The Other 15

the Cubs lost some valuable role players and (at least to me) have some pretty serious depth issues if injuries start piling up, Is there a team that can survive injuries piling up?

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/6154.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=LCwAE1TFB2scz.nmPVAI3w-- You think Soriano is worth 18 million a year? I don't think you'll find many people here who believe Soriano is worth $18 million a year, especially as he gets older. IMHO, nobody is worth $18 million. obviously, nobody should be. but if someone will pay it its "worth" it. that's the point. So Soriano is worth $18 million, Miles is worth $5 million over 2 years, and Marquis is worth $10 million. Yes. Welcome to baseball salaries since you've obviously been locked in a cave for a while. Torri Hunter is worth $17.5 mil, Figgins is worth $6, Sarge JR. is worth $33 over the next 3 years, Kennedy is worth $4, Suppan is worth $10 mil, Tejada is worth $13, Lohse is worth $40 over the next 4 years, Byrnes is worth $11, Pierre is worth $10, we can go on and on, and on, and on.

Plus Hendry has had a ton of resources to work with. I don't see how anything he's done has earned him the right to be exempt from criticism on individual moves. He's had resources and he's made them work. Everyone bitched about Marquises contract for two years. Until he left. Then it magically morphed into a good contract that he shouldn't have been quick to move. Same with DeRo. It's the same tired story. Hendry gets no credit and all the blame. What Hendry as accomplished in his 6 years is very relevant in Cubs history. Name the last time you expected the Cubs to compete for the best team in the NL 3 years in a row? No WS titles, true, but you don't get a chance to win the short playoff sprint unless you win the long regular season marathon. Under his guidance, they've had 4 decent chances in 6 years. He may not be without flaws, but he certainly merits some measure of benefit of the doubt. More than most posters are willing to concede.

I'm still trying to find it. I either read it or heard it on the radio. Not sure where. I do remember thinking it was good protection if Bradley misses a lot of time. I know that you're saying TT, but how's that different to seeing a move done next year and then bitching that Hendry should have waited till the? What's the proper time to wait for the market to dilute vs players you like signing elsewhere? There is none. You do what you think is best for your team. I would think that the complete idiot that Hendry is made out to be by some rank amateurs here would be diminished by a slight degree after two division titles. Now I duck and brace for the complementary, "Just because they won the division two years in a row, doesn't mean I have to like every move," post. of course it doesn't mean that, it just menas that Hendry has a method to his moves that have worked so give it a little time before ridiculing everything immediately.

All I've read is that Bradley's option is tied to his health, and that he could still miss a significant amount of time(i.e. nothing about 2010 impacts the 2011 option) and still vest his 2011 money. I think it's Cubs option if he plays less than 250 games in the first two years. I'll try to find the exact number. But seriously, aren't these constant complaints about every late signings pat the point of ridiculous already?

I know it's mostly the function of this site to bitch for the sakes of bitching but at least have the common courtesy to look up facts before said bitching. The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue. Additionally, nothing seems wrong to you with a outfield of Soriano, Johnson/Fuku, and Dunn? Nice, force the offense to win more 9-8 games than they already have to. Does every damn player, that overvalued their worth early in the FA process, and forces teams to look elsewhere, then signs a bailout "please pay me anything deal" much later, has to be construed as Hendry not doing his job? Relax, it was a rhetorical question to which I know the answer. Now, without further ado, let's wait for Griffey to sign with the Mariners for another round of really pointless complaining about Miles, Bradley, Gregg or whoever.

I know it's mostly the function of this site to bitch for the sakes of bitching but at least have the common courtesy to look up facts before said bitching. The Cubs owe Bradley 2 yrs at $24 mil (that includes $4 mil signing bonus and $2 mil buyout in 2011 if he's not healthy enough to play specified amount of games.). Something tells me that if if the Cubs have to pay Bradley an additional $10 Mil in 2011, he'll have earned it because his production has never been the issue. Additionally, nothing seems wrong to you with a outfield of Soriano, Johnson/Fuku, and Dunn? Nice, force the offense to win more 9-8 games than they already have to. Now, without further ado, let's wait for Griffey to sign with the Mariners for another round of really pointless complaining about Miles, Bradley, Gregg or whoever.

