CubsWin

The revelation that the Phillies are seeking a top of the rotation starter in exchange for Abreu should tell us a lot about the Cubs chances of getting him. That is unless the Phillies are willing to take Kerry Wood... Anyone here not do Kerry Wood for Bobby Abreu?

We knew these types of trades would be coming this week due to the upcoming Rule 5 draft. The 40-man roster is overloaded with the signings of Eyre, Howry and Mabry coming soon, so expect more deals of this nature. The Rockies are rumored to be after Todd Wellemeyer. Link

That is certainly possible knowing Dusty, but it would go against every report I have read so far and Neifi's own words. According to Neifi, he signed with no expectations of being a starter.

Perhaps thats why other teams are waiting to make that trade. If I believed by waiting a few months, I could get more coming back to me in a trade, I'd wait too. Don't forget, it takes two to tango. Unfortunately, Hendry can't just push a button marked "trade" and make one happen. Given the reports on Pierre and others, he is certainly working the phones. You commented earlier that you believed Mench wouldn't be anything better than a bench player in starter's clothing. I'll grant you that the possibility exists that he will never improve above his current numbers (.264/.328/.469), but there is evidence that suggests otherwise. He put up some monster minor league numbers in Rookie League Pulaski (.362/.420/.638) and High-A Charlotte in 2000 (.334/.427/.615). He put up the High-A numbers over 491 ABs while hitting 27 HRs, driving in 121 runs and walking 78 times against 72 strikeouts. He hit a wall in AA and was nevertheless pushed aggressively to the majors where his strikeout to walk ratio has improved every season. He doesn't strikeout very easily and has some power. His major league OPS has been right around 800 or higher but has been regressing a bit as he gets more ABs showing that he may struggle a bit against tough righties. He turns 28 in January so he is right at that age where some players bust out like DLee did. Is Mench one of those players? Defensively, he improved quite a bit last season, but is still only average. He has better than average speed, but his arm isn't great. He is far from my first choice, but if he can maintain or improve upon, since he is still just 27, his career OPS of .811, it would be difficult to accurately paint him as a reserve in starter's clothing. After all, only 26 OFers with a minimum of 450 ABs had a higher OPS last season than .811. Carlos Lee's OPS last year was exactly that. Is Carlos Lee a reserve in starter's clothing?

Okay, come on now. Are you all just bumping this thread in hopes that Mr. Miles will return with some actual news? If so, I'm doing my part. :wink:

And the evidence clearly supports this statement. Of the five people who's services Hendry has either retained or acquired, (Perez, Williamson, Walker, Eyre and Howry) only one of them shows any ability to get on base at a decent rate. Plus, it is logical to assume that every GM always aquires players in order of importance, thus clearly displaying for all to see how they rank on his priority list. :wink:

Thanks, O_O. Great find. The primer is helpful, as well.

Greenberg can take a walk and hit more than singles. Gathright's been an okay base stealer at the major league level, but he's also put up a .316 OBP and .656 OPS there. He won't be worth what it'll cost to get him methinks. I totally agree that he likely won't be worth what the DRays are asking. I just wanted to point out that his major league OBP might be a bit misleading. His minor league OBP was excellent, better than Greenberg's on the whole, IIRC. So he is major league OBP likely will improve from .316 before it is all said and done and he would probably be a bit better than Greenberg at getting on base.

