TheDude

Rowand could definately help Colorado.

I think it's Neifi. I think he is the super-sub on this team from 3B-SS-2B.

No way is he near enough an impact bat for RF. Career line: .269/.350/.426/.776 Sorry, but these numbers are worse than Burnitz career, and equal to Burnitz last year with a dozen more walks. Vance did make the disclaimer that he would have to return to his .900 OPS form. I understand that, but part of this issue with going through this style of discussion if the unpredictability factor of "form". Last year Hendry could have easily argued, "We expect Hollandsworth and Burnitz to return to their respective career year forms". That would not have been acceptable for 90% of the fans around here. Granted Bradley is younger and more likely to return, but it is still an unknown. Do you see what I'm getting at? I really think RF and SS are the two offseason spots that Hendry will target known quantities, as close to predicatble professional growth/decline as you can get. He may gamble on 2B and LF with "what ifs", but probably not RF and SS.

Cedeno starts over Perez according to Hendry. You can continue to espouse this belief that he won't if you like, but it gets tiring to see that you state it as fact everytime the topic emerges. The fact is the GM promotes Cedeno as starting and Perez signed as a back-up super-sub for 2B, SS, and even 3B. Perez likely gets a lot of PT of the bench in that super-sub role under Dusty.

Right now it is very difficult to predict the future of the middle infield for the Cubs. There are up to 5 players capable of playing 2B, and 3 capable of playing SS if you assume Furcal is a Cub. One would have to think 2/5 are chips to be bring other parts in, and neither Furcal nor Perez would be trade chips. Therefore I am guessing that 2 of Cedeno, Walker, and Hairston get dealt. I believe however that Cedeno is the one of the three that is kept, because Walker has high trade value for a young team like Cleveland or Minnesota, and Hairston isn't known to be a Dusty favorite. Meanwhile, both Hendry and Dusty speak highly of Cedeno.

No way is he near enough an impact bat for RF. Career line: .269/.350/.426/.776 Sorry, but these numbers are worse than Burnitz career, and equal to Burnitz last year with a dozen more walks.

This is partially how Hendry has such a poor name around here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Very interesting. The Dodgers, Tampa or Phillies perhaps? My guess it's part of a trade that moves Lowell to the Dodgers and brings Pierre to the Cubs. Good point. A major move would be to get Bradley for the Cubs but watch the Fish be the ones that nab him. That makes no sense. Why would the Cubs want Bradley if they have Pierre?

It's a nice article that doesn't tell anybody anything we don't already know.

I think a little context is relevent. From everything I have read, it is the years on the contract (and thus bottom line total value), and not the per year value of the contract that scares Hendry. At Giles age of 35, I think Hendry is very comfortable paying Giles top dollar for a 2-3 year contract (total value 30 million or so). I think he is very uncomfortable adding a 4th year or beyond (total value high 30s or low 40s).

I haven't seen anywhere Hendry suggesting he values the speed more than OBP. I think he values them equally out of the lead-off spot, which is really just more than the Beaninites are happy with.

Actually Gammons said quite the opposite. According to him, the Cubs asked Nomar if he'd consider coming back to play LF, and Nomar said no. His willingness to shift positions is contained to 3B.

If Neifi had resigned, the fiesta would continue through the weekend. But since he re-signed instead, there is no need for Macias.

I agree. I can understand that Hendry might see a value in Neifi Perez, I just don't see the need to pay him 2.5 per when there weren't other bidders for his services. There is no justification. He is overpaid. But it should be noted that he did not get a raise - in 2005 his base salary was 1 million and he earned 1.5 million in incentives that kicked-in.

Despite the fact this is way off-topic, let me ask - where are those guys now? Who ever said Baylor was a good manager. It's like you're putting words in my mouth. I already stated before that I think it's irresponsible for managers to act that way.

Any GM whose chief offensive concern is "timely hitting" has absolutely no buisiness making personnel decisions for a professional baseball club. (Competitive or otherwise.) Aside from the first two points (which aren't bad) that's a plan for mediocrity even in the best of circumstances. It also the plan that won the world series for 4 of the last 5 years. The plan that won 4 of the last WS was 1 and 2. Three through five do not factor in to the equation. And five is bordeline neglagence, becuase it is the absence of a plan. All of the teams in question were solid defensively, so add 3 as relevent. Timely hitting and durability are not something you can plan for, but you can plan against it. Meaning, you can pass on guys with a history of buckling under pressure or lots of injury trouble.

Any GM whose chief offensive concern is "timely hitting" has absolutely no buisiness making personnel decisions for a professional baseball club. (Competitive or otherwise.) Aside from the first two points (which aren't bad) that's a plan for mediocrity even in the best of circumstances. It also the plan that won the world series for 4 of the last 5 years.

There are lots of places to look, but in the interest of promoting this site, why not look at They Call It Small Ball For A Reason written last year by one of our own regulars. Now the data in the article shows definitively that small ball is questionable in any situation other than 1-run games. But it supports usage in one-run games, even despite the fact that the article is clearly arguing against the usage of small ball. Personally, I promote responsible usage of small ball, which is sparingly and just the situations described previously. I also promote OBP and power. Unfortunately, in my experience, the anti-small ball crowd dismisses this combination and assumes for some reason it's impossible to have balance, and never appropriate to play for one run. This isn't on Hendry though. The GM has to assume the manager is responsible and only plays for one run in the late innings. And btw, I watch baseball daily, and I rarely ever see what you're describing, except for the last week of the season and the playoffs when desperation and pressure sets in.

