CubsWin

Gomez is still better despite Perez being better defensively. I get that is your opinion, but why is it your opinion. To me, after looking that the stats you've shown me, I don't see one standing out that much over the other. What stat makes Gomez look "much, much better" to you? Or how else should I value or interpret the stats you have shown me? Why not? How did I predict that Gomez would outproduce Perez. You didn't. You got lucky. Gomez has had some really good offensive years and some really bad ones. Last year, his OPS was about 20 points higher than his career average. How did you know he was going to do that? You didn't. You were right offensively, but not defensively. And the margin by which you were right is fairly negligible. Certainly not enough to support your comment that he is "much, much better" than Perez. This is actually evidence that supports my point that there is a lot of variance year to year in how a player performs and it is impossible to predict with any amount of certainty who will do better in a given season between players who have very similar career averages. This is a perfect example of "uncontrollable variables". Why would I? I'm not happy with the Jones signing. Agreed. So who could they have gotten that was appreciably better than Hollandsworth, left handed and willing to platoon? I must confess, I don't know the answer to this one off the top of my head. This one will take some research. Anyone know the answer to this one? So you would not be criticizing Hendry right now if he had signed Drew to a 5 year, 55-60 million dollar deal? But aren't you critical of Hendry for signing Nomar to a 1-year, incentive laden deal? Don't Drew and Nomar have similar injury histories? In fact, isn't Drew's a little worse?

Look at their career EQAs (much more accurate gauge of offensive abilities than OPS) . Gomez-.241 Perez-.219. And when you factor in Perez's superior defensive abilities, how is Gomez a much, much better back-up shortstop? Which only goes to show that going into last season, when Hendry would have been making this decision, Gomez's career OPS was probably exactly the same or slightly worse than Perez's. One cannot expect a GM to accurately predict the future. But we can expect the GM to make a wise decision using the tools and information at his disposal at the time. We agree that signing Burnitz was not our first choices. But, to date, I don't think either of us have been able to come up with a different viable option that Hendry could have signed. In LF, I was one of the group that felt Dubois had earned his chance and would do pretty good. I didn't think Hollandsworth should have started and was glad to see Baker replace him with Jason. I was disappointed by Jason's performance, but I don't see how Hendry should be blamed for it. Dubois's performance in AAA the year before was so good that he deserved that shot. Had he resigned Alou or signed somebody else to play LF, Dubois would never had gotten his shot. So I'm glad Hendry didn't sign anyone to play LF during the '04 off season and I understand, given the size of the contracts and injury history of the top candidates why the Cubs wound up with Burnitz. I can't provide a better option. This off season, I would have thrown money at Giles. But the evidence I have seen, which I have previously listed, leads me to believe he wouldn't have accepted it anyway. I also would have traded for Wilkerson and Huff and am disappointed this didn't happen. But the Nats valued Soriano and who knows what the D-Rays wanted for Huff, so I can't necessarily blame Hendry for dropping the ball when I don't know what the price for each player would have been. That would be presumptious and unfair of me. So Jones is the next best thing. I still can't figure out how Jones commanded a 3-year deal.

And I respect your right to this opinion, but I don't think this applies to UK. He doesn't hate Hendry or blame him for everything. He does give him credit for some good things that he has done.

What was the point of this question... To see if this discussion has been of value to you as it has been to me. To see if you have learned anything. I have. What were your intentions of this, how much of a moron do I have to be to actually believe that baseball is completely predictable by numbers? It was a rhetorical question that played off of the statement before it. I believe when you read it in context with the statement that went before it, it makes perfect sense as a rhetorical question. If I failed to make it clear that it was a rhetorical question, then a possible answer to a question like that would be, "Of course, I don't think that baseball is completely predictable, no one does. I see your point and respect your opinion but I differ in that I think baseball is more predicatable than you think it is. Here's why..." No offense was intended. Just using a ridiculous, rhetorical question to make a point. And that point being that only if baseball were a completely predictable game could an organization's GM be held solely responsible for his team's won-loss record. Which I believe is where this discussion started.

