dew1679666265

How do you figure? Freel has played 183 career games in the corner outfield and has a UZR of -.7 in LF and 15.1 in RF. He also has a career .729 OPS against lefties. Reed has a career .834 OPS against lefties and a UZR of 42.4 in LF and -8.2 in RF. Freel won't come near replacing the bat vs lefties that Reed provides us. That said, I wouldn't be utterly opposed to trading Reed in the right deal, but not because we now have Freel.

Hoff may not need a platoon partner, but the general desire has been to get Fox to the majors and on the field. The only realistic place for him would be 1st and I doubt we'd bench Hoff for him.

And in that period of time the farm still failed to produce a starting major league caliber outfielder. The Cubs *were* stocked with starting pitching, which I believe is Hendry's strength in talent evaluation. Hendry did add key pieces, but it was not his team. He either acquired or played a major role in developing 3/5 of the starting rotation, 4/9 of the starting lineup and a large part of the bench and bullpen. No, it was not "his team," but he deserves a great deal of the credit for building and developing many of the players on the team. I think they were really good moves, and I think that's where Jim Hendry peaked. I don't agree with the peaked part, since after that he picked up DLee for Choi and Nomar and Murton (who eventually, along with EPatt and Gallagher, turned into Rich Harden) for Justin Jones and Brendan Harris. He's made some very good trades in his tenure. Since when has that stopped Jim Hendry? He's the king of selling low and buying high since 2004. And do you want him to dump Sori, Aramis, DLee, Lilly, Kosuke, Soto and all the other very good players who struggled for 6 games and get nothing for them? If he can upgrade the team by trading those players, then he should go for it. But it's extremely unlikely that we could trade all of those guys and be better after it was over - I don't care if our GM is Jim Hendry, Billy Beane or me. I see what you are saying, but this team doesn't show up in the post season though. Can you give me a reason why you think they don't? I think we both agree that the core of this team is very, very talented. Thus, if you think Hendry did a poor job building this core, you must think it's because of something besides talent. Do you think they struggle because they choke in the postseason, or some other reason? When the entire team struggles and implodes at those exact moments, it's something to take note of. I can agree with that. You take note of it, but a team-wide slump for 6 games is not enough reason to tear the thing apart and start over. Especially when the assortment of players has achieved 180-something wins the past two regular seasons.

You can also consider that Hendry was in charge of the farm system for a long period of time and was a major factor in bringing in and developing the young talent that contributed to that 2003 team (CPatt, Wood, Cruz, Z and Choi). He also developed Hill and Bruback, who helped us get Aramis and Lofton. He also made a trio of key moves that, without them, we don't make it as far as we did (do we even make the playoffs?). He acquired Matt Clement and dumped Hundley for Grudz and Karros in the offseason and then dealt Bruback and Hill for Aramis and Lofton. I don't think we're an inning away from the World Series without those key moves. There's no denying Hendry's fingerprints were all over that 2003 club. It's not as simple as just "getting new players." Guys like Soriano, Aramis, Lee, Lilly, etc. are signed to contracts and must be traded elsewhere and we must get similar value in return. We could go through a massive firesale, but after it was over we'd be farther away from postseason success than when we started. I'm not ready to get rid of guys who can produce exceptionally well for 162 game seasons, but have struggled for a couple of three game stretches.

I've seen this theorized a few times, but have never seen confirmation. Lee is hurt, yes, but has there been any effort to DL him and he's refused? Otherwise I suspect it's just Lou and Lee thinking this will get under control quick enough for him to contribute. I do still think both believe Lee can be the DLee of old - meaning they both believe he'll outproduce Hoff over the course of the year.

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin? 0/2 is such a large sample size right? When you break it down, that's 54 post season innings. And when you observe the performance, you conclude that the Cubs did not compete for one single inning. Is it just bad luck? Maybe. Part of it is bad luck, but I also think last year's team was under a huge amount of pressure to win (mainly after the 07 sweep) and didn't handle it well. For evidence, look at plays like DeRosa's bobbled ground ball that should have ended an inning, etc. Keep in mind, though, that Hendry also was the GM during the highly successful 03 playoff run. It ended in utter disappointment, but to be an inning away from the World Series is quite an accomplishment.

