NoDak

OK, I know this guy has been talked about in the past, but let's ressurect that. I have heard rumors involving Anaheim, Arizona and Boston in a 3-way deal for Ramirez. While a 3-way deal in complex enough, could JH throw his hat in the ring and see if he can maybe offer a decent prospect or two and maybe some cash (we have plenty after all) and acquire Chad Tracy to play OF. He has played OF in the past and was, apparently, not too much of a hack. Sneak in under the radar of far bigger names and nab this kid. 25 years old. Cheap. .305/.359/.553 including 29, 34 doubles the last couple of years. While ARZ is a hitter's park, I think that his power would project pretty well as he matures. Send a couple of mid-level pitching prospects to BOS and throw a couple million dollars to ANA to help them with Ramirez's contract and throw Chad Tracy out there and we have not decimated our farm system, acquired a young OF/1B. We can allow Lee to walk if we can't sign him to a new contract and Tracy forms a bridge until Dopirak is ready and doesn't ham-string us particularly either. While he is not Bobby Abreu, we also haven't traded Mark Prior. He is also younger. High ceiling, low risk! If it doesn't work out, we simply let him go. If it does work out, CHC nabs a solid young hitter and decent fielder on the cheap!

check rotoworld for all the guys the pirates are trying to get. seems like they just want to spend money David Littlefield is either an OK GM or 1/2 a GREAT GM. He actually does a decent job of acquiring reltively cheaply some adequate talent. What he needsto do is take that next step and be willing to trade them off for some high ceiling guys a couple of years away and say, "Look, we are going to be very good in 2008" or something like that.

It's true. We'd be handcuffed like the Yankees have been for years and the payroll would be very bloated. It's a cool idea but talk about putting your eggs all in one basket. We still would need another outfielder (unless Corey stayed) and would have no bargaining chips left. We'd have to hope to resign the FA. On second thought, getting them both could be a problem for years... The more I think about this the more I agree with you. I would not mind giving up some of our top prospects, but this would handcuff CHC for years to come by fleecing our WHOLE farm system. What happens if Willis' frenetic wind-up results in TJ surgery? While, yes, the thought of having Cabrera in the OF is VERY tempting and he is a known quantity, I think that any time you give up that many prospects you are asking for trouble. Look at the deal that MIL pulled with Sexson to the D-backs. While most people would argue that Sexson is superior to Overbay/Spivey it allowed for MIL to spin 1 very good starter for 2 adequate starters. What it also allowed MIL to do was to save money AND spin off Spivey for a starting pitcher when Richie Weeks was ready and not be too saddled with Overbay when Fielder is ready. Also they got Counsell as a utility infielder (Baker would have used him as a starting 2B over Walker, I suppose) and Capuano (a good young pitcher). Even if Sexson had stayed healthy I don't know that he would have been worth ALL of that! MIL got three slightly above average players for one very good but soon very expensive player. In short, good idea on the surface, dig deeper and you find 97-years of frustration!

I don't think he will. He is also probably more enamored with Guzman as well! Remember, Hendry has more untouchables in the minors than the majors.

Overall, I think you make a decent point (but I would still like to see Cedeno/Walker up the middle). One of the problems of a relatively weak FA class is that even more mediocre players sign ludicrous contracts. I would certainly not mind going into the season with Murton/Bradley/Wilkerson/Patterson in almost any combination (I do think that Patterson will go back to his .260/.320 self) and wait until the season gets rolling and we know what we have and other teams know what they have. Part of me says that FLA is doing JUST the right thing. Take advantage of the relative lack of FA AND the subsequent extreme seller's market to get VERY GOOD value for their product. They are still keeping lots of good talent (Willis, Cabrera) and seeing what they can get for other players. They have the intelligence to know that they have to clean-house to get lots of good young players and then will be VERY competitive in the next couple of years. It is an error to think that every team must go into every season with a "realistic chance of winning a championship." This leads to mediocrity across the league.

Actually, this looks like the kind of deal that Hendry would sign to a MINOR LEAGUE contract (remember, that is how the whole Neifi thing started). Then, in May when Cedeno is struggling (7-8 consecutive ABs without a double) he would be sent down to work on his swing and a "proven veteran" would be pulled up from Iowa where his "experience" will help the club beyond his actual ability and his "intangibles" will lead to victory.\ Hendry is VASTLY overpaying for Neifi (I still say offer him to Bowden for a dixie cup of used tobacco juice and agree to pay $1M of his salary and see if he bites), but the MAIN problem I have with the signing of Perez is Baker's annoying habit of playing him. As a late inning defensive replacement for Walker or something like that I am fine. It is the thought of another season of watching him get 600+ PA while Cedeno (whose talent is vastly greater and ceiling is immeasurably higher) warbles away on the bench and/or at Iowa.

