brinoch

We need to find somebody who can rteturn punts. Peerless Price?

Orton looks absolutely terrible today. Ugh.

Agreed. Not only that, but taking on a big contract for Abreu or maybe Griffey would be no big deal with that much to spend.

I agree. Abreu, if available for a reasonable price, would really be a huge upgrade for this team.

I'm sure you'd agree that it's a good thing he didn't match the Dodger offer, though. I am pretty bummed, but I am glad we're not shelling out 13 mil/yr for Rafael Furcal. It's not my money, so oh well. Everybody's overpaying nowadays. Wait around for Walker deals and we'll get no one. Calling $10M per year for Furcal a "Walker deal" is ridiculous. That's a serious offer -- and *way* more than Furcal is worth. It's a poor FA market, and consequently those FA's worth anything are getting deals that I wouldn't offer. Sorry, but I don't thinkFurcal isn't that much of an upgrade over Cedeno -- certainly not $9.7M worth. Edited for typo How did you comprehend that?? I didn't mean Furcal @ $10 mil. was a Walker deal. Walker's deal is well under what's he's worth. Few guy's screw themselves out of money like Walker. It clearly reads to me like you are criticizing the Hendry and the Cubs for not overpaying. You may not be saying that, but that's how it reads (to me). Walker is very clearly a value for his contract -- which is why I'm in favor of using him as trade chit for an impact RF or bringing him back for 2B. Really, I don't see how we could improve there -- provided one views contracts as a cost-benefit analysis.

I'm sure you'd agree that it's a good thing he didn't match the Dodger offer, though. I am pretty bummed, but I am glad we're not shelling out 13 mil/yr for Rafael Furcal. It's not my money, so oh well. Everybody's overpaying nowadays. Wait around for Walker deals and we'll get no one. Calling $10M per year for Furcal a "Walker deal" is ridiculous. That's a serious offer -- and *way* more than Furcal is worth. It's a poor FA market, and consequently those FA's worth anything are getting deals that I wouldn't offer. Sorry, but I don't thinkFurcal isn't that much of an upgrade over Cedeno -- certainly not $9.7M worth. Edited for typo

Sweet! Let's add foreign words to this, as well. Make Tim's life even *more* hellish!

Are you taking me? Are you under the age of 3? Maybe I can get you in that way....;) Well, if I were born on Feb. 29th I'd be 8 -- does that count?

Are you taking me?

A) gado doesn't scare you, brin? :wink: B) it really is nice to have a defensive line that can get to the QB. We went from amazingly bad at that (did we have any d-line sacks 3 years ago?) to really good in less than a year, and it's been a lot of fun to watch. A. Only if he was on my fantasy team. ;) B. Absolutely. I watched Adewale Ogunleye quite a bit when he was at IU -- now that he's healthy this is what I expected. I'm also *extremely* impressed with the play of Alex Brown and Tank Johnson.

Ah... Vince Evans. Now *that's* a blast from the past. He was my favorite Bear until Wilbur Marshall.

Rosenthal used the LA times as his only source. Round and round and round we go, where we stop, neifi blows? Well, Neifi's suckitude factor can only grow as he declines, so sure that works. Can you imagine Neifi's decline? He's already a legendarily bad MLB player.

Is there a return policy?

The story is sourced from someone "close to the negotiations." It's not Kinzer, it's not Furcal, it's not Coletti. It's someone else who didn't want to be quoted. I'm not saying it's not true, but there is reasonable suspicion at this point as to the veracity of the claim. Moreover, a google news search comes up only with the LA Times story with the one source, and a few spin-offs from that story. It could be bogus. It could be true. We'll have to wait and see.

Neither am I. I've wanted Cedeno to be SS since the offseason began. I don't think Furcal was worth $10M per year -- let alone $13M. I agree to a point here - I don't want Furcal at $10m+ - but I wouldn't mind seeing Nomar re-signed for a year. If that isn't happening, I'm all for starting Cedeno at SS. The problem with that plan is that I can't imagine Dusty actually doing it, especially with another rookie (Murton) starting. Looks like we might see a lot of Neifi again in 2006.... A fair point, but Cedeno is simply better than Perez. Playing a lesser player is grounds for firing, in my book. And you shouldn't have to craft a roster so as to prevent the bizarre use of players like Hollandsworth and (potentially) Perez. In the theoretical world where the choices are Cedeno and Perez for SS, Hendry needs to make it clear that Cedeno is the guy. Not Perez. If Dusty doesn't and plays Perez instead, he needs to be let go.

