CubsWin

I just dropped Dave a message asking about the plate discipline of Pie. I'll let you know once I hear from him. Here's the response I got from Dave: Thanks for that DJAXXFAN. Though, I just want to point out that I didn't write the questions you have quoted me as writing above. I quoted them in an earlier post in this thread and responded to them. I've forgotten who actually asked those questions. I am of the belief that Pie knows he needs to work on his plate discipline based on quotes of his in an article at Cubs.com. Whether the Cubs will allow him to work on that while still in the minors is the question I have. I am hoping they give him as much time as he needs.

What throws fuel on the fire of any rumor these days *cough*dustytothedodgers*cough**hack**cough* is that MLB frowns upon teams announcing much of anything during post-season play. I mean, they COULD have agreed to huge mega deals and they just can't SAY anything because of pesky Selig. Right?!?! I think that's accurate. We've heard it several times before. If the deal for Giles is done, we won't know until the day after tomorrow. :wink: That would prevent a story about it showing up on the official Padres website, but not the other sites. How do you explain those? Don't the papers in San Diego have to turn a profit like everyone else? And yet, nothing. Are they afraid of the wrath of Selig also?

I voted for 50 million, but I strongly believe the Cubs should do whatever it takes.

So where is this deal that was "all but done" over 24 hours ago? I checked the official Padres site...nothing. I checked the Padres page over at Pro Sports Daily, one of my favorite sites...nothing. I checked all over the ESPN site...nothing. I googled Brian Giles and found a site called PadresNation...nothing. That lead me to the website for the San Diego newspaper the North County Times. The only story they had up on their Padres page that was remotely about Brian Giles was written on the 14th and it talked about Giles's intention to file for free agency after the end of the World Series. Another San Diego paper, the Union Tribune, had nothing on Giles. Most of the latest stories are either about GM Kevin Towers leaving to go join the D-Backs or the firing of the team's assistant trainer. Rotoworld? Fanball? Nothing. So, just how done is this "all but done" deal?

It's going to be a rough offseason and I just have no faith in Hendry. Can he sign FAs? Will he make trades to solidify our OF? I personally do not think so. I think he will, but I certainly could be wrong. Can't wait to find out, though.

Padres.com and Padres.scout.com both are talking about it on their message boards. Still nothing other than fans talking about radio 1090 saying the deal is all but done. Key words there are "all" and "but". When its official, it will appear on something other than a message board.

No other sites have anything on this as of yet, inlcuding the Padres official site.

All teams have nice surpises and tough luck. I expect the Cubs will have both next season. As will the Cardinals and most other teams. So you admit then that your previous post in which you questioned Lee's and Dempster's ability to repeat their '05 performances was pointless? Because you just countered your own argument. We are getting off topic for this thread. If you want to continue this conversation, lets take it to rivalries.

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series. That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now. I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year. There is some wisdom in that, except for a few things: 1, if things go right this offseason, we very well might be contending next year, as has already been said. 2, Giles' discipline is not likely to decline. His power numbers and average might, but he'll probably always be posting a pretty decent OBP, and hitting for better than average power, especially in Wrigley. Plus, he seems to be in very good shape, so I think that decline that people are anticipating won't be as steep as you think. 3, Given the above point, he will always have some value - if not to us, then to somebody else who can take on that kind of contract (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.). Frist off, good post. 1. If this is the belief then by all mean by all mean overpay, I was just trying to help frame debate. I guess I'm of the opinion the Cubs might contend but I doubt it. Again, not to sounds like a troll\CardsHomer but this is a team that finished 10 games out of the WC and 4th place in the central. BTW, I don't want to hijack the thread with this part of my post. 2. That is true, I would just worry about injury and what not. Guys in their mid 30's and up tend to break down more and have sharper declines. Again, its worth it if you believe this team will be a contender next year. 3. I have a feeling those teams are going to better job of not taking on overpaid old guys in the future. That said is Giles has a slow decline then yes, they could prolly get rid of him. As a said before guys in their mid to late 30's tend to have (but not always) nastier declines. I thought the Maddux signing in 04 was a good one even tho he was old and I knew they were overpaying because going in to the season they had a great shot for the WS. I'm not so sure, I would feel the same for the Cubs going in to 06. The Cubs have a tough offseason, lots of $ and a lousy FA class. It should be interesting. Not to poke holes in your debate, but you and I both know the Cubs would have been a much better team if Walker, Aramis, Prior, Wood and Nomar. Being healthy would have made the Cubs a threat to at least take the wild card. Sure if the Cubs are completely heathly things would have been better. Can you expect that next year? Can you expect DLee to be the best hitter in baseball again? How about Demp being a good closer? Two can play at that game. Can you expect Patterson to be as bad next year as he was this year? Can you expect Murton to perform as poorly as Hollandsworth and Dubois did? Can you expect Prior to go 11-7 again next season? If the Cubs re-sign Nomar and get the median amount, the expectable amount of games played out of him (125-130), can you expect him to perform as poorly as Neifi Perez did? That knife cuts both ways.

