CubsWin

Several fans on this site, not saying one of them was you, have criticized Hendry heavily for not having better back-up plans at SS and in the rotation where known injury-risks exist for the Cubs. Hill is still unproven and can't be counted on to perform when called upon like Rusch can. So Hill doesn't seem like a sound option as an insurance policy while Rusch's numbers over that last two seasons show he has the ability to get the job done when called upon. And the results of this season seems to have shown the need for reliable insurance policies. Plus, estimates show the Cubs have around 50 million dollars to spend this off season. So, spending 2.75 million on a player who can provide insurance to the starting rotation and effective relief is money well spent considering the amount of money the team has to shell out.

For those of you who hate this signing, I think I understand where you are coming from. You look at Rusch's overall numbers this season and they don't look good. Nothing above mediocre. He was on the team last season and the Cubs didn't do to well last season, so one way to get better is to get better players. That and you are frustrated with Hendry for two seasons without going to the playoffs so you are making him pay by generally judging what he does with a cynical eye. I can't speak to how willing you are to give up being cynical when it comes to the Cubs GM, you either are or you aren't. But I can say that if you are willing to look deeper into Rusch's numbers, there is hope. And the logic that says it is a bad move to resign someone who was a part of a losing season is clearly faulty. Rusch was consistently very good for the first 2 1/2 months of the season. Then something happened. I don't know what. Tired arm. Something off in his mechanics. He was tipping his pitches. Something. And for the next 2 1/2 months (half of June, July and August) he was terrible. Then, he must have figured it out because for all of September, he was back to the same excellent pitching he was doing in the beginning of the year. The end result was overall numbers that were mediocre, but if you are willing to believe that Rusch righted what was wrong, then what the Cubs just signed for 2.75 million next season is a left-handed spot starter/long reliever who has a proven ability over the last two seasons to maintain an ERA in the threes and possibly lower. Is it that a knock-your-socks-off signing? No. Is it one that can help the team win games? Yes.

Vance, don't the Cubs have to wait a few weeks before Hendry can begin negotiating for Giles? I thought there is a 2 week window after the WS where current teams have exclusive negotiation rights to their own FAs. :? Right. 14 days after the W.S. As soon as that window opens, though, I'd have my offer ready and pick up the phone. Would you start at 4/50? I wouldn't. I'd be willing to go there no problem, but I wouldn't start there. I would, only because it lets him know we are dead serious about signing him. But everything we've heard thus far about what he is likely to be offered is in the three year range and its at or below 10 mill per year. So why not start a 4 years at 11. That would let them know that we are serious and leave some wiggle room.

He is arbitration eligible, so he could be non-tendered, but I doubt the Cubs will do that. I expect him to be on the roster for '06. Hairston isn't going to be an all-star or anyone's favorite player, but the guy brings speed and some versatility. He also can get on base better than most Cubs can. He had a down year. If he can perform more like he did in '04, he can be valueable. I don't want him in the starting line-up, however. He best serves a team as a super-sub. Plus, if he isn't starting, the likelihood of Macias being off the team goes up. 8) That would be the only thing about Hairston coming back that sounds good. I was really looking forward to seeing what Hairston could do when the Cubs got him, but he was less than impressive. True, but that was just one season. Last year he hit .261 with a .336 OBP. Nothing worth celebrating. But in '04 he hit .303/.378 and in '03 he hit .271/.353. He can do better than what he showed us last season.

Very well said. =D> =D> =D>

He is arbitration eligible, so he could be non-tendered, but I doubt the Cubs will do that. I expect him to be on the roster for '06. Hairston isn't going to be an all-star or anyone's favorite player, but the guy brings speed and some versatility. He also can get on base better than most Cubs can. He had a down year. If he can perform more like he did in '04, he can be valueable. I don't want him in the starting line-up, however. He best serves a team as a super-sub. Plus, if he isn't starting, the likelihood of Macias being off the team goes up. 8)

That is just one season. His career numbers tell a much different story. Over his 5 most recent seasons, he has had only one season in which he allowed less than a hit per inning. The ball can bounce your way one season, just look at the White Sox. But the other 4 seasons are pretty telling. His WHIP over that period isn't good. 778 hits plus 177 walks (which isn't bad) in 703 innings over the last 5 years is a WHIP of 1.36. That's not terrible, but its not good either. When you add his injury history to the equation, I say pass.

Can't trade Ronny! Who will start at 2B after Todd Walker is dealt? :wink: You wink, but its true. They would have to move Hairston to 2B and then who would play CF? :wink:

Pavano = Hittable No thanks.

