UK1679666180

They will have had to make fundamental changes for this current roster to get to 95 wins.

Or in the case of Poudre, regardless of results, not bringing them back. :)

On my way home, the radio hosts asked this question to the listeners: what would it take to merit bringing back Hendry and Baker beyond 2006? Beyond discussing the probability of next year's win totals, which has already been discussed at length... Is there a win total or a certain degree of success that would justify bringing both of them back? Maybe for some, it's winning the World Series or bust. For some it might be a playoff berth, or winning a playoff series similar to '03. Others maybe it's 90-100 wins or some feel that Baker and Hendry have done a good job and deserve the extention now regardless of how the season maps out. For me, it's 95 wins. They should likely win the division with that total and have the pitching to carry them in to the post-season. It's an extremely lofty goal, but with this payroll and pitching staff as well as the core position players such as Lee/Ramirez and the spending in the pen, it is a fair requirement to determine whether or not they should be brought back.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/sports/13606464.htm I'm dying to know which team almost completed the trade for Abreu.

The details of his arrest... http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/0112freel.html

http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2006/1/12/21835/5246 Part II of the Beane interview that talks about Loaiza, Bradley, current state of their roster, etc.

They also got Brian Adams... http://thebaseballcube.com/players/A/brian-adams.shtml

And would be grossly overpaying IMO.... especially for a guy entering his contract year. I would think the Cubs could get a lot more than Lugo for Welly, Dope, and Marshall or a combo of Welly, Harvey, and Marmol (and I consider Welly pretty much a throw-in at this point). Well, what if Huff was thrown in the deal? Maybe Williams, Welly, Dop/Harvey and a mid-level prospect for Lugo and Huff? We could throw Walker in as well. I'd like to see the improved defense up the middle and speed in the lineup, not to mention Huff's potential 30 HRs. This is just random not bearing to Lugo/Huff I've thought about this for quite some time, if the Cubs acq'd another OF'er that was worthy of starting (Floyd/Huff), how would you handle it? Would Jones become your 4th OF'er by starting Murton against RH'ers as well as LH'ers? Would you start Jones against RH'ers and Murton against LH'ers? I have a good idea that they would start Jones over Murton if that ever presented itself, but how would you handle it?

What skills han't he shown to be an effective leadoff hitter? This is one of the main fallacies, there are certain skills and qualities to look for in a leadoff hitter. You're not born into a leadoff hitter, there are qualities to look for and qualities not to look for. I believe Michaels has those abilities, he's aggressive at the plate and at the same time he's patient, getting on base is the 1st time I look for with a leadoff hitter as well as the ability to work the count, speed becomes the luxury not the requirement. Also, I don't feel him not playing everday indicates whether or not he can't do it or that a team pass him up b/c of that. He's stuck between one of the best tandem corner OF'ers in baseball, been stuck behind their failed uber prospect, and platooned with one of the best CF combos in MLB last year. He's not nearly as gifted as Giles, but when Giles was traded from Cleveland tp Pitt. for Rincon, he was not out there everyday b/c he couldn't handle it, but Clev. had the best OF in baseball at the time and he was caught in a numbers game as Michaels has been in Philly. If you're the Cubs and the possibility exists of trading Walker, which we can agree on that is a legit possibility, are you content with the possibility of a Hairston/Perez platoon or either one starting at 2B? I'm not, I think Hairston would provide more than Perez, but not to the point where I feel he becomes an asset or more importantly an improvement. Jones was injured for much of last year, part of his poor numbers in '05 are due to being injured. For me, the increased production Sanders will bring over Jones is worth more than the increased chance of injury (although Sanders' injury last year was a fluke injury) and decline. Ftr, I would've gone with a Mark Sweeney/Eli Marrero platoon in RF over Jones or Sanders, I think it would be more productive and more importantly less years and dollars spent.

I also believe a Sweeney/Marrero platoon would outproduce Jones in RF next year.

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. I consider Michaels to bea better option than Pierre, he's better defensively, has a higher OBP, cheaper, and is further away from FA. There's one upgrade that has been mentioned as being avail. this off-season as far as trades. If the Cubs were dead set on trading Walker, they should've inquired about Castillo. I don't mind them keeping Walker, I would've liked to have a seen a better defensive player there, but a Perez/Hairston platoon or either of them starting on their own, I doubt they'd match Walker. RF-Sanders is a better option than Jones, he's older, but he's been more productive and during the next two year will likely cont. to be more productive than Jones. I don't mind Perez on the roster, he's an ideal utility player/defensive replacement/pinch runner, but his role will be greater than his production merits.

Gossage is a windbag, but he did deserve to go in ahead of Sutter and baseball coddles the batter as far as pitchers throwing inside.