Wow, I didn't hear that Abreau was signed to play backup infield. That is a steal even at $5 mil base with incentives that will likely pay him near $10 mil. Yeah, I'd much rather have Abreau backing up Font and Theriot even if it is for a few mil more.

Braun and Longoria have given these types of projections for rookies credence. I'll wager the under on all of Weiters #'s with a slight chance he slugs .540+. Playing catcher in the majors is not the most conducive position to sustain production for the whole season.

You gotta love message boards. Where else can a kid in college call a 30 year manager with multiple WS rings insane?

Ok, he says he did it from 2001 to 2003 to justify the contract with performance. It was a "loosy-goosey" era he says. He wasn't sure what substance he took. I believe him. It was so f'd up that players where literally putting things into their bodies on suggestions of the Golds-Gym culture that became prevalent with personal trainers and the such. This should put to bed any of these remaining, almost romantic, sentiments by some fans about certain players. It can officially be called a "era." It was era. Period. From now on, when we look and compare players from different eras, it should be noted that the players who starred from 1993 to 2005 played in a era where it was common knowledge that performance enhancing drug usage was: - common amongst all level of players. From superstars to journeymen relievers. - unofficially sanctioned by players union. - by association, unofficially sanctioned by MLB (Whistle blowers like Dykstra, Camanitti, and Conseco were undermined by MLB ever time they came forward to say what was really going on.) I don't think asterisks are necessary, just the acknowledgment that the player played in this era. Much in the same way that the stars of the dead ball era were hurt, the PED era helped some achieve great numbers. It should be part of the conversation when discussing great players from this era This, of course, is a sad day for those clean stars who will forever be tarnished to a degree by playing in this era. It shouldn't hurt their their HOF chances if they never were implicated, never caught lying, or if they apologized to the baseball fans who obviously do care about baseball and PED's more than any other sports with the exception of the Olympics. Even Roger Clemmens, Palmiero and Barry Bonds belong in the HOF, as long as its understood that they chose to use PED's. It was their call because they played in that era. Arods interview gave complete credence to what Conseco/Dykstra/Camanitti were saying for a long time. It was common knowledge that one had to use to compete. "Loosey- goosey times". Baseball, on the other hand, did everything it could to lie which I consider a bigger sin than a single player using something he feels he had to do to get paid. Baseballs version of PED testing/punishment guidelines after the 2003 round of testing proved to be a joke and it took congress' threats for baseball to make stricter adherence guidelines than the ones they made when they were left alone. I do want the rest of the names released. It isn't fair that the unions irresponsibility punishes Alex Rodriguez in the court of public perception while leaving others, just a guilty, free of public scrutiny. Every name on that list needs to be given to the fans so that we can put this in some perspective and put an end to baseballs collective bodies doing everything they could to lie about something that was so obvious and prevalent that it became a culture within a culture in their industry. Finally, for everyone saying that the players using prior to 2005 were not breaking rules, that's garbage. There was illegal drug testing then. Just because baseball didn't recognize steroids as illegal drugs means nothing. Steroids, without the aid of a doctors script, are a illegal controlled substance. All those contracts contained "morality clauses" like every league has. If baseball wanted to do something to those players it could. But I would hope that it doesn't and it moves. By moves on, I mean baseball has to accept the consequences of the times, acknowledge that it helped in creating it by not being vigilant enough, and move forward with a more forthcoming state of mind. Baseball fans will forgive. They forgave after the strike of 1994 when baseball came back with all those players putting up huge seasons for throngs of newly adoring fans,....oops, nevermind. Just move on!

