TheDude

We may or may not be at 95 mil, depending on whether you think the New York Times is a reliable source. Bruce Miles carried the same Soriano contract details in his piece today, and he cited the AP as his source. There is no mention of how Soriano's bonus is spread however, so it could be 17 million in 2007, or 10 million with a million per year over 7 more years thereafter.

From the beginning I was all about Schmidt and Soriano as top targets. That would be stellar.

25 million for Igawa? Whoa! How did Tampa Bay sneak by on Iwamura for 4.5 million?

I don't think it's naive. Hendry's actions have backed-up his words regarding those two, at least to this point. I think it's telling that Soriano was signed to that 8 year deal, where everyone in the media suspected he would play LF or CF, and Hendry comes out and says RF. If Jones sticks around in CF as indicated by Hendry (per Bruce Miles), it's a guy the team has for 2 years at most, so not really blocking Pie long-term. And there hasn't been anything to indicate Murton is to be supplanted in LF. Further speculation of upgrades coming from the team usually revolve around SS or CF as well, so I don't anything from Hendry to this point indicating he isn't trusting Murton.

Well, they are both big and beefy, I'm not sure either would fit well behind the other. Cue the Benny Hill music.

If Howry is what it takes, so be it. Manny in the line-up is 10X more valuable than the 60 IP Howry will throw. I understand the line of thinking. I'm just hoping Eyre gets pushed more than Howry, particularly given the Yankees 5 left-handed hitters in the everyday lineup.

If the Cubs somehow did get involved, Howry should not even be considered. Eyre maybe, but not Howry. The NL Central is completely stacked with right-handed lineups and Howry is as close to dominant as you'll get from a right-handed reliever.

No. I don't think Hendry would have traded Maddux for Izturis if he didn't think Izturis was the man for the job. Obviously, I disagree, but I don't run the Cubs. Hendry has given no indication he plans on pursuing an alternative. What is kind of funny though is that they are targeting a SS to play CF. I just don't get Hendry. Has hendry ever come out an stated outright that Izturis is the SS for 2007? I don't think he has. What he has said definitively though is the current team roster isn't the starting team for 2007. Reading between the lines, Ramirez, Lee, and Soriano should be listed as givens to start. That leaves Izturis, Murton, Jones, DeRosa, and Barret as potentially replaceable parts. I don't think Hendry signed DeRosa to be a part-time player. So I'll speculate that he's safe and at 2B. Hendry has also been very, very high on Murton. I'm betting he's safe (isn't it telling that Soriano was signed to play RF not LF?). As I see it, that leaves Jones, Barret, and Izturis as players Hendry is likely to consider for trades at this point to upgarde - and of those three, I'd put it as Jones most likely, then Izturis, with Barret as a longer shot. You can't realistically upgrade over Barret offensively in this market. I guess my point is that Izturis is as close to an available upgrade spot as the team has and I don't see how, at this stage, Izturis can be viewed as the starter at SS.

I'm not going to champion Izturis, because I think the Cubs can do better. But, it is worth noting that Izturis demonstrated improvement every year from 2002 - 2004. 2005 and 2006 represent injury-shortened years or injury comeback years. I would prefer to do much better than career OPS .631. But, at age 26, you don't have to write-off his ability to improve. I don't see his 2004 year as a career high for him. I think he can duplicate that during his age 27 and 28 years.

That would be a huge fear, but haven't people noted that Igawa doesn't have near the issues that Kaz had with walks? That is what killed Ishii. Yes. Back on page 1 of this thread we talked it about it a bit. Ishii had control problems in Japan before coming to the US. Igawa does have some similarities to Ishii perhaps in style, but he has demonstrated much better control than Ishii and has better numbers where you want to see them, particularly in things like K/B ratio.

To my knowledge, no specific teams have been confirmed bidders. The Cubs had been tied to Igawa's name in numerous articles over the past month however and I believe Hendry mentioned him by name in one of his quotes at the organizational meetings.

I was one of the folks looking at Igawa for a while. Here are a couple of my thoughts on the matter. -Igawa is likely to have his best years in the MLB sooner rather than later. There is a pattern of Japanese pitchers losing effectiveness over time in the MLB. Look for a good 2007. -He compares favorably to the other left-handed options on the market. -Igawa is likely a cheaper option with specific regard to the 2007 budget than other options on the market. He is more of gamble, whereas Lilly, Padilla, etc. will cost more. I don't think he will be a 'stud number 3' (not quite sure even what that means), but his durability and consistency in the lineup is a plus, and it is something the Cubs staff needs. Having another lefty starter is also a plus. So I don't know about 'stud' status, but I think he is a nice fit for the teams needs more than anything.

I don't think this news is unusual. The Red Sox have all the leverage and Boras has a reputation to protect. This will go down to the last few days. I wouldn't be surprised if Boras pulled some unusual tactics to get his client money, like trying to get the Lions to kick-in money toward his annual salary. If the Red Sox offer 8 million a year, Boras has no say. It easily qualifies as a fair market offer, and nobody involved in this process wants Matsuzaka to go back to Japan, not even Boras, who would then have the reputation as the posting-system killer.