You sign him to that contract with your only backup as Perez, you better hope he starts. I wanted Chris Gomez as the backup. Gomez is a much, much better option than Perez. A much, much better option? Their career OPSs are nearly identical. Gomez - .682. Perez - .681. Perez is two years younger and at least as good and likely better defensively. Please tell me what I'm missing because I'm clearly not looking in the right places to find the evidence you failed to provide showing how Gomez is a much, much better back-up SS. How does his previous wrist injury cause him to blow out his groin muscle while leaving the batter's box on his way to first? I fail to see the connection. Yes, because Hendry failed or chose not to sign Beltran or Ordonez or Drew. I wasn't happy with those results either. But realities being what they are, would you have wanted to spend that much for Beltran or overpay like that for Ordonez. Would you be criticizing Hendry right now for handcuffing the team financially by spending 11 million a year for 5 years on another injury-waiting-to-happen like J.D. Drew? Signing Nomar was a gamble. Just like signing Drew would have been. They either work or they don't. But its not signing Nomar was a bad gamble to take, was it? You want to try and remember who they should've gone after during the '04-'05 off-season? Yes. I just mentioned them above. I also mentioned the circumstances surrounding their signings and why Hendry probably didn't get them. I'm not saying its hollow criticism because you are bringing it up now. It rings as hollow criticism if you don't have a list of other possible moves that he should have and could have taken. Like I mentioned above, would you have wanted Hendry to beat out the Mets offer for Beltran. Do you think it is a good idea to spend 15-17 million dollars a year on him? Do you think the huge contract Ordonez got should have been topped by Hendry considering his health at the time of the signing? What about hospital boy, J.D. Drew? Should Hendry have beaten the Dodgers offer of 5 years, 55 million for someone with a similar injury history to Nomar? Its possible that you think that he should have signed any one of those three mentioned above. If so, thats great. All I'm saying is that without presenting an alternate path that Hendry should have taken, calling the one he did take not good enough rings hollow. Cedeno sure seems better defensively than Nomar and probably Neifi as well. Murton is better than Dubois. Jones is better than Burnitz. Pierre and CPat are probably similar. I would say thats better than last season. The bullpen is much improved over last season. That's better, too. I never said uncontrollable variables were completely responsible for anything, just one factor that needs to be included in the big picture. And, I don't know what you are referring to as "cute stuff". I mean what I say. I know a lot of people get snippy and sarcastic on boards like this. I don't. I question people's arguments and the evidence behind their opinions all while respecting their right to hold those opinions. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for an exchange of ideas. And maybe a truing up of opinions to reality. Both your opinions and mine. I've learned stuff from this discussion. Have you?

Not true, UK. Zambrano and Prior appeared in 51 games in '02, 35 of them were starts. But that said, let me ask you a question, do you think the Cubs overachieved in '03? How can you accurately determine where a club's talent should be? Should Patterson be an all-star by now? Is Hendry solely responsible for him not being one? Where it should be? It sounds as if your expectations for this team went sky high after the '03 season and you never really considered that maybe they were playing a little over their heads that year. After all, the year before they won just 67 games. Of course not. I've already told you several times, over and over again, that I am disappointed too. The question that we are discussing, or trying to discuss, is whether Jim Hendry is to be held solely responsible for those disappointing results or not. So from this statement, should I take it that you believe a GM is solely responsible for everything that happens to a major league baseball organization including the many uncontrollable variables of the game of baseball itself? Should I also take it that since you know where they should be, that you have a list of moves that Hendry should have and could have taken? I couldn't agree more. There seems to be some dispute here. But I respect your opinion.

What makes you think he was counting on Nomar to stay healthy. He averaged 125-130 games played during the previous seasons. I think he counted on Nomar to miss a decent portion of the season. In '05, he missed 100 games. That was out of the ordinary. By providing Perez as a back-up for those 30-35 expected missed games, Hendry had a decent back-up plan. How many other reserve SSs can you name that are clearly better than Perez? Neither would have Alou. 2004 was a career year for him. So who would you have signed? If you don't have a better plan, then calling the one Hendry followed not good enough rings rather hollow. That's sounds reasonable. If the pitching and defense are near the top, which obviously was the design behind Hendry's off season acquistions, the Cubs should contend for the playoffs. Last season, the White Sox were 9th in runs scored in the AL but tied for 1st in ERA. Interestingly, the southsiders had an OBP of .322, two points lower than the Cubs. When things go right for a team, they really go right. Maybe some of those uncontrollable variables will break the Cubs way this season. Or do you believe that baseball is a completely predictable, numbers in, numbers out type of game?