My main point is, had we waited instead of rushing to sign Miles, we might have been able to wait out a Hudson or a Durham and gotten significantly better production for the price. Hudson at $5 million for one season is incredibly more valuable than Miles at $4.5 for two seasons. It's most definitely a risk, but Miles' production isn't that difficult to find off the trash heap. All of this coulda, shoulda, woulda talk is based on hindsight. If all of the GMs knew that the asking prices would drop this much, no one would have been signed. I saw on one site that Abreu might have to settle for $3 million/1 year deal. If Hendry had waited until now to sign Dempster, Bradley, and Miles to lesser contracts he probably would be short a SP, RF, and utility IF going into spring training. I can just imagine all of the bashing Hendry would have been getting for being cheap and waiting too long. As I've posted before, people just need to complain about any transaction he makes or doesn't make. I've never said he should have waited on Dempster and Bradley. He got pretty good deals there and I'm mostly happy with them. The problem I have with the timing of the Miles signing is that he's not particularly special. What does he do that is extremely difficult to find? He hits singles 28% of the time and gets on base at a very barely decent pace. There was no reason to hurry into signing him - especially with better options still out there. What would we have lost that we couldn't replace if Miles had signed elsewhere? Maybe you are talking about the Miles signing and not Dempster and Bradley, but I've seen other posters who said we should have waited on Dempster and signed him at a lower price (we actually would have probably lost him). They posted that we overpaid on Bradley and could have signed someone else (Abreu, Dunn, etc.) at a bargain price. Yeah, I've seen those arguments and disagree. Dunn isn't signed yet because he doesn't play defense and an oft-injured Bradley is still probably close to better (if not better) than a fully healthy Abreu. I wouldn't have minded Dunn over Bradley from the start, but I don't question Hendry's timing on either of the big moves. And I disagree with them. Unless they see something that I don't see and the stats don't tell, Miles is a very replaceable player that isn't much better than most of the crappy backup middle infielders out there. The same ones who aren't signed yet or signed minor league deals. Miles doesn't provide anything particularly important so I would have preferred Hendry wait on that signing (and I'd have been fine with losing him) to see how the market was going to play out. Especially with the early suspicions that it would be slow. And I disagree with them. Unless they see something that I don't see and the stats don't tell, Come on, you can't really believe that someone can see something that stats don't tell, can you? You're coming awfully close to saying that having scouts still matters.

yeah i don't know that he can repeat his 2006 season but even if he puts up 2007 numbers he'll be worth the money. he wasn't that good last year, counting stats aside. He had a horrible first half then followed it up with a great second half. It's the same thing he's done throughout his short career (although his 2006 "horrible first half" was only so in comparison to his second half). Another guy just got $22 mil a year for eight years with the same inconsistency.

I don't know, but I do know that .240/380/.520 should not be confused as .280/.380/.590.

As silly as that statement is, if ever a guy is allowed to be useless in the field its one that puts up those kinds of numbers.

Yeah, it's the WARP3, plus other little minuscule unimportant details like averaging 50HR, 140 RBI, .280/.380/.590 over the first three full seasons of his career.

Yeah, it was the back injury, it has to be, it just has to be because I predicted Rich Hill will be very good, so I have to find a straw that hasn't been grasped. Besides, now that I'm convinced it's the back injury, I can rely on the metrics that say pitchers careers just take off after back surgery.

http://www.wisecamel.com/images/Sosa%20B%20and%20A%203.jpg After college, I managed two health clubs in the Chicago area. If you want to learn about roids, work in Melrose Parks Ballys Health Club. You'll find more syringes there than Loyolas Medical Center a couple of miles away. I'll say this. I know competitive body builders and both guys say that you don't get that big, without chemical aids. A thin, wiry frame, does not develop that much muscle mass without help. It's physically impossible. Anybody that bag, that claims they are natural, are liars. You want huge muscle mass, you must have the bone structure to develop it naturally. You'll look more like one of those guys from the worlds strongest man (also roiders) than Arnold (king roider) during his glory days. The human body simply doesn't do that naturally.

I would think that most managers would like the idea of a GM getting them the kind of player he likes. I'm sure it happens everywhere with role players. The idea that Baker and Lou haven't given young players a chance is a bit of a stretch. True, Pie never got a true chance and I don't know why the leash was so small on him, but when the young guys have produced, they have played. Patterson, Choi, Zambrano, Prior, Murton, Theriot, Soto, and some young pitchers like Wuertz, Wellemeyer, Hill, Mitre and Guzman evereytime he's been healthy. It looks like they moved a popular vet to give Fontenot a full time shot. The problem has been the quality of the young players, not opportunities for them. Most good working GM/Manger relationships probably have many discussions about playing time for certain players vs the teams need for immediate production from the position. The manager is the one that's closest to the players and their habits so it would be irresponsible for a GM to insist upon playing time for someone when the team is winning. It is a fine line, but more than that, it seems to be just another thing to complain about Hendry for some fans because the team has not won a championship. Fans are quick to jump on Hendry and/or Baker/Lou for some of the role players they had on their roster. Lord, another misguided post about Neifi,...nevermind. Much like having Pablo Ozuna, Timo perez, Willie Harris and Geoff Blum on your bench, all is forgiven if the main pieces perform and win a World Series.

