CubsWin

Is WGN saying the same thing? ESPN? If not, saying something could happen 4-5 days from now is really saying nothing. And the Score is already famous for breaking stories that go nowhere.

Great work. Very interesting. I guess, the new CBA is in effect...

I don't share this opinion. Other teams might have more to offer, but that doesn't mean they will be willing to offer it. The best prospects usually never even enter the discussion for trades. Somebody mentioned Pie and Murton, and that's a huge haul for any team. An already above average major league hitter looking to improve, and a high ceiling very young talent is more than most teams would offer for most players. I agree with goony. Pie and Murton are a lot to give up and likely more than many other teams would offer, but not necessarily could offer. However, that's also more than I would offer. I don't like Willis enough to give up Pie to get him, much less Murton and Pie.

I, too, noticed the 0 walks in 31 ABs. How much of an effect do you think the environment he is playing in has on his walk rate? Are low walk rates common in the Dominican League? From what I've read, the culture of the game in the D.R., especially during these winter leagues, is peppered with machismo, i.e. how far you can hit the ball, or getting a hit in a clutch situation where taking a walk is almost seen as wimpy. Any truth to that?

But here's the thing. Baseball is largely an unpredictable game. Injuries. Luck. Bounces of the ball. They all come into play. It isn't known as a game of inches for nothing. How many of us said going into '05 that the White Sox would win it all or that the Tigers would do what they have done this season? Answer: very few, if any. So when the Cubs played so well in '03, I was gulty of telling fans, "I told you so" and I was making all sorts of predictions about how well they would do in '04. I was right in '03 and wrong in '04. But was I really? Did I really know that they would do so well in '03 or did things just turn out to match my predicted result? Many of the more pessimistic and negative fans didn't even predict the Cubs would do as poorly as they did this season. Have they been vindicated? Did they really know how it was going to go or did it just turn out to match what they predicted? I don't think we could possibly know enough to really know how a season is going to go. There are simply too many variables. Anyone who claims to be right about predicting a Cubs failure this season or their success in previous seasons because they knew it ahead of time is deluding themselves. But so what? That's part of the fun of being a baseball fan. Thinking that we know. Being an armchair manager and GM. We wouldn't have much to talk about on this board without that. I only ask that people keep in mind that we simply don't know enough to really know anything about this game. We can build really solid arguments, but in the end, its still just an opinion. And we should respect other opinions that are also well supported.

I'd like to see any other 100M teams lose two aces from their staff and an all-star 1B and still compete. Should we have counted on Wood? No. DLee? Yes. Prior? Yes. Up till this last season, darn near everyone thought he had just suffered some fluke injuries (Giles, Hawpe, etc). It shocked everyone (ok, maybe not the pessimists) when he pulled up lame in ST. We won more games in '04 than we did in '03. It just took more wins to get in the playoffs that year. That's improvement. In '04 with Z, Wood, and Prior we were looking at a dynasty. Hendry doesn't prevent Wood from throwing back to back starts in high school, Prior from Giles, Prior from Hawpe, or DLee from Furcal. Lets pull up some old threads to analyze the claims about people still wanting Wood/Prior. viewtopic.php?t=26396 -The rotation was mainly a concern of who the last starter (Z,Maddux,Wood,Prior) was going to be. Everything else was about the lineup. viewtopic.php?t=26264 -Looks like one post that directly questions the health of the whole staff viewtopic.php?t=26690 -More of the same viewtopic.php?t=27088 -A little more split This list is not at all a complete sampling of views, but by pulling up 4 threads regarding pitching 3 of them seemed to have a general consensus that we could count on Prior AND Wood. I'd be interested to do a much more thorough reading of posts from last offseason, and I have a feeling that as the offseason progressed there was more and more questioning about the health of Wood or Prior, but it looks like thats pretty much true that the fans still counted on their health. Hard to point fingers. After this year, though we won't see any of that. Thanks for the research, WF22. Incomplete though it may be, it is more than anyone else, including myself, has taken the time to put forth thus far. Ultimately, if fans want to hold Hendry solely accountable for the won-loss records of the Cubs since he has taken over, they are more than allowed. He has failed at providing a consistent winner and succeeded at improving the talent and results in some seasons since he has taken over. But because the last few seasons have been worse than the ones immediately following his take over, the more recent seasons will outweigh the previous ones in many people's minds. So be it, I say. He needs to get it back or get out. The proof will lie in the pudding the coming two seasons.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar. . Actually, I prefer to look at the teams he has built and his baseball philosophy as reasons why I think he's a bad GM for my favorite baseball team. If he were the Cardinals' GM, I would think he was brilliant. The trade for Maddux didn't make me dislike him more. Never said that it did. And I think you have every right to hold that opinion. It is well-supported. All I was saying is that some people who already dislike Hendry will take an otherwise meaningless quote and run with it drawing all sorts of baseless conclusions from it like Hendry thinks Izturis is the long-term answer at SS. That claim has been made over and over again and used as criticism of his GMing abilities a lot on this board. I think that criticism is baseless. There are several other criticisms of him that aren't baseless. Creating more things to criticize him about is unnecessary.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar. The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me. As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth. Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders. Did you intend to be condescending? Your "umm, ok" does nothing for your argument.. Who is being condescending? People who think Hendry is a bad GM do so because they are capable of looking at the standings and stat sheets and see what a bad team he has put together. Yeah, you're right. The Cubs were playing at full strength last season. No injuries to top players whatsoever. Standings tell the whole story. Look, I have no problem with people thinking that Hendry has done a bad job. There is plenty of evidence. I could put together a pretty strong argument for how he has failed. I could also put together a pretty strong argument for how he has improved this team since taking over in July of '02. So, I have respect for people who hold both opinions. What I do have a problem with is people who take quotes that are otherwise meaningless, like talking up the newly acquired Izturis at the post-trade press conference, and make them mean that Hendry thinks Izturis is the long term answer and savior at SS. I also have a problem with taking a former all-star and gold glove caliber SS who at the age of 24 posted an OBP of .330 and had steadily improved every year until getting injured and labeling him as "garbage". Izturis is in his prime and was once promising. Injuries have changed a lot of that, however. That's about what one could expect to get in return for two months of an inconsistent 4th starter caliber 40-year-old pitcher who is going to the HOF. Isn't it? I also have a problem with people who hold their opinions so dear that they have little room for others to hold their's and feel the need to ridicule or condescend to anyone who disagrees with them. So those "who think Hendry is a bad GM because they are capable of looking at the standings" ought also to be able to see that there opinion is just that and have room for others to have their's without ridiculing or condescending to them.