I've always given Hendry credit when things have gone well and been critical when the Cubs have fallen short. I've looked at Hendry fairly and unbiased. This was a team that was the deserving of being considered the favs. to win the NL in '04 and went to 79 wins a year later. So in '04, Hendry built a team that, on talent alone, was worthy of being considered the favorites to win the NL, but because the team underachieved, he is to be held solely responsible? And, yes, we all agree the Cubs won just 79 games last season. But what you have yet to answer in any of your posts are the following questions: 1. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for the drop off in talent when Prior got hit on the elbow by a line drive? Were his back-up plans of Williams and Rusch not as talented as other spot starters around the league? 2. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for Corey Patterson's performance last season? 3. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for the worse than normal performances of Hollandsworth, Dubois, Hairston, Borowski, Remlinger, Lawton, Hill and others? 4. Is Hendry to be held responsible for an injury to Nomar that kept him out 100 games when on average he missed about 30 games in the previous seasons? 5. Didn't these factors all happening in the same season contribute more to the Cubs won-loss record than the fact that he missed out on providing an impact bat in RF and LF? Where did they rank talent wise in 2002? I doubt it was anywhere near 4th best in the NL. Isn't the talent level of the 25-man roster the thing that a GM is most directly responsible for? So in 3 years time, he has raised it to that level. Imagine what he will be able to do in another 3? Look, I don't think Hendry is beyond criticism. I don't agree with everything he does. I've been frustrated by the results of the past two seasons as well. But I don't think it is realistic to hold any one person responsible for the results of a major league baseball organization. There are simply too many uncontrolable variables. I also think it is accurate to say that many posters on this board have attacked and criticized Hendry without sufficient evidence to do so. Their criticism might still be accurate, but we have no way of knowing that given the evidence at our disposal. So instead of remaining neutral or giving the benefit of the doubt, they attack and criticize. That behavior is certainly allowed, but I chose not to participate in it.

More of the proof stuff... The ultimate argument that can never be proven wrong and more importantly can never be proven right. Why is your only argument around stuff that can't be proven? Its not. I didn't ask for proof once in the above quote. In the entire post you are responding to, I asked for your reasoning and your evidence several times. I used the word proof once in response to something that you seemed to know. If someone knows something for certain, then they must have proof right? But primarily, I was simply asking for your reasoning and evidence. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as proof. But there is such a thing as evidence. All I was asking for in the above quote was evidence. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for the evidence you used to formulate an opinion especially when it was left out of your previous post. You included a lot of evidence prior to this unwarranted rant on proof and I appreciated reading it. It helped me to understand why you believe what you believe. Some of it I agreed with. Some of it, I believe, is countered by the logic and evidence presented by jjgman21 in his two previous posts. Well, I don't know that Giles wouldn't have signed a deal outside of SoCal. But I have plenty of reasons to believe that was the case. This is what I mean by evidence. I know that Giles had previously stated that he wanted to stay in San Diego. He was born in El Cajon just outside of San Diego. I know that he was offered 4/44 or 5/55 depending on the report from Toronto, but accepted 3/30 from the Padres. Here is the evidence for my belief that the Cubs were going after Giles. I read plenty of articles about the Cubs being interested in Giles, and how Hendry had contacted his agent several times. I never read any official offer, but you rarely do with Hendry who likes to keep negotiations out of the press. I also read a statement that he didn't want to get into a bidding war for Giles. Well who would? But this statement was taken by many people on this board to mean that he wasn't interested in him and a lot of people criticized him for it. For me, that isn't evidence that he isn't interested in Giles. It is simply a statement that every GM would make who is committed to financial responsibility for his team and his team's future. So I require evidence, not proof, that he is doing something worthy of criticism before I criticize him. I wanted Giles badly and was willing to overpay to get him. If Hendry wasn't willing to overpay, I can still respect him as a GM even though I would disagree. If he wasn't interested in him at all, I would be rather upset and think that he made a big mistake. I'm still open to evidence that shows his lack of interest in Giles. Clearly requiring proof has not been the crutch (sic) of my argument as you claim. But if assuming the worst about a GM without the requisite evidence is the crux of your argument, then you'd be better off admitting your chronic pessimism at the start ,and we would just leave it at that. But I don't believe that is the crux of your argument which is why I entered this discussion with you. Perhaps I was wrong.

Colorado was rumored to interested early in the off-season. True. I remember reading that. But the point is with Novoa still recovering from pneumonia, what's to say that he won't be sent to AAA to start the season since he still has options left and Wellemeyer won't be traded at all? At least not before the season as many were suspecting he would be. This is assuming, of course, that Wellemeyer continues to pitch well the rest of spring training.