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year? Not at all! Those backloaded contracts ARE the competitive team this year. A certain level of backloading of contracts is fine. and contract 7,8,9 million in consecutive years is just natural inflation, and or the expectation of increased ability/production in the player. I know Hendry has backloaded more than this (eg Marquis) but its not like he's heavily backloading or deferring ala the D-backs. Those contracts give us this year and nothing much beyond it, I'm guessing. The current core is already moving past their primes. Well a couple of years is considered "nothing much beyond it" Which was the plan. Soriano (33) Zambrano (27) Ramirez (31) Lee (33) Dempster (32) Lilly (33) Fukudome (33) Bradley (29) I'm worried about Dempsters contract, Bradley is a injury risk, and obviously Fuku will have to rebound to respectability for his contract to be OK. Granted, there is concern, but it's not like it's a given that every contract will be bad. I know it's not popular to say this, but Hendry has been good at some things. He's done well at trades (this year to be judged later when it's fair to judge trades) and he's been pretty good at giving contracts to players that repay with performance. Not 100% but which GM is?

What is not the same about a RH pitcher getting a LH hitter out? All I'm saying is you have to look at both the pitcher's splits and the hitter's splits I did some quick back of the envelope math and this is what I found: LH hitter vs LH pitcher (all MLB w/minimum 100 ab) BA .256 OBP .320 SLG .482 OPS .802 LH hitter vs RH pitcher (all MLB w/minimum 100 ab) BA .276 OBP .352 SLG .552 OPS .905 So, if I understand your position correctly, you would rather have a LH pitcher face a LH hitter in every key situation late in the game? Then why have a RH closer? Other teams will surely send LH bats up there, right? I have to disagree with your premise that just because in general LH hitters have better splits vs RH pitchers, you would automatically prefer the reverse situation. Taking individuals numbers, more importantly than that, taking their recent success into consideration, and then I make the call. I've seen effective relievers removed too many times to see the matchup guy blow the inning or game. And I've seen situations where effective relievers blow the inning or game with an obvious match-up guy standing in the pen ready to go. Having said that I do agree with what you're saying for the most part, of course you have to look at each situation individually. To answer your first question yes I believe that most of the time later in the game you'd use a LOOGY to face a tough LH hitter in a close game. I'm not talking about bringing in a LH to face Michael Borne in a two run game with two outs in the 8th. I'm talking tight games with guys like Bruce, Fielder, McLouth, LaRoche, Ankiel, Kennedy, Either, Delgado, Loney, Howard, S. Drew, - guys with lopsided splits. Obviously if the reliever is a lights-out type of guy there's no reason to bring in a LOOGY. This is the answer to your 2nd question - no I generally wouldn't play match-ups in a 9th inning save situation with the closer in the game. The closer should be your 1st or 2nd best reliever and trustworthy enough to be given a longer leash. There is only one guy in the cubs bullpen (at the moment) that fits that bill. But if it's late in a close game (7-8th inning) and Prince Fielder is stepping up to the plate I'd elect to use Will Ohman (for example) over the Shark. I think if you're going to go with a 12 man bullpen there should be room for a specialist from both sides. I hope not to see Heilman facing too many LH this season and I hoped to the cubs landed someone like Brian Shouse. I'm talking tight games with guys like Bruce, Fielder, McLouth, LaRoche, Ankiel, Kennedy, Either, Delgado, Loney, Howard, S. Drew, - guys with lopsided splits. I get what you're saying, I still have to disagree (in general). Guys like that require the best pitcher you have not the best LH pitcher. Often times the numbers the LOOGYS posses vs other individual hitters are impressive only because of sample size. Beware of those extreme looking splits like "Rhodes has held Utley to a .000 ba in his career." But if it's late in a close game (7-8th inning) and Prince Fielder is stepping up to the plate I'd elect to use Will Ohman (for example) over the Shark. That's a bit extreme. Those types of hitter (again, not to be repetitive) require your best not a inexperienced rook. How about last year when Marmol was the 7-8th inning guy? I'm going with Marmol over Ohman every time. Are you going with Biemel over Broxton? I doubt you would. I don't think you're wrong (not that there's a right or wrong here), I just think that you might be painting with too broad a brush because I think the individual situation should be addressed ---individually (for lack of a better word).