Vance, don't the Cubs have to wait a few weeks before Hendry can begin negotiating for Giles? I thought there is a 2 week window after the WS where current teams have exclusive negotiation rights to their own FAs. :? Right. 14 days after the W.S. As soon as that window opens, though, I'd have my offer ready and pick up the phone. Would you start at 4/50? I wouldn't. I'd be willing to go there no problem, but I wouldn't start there.

shhhh This is another issue that people want to ignore when showering praise on Hendry and management. Hendry unequivocally said that it wouldn't matter when Kerry went under the knife, that he'd be ready for ST regardless. The fact that its even newsworthy that there are now reports indicateing that he will be ready for ST directly conflict with Hendry's understanding of the nature of Kerry's injury and the surgery to repair it. Its like a freaking Keystone Cop routine. Not if you apply the theory I outlined a few posts earlier. Its not that its "newsworthy" that he is on track to be ready for the season. Its that Hendry is laying the groundwork via the press to give him a position of strength from which to negotiate with free agents. If the story had been about how the Cubs were desperate for a certain position instead of how their in-house options appear to be good enough or ready to go, then agents would have the Cubs over a barrel. I don't think Kerry has stayed healthy enough for any agent to put any stock into that. Sure there is. If Hendry is going after someone like Millwood or Burnett, they aren't going to be filling in for Wood if/when he goes down again, they are going to have a rotation spot to themselves. So if Kerry is "expected" to begin the season healthy and apart of the rotation, then they are being signed not to replace him but to join him. That changes everything. Its not like Kerry is guaranteed to miss most of the season. He has averaged just under 160 innings per year. However, this story wouldn't affect Hendry's bargaining position with a free agent pitcher like Rusch, a spot starter/reliever, because of the exact reason you brought up. Wood should still be considered brittle regardless of how healthy is now and someone like Rusch would be signed to take over for him if/when he goes down, not a Millwood or Burnett.

shhhh This is another issue that people want to ignore when showering praise on Hendry and management. Hendry unequivocally said that it wouldn't matter when Kerry went under the knife, that he'd be ready for ST regardless. The fact that its even newsworthy that there are now reports indicateing that he will be ready for ST directly conflict with Hendry's understanding of the nature of Kerry's injury and the surgery to repair it. Its like a freaking Keystone Cop routine. Not if you apply the theory I outlined a few posts earlier. Its not that its "newsworthy" that he is on track to be ready for the season. Its that Hendry is laying the groundwork via the press to give him a position of strength from which to negotiate with free agents. If the story had been about how the Cubs were desperate for a certain position instead of how their in-house options appear to be good enough or ready to go, then agents would have the Cubs over a barrel.

Unless they are usually a lot more accurate than that, this projection system, whatever it is, has cornered the market on nothing.

I only bring this up because of the way this thread was structured when Roast started it a long time ago. This is to be one long thread that discusses every position the Cubs have to look at this off season. Right now, the topic on the table is how should the agreed-upon 4-year, 50 million dollar contract offer to Brian Giles be structured. If the Mods could break off any other discussions into their own threads that would be appreciated. Thanks.

Well, the options appear to be front loaded, spread out evenly or spread out evenly with a 2 million buyout on a 5th year mutual option. Everything has to equal the guaranteed money of 50 million over 4 years.

Excellent point. Even if the Cubs sign Furcal to a 3 or 4 year deal, Walker at 2B is only signed for one more year. Cedeno is young enough to use as a sub for a year and then take over for Walker in 2007. On the other hand, if the Cubs signed Furcal and then made a deal for Castillo I could see trading Cedeno. As it is right now, I'd have to be getting something of very high value to trade Cedeno. He isn't "untouchable", but he isn't someone I'd shop either. I agree. There has definately been discussion about using Ronnie as a Freel-type "super sub". I don't see him being successful as an everyday starter, but theres no question that he could be great as a versitle sub. Just curious. What leads you to beleive that he won't be a good everyday player?

Not that it changes your point much, but Ronnie is 22 and has been all season. And I agree that at his stage of development, having him back up both SS and 2B makes a lot of sense. I would prefer that Nomar be resigned instead of getting Furcal just because Cedeno can play an excellent defensive SS and put up a .921 OPS at AAA last season meaning he's got a pretty good bat as well. Inexpensive SS who can defend and hit are harder to find than the same type of player at 2B. And if Furcal is signed, Cedeno is blocked and the money that was spent on Furcal can't be allocated elsewhere. I think Nomar will put up better numbers than Furcal this coming season, he will be cheaper and he will be signed to a one-year deal so the Cubs will have the ability to replace him with Cedeno in '07. They will then have the Furcal money available to spend elsewhere. You combine that with the 9 mill that Maddux will be freeing up in '07 and the Cubs are able to make another splash in the '06 off season. But only if Cedeno is at SS and not Furcal.