Is this '06 team as talented as the '04 team? I don't think so, the rotation has regressed as has the offense. They've improved over the last 5 years b/c of Hendry's ability as scouting director and the Cubs (currently non-existent) allocation of resources towards international scouting from 99'-02'. You state that the rotation and offense has regressed and I respect your opinions, but you did not provide your reasoning for them. Are you accounting for the natural attrition of all rosters? Obviously, the Cubs can't have the '04 Sosa in the '06 line-up. So the question then becomes who could he have realistically gotten to replace Sosa? The '04 line-up is the same except for Sosa in RF, Patterson in CF, Alou in LF and Ramon Martinez/Alex Gonzalez/Nomar at SS. Are you saying that you want Patterson still in CF? Is Hendry responsible for Patterson's '05 collapse? Do you not consider Pierre an improvement over Corey? You may not, and that's fine. I just want to understand your reasoning. Clearly, Sosa had to be replaced. I mean he is out baseball now. Who should he have gotten, and at what price? I wanted Giles real bad. I would have overpaid to get him, but who's to say Giles would have accepted it. He took less to stay in San Diego. Should he have outbid the Mets for Beltran in '04? Who would you rather have in LF this season, Murton or Alou? I'm assuming from your comments that you would rather have Alou. Should Nomar be manning SS this season over Cedeno? Certainly you would rather play Cedeno than Ramon Martinez and Alex Gonzalez, right? Isn't playing Cedeno the Schuerholz thing to do? Isn't he saying "lets find out" by doing so? How is the rotation worse? I never liked the Maddux signing because I felt it doomed Clement to being released. You don't think keeping those 5 starters together for two more seasons would have been financially realistic, do you? So who should Hendry have replaced Clement with that was economically viable? I want to find out why every recent season has begun with Prior or Wood on the DL. Are they overworking them during the season? How effective are their off-season throwing programs? Do the Cubs allocate many hours towards biomechanics? Is Rothschild doing a good job of correcting flaws? There are many more questions as to why they are so injury prone? I refuse to chalk it up to god or bad luck. Right now, the only thing that was mentioned from Hendry was "bad luck". I want to find out those things, too. But, it sounds like, from your current opinion that you already know the answers to those questions. It seems like you believe that Hendry and the Cubs aren't doing any of those things. They may not be. But where is your proof? If indeed they are doing all of those things, and they are still getting the results they are getting. Wouldn't bad luck be the only reason left? I'll use the Pierre debate, some are incorrectly equating his arrival to completely changing the structure of the Cubs offense. They are basing on what the Cubs in '05 as their leadoff hitter. Pierre is a good leadoff hitter, he wasn't the biggest need on this team and wasn't the best player to go after this off-season. I agree that Pierre was not the best player to go after this off-season. But where is it written that every GM gets every player that they go after? There are 29 other teams. Did you want Hendry to pay 13 million a year for 3 years to get Furcal? Do you have inside knowledge that Giles would have accepted a deal outside of Southern California? I don't. If I did, then I would believe that Hendry chose not to go after Giles and didn't value him very highly. But I don't have that evidence. After those two, which other free agents do you believe would have had a better impact on the Cubs offense this season? If they are players that he would have had to trade for, how do you know the price the other teams were asking would have been acceptable? These are all questions I believe must be answered in order to support the opinion you have chosen. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm open to seeing that I am.

Of Guz, Hill, Marshall and Ryu, Marshall seems to be throwing the best. It would only make sense that he is the one they would be thinking of as the 5th starter. Things may change between now and April 15th (when that 5th starter will first be needed) but as of now, no one is throwing better than Marshall.