Neither am I. I've wanted Cedeno to be SS since the offseason began. I don't think Furcal was worth $10M per year -- let alone $13M.

Well, let me be clear -- I've been on the record as caring more about the Cubs winning than winning the way I would construct a team. I don't particularly care about being right; I care about the Cubs winning. With respect to Thome, Choi, and Lee, people weren't unhappy with passing Thome up -- in fact, I think most people were pretty pleased (I know I was). That was a bad deal for Philly, and it would have been for the Cubs. The Choi for Lee deal was upsetting because the Cubs let McGriff go for a stupid record rather than breaking in the rookie, and then he was seriously mishandled in '03 after he was injured. (I'll leave that to CPatterson20 and Tim to discuss). And then, when we had positions that needed filling, the Cubs expend money on a position that many felt was adequately filled by Choi when there were other pressing needs. It's not that Lee wasn't liked, or wasn't valued (although no one predicted his breakout season of course), it's that the fundamental economics of the deal didn't make sense. Baseball payroll is a limited resource, and you should be allocating your resources to maximally upgrade the team. Spending $5M for Rusch and Perez is hardly maximizing your advantage. At best, they are eminently replaceable parts. At worst, they hurt the team by blocking a rookie is likely to exceed that player's production or who will do no worse at about 1/10th the cost. (see: Neifi Perez playing every day over Ronnie Cedeno). I'm not judging Hendry based only on the moves that I'd like him to make. Of course I can't know what's possible and what's not -- we're fans with opinions and scattered bits of the whole picture. But we certainly can judge Hendry for the type of players he prioritizes and actively seeks out. When a Brian Giles is out there, you make some noise. When Vlad Guerrero is out there, you make some noise. When Miguel Tejada is out there, you make some noise. When I say I care only about the Cubs winning, it's also true that the Cubs aren't maximizing their chances to win. They have a distinct flaw; they don't get on base. There is an extremely obvious and very high correlation between OBP and runs scored. For a baseball executive to continually ignore and have a staff that effectively belittles statistical analysis and encourages players to be aggressive is nothing short of malpractice. Get on base and you'll score runs -- I don't care how you do it, either. Make a bunch of outs, and you won't score a lot of runs. It's pretty simple. And it's obvious that Hendry doesn't recognize this problem to the degree that others do. All that said, I like the fact that he's created a core of players in their prime -- Carlos Zambrano, Mark Prior, Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez and Michael Barrett (and Wood if he's healthy). He's looking to add Rafael Furcal to that list, as well. Bring Matt Murton and Todd Walker to the table with a power hitting RF, and you can insert Patterson, or Lofton, or whoever in CF, and you have a nice lineup. He's got some pieces, but he needs to continue filling the holes with guys in their prime.

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out. If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals. Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team. Sure, if you compare the 2005 team to 2002, that's an improvement. But this team made a lateral step in 2004 and took a clear step back in 2005. The offensive problems of '03, '04, and '05 were all related to a serious lack of team OBP. Hendry didn't upgrade the team in this manner in '04, and he downgraded the team, effectively, in '05. And for '06 we've seen no improvement (or even a visible attempt to improve) the overall team OBP. Signing a no OBP guy like Neifi, bringing back Hollandsworth, and signing Burnitz were not steps forward last year. Likewise, rewarding Nefi and Rusch with multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts is not a step forward. Personally, I don't look at 2002 as the benchmark. I look at the team in 2003 -- 5 outs away from the World Series -- as my benchmark. 2004 and 2005 were terrible disappointments, and much of the blame lies at Hendry's feet. I want a team built to win, and win now. Not to be "competitive" within the division. Why is this too much to ask? Hendry's had his chance, and his philosophy doesn't work. It's based on toolsy guys who swing away, rather than guys with plate discipline who are willing to talk a base if there's nothing to hit. We know the Cubs need to improve their team OBP -- so why haven't the Cubs made a concerted effort to do so for the past three years?

