"? For me, I see Meche and Batista as those types of guys, but Rosenthal has them in the group with Lilly, so, who besides Marquis would you put there? And is there anyone besides Westbrook and Jennings who could be considered realistic trade targets?

While I really like Padilla, I still have to take Schmidt over him. It all really depends on the $ and years, but I think theres a better chance Schmidt continues at this level or slightly regresses for the next few years compared to Padilla miraculously making the jump that Schmidt did. It'd be interesting to hear a scouting comparison of the two. I agree, it would all come down to the dollars and years. The thing that keeps coming up for me is that Padilla will be 29 almost all season long next year while Schmidt will be 34 in January. That's five years difference. I'm not saying going with Padilla is the clear choice, its not. But 5 years does give one pause.

Another Julio Zuleta sighting! This one from FoxSports.com. Hilarious. Go Julio!

If I had a choice between two middle of the pack starters, I'd take Padilla over Lilly. Padilla and Westbrook would like create one of the better rotations in the NL. If Hill shows the same glimpses as last year as well as Prior showing somewhat of his '03 form, it could be the best. I'm with you. Padilla is the one starter of the FA's left that I have the most interest in. Me too. Me three. Padilla is my first choice after Zito and Schmidt for all the reasons our inebriated friend has already misspelled. :wink: USS's fingers might not be able to walk a straight line right now, but his judgement is still razor sharp. but I think he's advocating Padilla ahead of Zito and Schmidt. I admit before tonight I would have preferred Schmidt, but after further thought, I think Padilla is a better target based on performance and cost. their careers up until Padilla's age are very similar. there's a chance Padilla turns into the pitcher Schmidt was the past threw years, but if not, he's pretty much a lock to give you league average and 200 innings. Based on cost, yeah, maybe. But its not my money, so if I can have Zito and/or Schmidt, I'll take it. But yeah, considering that there actually is a limit to the Cubs spending this off season...

In the ESPN.com piece, the following quote lead me to believe that the Cubs offer was lower than the 37 million over 4 years that Washburn got and that Lilly's agent O'Brien is pursuing... O'Brien stated in the Cubs.com article that he would present a counter-offer to the Cubs. When you combine that fact with the above quote, it seems clear that the Cubs came in under 4/37, but were probably in the ballpark. Pun intended...

If I had a choice between two middle of the pack starters, I'd take Padilla over Lilly. Padilla and Westbrook would like create one of the better rotations in the NL. If Hill shows the same glimpses as last year as well as Prior showing somewhat of his '03 form, it could be the best. I'm with you. Padilla is the one starter of the FA's left that I have the most interest in. Me too. Me three. Padilla is my first choice after Zito and Schmidt for all the reasons our inebriated friend has already misspelled. :wink: USS's fingers might not be able to walk a straight line right now, but his judgement is still razor sharp.

hahaha, why'd they even bother putting this in the contract??? Yep, none. Absolutely no chance in the next eight years. None. Zip. No chance. Not even a little. How many other ways can I say this? This is fun! The Cubs have no chance to win....ever! Weeeeee! Not even a slightest sliver of a glimmer of hope of a World Series victory. You look at this album cover and you have to ask yourself how much more black could this be and the answer is none. None more black. Just to reiterate, in case I wasn't clear in my earlier comments, no hope. Glad that's been straightened out. :oops: :oops: :oops: Back to my beer(s) now.

Why not? Royce Clayton and Alex Gonzalez just signed deals. :shock: Well, you got me there. This market is a whole new deal. Signings that seem wacko, off the wall, out of this world may soon seem commonplace.

Unless Hendry is just trying to retain leverage in talks with other teams about acquiring Izturis. I can't bring myself to believe that other teams are actually asking the Cubs about the possibility of acquiring Cesar Izturis, but that remains the only, albeit far-fetched, possible situation in which signing Lugo would make sense as an upgrade. He is a right-handed bat and the Cubs need every lefty they can get right now so, as has already been stated, replacing Jones with Lugo in CF doesn't make much sense. Replacing DeRosa at 2B after luring Mark here with the promise of being able to play 2B wouldn't make much sense either. If Lugo is acquired to play CF for this season only or for until Pie is ready and then move to SS after Izturis's contract runs out, then that is feasible, but not ideal. Bottom line, just because a GM says something publicly doesn't mean that he says it privately as well. It is also quite possible that agents are seizing upon the notion that the Cubs are spending like crazy to drive up the price on their players by leaking that the Cubs have made multi-year offers on their clients. It seems Bruce Miles would agree with this take.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1089&position=P Thanks, man. Awesome. Did you grow up in Wilmette or do you just live there now? I went to grad school at Northwestern in the late 90's and moved to Wilmette in the early 2000's. I actually just moved away to accept a job and haven't changed my profile yet. I grew up in Evanston, thats why I asked.

I don't get how his fellow pitching teammates could possibly affect his ranking against the rest of the league. I don't either. I never said it would. Just that if the other pitchers in the rotation with him are good enough to have him the 5th best, then it would affect his ranking against other 5th starters. I think it's completely useless to rank him against other 5th starters. 5th starter isn't a position, just like leadoff isn't a position. A starter is a starter. If he's below average then paying much more than the average guy is an inefficient use of resources. I never advocated paying him much more than the average guy. As far as not comparing him against other 5th starters, why not. Do you expect the Cubs to field a rotation filled with all-stars? Isn't that being a bit impractical and unrealistic? No, I don't expect that, but I don't think it makes any sense to change your opinion on a guy based on how he compares to other 5th starters. 5th starter is a pointless designation anyway, since such a ranking can change throughout a season. Rarely do you go into a season with a 1-5, and then end up with the same 1-5 in the same order. The bottom line is things don't change quite a bit just by slotting him in the 5th spot. First, there's the problem of finding 2 more guys somewhere to slot in ahead of him. Second, he's still the same pitcher, and his value is still the same. Yeah, that's what I've been saying. The Cubs need at least 1, maybe 2 more guys to go in front him. That's why I've only been talking about him as a 5th starter. Am I being unclear? Without a compilation of stats from other 5th starters, I can't really know for certain how he stacks up against them. But my sense is that he would be one of the better ones in the league. I understand wanting to do better than Meche and not wanting to sign him to an expensive contract. We were always in agreement there. Who is saying otherwise? All I'm saying is, in the eventuality that the Cubs can't have a staff filled with 1s, 2s and 3s only, then having Meche on your staff isn't the end of the world. If you have an issue with that opinion, I'll be happy to engage you on it, but so far it seems like you and I are in agreement. I don't know what you are disagreeing with?

I don't get how his fellow pitching teammates could possibly affect his ranking against the rest of the league. I don't either. I never said it would. Just that if the other pitchers in the rotation with him are good enough to have him the 5th best, then it would affect his ranking against other 5th starters. I think it's completely useless to rank him against other 5th starters. 5th starter isn't a position, just like leadoff isn't a position. A starter is a starter. If he's below average then paying much more than the average guy is an inefficient use of resources. I never advocated paying him much more than the average guy. As far as not comparing him against other 5th starters, why not. Do you expect the Cubs to field a rotation filled with all-stars? Isn't that being a bit impractical and unrealistic?