Whatever buddy. I guess 4th place in the division is good enough for you. Whatever buddy. I guess boiling a very complex thing like the results of a baseball team and a GMs tenure down to the single, most negative result tells the whole story for you. There's more to it than that. You write this paragraph about how some of us are unsatisfied with the job Hendry has done and it is because he has lead us to higher expectatons. Is that a bad thing? Maybe there is a reason why we haven't won in almost 100 years. Fans like you see nothing wrong with the way this organization is run top to bottom. We have missed the playoffs the last 2 years when we had one of the highest payrolls. There is a problem there. To me it tells me the person putting this team together is not doing a good job. Hendry the past two years has FAILED. YOu said defining success is winning, well guess what we haven't won squat the past two years. Now that the bullpen is set, give me a good RF. bench, and a leadoff man and I will gladly say that Hendry has done a wonderful job of setting us up to have a successful 2006 season. Until then there is no question that your boy Hendry has failed the past two seasons. Slow down, killer. Who are you responding to? I didn't write any of those things. mhuber did. I just thought your response to his post didn't consider the points he was making and was remarkably unfair. No one is happy with a 4th place result, okay? ok there killer, i think my post above should make it clear to mhuber then about what I think about Hendry. As for you, keep being optimistic about everything. You are entitled to your opinion about this organization and I am entitled to mine. 2003 was a fun year while 2004-2005 were depressing. Let's hope 2006 is more like 2003. Although we overpaid for the 2 RP I actually like the Howry signing. Obviously, it's still early but like I said before if we can get a good RF, bench, and leadoff hitter I will be happy with what we've got. Now I'm "optimistic about everything". This is laughable. Is putting words in other people's mouths all you've got? mhuber made some cogent points in his post, as did I in his defense. But you never responded to them. Instead, it seems you heard a viewpoint that was different from your own and immediately stopped considering the validity of what either of us had to say. You seemingly assumed that we were either "happy with a 4th place finish" in mhuber's case or "optimistic about everything" in my case. Neither are what we claim to be nor are they accurate descriptions of what we wrote. So it reads like a mixture of a personal attack and putting words in our mouths and not a response to what was actually written in the post. As for my viewpoint of Hendry, I'm just reserving judgment until he actually fails to improve the Cubs offense before being angry at him as if he already has. I'd say I'm showing restraint and perhaps trying to understand things at a more complex level. But, then again, maybe I'm just a simpleton who is always "optimistic about everything" Hendry does.

Whatever buddy. I guess 4th place in the division is good enough for you. Whatever buddy. I guess boiling a very complex thing like the results of a baseball team and a GMs tenure down to the single, most negative result tells the whole story for you. There's more to it than that. You write this paragraph about how some of us are unsatisfied with the job Hendry has done and it is because he has lead us to higher expectatons. Is that a bad thing? Maybe there is a reason why we haven't won in almost 100 years. Fans like you see nothing wrong with the way this organization is run top to bottom. We have missed the playoffs the last 2 years when we had one of the highest payrolls. There is a problem there. To me it tells me the person putting this team together is not doing a good job. Hendry the past two years has FAILED. YOu said defining success is winning, well guess what we haven't won squat the past two years. Now that the bullpen is set, give me a good RF. bench, and a leadoff man and I will gladly say that Hendry has done a wonderful job of setting us up to have a successful 2006 season. Until then there is no question that your boy Hendry has failed the past two seasons. Slow down, killer. Who are you responding to? I didn't write any of those things. mhuber did. I just thought your response to his post didn't consider the points he was making and was remarkably unfair. No one is happy with a 4th place result, okay? And, of course, there is more to it than that. That is my point. You don't base your opinion of Jim Hendry on one stat and no one is happy with a 4th place finish. That knife your wielding cuts both ways.

Whatever buddy. I guess 4th place in the division is good enough for you. Whatever buddy. I guess boiling a very complex thing like the results of a baseball team and a GMs tenure down to the single, most negative result tells the whole story for you. Thats a pretty unfair response, isn't it? I don't believe for one minute that you have based your opinion of Jim Hendry on only one statistic. So why do you think that anyone is happy with a 4th place result? Is that the best you can do?

You mean it doesn't?

Yes, he is. Dude got on base 68 times in 78 games and stole 20 bases in 25 attempts. He's fast. But its not like he is 21 anymore. He'll be 25 in April and has just 95 games in the big leagues. He has yet to translate his great OBP numbers from the minors to the majors (.316 career OBP), but that number will likely improve. What won't improve is his weak arm in CF. Unless he can be had on the cheap, I think the Cubs can do better.