But here's the thing. The Cubs are a vastly improved team, talent wise, than they were when Hendry took over. Certainly a much better team than they were 4 years ago. So those that are arguing, on a macro level, that they are worse, or have regressed under Hendry are, IMO, mistaken. Do you remember how bad the team was in '01 and '02? Then they exploded in '03, perhaps playing over their heads a bit, and then returned to earth in '04 and then had a season in which almost everything went wrong in '05. So expectations got built sky high after '03 such that '04 and '05 became that much more of a stinging disappointment making it seem like they are regressing when, talent wise, I don't think they are at all. And the talent level of a team is basically what the GM can be held responsible for. But if we look at the bigger picture, here is the team Hendry inherited in July of '02 (OBP in paranthesis): C Hundley (.301)/Girardi (.275) 1B McGriff (.353) 2B Bellhorn (.374) SS Gonzalez (.312) 3B Stynes (.314)/Orie (.306) RF Sosa (.399) CF Patterson (.284) LF Alou (.337) Over the last couple of years and now... C Barrett + 1B Lee + 2B Walker/Hairston +/even SS Nomar/Cedeno + 3B Ramirez + RF Burnitz/Jones - CF Pierre + LF Murton +/even He has put together what looks to be one of the best bullpens in the league and what he had in '02 wasn't all that great. Alfonseca 4.00 Borowski 2.73 Cruz 3.98 Farnsworth 7.33 Mahomes 3.86 Cunnane 5.47 Injuries to Lieber and Zambrano starting in the bullpen had players like Jason Bere, Steve Smyth and Alan Benes in the rotation. Now the spot starters are Rusch and Williams. Or at least they would be spot starters if guys would stay healthy. It is important to remember just how bad the Cubs were in '01 and '02. That is what Hendry had to build on. The talent is vastly improved over the 2002 team. And the main responsibility of a club's GM is the talent he puts on the field, and even for that he is largerly relying on his scouts. A team's won-loss record is a shared responsibility amongst the players, the coaching staff, manager, trainer, scouts and GM. That's the reality. It is common practice to blame or want to fire the GM or manager when things don't work out, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing so. I'm only laying out an argument as to why blaming the head of a baseball organization for every little result isn't based in reality. But this is a message board. Who ever said we needed to ground our comments in facts? (Seriously, that's not sarcasm.)

Thanks, Diffusion. Is there a site that has this information? If it's NSBB, I'll be :oops:

He's probably talking about Dusty's "nothing hurts. nothing, nothing, nothing" Was that a lie or did Baker think the discomfort was normal Spring Training soreness? I think it was the latter. I think you're right. But I'm pretty sure that's the quote the previous poster was so steamed up about. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, friend, and yes, the Dusty quote was one of the "blatant lies" I was referring to. The other was from GM Jim Hendry, who said something like, "This is the first we've heard Prior was hurt." I'm not saying you shouldn't be mad if you want to be. Be as mad as you want at the Cubs. But how do you know that what Hendry said was a "blatant lie"? Who's to say that no one knew he had anything other than soreness until a couple of days ago? You enjoyed having the benefit of the doubt afforded to you... Are these yet more blatant lies? Or, as Prior said, are the conspiracy theorists simply looking at things from the negative side only? One thing that seems certain to me is that there isn't enough hard or circumstantial evidence to say anyone blatantly lied in this case.

Considering that his name was mentioned along with Hill, Guzman and Marshall's as possible 5th starters now that Prior will start the season on the DL, I think Ryu would have to still be considered a starter.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, you omnipotent Irishman! You seem to acknowledge the litany of things that went wrong and the list of other people who should share in the responsibility, but then, rather inexplicably hold Hendry responsible for it all. If what you are saying is that, in a technical sense, the General Manager is responsible for the results the team produces because he should have depth in case of injury and a team philosophy that works perfectly to handle any major bumps in the road, then I would say that idealistically you are correct, but that you aren't being realistic here. Idealistically, it is easy to hold the top guy in any organization responisble for the results of those under him, and that may translate well in a most business models, but not so much in baseball. Realistically, not idealistically, Hendry made mistakes, missed out on signings, took gambles that didn't pay off and is directly responsible for that. There were also a lot things that happened that were completely out of his control and completely unforeseen that greatly affected the won-loss record of the team, especially in '05. To hold him responsible for the line drive that ko'd Prior or Corey's collapse among other things simply isn't realistic. To say that he didn't have an adequate back-up plan in case of injury or unforeseen poor performance is a little more realistic, but still not exactly accurate. His back-up plan may have worked better if the players who stepped in had performed better. Hill, Rusch, Mitre, Dubois, Hairston, Lawton, Borowski and others all performed worse than expected. I believe in team sports, especially baseball, the blame for the results of an organization is shared and not one man can be blamed for it. Agreed, except for '03. Given what the team did the year before, I would say the Cubs "got it done" in '03, but certainly haven't in the two years since.

@(#&@(#$&@(*&(!@(!@&*@#(*&!(@#&!@(*#&*(#$&@(&!@(#*&!(#%&@#(*&!@#(*&!@#$(*&@#$(@&*#$(@# Let's hear from a Pirates' fan... Soooo, Jake, um, would you characterize the trade Hendry made to get Ramirez as a "fleecing"?