If it will cost CHC Prior that pretty well blows a hole in the argument that STL could get him for Marquis, or BAL (Bedard), Yankees (Wang), etc...

I think he's great at trades: The Good: Lee acquisition for a mediocre/bad Choi Ramirez/Lofton/Simon acquisition Karros/Grudz acquisition for freaking Hundley Nomar/Murton acquisition for crap Barrett acquisition (he was traded for correct?) Clement part of the acquisition (Willis was thrown in at the very end as a throw-in no one thought he'd be great) The Bad: Sosa trade Farnsworth trade Cruz trade So basically when Hendry devalues a player, the trades suck (pretty intuitive) and when he doesn't devalue them he fleeces opposing GM's, for the most part. I'd say he sucks at FA but is good at trading, making him an average to slightly above average GM. I think he just focuses too much on "toolsy" guys. You forgot the macias trade. The Macias trade wasn't good by any stretch, but we don't know what we would have gotten in that place on the roster. While it is hard to imagine much worse, it could have been. I will grant you, though, it probably does belong on the "bad deal" list.

If "1 basket" isn't limited to "1 player" then EVERY team puts all their eggs in one basket. That basket being defined as 40-man roster! :lol:

I disagree that "not being able to hit for much power" is EVER a good thing. I would rather have power guys in the middle of the line-up, but to sacrifice ANYONE being on base when they hit for extra bases just to keep the "power" down at lead-off isn't a good thing. Like I said, hitting for power was not CHC shortfall last year and will likely not be this year either (#2 in the NL to the Bandbox Reds). To me the job of a lead-off hitter is to be ON BASE. The second most valuable asset is for them to be ON BASE. Third, is the ability to not get caught stealing any more than is absolutely necessary. Come to think if it, I disagree with everything in that post, with the exception of #1, 4, 5, but I am pretty sure the last two are facetious (but accurate). I think lead off is as important of a spot in the order as anywhere else and more important than any except maybe #3. By definition the lead-off hitter gets as many or more PA as possible, so why not maximize the good (getting on base) while minimizing the bad (like making outs). If batting lead-of is due to deficiency and is primiarily the inability to hit for power then Neifi Perez must be a dream come true. Personally, I think that description is more what I want in a #8 hitter (getting up as LITTLE as possible).

Oops, BBB, I accidentally put Macias name twice. Plz substitute Perez for the Macias with 26 games and 116 PA. Right stats, wrong name. I included him later to point out he had the second best OBP of all the lead-off hitters, if that makes you feel any better! :shock:

There is all this talk about "The Cubs need a lead-off hitter" and I don't know if I buy it. CHC had HORRIBLE production out of their lead-off spot, but when I look at the numbers, I think I see why. I will confess that I will assume that batting lead-off will not, in a statistically significant sense, change such rate stats as OBP, SLG, BA. With that in mind, let's look at what CHC had leading off last year (I will limit this to players who batted #1 for 5+ games): Hairston---78 games, 335 PAs Patterson---32 games, 136 PAs (and most ofhis walks! :wink:) Macias---26 Games and 116 PAs Lawton---18 games and 77 PAs Macias---9 games, 37 PAs. While we can rightfully judge that all of these sample sizes are probably too small to judge by their output in just that situation (batting lead-off) if we include their full season stats (see: Assumption listed above) This looks pretty bleak. Hairston: .261/.336/.368 was BY FAR the best and is certainly at the bottom end of acceptable. Perez is second in OBP with .298! That is unacceptable. My question is: WHY NOT PUT MURTON/WALKER in the #1-2 slots? While both of them have power their ability to get on base in front of Lee/Ramirez would be WELL worth it. Besides, power wasn't the problem for CHC offense last year. It was having guys on base when those extra base hits occured so I would be willing to sacrifice their SLG in the middle of the line-up to gain guys on base at the top (getting fewer outs/100 ABs out of the guys that will contribute the most ABs is also good) I think all of this talk about CHC needing a "lead-off" hitter is misguided. What we need is a manager able to take advantage of the lead-off hitters he has rather than some archaic archetype of the "slap hitting" lead-off man. If we had a great slap hitting lead-off hitter (like Brett Butler in his prime) I would be fine with it, it is just when he gets dogmatic about it that I have a problem.