Before he went to NY and flopped people talked about him like they are talking about Burnett this year. Vasquez is a good pitcher. But Yankee inflation has made him not worth the contract. yankflation? I'm calling the the t-shirt print shop right now.

I have some faith that they are on that path. And in my occasional spreadsheet dream rosters I've included lots of these guys going through the end of the decade and slowly increasing payroll each year. The problem is that at their best, Zambrano and Prior were both putting up Cy Young caliber performances for minimal cost. I doubt the Cubs will produce anything similar soon, either MVP hitters or CY pitchers. Any GM with a top 5 budget and 2 Cy caliber pitchers taking up a very small portion of that would do anything they could to take advantage. And there's nothing to say another window won't open. We just know there is one open now, and it will close. You aren't guaranteed anything more than that. You can't argue with that statement. :wink: And that is why trading for Abreu is so enticing. You said you doubt the Cubs will produce anything similar to an MVP hitter any time soon. You have good reason to doubt it. Most teams don't produce MVP type bats very often. But does that means you don't think that Pie can be an impact player? He might not have an "MVP bat" like Lee or Pujols, but he should be able to complement his bat, which should be pretty darn good, with blazing speed, great defense, the drive to continually improve and the natural charisma and love of the game and winning to be a natural leader. Those characteristics don't show up in a player's OPS, but they still add to a player's ability to help a team win games, don't they? I believe Pie has a good chance of being a real impact player and close to the MVP bat that you described. Maybe just a different kind of MVP than say Manny or Albert. And therein lies my dilemma. To trade Pie or not to trade Pie. One thing I don't have a dilemma about is the best way to improve the Cubs chances of winning baseball games is by acquiring one of Bobby Abreu or Brian Giles.

There is already a thread about this article entitled Rosenthals Notes. Perhaps we can merge these two.

Excellent response. Thank you for the clear and thorough explanation. And I agree. However, as you said, it doesn't matter whether the great players like Z and Prior are being paid full price so long as younger players come along. I don't know if it needs to be one new pitcher and one position player a year in order for the Cubs to continue to afford their current core of players, though. With the new bleacher expansion and the parking garage, museum, restaurant complex to follow next off season, the Cubs payroll could easily continue its upward climb. If Cedeno is playing SS for the Cubs, that saves them a lot of money because of that positions expense of late. With Murton seemingly ready to man LF and do a very good job doing it and Pie probably ready to take over in CF in '07, that would make 3 of the 8 position players making the league minimum or close to it. 2B hasn't proved to be an expensive position, so it should be filled rather cheaply whether by a rookie or not. I'm not counting on them, but one pitcher from the group of Guzman, Marshall, Nolasco, Pinto, Marmol and Hill could certainly emerge for the '07 season to replace Maddux. If Williams isn't dealt, he will be at league minimum for that season as well, IIRC. Since planning beyond the '07 season gets pretty unwieldy at this point, we can't go much further. But with players like Harvey, EPatt and Pawelek in the system, it isn't inconceivable that they could be close to ready by '08 or '09. So maybe the Cubs are already on the path that you described. And thus, their window of opportunity isn't as small as was previously described.

I see CF as Pie's domain starting most likely in '07, so whoever is brought in to man that position this season should really be here for one year as a starter. Pierre will be a FA after this season so he fits. Knowing Bradley's, Michaels's and Wilkerson's contract situation would help. It is probably somewhere in this thread, but I didn't look for it before responding to your post. :oops: If Michaels would be okay to returning to the bench or possibly a limited platoon with Pie in '07, then he might be a real good option.