Part of it is that he's 26, but also there's no position to put him at. He'd have to produce like crazy on offense (which he might, but it's no sure thing) to make up for his defense. If we could find a way to trade DLee (which we can't) the option would arise to platoon Fox at 1B with Hoff, but that's not open right now.

I thought about Utley, but it's hard to justify building around a 30 year old when you have younger options and he's not the best player in the game.

Another strike against Pujols is that he plays 1st base which ought to be an easy position to fill. That givers the edge to younger players at positions of higher demand like Ramirez, Longoria and Sizemore. That's why I included Sizemore in my top 5. He's not as purely productive as others (Braun for instance) but he's close enough to them, he's young and you get that production in center field where it's incredibly hard to get much of any production.

I doubt they'd want a decent 30 year old reliever. Yeah, but what about Heilman? That's Heilman pretty much to a tee, I'd think. Though I have an idea what you're getting at. :)

Blalock is much better than Cruz, Byrd or Murphy and Andruw is still a question mark as to how well he'll produce all season. I could see them trading Blalock for pitching (and it's probably a good idea), but I don't think they'll be begging us to take him. I would think they'd insist on Marshall - at least for a while. We could probably get them to take Heilman instead. Also, Jake Fox could really thrive in Arlington. those 2 plus a prospect or 2 could do the trick. I doubt they'd want a decent 30 year old reliever. A Marshall/Fox combo along with a mid level pitcher might interest them, but I don't see them having any interest in Heilman.

Blalock is much better than Cruz, Byrd or Murphy and Andruw is still a question mark as to how well he'll produce all season. I could see them trading Blalock for pitching (and it's probably a good idea), but I don't think they'll be begging us to take him. I would think they'd insist on Marshall - at least for a while.

If we're giving up next to nothing, I can handle that. It'd be completely disconcerting to have two high producing third basemen on the DL at once, though.

No, that is not what the discussion is about. It doesn't matter about wins and losses, but it sure as hell matters when you are talking about the job your GM is doing. If you have $150m to play with and $30m is dead money, that's a waste of resources. That's why the Washington Redskins are a contender on paper every year but never actually win. Hendry keeps covering up mistakes with more money because the team keeps increasing payroll, even through recessions, ownership limbo/changes and disappointing seasons. Overpay a guy like Marquis to eat innings then pay somebody else to take him off your handes, then dump the guy you got back. Overpay relievers with multi year deals, then go out and buy more when those guys fail, or release them as well. How many GMs get the opportunity to buy 2 very expensive corner outfielders in 2 consecutive years? Dead money for many teams is fairly inevitable. As long as it doesn't pile up too high - and you have a large payroll - it's not a major issue. I'm pretty sure the only dead money on the payroll this season is from Gaudin and Vizcaino (through Marquis). Hendry was still able to do all the things he wanted to do (good or bad) with the dead money on the roster and he hasn't had a problem with amassing gross amounts of it in his tenure. He's pretty good about dumping contracts on others. There are criticisms of Hendry that are very valid. I don't think having a little dead money here and there is very near the top. And also, my response was to Arnold Layne, who said that Hendry's performance has been poor specifically because we haven't been winning in the playoffs despite a high payroll. There is no one to my knowledge that we have gotten rid of (I still think DeRosa is gone because of a fascination with being left handed and a desire for him to start somewhere instead of being on our bench, not for money) or passed on signing because of a little dead money on this year's payroll, so I think the dead money is moot to his specific complaint.

That sucks badly. I just want him to return 100%. However long that takes, I'm cool with it. It wont be long before teams are begging us to take guys like Huff, Atkins, and Blalock off their hands, so I say go out an get 1 of them and let Ramirez take all the time he needs. If the Rangers start begging us to take Blalock off their hands, I'd more than happily take him off their hands for very little. He can play 1st and 3rd and will likely produce a mid .800s, low .900s OPS.