Can't blame him, the 1st thing that comes to mind when speaking of Sutter and the Cubs in the same sentence is Sandberg. What a crock that he was elected and Blyleven and Santo still wait. Gossage deserved it more than Sutter.

At this stage of his career, he will have many deep fly to LF if he signed with the Nats.

I'm not excusing management for their dumb decision, I think he should consider the fans. Although it's true there's no guarantee they would do anything worthwile with the dollars. I like the way the Cards structured Edmonds' deal. They have a pricey club option for him in 07, but they can extend him for less if Edmonds agrees. He already has considered the fans by spending his entire Majoe League career in Houston and not opting for FA. It's a two way street, he's done more than enough for the Astros fans, he doesn't owe them anything other than giving 100% and being professional, which he has done his entire career.

This isn't about salary, Bagwell has more than enough money. It's all about principle.... He doesn't want to retire b/c he hasn't accomplished everything he has wanted and feels he can still hit, crap like trying to get him to retire is only going to push him further into staying. He's basing his 17mil or whatever it is on what he has already done over his career, it's not good for the team, but neither is paying Ausmus tons of money to handle some of the most talented pitchers in the game and then call him a great handler. He's earned that 17mil, if anything Houston should try and analyze a player's decline rate more effectively when dishing out long-term contracts to aging veterans regardless of their stature within the organization.

To me the bolded part is where the Cubs have to invest more in. I don't know if it is dollars or people or both. I was speaking in terms of drafting HS pitchers, some advocate staying away from HS pitchers especially early on in the draft, it's a thought process I've always frowned upon. I consider Beane to be part of it still, but he mentions the value he could get from drafting them, which is showing a trend towards more and more collegiate players.

That's his major flaw, hanging onto to people too long like Lynch. I'll be critical of him if he offers an extention to Hendry before the season takes place. At this point, I have no problem with Hendry or Baker being here, they haven't earned the right to have their contracts extended though. If you look at it from the Trib's standpoint as you state, the Cubs are much more profitable in '06 than they were before Andy came to the Cubs.

http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2006/1/10/162134/646 I figured I'd switch it up a bit and post an interview with Billy Beane. Value in HS pitchers? Yes there is. Have faith in player development and draft the best player available.

Pitching is a tearing down process, when you have the luxury of limiting their work early b/c MLB's schedule which gives more off-days in the 1st month than any other month, you should take advantage of it. It would be a dumb move to go to a 4 man rotation early on. I would also like to see Williams as the #5 starter once Wood comes back.

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title? Hiring Ed Lynch? Giving Sosa that ridiculous contract that handcuffed Hendry last year? Or simply keeping the Tribune Corp. suits and beancounters happy? IMO, MacPhail deserves as least as much of the blame for what the Cubs have sunk to as Baker and Hendry. MacPhail was able to build up the farm system during his tenure, they had their best success as far as signing International FAs. You seen two seen things occur during the end of Lynch's tenure and the start of MacPhails. 1) They did not trade any important pieces of the farm system for stop gaps 2) They increased spending on International free agents (Pie, Guzman, Zambrano, Cruz, Choi, Ryu, Cedeno, Marmol, Soto, Pinto) were signed between '99 and '01. He helped lay the foundation to what to what should've been the ground level of a 10 year run of productive baseball.

Gregg should go to Daytona and Perez to Peoria. Older for each League, but Gregg was used out of relief while with SD, big kid FB sits in the upper 80s, decent off-speed pitches and change. Not sure if he uses a splitter, he experiemnted with it in HS. For a League like the GBL, I would compare the quality to Low A/High A.

Yes it is.

They were definitely too patient with Lynch as well, although as an orgranization, they were at a different stage compared to now. They were truly rebuilding at that time, they had to rebuild the worst farm system in MLB and one of the least talented ML rosters around 95. I have no problem w/MacPhail as far as what he has accomplished, including his tenure as GM. I'm sure being that it's been 10 years, he's disappointed they haven't won a title and that does reflect on him and maybe his stagnet nature as far as holding on too long with Lynch.

That's Bruce Miles. He also mentions that... Which is what I was referring to. I'm glad a reporter/writer asked the question about Patterson being rushed (in particular skipping Daytona/Zisk) as a potential reason why it didn't work out. Also, I'm glad that Bruce did give the timeline of Patterson during his 1st 2+ years in the system. As someone who doesn't believe a player should jump a level with the exception of Boise (as it's Short-Season), I don't think you can say, "well at the time you wanted him to skip Daytona and now you're saying it was wrong". There's reasoning behind everything, I wouldn't chalk Patterson up to bad luck and not try and learn from it either.