Well that is certainly thinking outside the box! I would be thrilled with that type of overspending as well. :D Put Cedeno at SS, keep Walker at 2B and have an outfield of Giles, Patterson and Abreu. That would score some runs. 8)

Given your assumptions, I would do the same thing. Your logic is very sound, as I see it. One of your assumptions, that Pie won't likely be very good for 3 years has already been challenged. I would like to question another of your assumptions, namely the the Cubs have a brief window of opportunity to make a run at a World Series with this group of pitchers. Besides the fact that no Cub currently has a contract beyond the 2008 season, so there really is no way to tell who will be around 3 years from now, there is nothing about this group of pitchers that I can see that makes the Cubs window of opportunity a brief one. Prior is 25. Zambrano is 24. Dempster is 28. If you think Wood will rebound and be here he is only 28. Williams, if kept, is only 23. So what about their pitchers makes this window so brief?

Do you think the Cubs are an Abreu away from winning the World Series in the next couple years? Yes. It wouldn't guarantee, but it's the closest thing to it. The Cubs have been a top pitching team in 2 of the past 3 years. They've been a mediocre or worse hitting team every year. An impact RF to go along with Aramis, Lee, Barrett and whatever top of the order player Hendry gets (assuming that player is competent) would put them as close to the WS as any team in the NL. Is the difference between Giles and Abreu over the next couple seasons worth giving up Pie? That is a great question. If Giles is willing to come to the midwest, which is a big if, and if he is willing to sign for only 3 years and for around 10 million, as has been rumored/reported, then no, I don't think that difference between Giles and Abreu is worth giving up Pie. Of course, I'm still not sure whether giving up Pie for two guaranteed years of Abreu, who will be 32 next March, is a good idea. But, clearly Abreu is better than Giles. He is younger, faster, has better defensive range and a much better arm. Their bats are quite similar, but there is certainly more confidence in Abreu's ability to maintain his offensive production over the next couple of seasons. If the Cubs can obtain Abreu without touching their core of Prior, Zambrano, Lee, Ramirez, Murton, Cedeno, Pie or Pawelek, I would do that over signing Giles.

I'd rather have Castillo and Cedeno than Furcal and Cedeno. Join. I do believe Hendry has a plan. I just don't like it. IMO, the biggest gaping bleeding hole on this team is OBP. I don't believe Hendry sees it that way (except for MAYBE at the lead-off spot). We currently have zero right fielders on this team and Hendry allegedly is going to rely on a trade to fill that hole when a premier RFer is available in exchange for exactly zero players right now. Sure, but that Giles bum only played in 158 games last year and 159 the year before. And what's with that .955 career OPS? Seriously, how could he not be priority #1? The notion that he is ready to decline in his offensive production and that his defense is already less than good could have something to do with it. I would still be very, very, very happy if the Cubs signed him, but I believe their number one priority should be trading for Bobby Abreu who doesn't have any of the above concerns. I would rank signing Giles as the #2 priority. However, even if he were #1 on the list, it doesn't mean that he should have to be the first guy signed. Just because signing/trading for a certain player is your #1 priority doesn't mean that it is going to be the first move you are able to make. The schedule with which players sign and/or are traded has a lot to do with the schedule of the winter meetings and the other players that are signed/traded first.

What if he factored Abreu's contract into the equation? Would it still be proof of players gaining momentum? With only 2 years on the deal, it's pretty difficult to justify knocking Abreu down the list of potential candidates. The one thing the Cubs have going in their favor is the money they have to spend. If Abreu was a free agent and was willing to sign for 2/30 right now, I'd be on that deal in a heartbeat, an that club option in 2008 also gives the team a chance to keep him for three years without risking a longterm deal in his late 30's. I started this Abreu talk months ago, and I'm extremely happy that it's picked up some steam this offseason. From a baseball standpoint it doesn't make sense for Philly to trade him, but they are in a "we need to change what we're doing mode" and might just be willing to go in another direction by trading Abreu. There's not one prospect in the system that I'd refuse to deal for Abreu. And if you know my history of prospect love that means a lot. Yeah, without a doubt, Abreu is the top choice to play RF for the Cubs next season. He has OBP, power, some base stealing ability, improved defense and a great arm. Plus he is left-handed with a history of remaining healthy throughout a season. I still struggle with the question of whether I am willing to give up on Pie in order to get him. So I pose this question to you. Keeping in mind that the Phillies are trading him to dump salary, is there a deal you think the Phillies would accept that didn't include Pie, Pawelek, Murton, Cedeno, Lee, Ramirez, Prior or Zambrano? Good, cheap, young pitching is always a plus. Jerome Williams, Will Ohman, Ryan Harvey and one of Marshall/Pinto/Hill? Some other combination?