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar. The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me. As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth. Umm ok, that's exactly why people give Hendry a hard time because he is the GM and he was the one that got garbage for Maddux. Considering how important it is to Hendry having players that can catch the ball I put the blame squarely on his shoulders. Did you intend to be condescending? Your "umm, ok" does nothing for your argument. What did you expect the Cubs to get for two months of a 40-year-old pitcher who is only moderately effective? Andy LaRoche? That was a pipe dream. Some guys are saying bring Maddux back in '07, but only as a 4th or 5th starter. Personally, I don't want him back. So the Cubs traded away two months of a 4th or 5th starter that they had no use for given the sad state of their won-loss record for a former all-star SS with injury problems. That's no great trade, but Izturis is far from, as you and many others on this board like to put it "garbage". As a 24-year-old, he posted a .330 OBP and played gold glove defense at a defensive position, SS, so he's got some upside. He's got a ton of question marks. He is far from a safe bet to reproduce his '04 numbers, but he is in his prime, so its far more likely to happen now than later. He's not the answer any of us want at SS, but he is not "garbage".

Maybe to some, sure. But I, for one, never thought Hendry thought Izturis was the great savior at SS. People who think Hendry is an idiot and a bad GM will look at the simplest of post-trade news conference quotes and turn them into more fodder for hating Hendry. What else is the guy supposed to say at the "I just traded Greg Maddux" news conference? That the guy we got in return isn't what we hoped he would be? Yeah, welcome to Chicago, Cesar. The reaction to that trade on this board was mind-boggling to me. As far as the Aramis NTC, I certainly had no idea if he had one back then. But if its true, it just goes to show how many of the opinions we carry are really only based on what we think we know instead of the whole truth.

Why would the Reds ever agree to that? Maybe Izturis is open to switching to middle relief? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just curious why you think that Piniella has more of clue than Baker does.

Why would the Reds ever agree to that?

30 mill is a lot. I'm not certain I'd be willing to do that. Given the likely cost of the other two top FA starters and the usual discount a japanese player takes in his first contract, I might do 20 mill.