I hope you're right...

Precisely the reasons why I am all for going after Lofton. Giles, Lofton, Nomar, bullpen help, bench help, starting pitching. In my mind, those are the targets in order of importance this off season. To be fair, trading for Pierre does not block Pie. Pierre is a FA after 2006, so in all likelihood it keeps Pie in the minors in 2006 where he belongs (IMO) True, unless the Cubs resigned him after trading away Hill to get him. :wink: But I agree. Pie and the Cubs would be best served by him staying in the minors until his plate discipline shows sizeable improvement.

He has historically struggled with commanding his knee buckling curve ball and spotting his 90-mph fastball. But this season, he broke through in that area at AA and AAA. He always had the stuff, thus his selection in the 4th round out of Michigan, but he needed to gain the ability to hit his spots. He began to show mastery of that last year and basically dominated at every level except the majors. Does he still have things to improve upon? Yes, but his potential is undeniable, and he is showing signs of reaching it. That is why so many here are "in love" with him.

Precisely the reasons why I am all for going after Lofton. Giles, Lofton, Nomar, bullpen help, bench help, starting pitching. In my mind, those are the targets in order of importance this off season.

At that cost and his age I would have to say no thanks. I would much rather they throw a lot of minor league talent at someone like the Reds for Dunn or Phillies for Abreu and then sign that player to a long term deal. Nothing against Giles, but it just seems like he is going to be overvalued due to the free agent class he is in. True, he might be overvalued because there are so few impact FAs this off season, but is that any reason not to sign him? Not every player can be had on the cheap if your team is going to get to the playoffs. Look, players get overvalued every year for a variety of reasons. If a player is shown interest by the Yankees, he automatically has the leverage to ask for more than he otherwise would be worth. If a bidding war breaks out on a certain player, he, too, will be "overvalued" due simply to the facts of how free agency works. The question is, whether he is overvalued or not, will signing Brian Giles bring the Cubs legitimately closer to the playoffs? In essence, is he worth overpaying for? To answer this accurately, we will have to examine what the Cubs' needs are this off season. Clearly, they need a RFer. Luckily, Giles is one. They need a left-handed bat. He is one of those, too. They need OBP. He has consistently provided OBP at or around the .400 mark throughout his career. They need OPS. He was second in that catagory among all major league RFers last season behind only Vlad Guerrero. They need someone who is not injury-prone. Giles's history is solid in that regard. They need hard-nosed gritty players with good leadership skills. That describes Giles to a tee. They need players that are hungry to win. Giles has played his entire career in Pittsburgh and San Diego. I think he is hungry enough. Do the Cubs need to get younger? No. If Giles's numbers fall off a little from his career norms, will he still be among the top 15-20 OFers in the game offensively? Yes. After asking the right questions, he appears to be the perfect match for what the Cubs need despite being 34 years old. Now we need to figure out how much money the Cubs have to spend. According to this website, the Cubs have committed around 50 million next season leaving them with about 50 million to spend. If they chose to take 12-13 of those 50 million and get a guy who fills so many of their needs, I wouldn't call that overspending. I would call that trying to win. Seriously asking now, for those that don't believe doing whatever it takes to sign Brian Giles is the right idea, what more do you need to hear to be convinced? What other questions do you need answered?