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure? No. The Cubs are 3rd in payroll this year, but before that were no higher than 7th. I posted earlier in this thread a breakdown of every year the Cubs have had higher than a $90 million payroll (since 2006) and outside of this year they were 7th once and 8th twice in that time span. You are looking at MLB totals, not NL, as was asked. Also opening day payrolls only talk about the 25 man roster on opening day. They don't count things like money paid to other teams to get rid of guys you had to dump because you overpaid them, or released guys or other stuff like that. The Cubs have been among the top NL payrolls ever since Hendry took over, and they are one of the very few to consistently raise their payroll every year. Some top teams, including the Mets, Braves and Dodgers, have actually had years where they cut back due to ownership issues. Yeah, mul pointed out that I missed the NL part of the question. I pointed out that the Cubs have been a top 3 NL payroll team for the past four years at least. And really, the money you pay out to guys you cut, etc. don't really matter on the field of play - which is what this discussion is about. The Cubs' on-field payroll this season is just over $134 million, and these current players are the ones that will decide whether we make the playoffs and how far we go in them (save for a midseason trade). Any players who are cut loose will still impact the final 25-man roster payroll, even if they don't directly count against it. For instance, our payroll is likely down a bit from where it potentially could be because we have to count Gaudin and Vizcaino's salaries against it.

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure? No. The Cubs are 3rd in payroll this year, but before that were no higher than 7th. I posted earlier in this thread a breakdown of every year the Cubs have had higher than a $90 million payroll (since 2006) and outside of this year they were 7th once and 8th twice in that time span. I think you missed a part of his question. Ah, my mistake. Not sure how I overlooked that both times I read the post. Yeah, we've been third in NL payroll each of the past four years for sure.

To the best of my knowledge, he'll be suspended in the next Cubs game - whenever that is. If they play today, it'll be this game. If they don't play until tomorrow, he'll be suspended for that one.

I was skeptical at first, too, but a month and a half into it he's pitching like he's earned every penny. wait, what? His ERA looks bad, but most of his peripherals are right in line with last year, save his opponents SLG. His k/9 is up, his k/bb is down a shade, but still higher than any other year except 2008, his opp. avg and obp are about the same, and his WHIP is good. Basically the only thing he has done wrong is leave a few pitches up at inopportune times. which have turned into homers. Time will tell. His peripherals are very similar to last year, but opponents' LD% is lower (13% now vs 17% last year) and opponents' BABIP is a tad higher (.292 this year vs .282 last year). I doubt he'll be as dominant as he was last year, but signs point to him pitching well this year.

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure? No. The Cubs are 3rd in payroll this year, but before that were no higher than 7th. I posted earlier in this thread a breakdown of every year the Cubs have had higher than a $90 million payroll (since 2006) and outside of this year they were 7th once and 8th twice in that time span.

Just throwin' it out there. :wink: My top five would probably be Pujols, Hanley, Longoria, Sizemore and Wright.

I think we got into the top 3 once a few years ago? But usually were between 5-10 IIRC? Actually, this year we are top 3 in payroll. The Yankees ($201 M) and Mets ($149 M) are both ahead of us ($134 M) this year. In '08, we had the eighth highest payroll behind the Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, Tigers, White Sox and Yankees (in no particular order). In '07, we had the eighth highest payroll as well behind the Angels, Dodgers, Mariners, Mets, Red Sox, White Sox and Yankees. In '06, we had the seventh highest payroll behind the Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, White Sox and Yankees. Those are the only four years we've been above a $90 million payroll.

We had a high payroll but we definitely were not an endless moneypit. We couldnt just go out and grab anybody we liked. There were players like Vlad Guerrero, Carlos Beltran, and Jason Giambi who liked the Cubs alot and we got outbig significantly for all 3. Yeah, I'd expect the payroll to stay similar to what it's been. The fact that the payroll was what it was under the Tribune meant that we can draw a profit with our current payroll. The Tribune would not let the payroll remain if they were losing money on the Cubs. Thus, Ricketts should be able to make a profit with the current payroll.

Nothing Ive heard yet, Im guessing hes just getting a day off after a night game last night. With a suspension coming couldn't he play one more game. You know Watson is waiting for the Astros series to rule on the suspension. I'm all for babying Milton as much as is necessary.

Miles is fast becloming the new Todd Hollandsworth. When first signed, I thought it was a pretty decent move for the bench, but when he started to start regularly, I though enough is enough. The difference is Hollandsworth OPSed .939 in 2004 for the Cubs before they started playing him regularly. Miles is OPSing .538 this year.