While my "buzz off" statement was hyperbole and I don't necessarily think that is what happened, my point is that we really don't know what did happen. Just having no reports about something is not necessarily the same thing as saying that it didn't happen. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." I disagree that evaluating FA talent is the main part of his job. Hendry never markets himself, and, to my knowledge, neither does anyone else, that he is a good evaluator of FA talent. His main credentials are that he is a very good guy in getting things for trades. He is rarely fleeced and has often fleeced opposing teams. Badger, I don't know that the Sosa trade was that bad. Would the team have been better with Sosa than with Hairston, I don't know about that. Some have argued that he could have gotten more for Sosa, but I don't know that that makes this a "bad trade." You are correct about the Cruz trade and the Farnsworth trade (but the Cruz trade for what we got back was FAR worse). Finally: It is part of the beauty of baseball that we can discuss these things in the off-season. What I still want to stress is that this is all guess-work. To discuss them as "educated guesses" (as one poster pointed out) is fun, interesting and valid. Where I think we cross the line is when we start to give these "educated guesses" the apparent status of "fact" with statements like "Hendry did/did not go after Giles." A good argument can be made that he didn't, but there is really little evidence (much less "proof") that he did/did not.

WOW, I didn't realize this would be such a hot topic, but some of the posts on here are what I am talking about. 1. Thanks for the graphic with Dusty's dice (Neife/Macias on one, various random positons on the other...that was great!) 2. I think nick23 makes the same point that I am making. We don't really "know" any of this. While I agree that Giles would have been wonderful and RF is more of a problem than SS/lead-off, we don't know. It could be that Hendry did inquire about Giles and was told to "buzz off" in which case, wouldn't it have been foolish to continue the pursuit? If people don't like the decision that was made, that is a fine and valid argument. I am not sold on Scott Eyre either. However, I think it is overgeneralizing to say that he is "putting all his eggs in one basket" and pursues players with a single minded devotion. As I said in reason 1, I really wouldn't mind if he chose the right basket. My condemnation is in his choice of FA baskets, not his style as a GM. I do think that Hendry is a solid GM, just not a good judge of FA talent.

I have read in several posts on here that--and I am paraphrasing here--JH puts "all of his eggs into one basket." I have three problems with this: 1. Depending on what/who that basket is, I don't know that I would have any trouble with it. 2. I don't know that it is true. My reasoning is simple. I have not read ANY posts from anyone who can really convince me that they have talked to him. All we have to go on is news reports saying that CHC was really after ... (fill in the blank). It is the job of newspapers to find out where there is interest and the speculate on options. Now all of a sudden we are hearing that JH wants Pierre. The fact is that Pierre, while not spectacular, would likely be an improvement over what we have had in CF over the past several years with the exception of 2003. We don't know that JH has put all (or any) eggs into that basket though. 3. I wish he did put all of his eggs in one basket. I wish he would have been so obsessed with acquiring Furcal that he would have "oopsed" and allowed Jim Bowden to have a press conference where he hands a grinning Neifi Perez a Nationals uniform. Then make the traditional speech: "Today is an exciting day for our organization. We have acquired an award winning veteran at a very important position. Mr. Perez is excited to contribute his abilities to help with one of our problems last year, offense from the SS position." (pause for laughter) "No, really, did you see what we had last year?" Just because the papers say that this or that player is who Hendry is after does not mean that it is true, or that he is so single minded in his approach. While Hendry does have weaknesses (like evaluating FA talent) I don't know that "putting all his eggs in one basket" is one of them. I think a lot will still happen this off-season.

Williams is probably a tier below all of those guys right now, except Wang. And none of them is a 1-2 starter in the MLB right now, though Bedard and Backe have the best chances eventually IMO. I don't know that I would value Willams lower than them right now. I like using ERA+ to evaluate pitchers (quick, easy to get, relatively levels playing field, etc.). Here are their numbers: Williams: 100 (league average) Wang: 111 Backe: 87 Bedard: 104 Marquis: 103 I personally think that HOU ERA+ was somewhat artificially low because of having a very good pitching staff and a rather poor offense. If I look at the list I would be inclined to agree with you, but then let's throw their AGES in there (in 2005): Williams (23), Marquis (26), Bedard (26), Backe (27), Wang (25). I am not saying that Williams is particularly "better" than those players listed, but that given that Williams is as likely to improve as any of them I would not put him "a tier below" them right now. While K/BB ratio does bode decently for Bedard in particular, those are the kind of numbers that I think improve with age. If I am Philly right now I am saying, "Look, JH, you have plenty of starting pitching. I would be willing to deal you Abreu straight up for Zambrano" and hope JH bites.

I would not make a deal Z for Abreu/Padilla. While it would fill an OF spot our pitching depth in the minor leagues is not what it was a few years ago and Z is a VERY good pitcher who stays healthy. If we acquire Burnett, keep KW and acquire Padilla, we suddenly have three high ceiling, high injury risk players. Hasn't Padilla missed significant time over the past couple of seasons? If I am Philly I would jump all over this deal. While Abreu is outstanding Z pitches a ton of innings and gets ground balls (which RARELY become home runs) and is enormously cheaper than what they are giving up. All this for the cost of an injury prone pitcher and an all-star outfielder who are both older than Z? I think that Philly would be all over that deal! Sorry, I say no to this deal on a couple of different levels.

FYI, Lofton is a FA Maybe they are going to try to "hood-wink" another team: "Yeah, you can have him (for a couple of weeks) for just a couple of minor leaguers"

1. I am a person who believes that ANY player is available. Honestly, if FLA is willing to give me Miguel Cabrera for Felix Pie AND Hill I am certainly willing to listen (and get them to sign on the dotted line before they sober-up!). Obviously, this is an exagerration. What we have to keep in mind is that about the time a player is "proven" he is likely toward the end of the time when he will likely put up those kinds of numbers. 2. Too often people equate "proven" with "famous." I think this is a foolish error and one that good GMs will feast on. There are many very famous examples of this "Bagwell for Anderson," "Bell for Sosa," "Alexander for Smoltz" etc. Every team has that one deal that they kick themselves for for 10-15 years. 3. I tend to look at the minor leagues as the place for cheap replacements for aging/high priced players. There are others who look at it as simply "trade bait" top to bottom. I disagree. For reasons 2-3 I am really curious to watch what happens and tracking the results of the Cards/A's trade last off-season when the Cards acquired a "proven" Mark Mulder for "potential" in Haren and Barton (as well as Calero). I said right away that Billy Beane is too smart of a GM to have gotten fleeced as badly as it looked on initial impression, and I think he got the better end in 05 and likely for years to come.

I think we can all question JH ability to sign quality FA, but that is not all that a GM does. In my mind, JH has two significant shortfalls as a GM: 1. He is not much of a judge of talent among FA and tends to vastly overspend for mediocre quality. 2. Sentimental. In '04 he caught lightning in a bottle with Hollandsworth, Perez, et al. and, rather than trading them while their value was high (I wonder what Jim Bowden would have given last July for Perez over Christian Guzman?) he re-signed them to relatively large contracts, contracts that they will have virtually no ability to play up to. JH also has a couple of significant strengths as well: 1. "Experiments:" JH seems to, every year, sign a player or two to a minor league contract (not taking spots on a ML roster) and they come through for him. While Rusch has been far from an All-Star, his '04 season was an example of a successful experiment with relatively little down-side--until he is re-signed, invoking reason #2 above. 2. Take a chance: JH is willing to "take a chance" on a pitcher. While I am not a huge proponent of the "we have to have a 'closer'" mentality, Dempster was VERY successful in the pen last year (ERA below 2.00 out of the pen). I wonder if we can expect anything similar from Williamson? We'll see if re-signing Dempster is another "sentimental act" by JH. 3. Trader: While not all of his trades blow the roof off of the place, they rarely have the cubs holding the short end of the stick. He has pulled off some HUGE trades (Lee, Ramirez, Grudz/Karros. Nomar/Murton) where EVERYONE would agree CHC got the better end of the deal, but he has also pulled of some pretty good minor trades as well. While Jerome Williams isn't in the running for CY any time soon JH was able to shed a LOT of payroll for little drop in perfomance and some significant upside. Given these perceived strengths/weaknesses I would have expected Hendry to take advantage of the fact that this is a down year for FA (his weakness anyway) and talk to various GMs about making trades as ways to improve their teams (with the exception of POSSIBLY Giles, I don't really see any FA this year that will have a significant positive effect on their team). And take his chances on a minor league contract for BH Kim from COL or Todd Pratt in place of Henry Blanco. What has alarmed me is giving aging middle relievers HUGE contracts and actually signing a multi-year deal with Perez. He is dealing from his weakness which is never a good idea.