My official answer is whatever it takes. But if I have to give a number, I think the Cubs could afford 50 million over 4 years, and I think Giles would be worth it. My only concern is his range in RF. But I am confident that his bat will remain productive at a level comparable to his career averages for the first 3 years of this contract. He's played plenty of LF as well, so it shouldn't be a problem. Heck, he can still play a little CF when you need an offensive boost. He played 17 games there last year. Right, but it isn't a question of whether Giles can play other positions than RF. It is a question of whether the Cubs will have anyone who can be a better defensive RF than Giles. Right now, it is unclear whether Murton has the arm to play RF, but I doubt he does. Giles isn't a protypical CFer, thats for sure, so, if signed, he will be stuck playing RF unless the Cubs decide to sit or trade Murton. That is the only reason why I bring up Giles' arm strength. As far as trading Murton, I love the kid, but depending on who you can get in return, it might not be a terrible idea to trade him for a good offensive and defensive RFer. I don't see that happening, but that would be the only condition I can think of in which I would agree to trade Murton.

Yeah, those were my thoughts, too. Pierre is a question mark and so is Hill, at this point. Why settle for a question mark and give up someone who could be good when other, better options exist that can be had without giving up anyone? On a side note, BBB, my two-year-old girl was on my lap as I was reading your post, and she exclaimed in a loud voice, "B! Blue B!" I'm thinking she likes your avatar. :wink:

I appreciate the link, but its not much of a source, is it? This is one Cubs blog (CubsNet) quoting another Cubs blog (Bleed Cubbie Blue). All BCB said was that Al Yellon's source told him a rumor. Who is Al Yellon? Who was his source? And how good of a rumor is it? Too many questions to trust this as anything other than heresay. That said, I love hearing rumors, innuendo and heresay that says Hendry is targeting Brian Giles! The trade idea, not so much. I like Hill, but I'd be willing to trade him, too. Just not for Pierre. The Cubs would be better off signing Lofton. They've got Pie coming in the later half of '06 if he is ready and they wouldn't have to give up anybody to sign him. Lofton is better than Pierre as a stopgap CFer, IMO. Now if the Cubs can package Patterson, Hill and others for someone like Marcus Giles, Luis Castillo (injured hip and all), Placido Polanco or Brady Clark, that would be another story.

My official answer is whatever it takes. But if I have to give a number, I think the Cubs could afford 50 million over 4 years, and I think Giles would be worth it. My only concern is his range in RF. But I am confident that his bat will remain productive at a level comparable to his career averages for the first 3 years of this contract.

I'm glad you brought up HOF. I'd be interested in what some people here think about how he stacks up. His numbers sure look deserving at first glance, but like you so aptly pointed out, there are extenuating circumstances. That .313 lifetime batting average and the MVP he won should go along way, though.

I totally agree with Vance. A minimum of 4 years is the only way to get this thing done. And I am of the belief that if the Cubs don't sign Giles and fail to trade for someone of equal value, then they are going to have to get pretty lucky if they hope to make the playoffs in '06.

Just putting out a reminder to vote on 3 years or 4 years as the desired length of contract to offer Giles. At last check, 4 years was leading 17-5. First one to 20 wins. Its pretty clear which one is going to get there first, but lets make it official so we can move on.

Here is a commentary on Guzman's performance from BA...

This is the latest on Guzman from BA...

If the Cubs don't rush him and let him develop his plate discipline before coming to Chicago. But is he even being taught plate disipline? Is this something the Cubs are even worried about? According to this article, he is at least aware that he needs to work on it, whether or not it was Cubs coaches who made him aware. It would make sense, though, that if a Cubs player lists plate discipline as the first in a list of things he needs to work on, he probably heard it from one of his coaches.

Careful, don't let CubsWin see that. Hey, I saw that! :lol: I have no problem with people expressing that they have lost faith in anybody. If I happen to disagree, I'll present my reasons and a discussion will ensue or it won't. That's up to the other person. Some people take offense to having their opinion challenged or discussed. I fail to understand that. I thought that is what a fan sight was all about. In this case, I certainly hope Hendry made a phone call to Mazzone's agent prior to resigning Rothschild, but it seems clear from all the reports that have come out since, that the reason why Mazzone wound up in Baltimore was because he is childhood friends with their new manager and had made a pact with him that if he ever became a manager, he would be his pitching coach. Mazzone also wanted to be paid what he is worth and the Braves weren't willing to do that. The only reason the Yankees got involved was to drive up the price for their AL East opponent, the Orioles. So after all the dust has settled on this one, it looks like Hendry wouldn't have had a chance to get Mazzone anyway. But that doesn't mean that some fans can't put together a good argument for why they have lost faith in Hendry. Last season gave Cubs fans a lot of valid reasons for doubting his ability to put together a winning team. Whether there are enough reasons to logically decide that Hendry is a bad GM would make a great debate. :wink: