TheDude

As who promised? Some NSBB folks? Rhodes is a respectable arm that Philly needs. Michaels is a spare bench player. Rhodes, like all relievers, is inconsistant. Michaels is a spare bench player with a .380 career OBP. If the Cubs had a lineup full of "spare bench players," they'd have one of the better offenses in the league. Not a chance.

As who promised? Some NSBB folks? Rhodes is a respectable arm that Philly needs. Michaels is a spare bench player.

Wasn't it just noted that he had the same injury as both Morris and Carpenter? To say he'll never stay healthy really makes no sense. Correct. And it makes zero sense to put him in the bullpen. Folks need to understand each specific injury in context to how it affects performance before lumping them all together and making assumptions on comebacks. Miller is a career starter, and when healthy, a damn good one.

What's not to get? Howry, Eyre, Perez, and Jones don't bring with them multiple season-ending injuries from their past.

Weaver's better than that. His only real trouble is the HR ball. Though he gets there in a very different way, Weaver is much like Wells when looking at end results: lots of strikes, few walks, and wins when he doesn't give up the long ball. The 200 innings year in and year out is a huge plus. Personally, I like guys like Byrd and Weaver. I would much rather have a pitcher that makes the opponent earn a win by throwing strikes than somebody who strikes out 10 and walks 5. It is infuriating to look at an early game boxscore that has a basic hits/runs/errors line of 1/3/0 because a pitcher gives up 2 walks, then 3-run dinger (I'm thinking of you Kerry Wood).

Why are people still debating Jason Michaels over Juan Pierre? It's not happening. This Michaels thing has been cropping up for months and it's become a broken record (with a bad song to boot). Folks just need to accept that Pierre is the CF and lead-off hitter for the Cubs in 2006.

Don't recall any quotes like that. Regardless, DB's comments in the article are high praise, more than any other rookie I can recall under his managerialship. From those comments, and JH's previous praise, it seems pretty clear to me that LF is Murton's job to lose, which is very comforting considering where we were last year with Dubois. The proof will be in the playing time pudding though. Still, as a fan, you have to be excited to see if Murton can become a solid big leaguer for Chicago.

The posts that talk about a "team full of X's versus a team full of Y's" are supported in a fantasy world. Why does the speed argument always have to considered in extremes? The key is balance. I want OBP, speed, and fundamentals, and they do not have to be mutually exclusive to team building. That's why there are 13-14 non-pitcher roster spots. The Cubs have enough speed and power. Neither is the problem. So the argument about playing Walker or Hairston at 2B in any given situation should be more rooted in opposing pitching splits and Cubs pitcher needs than in true value of a speed/power argument. With Zambrano on the mound, I might want Perez starting over both those guys at 2B. Anyway, what truly surprises me about this topic is: given all the Dusty Baker hate on these boards, and the constant drumming of fans claiming Baker is looking for an excuse to play anybody (Grissom/Mabry namely) over Matt Murton, where are these same folks applauding DB for very high praise of Matt Murton? That was wayyyy too long for one sentence. :)

no, its like camparing apples to apples that before they were ripe looked really good and then before they got a chance to ripen were ripped from the vine, were told for 2 solid years that the WERE oranges and then were smashed between the but cheeks of a fat hairy guy named Bubba and then left out in the sun to rot. I'd wouldn't eat any apples that grew on vines personally.

I'm not against the Cubs looking into Branyan, but why is it that fans here always think they know more than the teams decision makers? If Branyan cleared waivers and nobody picked him up through that process, there must be a reason beyond surface level. It doesn't make any team foolish in the least. Branyan's raw numbers will likely get someone's attention enough to get a shot at a bench job somewhere. Its worth the Cubs giving a look.

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right. It's called the "goodenough" philosphy and it will work on occasion, 1998 and 2003 ,but is not a way for a big money organization to build a championship calibur team. I rank your "goodenough" myth right up there with the myth that Cardinal fans are the most knowledgeable in baseball. It's not a myth it is a philosophy esposued by Jim Hendry. Every year he says something to the effect of, "Well, I think we are good enough to compete within the division". Don't believe me? You can look it up. This is just wordsmithing. 'compete for the division' is the same thing as 'win the WS' or any other such phrase. I too file the "goodenough" concept as a total myth.

You'll have to prove this with some data, because otherwise its just hyperbole.

That is the genius that is the Cubs marketing and leadership. Have a 79 win season. Then when you have a high 80s win season call it an improvement. Hendry gets credit for improving a team that he created while the team that he created last year is used as the baseline from which to measure, brilliant! I don't understand your point. If we are not allowed to compare the 2006 team to the 2005 in terms of improvement, then what are we allowed to do? This isn't some grand conspiracy to make Hendry look good. The entire point of the thread was to discuss the grade for this offseason, which must use last season as a baseline to have any relevence.

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season. The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again. Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job. Your demands are very high. Improving by 21 games (to a 100 win season) rarely happens. I don't know of a resource to look up how many times it's been done in the FA era, but it's a safe bet to say it is rare.

way too much has been made abour pierre's bas year. he still hit what .275 and stole what 50-60 bases? both his request, prior, and zambrano's are legitimate in my opinion. OBP of .326 at leadoff is around the team OBP of the cubs last year. terrible. that's what pierre is paid to do, get on freaking base. Arbitration isn't about last year's performance. Pierre has shown his value throughout his career, and that is what is measured.