No, middle relievers for pricey 3 year deals are bad ideas. Especially ones like Eyre who don't have any sustained success. As an aside, does anyone know what happened to Howry's K's this year? Three years of sustained success isn't enough? Can't anyone look beyond the one stat of ERA in '04 to gain a more complete picture of Eyre? Come on. Look through the thread, I've gone to WHIP, K/BB and in previous threads more than that to make my case about Eyre. Eyre in 2005 was great. He had a WHIP near 1, OPS against under 600, 2.5 K/BB, etc. Aside from that, there's not a whole lot to be impressed about IMO. 2003-2004 he was about 1.4 WHIP, near 700 OPS against, K/BB under 2, etc. Those numbers are similar(K/BB, WHIP) or marginally better(OPS against, K/9) than the rest of his career as a reliever, which is far from stellar. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, we gave him three years. Almost 1100 days. The Cubs will play almost 500 games in that span. When Eyre's contract runs out we'll be voting for another president. For a middle reliever that's never had more than one year of production that would be deserving of 3-4 million a year, that's terrible. If we gave Eyre 1 year 3-4 mil, or 1+ an option, I wouldn't be upset, since you're taking the gamble he can sustain it. I may be upset about how much they're paying for a gamble, but ultimately it's not a terrible move. Giving that same gamble 3 guaranteed years when he's 32 years old and you aren't in dire straits for a LH reliever? Unacceptable IMO. I apologize for missing your use of stats earlier in this thread. It is true that his WHIP in '03 and his ERA in '04 were not inspiring. That said, it seems we are looking at the same stats and interpreting them differently. I see a pitcher who at the age of 30 was finally diagnosed with ADHD and his first treatments (drugs and life management changes) began during the 2002 season. Since that time, Eyre has steadily improved without regressing at all. And if we look beyond his WHIP in '03 and his ERA in '04, the other numbers show a different story and I believe a more complete picture of Scott Eyre. Each year since receiving treatment, his K/BB ratio has improved. Each year his H/IP ratio has improved. Each year his walks per inning has improved. Each year his WHIP improved. Each year his AVG/OBP/SLG against righties and lefties improved, finally culminating in an excellent campaign last season. Is there reason to believe that he may regress a little? Sure. Is there also reason to believe that his regression will still have him get lefties out to the tune of .200/.241/.390 like he did in '04? Yes. If he regresses against righties to somewhere in between his '04 and '05 performances against them, I think you'll be quite pleased. But there is also reason to think he may not regress. Given that he has improved every season since being diagnosed, the main reason we expect him to regress is that it is difficult to imagine him improving upon last season. And thats a good thing. What evidence do you have that suggests the trend I clearly outlined will suddenly reverse?

Who has been a factor in his signing? Has any team been rumored to be in the lead for Giles's services? The Cardinals are supposedly no longer interested. What evidence do you have that suggests Hendry hasn't done everything he can to let Giles's agent know of the team's interest? The latest rumor I've read was in a quote from the Newark Star-Ledger just a couple of posts before yours stating that Giles now seems to be headed back to San Diego. Who knows? All I do know is that Hendry has contacted Bick more than once. Steve Phillips predicts that the Cubs will sign Giles. And Ken Rosenthal predicts the Cubs will try to trade for Bobby Abreu. What does all of this mean? Not much. But it seems to fly in the face of your assertion that the Cubs have an "inability to be even slight factors in the player that can help the team the most".