Hoops, I think we are talking basically the same thing. So I am in agreement with your assessment.

this is subjective, and why the cubs organization is worthless. it gives dusty the opportunity to micromanage his way to a losing season, despite dlee having an mvp-type year. small-ball does nothing but give the other team opportunities to keep the score close in a game that should be a blowout. small ball CAUSES more one-run games than it wins. My last comment was not subjective. The data proves it. I have to ask, why does small-ball cause more one-run games? I think you jumped to the conclusion that all small-ball haters jump to, which is to assume that all 9 innings of the game are played that way. The relaity is, you play small-ball in select situations, when down by one run late in the game, or up by one run and in position to grab an insurance run. Since you don't start executing small-ball until you're already in a one-run game, you comment makes no sense to me.

So your entire argument is that, because Hendry hasn't signed the premeire FA of each off-season the last few years, he has no plan whatsoever? That's an extremely narrow view. How many rings do Vlad and Tejada have? Or how about the best player in baseball, A-Rod, how many does he have?

In various threads I have read that Hendry has no plan, Hendry's plan is to overpay bad talent and ignore "real" talent, or that Hendry can't stick to a plan. There is also disagreement about whether he is too aggressive or ot aggressive enough. So I'm curious to see what you think Hendry's plan is for 2006. Rather than just throw out your projected lineup, explain what the plan Hendry is trying execute is, and then explain why the player's fit into that plan. This isn't your plan, but what you think is Hendry's plan. For me personally, I believe he is trying to build a team in the mold of the 2003 Marlins. Here's how: -Excellent 5-man rotation during the season with an eye for total dominance in a 5 or 7 game playoff series with three #1 starters. The Cubs likely sign Washburn, Byrd, or (insert other respectable pitcher) to fill out the rotation and rely upon Rusch as a long-reliever unless someone gets hurt, at which point he becomes a fill-in starter. I think Hendry will again gamble on the health of his rotation because he has no choice at this point. The team is likely expected to have a starter's ERA under 4 and one of the top staff ERAs in the league. -Overhaul of the lineup in a very formulaic, traditional manner; 1-2 spots in the order have crazy speed and small-ball specialty as needed; 3-5 spots have traditional power with 25+ HR 100 RBI potential each; 6-8 have respectable production, but willing to chance a couple rookies. To execute this plan, I see the Cubs trading for Juan Pierre and signing Rafael Furcal (1-2), trading for Cliff Floyd (5), and gambling on Murton and Cedeno (7-8). 3, 4, and 6 are known quantities (Lee, Ramirez, Barret). While many fans here dislike the notion of small-ball, Hendry and Baker like it, and I believe Hendry pursues it. This team is built to win close games, not blow-outs. Therefore it will be necessary to have players capable of that style of game at the top of the order. I expect Hendry thinks this offense will win a whole of games 5-4, 4-3, etc., and while small-ball has been shown to be ineffective in most scenarios, it has also been shown to be more effective in one-run games and in the playoffs. -Strong closer and strong bullpen. Dempster proved he was worth the gamble for a new contract. The Cubs likely sign Bob Howry and trade for one other middle reliever that posted an ERA under 3.00 (possibly from Cleveland or Minnestota). Perhaps they even target another closer candidate to set-up, but not one the premeire closer talents (Jones or Gordon types). -Jerome Williams and Todd Walker will be two of the chips used to get some of the players I mentioned above. Hendry will not trade his best farm talent (Pie) and will not target any player whose worth justifies losing Pie. In other words, no super-star acquisition. So what do you think Hendry's plan is?

Great, so who do you predict as the starting 2B? Cedeno Mmmmm, RH-batting rookie starts over switch-hitting veteran who makes $2.5M and is signed for 2 years? It could happen. And pigs could fly out of my butt. I hope you have some ointment and a solid medical insurance plan. [edited to fix quotes]

Yes it is entirely possible. Castillo is a perfect fit for both Hendry and Dusty. I think it is pretty clear the team doesn't need 5 MI. I see both Walker and Hairston being dealt this offseason, and if Castillo is a target, maybe even Cedeno.

Unfortunately in the eyes of the organization Neifi is not a defensive replacement, he is an everyday top-of-the-order player. Except that Hendry stated in his own words to the contrary. I don't think this move is exactly exciting or promising for the team. 2.5 million for a back-up is not smart economics at all, especially considering the prime off-season target (Furcal) isn't a SS that needs a back-up late-innings. It makes me think Neifi is there to be a back-up 2B, and his worth is only about 800k in that role. But people are so far beyond crazy with pages and pages of over-reaction with this that it is clear that the Neifi-factor is carrying far more weight in relevence than it actually deserves. So Hendry has a history of over-paying for bench players. It's not that big of a deal. Great, so who do you predict as the starting 2B? Cedeno