Tim

I didn't buy that anyway. I have to say that while I acknowledge the reasons behind the move, I would have done differently.

I think Weaver has consistently shown he's not that good, and unless he's interested in a 1 year make good deal with the Cubs, I hope somebody else signs him. He's exactly the type of predicatable innings-eater that is currently in vogue. He's averaged 222 IP of park adjusted, league average ERA over the past two years with LA. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump all over him. I'm just saying that someone will.

Hendry adds names, but he doesn't make the team better. Houston has the luxury of money being available this year, money that still might go to Roger after May. Ramirez & Lofton didn't make the team better in 2003? Nomar didn't work out in 2004, but it wasn't because of that move. It was one of the best deadline deals that season. The Cubs made one of the better deals in 2005, there just wasn't a whole lot of movement made. You still haven't shown what Houston has done that is so great that makes you so certain that they'll improve more during the season than the Cubs.

Weaver is a better pitcher than he's getting credit for here. He's far from an ace, but he's a quality #3 type pitcher and should get a Clement-type deal from someone.

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs. The Cubs offseason has seen them improve the team slightly in the pen and OF. Houston has taken a huge hit to their team by losing Clemens. Houston finished well ahead of the Cubs in 2005, but I think they played above their heads last year and the Cubs played under their talent level. Play the year again and I think they'd be much closer, on average, than what we actually saw. Given my impressions of the offseason, I think the talent level on the Cubs is better than that of Houston. I'm not a big fan of Baker, but I don't believe so little of him that I think he'll be such a drag on results to offset that gap. But I would have more confidence in Houston making improvements down the line than the Cubs making improvements. So, while the current Cubs roster might beat the current Astros roster, I still think when all is said and done next season Houston will have the better team. I think Houston has also done a better job utilizing their farm system so I can see them improving internally a lot easier than the Cubs will. In 2004, Houston made a huge addition during the season with Beltran. Pray tell what they did in 2005 other than get Berkman back from knee surgery? The Cubs under Hendry have consistently been one of the teams that has added the most firepower during the season.

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs. The Cubs offseason has seen them improve the team slightly in the pen and OF. Houston has taken a huge hit to their team by losing Clemens. Houston finished well ahead of the Cubs in 2005, but I think they played above their heads last year and the Cubs played under their talent level. Play the year again and I think they'd be much closer, on average, than what we actually saw. Given my impressions of the offseason, I think the talent level on the Cubs is better than that of Houston. I'm not a big fan of Baker, but I don't believe so little of him that I think he'll be such a drag on results to offset that gap.

Out of curiosity, why are people saying that Houston is a better team than the Cubs? Is it their rotation (minus Clemens)? Is it their lineup that still includes a lesser Pierre-clone, an anemic SS, aging players at 1B and 2B and one of the biggest offensive black holes in MLB (Ausmus)? Matching up the best of their lineup against ours, I'd call Lee & Berkman a tossup as Berkman is more consistent, but has never been as good as Lee in 2005; Ensberg & Ramirez is an edge to Aramis if he's healthy; after that the lineups get equally bad pretty quickly. Meanwhile, I'll call Z and Oswalt a tossup, Prior over Pettitte, Backe doesn't impress me any more than Maddux and I'm not even sure how the heck they're going to fill out the rest of their rotation. Lidge is great, but their other relievers don't really impress the heck out of me. The staffs are around even without Wood, but if Kerry comes back strong the Cubs could have a huge edge there. I am scared of Milwaukee in 2007, but I think they are still a year away from doing real damage. Pitt & Cincy look to be dreadful again. Right now, I'd project the Cubs as the 2nd best team in the division without Wood. A healthy Wood and the Cubs should compete reasonably well with St. Louis but will probably still come up a bit short.

It would be awful to have Craig Hansen hanging around, too.

I don't view Williams as totally expendable by any stretch of the imagination. Assuming that Wood's delayed surgery will delay his 2006 debut, there's a pretty good chance Jerome willl be the third-best starter on the team on opening day. Williams is still likely to improve while Maddux will probably continue to decline, who knows what we'll get from Hill, and as much as I've defended him in the past even I'm beginning to think Rusch is unlikely to be anything better than an adequate fifth starter/swing man. That being the case, I don't think I'd be too eager to ship out Williams at the first opportunity. Soriano's a good player, but he's a marginal improvement over Walker at best. Throw in the fact he'd be one of the highest-paid players on the team in 2006 and the fact that he's almost certainly a one-year rental and I'm not to keen on trading Patterson and Williams for him. Keep in mind that you'd almost certainly be getting a year of Soriano plus two draft picks as FA compensation for whatever you send for him.