Rebuilding? I don't think so. His actions thus far are quintessential reloading.

I don't believe so. Matsuzaka is 26 years old and his contract will reflect prime years. Schmidt's contract will not.

Can you explain why you feel this way? In a market where Pierre gets 10 million, why do you think Jones value at 4 or 5 a year 'isn't all that high'? The Cubs can market his mainstream numbers. He was the 3rd best producing RF in the NL last year.

Hey man, I love DC and wouldn't want to go anywhere else. But if the choice between two jobs, one in my preferred location and another in Chicago, for a 3 year gig...I think I can delay my preferred city for 3 years if it meant an extra 6 million dollars in my account. West coast gets played up too much. Schmidt isn't Clemens, he's ten years younger, and he's not on the cusp of retirement. For a 3 year gig, location probably doesn't mean that much to a guy not yet in his twilight years.

I've been saying all offseason that Jones is a bargain worth keeping, even with regression from his career year numbers. Knowing the market is exploding, having Jones for 2/9 is fantastic. Give him a rest against lefty pitching now and again, letting him beat up on righties, and he'll have another career year.

I would too, but Vance is thinking ahead. With 3 contracts like Soriano, Ramirez, and Lee, the team must look to cheaper ML ready talent for 2008 and 2009 at at least one position, or we're looking at an expensive and aging team with little depth in a few years.

Of all the articles I have read, the Keith Law piece was the most surprising. He assumes the Cubs purpose in signing Soriano is strictly to replace Murton - which hasn't been reported by anyone. He then goes on to build an entire article around why this is bad idea, which is rather silly, considering the basic premise is flawed. I kind of expect strawman arguments in a message board community, but from a respected writer and baseball man like Law?

The whispers I read say the Cubs are looking at Floyd for the bench, not to start (ESPN Insider). I like Floyd off the bench, but not as a starter. His decline has been sharp. 1999-2003 were great years for Floyd, but he hasn't been the same since then. Floyd was awesome in 2005. I guess it's all relative. Floyd's 2005 was similar to Jones 2006, but few people credit Jones season as 'awesome'. Floyd was solid in 2005, but it was a decline from his previous years.

The whispers I read say the Cubs are looking at Floyd for the bench, not to start (ESPN Insider). I like Floyd off the bench, but not as a starter. His decline has been sharp. 1999-2003 were great years for Floyd, but he hasn't been the same since then.

Again, the 2004 received a year from Alou that was even better than Soriano's 2006. We got better production from 2B than we should expect from Derosa. Aramis had the best year of his career (better than 2005 or 2006 by any standard). And that team didn't score 800 runs and wasn't in the top 5 in the NL. We need another bat if we want to get to the level you envision. Let's keep the comparisons by position. Soriano to Patterson, Murton to Alou, Jones to Sosa. The combined OBP of the 2004 OF versus the current 2007 OF is similar, with the 2007 OF having a slight advantage of about .010 OBP. Ramirez may not match his 2004 production in OBP, but the difference is made up by Lee's increase. DeRosa/Theriot likely falls a little shy of Grudz/Walker, but Barret has really grown. You're right, same as CuBinNY, the 2004 team is a good comparison. And I agree improving the offense more is a good idea. My point with the thread was to capture a snapshot of the current team if nothing changes. I'd like an improvement at SS like everyone else, but I don't think it's mandatory, which is part of what I wanted to show.

I think a better option would be to try and make the offense better and still play the season. We just did make our offense better. How much will be the key. Will Soriono mirror last season again? Will D. Lee put up his 2005 Numbers? Its a safe bet Aram will remain steady. Its a safe bet Izturis will be terrible at the plate. If Soriono and Lee put up those #'s, this team should score plenty. Go take a look at the 2003 and 2004 teams. They crushed the ball, but the Cubs were still in the middle of the pack in terms of runs scored. The 2003 team didn't crush the ball (11th in NL in Total Bases), but the 2004 team did. You're absolutely right about that 2004 team. That team did not score as many Runs as you would expect them to, considering the slugging it put out. Let's hope the 2007 team can match the 2004 in slugging, but score more Runs along the way. Fortunately, the 2007 Barret has more plate discipline than the 2004 Barret, with a .020 OBP jump in expected numbers. Likewise, Soriano should get on basemore than Patterson, and Jones OBP matches Sosa's from that year. DeRosa could match Grudz/Walker if he can put up .350 OBP, but it's gamble. The team's are similar for sure.

Exactly. We were second-to-last in runs scored in the NL last year, and all of a sudden some people think we have a top-tier offense. On top of that, there are some who believe we're suddenly contenders, even though we gave up the second highest number of runs in the NL last year. There is still a lot of work to do before this team is built to score more runs than it gives up. I'm not handing the Cubs the World Series. I'm just looking at the offense in place today and speculating. We're not even talking pitching at this point (for this conversation). I do believe this team will be a top 5 offense in the NL. And every time the 2006-to-2007 question arises, I want to point out that the team is adding both Lee and Soriano for 2007. Lee's 175 ABs last year, many while still unjured, don't impact the team the way 500 will in 2007.