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season. The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again.

I don't believe so. A full year of Dempster at closer (with same performance as last year) is an improvement over last year's cadre of closers. It's the same as saying a full year of Murton is an improvement over Murton/Dubois/Hollandsworth combined, etc. How is that disingenuous?

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios. Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO. But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not? Yes. Just the same as other clubs recieved credit for better grades than Cubs for simply re-signing their own FAs.

This, as has been shown multiple times in various threads, is a misconception. Most fans here have shown time and again they do not understand the actual market value of players, either on FA market or in terms of trade market. The so-called Sosa windfall doesn't exist. Current roster player increases will eat up that money. Getting a "big bat" means the two bullpen guys do not get signed, and the team goes into next season with the same bulpen (and people cry about it and blame Hendry). For the trade market, the Cubs do not have premiere blue chip minor leaguers to acquire big bats in trade. Dunn, Abreu, Tejada etc, command better than the Cubs have in a full prospects style trade. The also don't have the expected major leaguers to compliment a prospects style trade. Both Murton and Cedeno fill needs and are not proven enough to get the big bat. So when looking at the Cubs, people turn to proven youth: Prior and Zambrano. And the big bat deals fall apart quickly. For the FA market, there was only one real "big bat" to fill a positional need, and he stayed put, turning down bigger money elsewhere. A clear indication he planned to stay put all along. The only way Hwendry was going to get a big bat in this market, was to overpay and set-up the ballclub for a thinner future and a nasty FA cycle dependency, ala the NY Yankees. I for one am glad the Cubs are not turning into the Yankees.

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios. Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

I think you're 5+ to 3- is poor analysis. (who are the 4 very solid players he signed, I don't see 4) And I think D is perfectly reasonable. Hendry misappropriated his efforts. If you study for a test and end up spending 90% of your time on subjects other than the ones that will actually matter to the test, you're going to struggle and get a bad grade. That's what happened to Hendry. He mistakenly focused on less important positions, and because of it the team as a whole suffers. The 4 players are Pierre, Eyre, Howry,and Dempster (close enough to offseason). It's your opinion that Hendry studied for the wrong test because you want a different test (offense). Hendry wants pitching as top priority because pitching has proven to win championships, while offense has not. Hendry knows more about this business than all of us. I grade Hendry based on his ability to satisfy his own priorities for the club, not my own personal wishes (though I happen to be a pitching-first guy myself). If Hendry was never going to pursue top 5 offensive output players, then it is not right to grade him on a failure to acquire those players. Grading shouldn't be based on differing philosophies of club-building.

Hendry set out bullpen improvements and a leadoff hitter as his two prime improvement needs, and he acquired/signed 4 very solid players to fill those roles. Jones in RF was filler, and it was a mistake to grant filler a 3 year contract. It was also a mistake to give Perez, a non-catcher bench player, a 2 year contract. To force some squares into circles, I'll count the surprise non-signing of Furcal as a negative transaction, but the ascention of Murton in RF and Cedeno at SS at full-time duties as a positive transaction (since both constitute likely statistical improvements over last year's numbers). So 5 positive improvements and 3 negative. For better or worse, none of the 8 'transactions' constitute club-altering splashes. Overall slight improvements to the club. A Grade of C+ is appropriate for overall positive tinkering. A grade of 'D' is just poor analysis. Everybody has their own idea what the team's 'most important offseason need' was, and clearly Hendry doesn't agree with this writer or some of the fans here. Those fans here who believe hitting and plate discipline define the top needs of the team are obviously disappointed. They are grading on emotion or personal taste, not on Hendry's ability to achieve his pre-defined goals. Folks expecting Hendry to completely revamp the whole team, or who will only grade positively based upon the acquisition of one of a small pool of players (Abreu, Dunn, Gile, etc) have unrealistic expectations IMO. It is my belief that those people have two grades: A or F.

Those are reasonable suggestions. Michaels isn't a proven everyday player solution, nor is he a lead-off hitter. He might have been a good answer if the lead-off solution had come at 2B or SS. So I'd say Michaels wasn't a good fit once Furcal went dough-y eyed. The reports out of Florida were that Castillo had a significantly higher pricetage for an NL team than an AL team. Not sure how reliable the sources were, or why that would be the case when they traded within the division numerous times, but that was reports nonetheless. Top prospect or bust, and Pie wasn't going for Castillo. I too would have loved Castillo. I presume Hendry passed on Sanders for age and health concerns. Sanders doesn't seem like a better option than Jones, except perhaps that he could have been fewer years.

If you know the door shut, then the door is shut and you move on. I don't see the problem. I guess fans would have been happier if he made a public display of 'Giles desire' just to please them, but Hendry is too much of a straight shooter for that kind of stuff.

Lay out a list of these 'plenty of options' please. I'd bet the overwhelming majority of them come close to Fantasy baseball rather than actual availability.