Not sure what the def of a groundbreaking player is but Furcal is 27 , switch hitter, a 15 homer , 40 steal guy, with some of the best range at short in the majors to go with a cannon arm at short. I'm not sure if Cedeno's ceiling is anywhere near that high. I'm not too concerned whether he will be like Furcal or not. I am concerned about whether he can be good. Defensively, he has proven that he is. Offensively, he seems to have some pop. When you can put up a .921 OPS through 245 at bats at AAA as a 22-year-old, you've got a shot at being good. Cedeno got the rep of being all glove no bat because he was consistently two years too young for his league and his numbers suffered due to being pushed through the minors, but his bat is catching up with him now. Remember, when in was in rookie ball, his numbers were great. They were so good that he was brought up to Lansing later that same season. Having someone like Cedeno on the cheap for the next several seasons could really help the Cubs acquire some heavy hitters or keep the all-stars they already have for an extended run at the World Series year after year. Don't trade Cedeno.

Thanks for finding last year's thread, Serena. Can it be accessed by none Premium members? I tried using the same url but just deleting the premium part, but that didn't work. It did for me: viewtopic.php?t=16243&highlight=cubs+zips Thanks, CR. It worked that time. Based on looking at that thread, their projections weren't very accurate last season. I don't know about any other years. And, CR, nice sig. How 'bout them Bruins? You think they're not motivated to go into that USC game undefeated?

One, how do we know that he hasn't done exactly that? Two, it might not be the best strategy financially. And like it or not, money is always a consideration in this game. If the agent for Giles knew that Hendry was going to top any offer, then he could manipulate things so that one team offers a crazy amount of money that they never intend to pay. Hendry, true to his word, ponies up the money to beat the deal and hurts his team's financial situation. Consequently, the Cubs can't afford to resign Lee or Prior or someone like that a year later and the acquisition of Giles is effectively negated.

No doubt. That Hundley trade still amazes me. Folks, lets not quibble over 4 years or 3. If the Padres and Cardinals are going to give him 3, then the best way and perhaps the only way for the Cubs to get him is to give him 4. Besides, that part was already voted on and decided. This is about how to structure it. I think it is smart to front load a 4-year contract being given to a 34 year old. Chances are that his production may drop off a bit in years 3 and 4, so why not have the payment do the same. The player is happy because he is getting more money sooner. The team is happy because he becomes easier to trade if need be. The amount of guaranteed money doesn't change so the agent couldn't care either way. The Cubs have plenty of money to spend this year and likely next as well, so why not go 15, 14, 11, 10 or 15, 13, 11, 9 with a mutual option on a 5th year at 9 million with a 2 million dollar buyout.

Thanks for finding last year's thread, Serena. Can it be accessed by none Premium members? I tried using the same url but just deleting the premium part, but that didn't work.

I'm not saying that this report is false or that Hendry is intentionally spreading lies about how well Kerry Wood is doing in his rehab. But, true or not, this report follows, to the letter, the modus operendi of Jim Hendry. Whenever he has to sign a free agent, he will give an interview in which he talks about how good his in-house options are at that position. He did it earlier this off season when he pumped up Cedeno as a viable option at SS to give the perception of leverage in negotiations with Furcal and Nomar. He is doing it now by saying that it looks certain that Kerry Wood will be back in time to start the season as a part of the Cubs starting rotation so that agents for players like Burnett and Millwood won't think that the Cubs are desperate. Hendry always wants to come from a position of strength when he is negotiating with an agent and this story makes perfect sense. Now it is certainly possible that this story is on the up-and-up and not some sort of deception. But last season, all Hendry told the press was that Sosa wasn't going to be traded and then he was. I believe that Hendry was taking that position publically to try to maximize the offers he was getting for Sosa. And I think he may doing the same thing with this story only this time he is a buyer so he is trying to drive the price down.

As far as Murton being the Cubs starting LFer in '06, I think he has earned it. Naturally, if he produces like Holla did out of the gate, Baker will start tinkering, but I don't see him doing that.

And also an early knock on him was that he lacked power. Granted, he isn't going to give Manny Ramirez or Barry Bonds anything to worry about, but I've compared him to Mark Grace before, and I'll stick by that. If we get Mark Grace-like production out of Murton in left, I'll be thrilled. Grace-like numbers would be quite agreeable, but I think Murton has more power than that. If only a little more. I could see 20+ HRs from him a realisitic possibility year after year. Gracie rarely topped 20.