What is not the same about a RH pitcher getting a LH hitter out? All I'm saying is you have to look at both the pitcher's splits and the hitter's splits I did some quick back of the envelope math and this is what I found: LH hitter vs LH pitcher (all MLB w/minimum 100 ab) BA .256 OBP .320 SLG .482 OPS .802 LH hitter vs RH pitcher (all MLB w/minimum 100 ab) BA .276 OBP .352 SLG .552 OPS .905 So, if I understand your position correctly, you would rather have a LH pitcher face a LH hitter in every key situation late in the game? Then why have a RH closer? Other teams will surely send LH bats up there, right? I have to disagree with your premise that just because in general LH hitters have better splits vs RH pitchers, you would automatically prefer the reverse situation. Taking individuals numbers, more importantly than that, taking their recent success into consideration, and then I make the call. I've seen effective relievers removed too many times to see the matchup guy blow the inning or game.

Backloading contracts allow you to borrow from the future in order to pay for the present. You can't give Hendry full credit for the present until you see what it looks like when you have to pay the piper (and we're already beginning to see that, having to dump DeRosa for salary reasons) Kyle, as always a plan must work for it to be considered good. The players under multiple year contracts are (remaining yrs not counting team opt): Soriano (6) Zambrano (5) Ramirez (3) Lee (2) Dempster (4) Lilly (2) Fukudome (3) Bradley (3) 2009 - Obviously the payroll for this season is pretty much set so with Hardens option picked up that group costs $109.9 mil. 2010 - $111.1 mil 2011 - Minus Lee and Lilly $89.5 mil 2012 - minus Fuku and Bradley is $50 mil. 2013 minus Demp is $37.3 These backloaded contracts are basically in effect for the next 3 years where the Cubs are automatically tied down for $109.9 in 2009, $111.1 in 2010, $89.5 in 2011. Coincidentally these are the years that that core group was signed to win in. Only Soriano, Zambrano and Dempster have more than 3 guaranteed years remaining on their deals. If the payroll stays around $140 mil over the next three years, or grows marginally (we don't know what new owners will do) they should be fine. If it is ordered cut by ownership, you will likely see something similar to a fire sale where Soriano and Zambrano are moved for prospects. The bottom line is that after 2006, they decided they would go all out to win and the cost was signing free agents. They had two shots in the playoffs, they hope to get at least that many more over the next 3 years. So, like I said earlier, if the players perform and the Cubs continue winning division titles or wild cards, the plan would have been worth it. If they fail miserably, it's just two more years of "bad contracts" provided they don't reach the playoffs. (note: to those that will reply that making the playoffs is not good enough that is a separate argument so save it. I only mention playoffs because I believe it's understood that it takes more than a great roster to win the WS.)

Rice. You from the area? My only point here is it seems as much as their is the perception of irrational Murton love, there's the same amount of irrational Murton hate.(Same with Pie, Cedeno, pretty much every young guy sans Soto, cause seriously it's Geovany Soto) Maybe it's just people sick of hearing how he should've been playing only to see him not be anything special when he got some time, but he's a major league hitter and was stuck in the wrongplace in a success cycle/wrong franchise for developing a hitter. Yes, Beverly. Murton has been a lightning rod with Cubs fans and I'll bet he'll continue to be one weather he fails or succeeds this year. I don't know why people are so passionate one way or another about him. I know for my tastes, I got tired of watching him look at perfect hitters count pitches go by just to try and draw a walk. It got him into a deep funk in 2007 that he might not have recovered from.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200806020.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO200808150.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN200808210.shtml Three games in which Zambrano's offense contributed to a run, and the Cubs won by one. Wait, in the first game you posted he puts the Cubs behind by three because of his lack of self control, and in the second game he puts the Cubs in a 5-1 hole because of his pitching. I'd still rather have Z the good pitcher over Z the hitter. Is it your belief that Z's good hitting is detracting from his pitching? So now Zambrano's hitting doesn't count if he pitches poorly, cause he's supposed to be a good pitcher, and his hitting obviously doesn't count if he pitches well cause who cares, they were gonna win anyway? No. It's my belief that Z had an extraordinary year with the bat and it would be more comforting to know he could control games more with his arm than having to depend on his bat. Is that so odd?