I know Wellemeyer does not. Of Novoa, Wuertz & Ohman, does anyone have options left? I don't think they do, do they? I'm pretty sure Koronka does, but I don't know for certain. Someone, not necessarily Wellemeyer, is going to have to be dealt in the couple of weeks...

He's probably talking about Dusty's "nothing hurts. nothing, nothing, nothing" Was that a lie or did Baker think the discomfort was normal Spring Training soreness? I think it was the latter. I think you're right. But I'm pretty sure that's the quote the previous poster was so steamed up about. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, friend, and yes, the Dusty quote was one of the "blatant lies" I was referring to. The other was from GM Jim Hendry, who said something like, "This is the first we've heard Prior was hurt." I'm not saying you shouldn't be mad if you want to be. Be as mad as you want at the Cubs. But how do you know that what Hendry said was a "blatant lie"? Who's to say that no one knew he had anything other than soreness until a couple of days ago? You enjoyed having the benefit of the doubt afforded to you...

I was a big fan of Turk's when he was with the Cubs. And this doesn't change that. I think he's right.

My guess is that if the Cubs had divulged this information earlier, it would have been against Prior's wishes and thus illegal. To me their credibility remains intact. You're assuming Prior made that request, thus your conclusion is quite premature, IMO. I'm sure Prior was just itching to give the club permission to put out news of his shoulder not being quite right, guaranteeing a barage of the type of media attention he clearly doesn't like. Prior doesn't have to make a request for the info to be kept quiet, he has to approve the release. If that were the case, the club could have cited Prior's privacy rights as to why they won't answer questions about his health. Yeah, it's a confirmation of injury without saying so directly, but it's a more straightforward and honest answer than the blatant lies by Hendry and Co. on the topic. What blatant lies would those be? I remember the Cubs saying stuff like we are cautiously optimistic and so far he is on track to get in three spring starts. There were acknowledging a lack of arm strength and the need to build it up. If they aren't sure what is causing the lack of arm strength, should they come out and start speculating about what it might be before an MRI is done. A lot of players have soreness in Spring Training. Most of it goes away. When something lingers, there are a lot of things I could think of doing before announcing an injury to the public, especially one that I haven't even tested for yet. Does anyone know if Prior had an earlier MRI that the Cubs didn't tell us about? I don't remember reading any blatant lies, but it is certainly possible that I missed some. Can you be more specific?

I'm often mistaken for a Hendry defender when in fact I agree with the concensus that is developing in this thread, trade good, signing bad. but I often think people presume players were obtainable simply because those are the players they want. there's no way to know all the factors and considerations in these dealings. for instance, regarding Murton, I have also heard that Hendry insisted the chip coming from Boston for including Harris had to be Murton. you also have to evaluate some of those missed deals long term, which is something I like about Hendry. some of these players are listed in don's post here. Vlad's deal is tough to argue with, but.... what are you gonna do about matching that offer, especially when that player turns around and signs for the same amount over many more years? alot goes into why a player signs with a team. with Vlad, the hispanic element seemed to have alot to do with it. incidentally, same theory goes for those that are mad the Cubs didn't get Wilkerson. we're talking about a GM who highly values Soriano. how do you make a deal when the other party is insane? but back to those other players... Irod. don't know if you noticed, but he had a 94 OPS last year. defense, schmefense. he's not worth the money. Furcal (and Beltran for that matter)...too much money. no convincing me the deals they signed were or will be a good investment. Dunn - that's message board fodder. I have never heard of a serious deal for Dunn. Ibanez - not sure why he is on this list. his career OPS+ is 105. Jacque Jones is 101. looking back to last year, the "decisions" on Drew (who I advocated getting, especially at the deal he signed), Ordonez, Percival, Benitez all turned out to be good "decisions" alot of times the deal you do not make is the best deal. I agree. A very well thought out and considerate post. The one thing that Hendry could have done is sign a bad deal. I wouldn't have done so to get someone injury prone like Drew or injured like Ordonez or someone with less than superstar numbers like Furcal, but I would have offered "too much" for someone like Giles. Then again, who knows, just like for Vlad, Giles might not have wanted out of Southern California.

Like I said, easier said than done, but those were the options being discussed at the time of Vlad's free agency. Probably has a lot to do with why he didn't sign with the Cubs, don't you think?

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind. We had nearly 30 million tied up between Sosa and Alou when Vlad was a FA... how exactly did you expect Hendry to sign Vlad when we we didn't have a place for him? He could have traded Sosa or Alou. Doing so is a lot easier said than done, but it was a possibility people were looking at that off season.