jmajew, I think you make a couple of simple errors in your analysis: 1. Offense is, over all, enormously more valuable than defense. The difference between the best offensive 3rd baseman and the worst on offense is a lot greater than the difference between the best and worst defensive 3rd basemen. While Aramis is certainly not going to win any Gold Gloves (I think he could get the iron glove for some of his plays :wink: ) the only 3rd baseman in the NL I would want to consider offensively would be Rolen or Ensberg. 2. Players ENTERING their prime are generally better signings than players LEAVING their primes. Believe it or not, we got quite a bargain in Aramis Ramirez. While there are certain exceptions (most of them famous exceptions) most players will have their best seasons between the ages of 27-32 +/- 2 years. Most of the players I have seen you list are guys like Hunter (age 30), Garciaparra (32), Manny Ramirez (how this will help the defense is beyond me!--age 34), Soriano (age 30) are in the midst of or likely soon leaving their prime...There are some exceptions and I think most people on here arguing to acquire Brian Giles believe he will be one...it is usually a tempting prospect but a bad decision to acquire players in their mid-upper 30's, even lower 30's can be risky. Especially when you a have a player that has HUGE production and is just ENTERING what is likely to be their prime. A cautionary tale in trading a young "unproven" player or two for a "proven" veteran is the Mulder-Haren/Barton/Calero. I believe that Haren's production has matched Mulder's at a FRACTION of the cost and he is young enough that he could very likely outdo what Mulder will over the next 3-5 seasons (and won't be eligible to be an unrestricted free agent for a couple of years). Put on top of that the inclusion of Daric Barton and you have an old fashioned "steal." Sidelight: I remember reading on baseballthinkfactory.com transaction oracle they said that the Nomar trade was good for CHC until you factor in Matt Murton and then it became a boon for CHC. So far that acquisition worked out pretty well.

I don't put that much stock into getting guys who specialize in PH. We had the all-time leader a couple of years ago (Lenny "Fat DeLino" Harris) and I think we can all agree that that did not work out so well. Given CHC history of having trouble keeping the team healthy I would rather pay someone better able to play in the field as an everyday player for a few weeks than sign someone just because he is a good pinch hitter. I believe that kind of player leads to more victories than even a great pinch hitter. He has a decent walk rate, but his BA is VERY low and most of his games were apparently PH appearances (110 games 127 ABs!). In short, he is at the bottom of what I would want for the team--he had almost no power in that bandbox.

I don't foresee "regretting" Dempster's contract. While he may not repeat his numbers from 05 (but he also might) having a guy who had one season like he did signed to an average of $5M/yr over 3 years is unlikely to be too much of a millstone. $5M contracts don't kill budgets, $15M contracts do! Even if he struggles with an ERA approaching 5.00 there will be teams looking for a "proven" closer (defined as: having one year of saves greater than 25) willing to bite. At worst we have to trade him and get little in return. At best, we have a solid closer for the next 3 years. Over all, I think that is a fair bargain!

I wouldn't take any of this too seriously. I think the people that are upset with Ramirez are upset because he is seen as "dogging" it on routine plays rather than "hustling." However, watching a game earlier this year they said that Dusty had told Ramirez to "play smart" by which he meant, your legs already hurt and you are FAR more valuable in the line-up day-in day-out to risk getting a season ending injury (like he did when he "hustled") even if it would mean getting on base. Look, I promote as much as the next guy that the 27 outs are precious commodities and not to be treated lightly, but I would GLADLY give up the maximum 3-4 times per year where if he "hustled" he would be safe instead of out to have a HEALTHY Ramirez for the whole season (getting base hits that don't require hustle, lashing drives to the gap, and giving souvenirs to fans on Waveland than watching Macias "hustle" and still ground out weakly to 2B!). I see it as an "old school" mentality that is fine if you are dealing with an otherwise healthy player but falls apart when looking at a player who has chronic problems with his legs. In short, I would like to see Patterson "hustle" and will tolerate dogging on the part of Garciaparra and Ramirez when they are hitting well!

There is also good data pre-1980. retrosheet.com is trying to put together the score card of every major league game it can. While having the scorecard isn't as thorough as what stats inc. will come up with (I don't think you can get ZR from a scorecard) it will show how often a batter advanced a runner, how many bases the baserunner advanced, etc.