Yeah, there's a lot of sucky pitchers in those top 5, too.

Given the rumors about a possible trade with Seattle, when I saw the title I thought it meant Rafael Soriano. Just think about how disappointed I was when I found out it was Fonzy. :( J/K. Patterson for Soriano (either one) would be pretty darned good value right now. I just can't believe Bowden would deal Alfonso for Patterson + pitcher right after dealing Wilk + Sledge to get this guy.

Innings Pitched

Not if Lefty and Walter have anything to say. I think a pretty good case could be made for the Rocket. If nothing else, I'd easily put him in the top 5 all time.

Hermida's strikeout rate concerns me too much to put him #2. I'd certainly put Drew and Wood above him, especially if positional scarcity is considered. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Howie Kendrick. BTW - how nice it would be to have OF prospects like AZ or IF prospects like Anaheim.

Let me ask the question this way: What 4th or 5th OF's are out there that would be better than Corey at this point? Why be so dead set on trading him? Because the fans are going to boo him? Who cares? Why let that determine the direction of the team?

Yeah. I'd say they are pretty much locks. :D

#1 - 10.949 - Randy Johnson #2 - 10.436 - Kerry Wood #3 - 10.246 - Pedro Martinez #4 - 9.548 - Nolan Ryan #5 - 9.278 - Sandy Koufax BTW - Mark Prior would rate #2 on this list with 10.551 K/9IP

BTW - in the vein of the best pitcher of all time argument... If durability is ignored, it pretty much has to be Pedro Martinez. Check out the all time best ERA+ ratings (ERA adjusted for park and league averages) from #40 up through #2 and notice how tightly grouped everyone is as you move up the chain: #40 - #30: 128, 128, 129, 129, 130, 130, 130, 130, 130, 131 #30 - #20: 132, 132, 132, 132, 132, 133, 134, 134, 135, 135 #20 - #10: 136, 136, 137, 138, 138, 138, 139, 142, 142, 142 #10 - #2: 143, 143, 145, 146, 146, 146, 146, 148 Obviously, I'm positioning Pedro to be #1. But it isn't so much the fact that he's #1. It's that the gap between him and #2 is almost as big as the gap between #2 and #40. Pedro's at 166.

Apparently not for the voters. :evil:

And my favorite pitcher of all time (not that I'm trying to bias anyone!) Player H: WP% ....W.. L IP ...H... R ..ER ..HR ..BB ..SO ERA lgERA ERA+ WHIP .627 318 189 4406 4082 1675 1476 298 907 3052 3.01 4.15 138 1.132

Look at this list

For comparison sake Player G: Best pitcher of all time? WP% ....W.. L IP ...H... R ..ER ..HR ..BB ..SO ERA lgERA ERA+ WHIP .665 341 172 4704 3997 1799 1632 347 1520 4502 3.12 4.46 143 1.173

I'd guess on AA for the whole year.

Craig, I noted the same thing about the roster fillers from the pitching side and was very happy about that. Of course, the difference between this year and previous years is the lack of prospects pushing up from A-ball. Hopefully, some of the injury crew will be able to make their way back strong this year to make the ranks a bit deeper again. West Tenn's rotation should be interesting, if not quite as exciting as years past. I'd imagine that Marshall, Wells & Marmol will all be there to start. I'd guess that Connolly will probably return. Hopefully Mateo will get returned and pitche there. Rumors of Gallagher making AA out of camp could be interesting, too.

what i should have said was worse production out of murton. i guess you could assume a healthy ramirez, but i'm wary to do so. and if you want to assume a healthy prior, go for it. brewers are still better. the cubs have the potential to be quite bad offensively in rf, lf, 2b and ss. To be fair, Jenkins has to be considered an even bigger injury risk than Aramis. And their backup plan isn't much out there. Koskie was pretty awful in 2005 and could decline further. Hall is a nice backup there, but really shouldn't be a starting 3B in the majors. While I'm a big believer in Weeks and Fielder (especially Weeks ;) ), either could flop in 2006. Miller could be dreadful behind the plate. Hardy is no certainty to be even decent at SS. Brady Clark shouldn't be awful, but was very "lucky" in 2005. About the only certain provider on their offense is Lee. How sad is our offense that I'm pretty sure that they'll be better than us on offense in 2006?