Respectfully, jma, I have disagree with you. You don't wait until October to judge a GM's moves, because by then it's way too late. By then, the season is over and you're on to 2007 -- when you'll judge the moves again after the season. No, as the offseason is ending and Spring Training approaching is about the time to judge a GM's moves. Then you'll have knowledge of the team, its likely tendencies, its strengths, its weaknesses, and what can still be improved. Indeed, each and every move can and should be judged. I'll grant that the body of work should be examined, rather than individual moves. But, that said, individual moves still should be examined given Hendry's full body of work. And what have we seen so far? What I consider to be terrible, wasteful signings of Rusch and Perez. An excellent contract with Dempster, but questionable signings for Eyre and Howry. Mabry, too, was brought into the fold. Had we signed only Eyre, Howry, Dempster and Mabry to date I wouldn't be too annoyed. But the money spent on Rusch and Perez was way out of line when compared to their value. A MIF of (presumably) Furcal, Walker, Cendeno and Hairston would serve well both day in and day out in the lineup and for the bench. Neifi is superfluous. Rusch, too, is mediocre. I like the guy, I really do. But he's just not that great. And where are we going to put him? He was terrible in the 'pen last year, and his peripherals weren't much to write home about while starting. We have Jerome Williams, whose upside is significantly higher than Rusch's. Meanwhile, the OF still languishes. I'll grant that perhaps Giles didn't want to come to Chicago, that he always wanted to stay in San Diego. But get out there publicly and make an offer. If he turns it down, so be it. He was clearly the class of this year's FA's, so make a play. Or find a way to get Manny. Offer some Rule 5 pitchers and take on his whole contract. He's worth it. I don't want to waste another year of Prior and Zambrano while they are still relatively inexpensive. I don't like overpaying for mediocre bench players who are no better than the cheap young guys in our system.

Farve's "very good" days are behind him. He's average now and has been an increasing liability over the last few years. Can he still tear it up every once and a while? Sure. But the days when he is unstoppable are now much rarer than the days in which he throws frequent crushing interceptions. Favre is a good QB, and I'd love to have him on my team. The fact is that the offensive line is a shell of itself. The offensive line makes or breaks an offense much more so than a running back or a quarterback. Look at Plummer in Arizona vs. Denver, for example. I betcha David Carr agrees... Personally, If I had to choose, I'd take a great o-line over a great rb/qb combo any day. A great o-line will make an average qb or rb good. A great rb/qb combo will not make an average o-line good.

I agree completely. I know it's deeply ingrained to fear the Packers, but I just don't see Lovie not having this team prepared for GB. Maybe I should be worried, but I'm not. I'm not worried. Favre isn't the old, evil gunslinging Favre of the past. He's aging, his accuracy is down, his line is much weaker, and the running game is sub-par. The reason Favre was so consistently deadly against the Bears was the complete lack of a defensive pass rush for so many years. When you have to bring 6 to get to the QB, that leaves the corners one-on-one with the WR's. And we know that Farve will throw the ball up -- he doesn't care about a possible interception when his guys are one-on-one. But, if the front four gets penetration and keeps collapsing the pocket without a lot of blitzing, the Bears will dominate this game. Being able to drop seven into coverage against Favre while still getting to him will lead to a couple of picks.

All division games are equally important. The "rivalry" aspect of the Bears-Packers just serves as motivating tool.

I've seen two or three threads with this sort of statement in it recently, and I really don't want to see such posts again. A person's premium/non-premium status has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to post, make statements or otherwise influence NSBB. And it never will. There is no "caste system" here, nor will there be one. There are many benefits of Premium membership, but it does not "buy" credibility, nor does it "buy" status. Tim, as I'm sure you might imagine, understands that NSBB members come from all walks of life, and from many different economic situations. We have students, retirees, attorneys, journalists, government workers, teachers, techies, soldiers, baseball players and a host of other professions as members on this board. One's reputation is made on the strength of their words, as well as the depth of their knowledge. So, if you aren't a premium member, don't worry. Respect is earned, not purchased. On another note, the tone of this thread has gone way downhill. I recognize that people are a little contentious and perhaps frustrated right now. However, I suggest that people stop with the nastiness. No more calling people out. No more poking people. No more generalizations. Stop it. Now. The negative atmosphere and the negative attitudes are becoming too much, and are driving people away.

I can post, edit and delete posts, but the site continues to load and load. Merely hitting stop, going back and refreshing the page reveals that the changes are being made.

One positive I see is that Pie's OBP is .50 points higher than his average (or at least it was). If Pie was batting .300, everyone would be raving about the .350 OBP. Certainly, that's not the level of plate discipline I'd like to see from Pie, but it's not bad. Anyone know what Felix's BABIP is? If he shows some continued improvement here, we could easily see him putting up an on-base percentage that is .60-.80 higher than his average. If you figure he can hit at least .280, you'll be looking at perhaps .340-.360. I'll gladly take that. I grant that he's not there yet, but a slump like this doesn't mean that all is bad for Felix. Or perhaps I'm just seeing the positives, rather than dwelling on the negatives.