Past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future behavior in my eyes. I hope they bid, and I hope they land him. But I get Alan Schwarz's skepticism. Not bidding on a japanese free agent can hardly be called "behavior" like it is some idiosyncratic way of being that goes unnoticed by the person doing it. This isn't a habit the Cubs are breaking. Its simply a choice to get in the game. I believe Hendry when he says he intends to go after Matsuzaka. If you think he is lying about going after a japanese FA because he hasn't done so previously, then you must ask yourself has he ever said he would before. "Past behavior" has nothing to do with whether or not Hendry will bid on Matsuzaka. It may, however, influence his willingness to bid what it will take to get him. That I will grant you. Then again, it may not. Until the Cubs land a star Japanese player, it's all talk and speculation. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the Cubs end up with one. If Matsuzaka ends up in NY, Seattle, LA or SD, I won't be surprised, because those teams have been involved in Japan consistently. Dismiss that all you'd like; I don't really care enough about it to continue this circular argument. Neither do I. Though I see nothing circular about this argument. Just making points. I have no need for you to change your mind.

I think you would be correct, sir. Now, how do the Cubs pry Tejada from Baltimore?

CubsWin, I do not doubt you, but can I please have the source for this? I have heard Hendry talk about a "couple of pitchers over there" and other vague references, but have yet to hear him use "bid" and "Matsuzaka" in the same sentence.

I think Drew is clearly the best idea for RF. Unfortunately, it is not a sure thing that the Dodgers are willing to trade him. If he is available, then, yes, Drew, for the right price in talent, of course. Otherwise, the pickings seem a bit slim on the FA side. Aubrey Huff is somewhat of a butcher in the field, but he's a fairly decent left-handed bat and can fill at 3B if Aramis goes down. After him, there's Jose Guillen. But he likely won't be healthy at the start of next season, will he? It looks like keeping Jones or going the trade route are the best options for RF.

I didn't imply anything. History clearly suggests they won't get him. In addition to never bidding on a posted player, the Cubs have never pursued a FA coming over from Japan. This point is moot. Hendry's stated intentions to bid on Matsuzaka and possibly others trump history. That is the point. In essence, so what? Who cares what the Cubs did before. Hendry is saying they are going to be doing something different now. And the rules state that the high bidder gets exclusive negotiating rights with Daisuke. It works the same for the Yankees as it does for the Cubs. Its whoever is willing to bid the most. Past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future behavior in my eyes. I hope they bid, and I hope they land him. But I get Alan Schwarz's skepticism. Not bidding on a japanese free agent can hardly be called "behavior" like it is some idiosyncratic way of being that goes unnoticed by the person doing it. This isn't a habit the Cubs are breaking. Its simply a choice to get in the game. I believe Hendry when he says he intends to go after Matsuzaka. If you think he is lying about going after a japanese FA because he hasn't done so previously, then you must ask yourself has he ever said he would before. "Past behavior" has nothing to do with whether or not Hendry will bid on Matsuzaka. It may, however, influence his willingness to bid what it will take to get him. That I will grant you. Then again, it may not.

He doesn't. History suggests they won't be, though. Who else did we actually bid on and lose? There is not a lot of history to over come here. The fact remains whoever bids the highest for the rights to bargain with him will likely sign him and everyone else will lose out. Its simple. All that BS about him going to a coastal city has nothing to do with it. Its whoever plunks down the cash. Come on, Cubs, buck the trend.

That would make very little sense considering that the reason why Tampa is even considering trading Crawford is to make room for their backlog of top-notch OF prospects. I think they want pitching, room for their other OFers and future salary relief.

I agree that having Lugo be the Cubs main FA signing wouldn't get the job done, but no one is saying that the Cubs will be done after signing Lugo. The question is, is he an improvement over what the Cubs currently have. I think the answer is yes. For what he will cost to acquire, is there another free agent SS out there, they should target instead? I don't think so. So then signing Lugo would be a good idea, wouldn't it?

So a player's most recent 49 games count more than what he has been doing over the last 388 games? Of Lugo's 49 games with the Dodgers, only 32 of them were starts. Plus, he was being moved all over the field. He played some OF, 3B, SS and 2B. He never really had a chance to establish himself and get any sort of rhythm. So are we really prepared to judge Julio Lugo's current ability to perform on his last 32 starts? When you look at his last three full seasons, he seems to be a fairly safe bet to get on base about 35% of the time. His floor on OBP is about 33.5% and his ceiling is near 36.5% maybe higher. Defensively, he is good and versatile. He would be more proven than Theriot and better than Izturis. What's not to like? Sign him. And hey, if a player's most recent 50 or so games are indeed a solid indicator of what is to come then the Cubs don't have to worry about signing a MIF because Theriot's last 53 games were HOF worthy. So they're set. :wink:

Here we are in agreement. I only do this trade if the Cubs can extend Jones as part of the deal.

Let George resign the Moose, and get Zito and Schmidt. The Cubs can have Matsuzaka. 8)