Tim

I don't understand. Has anyone actually argued that they WOULDN'T want Giles on the Cubs? Hard to believe anyone feels that way. The choices I saw were signing Giles versus trading for Abreu, which to me, given our team needs for OBP and RF power production, is like being asked to choose between New York cheesecake and chocolate cheesecake, or in a more adult situation, between a blonde and a redhead. You know what? Either will do. :-) Actually, there was a poster in this thread that was saying Giles wasn't the answer, but Eyre/Howry are.

One week only for the posting. Of course, I'm also stuck up late at nights waiting to talk to the subcontractors in India. fun days.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen. Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent. The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006. Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd. Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF. I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us..... We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years. :-k Cubs Rank in MLB: 2002 2003 2004 2005 Runs Scored 22 20 16 20 Bullpen Runs 25 16 15 19 I'm not sure I can agree with your point... Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching. Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem. lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what? Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty). Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either. The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more. LOL Nice argument. Very persuasive. There was obviously no attempt at further argument - no need for any smartass remarks pal. We're seeing this from difference sides, buddy, and it is apparent. I'm a cub fan, just like you, and we both want the same thing - a team that wins. There's no need to persue it any longer.... Thanks! I see. So you can try to end the argument by using a belittling "LOL". But you get touchy when there's a comeback. Gotcha. Noted for future conversations. Have a nice night!

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen. Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent. The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006. Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd. Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF. I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us..... We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years. :-k Cubs Rank in MLB: 2002 2003 2004 2005 Runs Scored 22 20 16 20 Bullpen Runs 25 16 15 19 I'm not sure I can agree with your point... Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching. Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem. lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what? Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty). Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either. The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more. LOL Nice argument. Very persuasive.

Scott Eyre, 3-year trend, ERA: 3.32, 4.10, 2.63; WHIP: 1.51, 1.33, 1.08; BAA: .268, .219, .200 And the splits are even better, since Dusty will likely use Eyre more against LH batters: 2003--WHIP 1.14, BAA .219; 2004--WHIP 0.95, BAA .200; 2005--WHIP 1.04, BAA .182. Yup, looks terribly inconsistent and unpredictable to me. He apparently started taking the meds in 2002. You forgot his 4.46 ERA from that year. Ooohhh. I'm all aquiver with excitement. Treating ADHD takes time. It is more than just popping a pill and magically you are all better. There are lifestyle adjustments. Learning to manage this disease over time is a large part of the treatment (for those who aren't paying attention). And your explanation for this stud of a pitcher putting up a 4.1 ERA in 2004 is....

Looking at the year by year stats for Eyre and Howry, what is it that is there that inspires confidence in you that they're especially predictable? Since you choose to belabor your point...it was reported extensively that Eyre suffers from acute ADD, and has been on treatment for it the last few years. His numbers have been outstanding in that time. Yes, I would consider a three-year run after a life-changing event a run of sustained performance that leads to some confidence that the trend will continue. Bob Howry had three solid years for the White Sox--two of which were terrific--then started having arm trouble, culminating in surgery in 2003. Since coming back from surgery, his numbers are excellent to near-ridiculous. Yes, I think that constitutes a trend of good pitching that the odds say can reasonably be expected to continue. So you're a big fan of Eyre's 4.10 ERA in 2004? I'm glad you're happy spending that kind of money on peformance you can get at league minimum. I'm not. Tim, why do you CARE. I put this in another thread as well, I don't understand as a Cubs fan, it affects you if they give Eyre 1 or 10M a year. If it doesn't affect the signing of another player (and it won't), why do you care? Just so everyone can badmouth the Cubs front office for actually fielding a decent team? Maybe they had to pay that much in this market? I just don't understand how you can complain about getting two quality relievers after last years debacle. And whoever said we should sign our bigger holes before relief pitchers, dude, you don't even understand how the offseason works. Why would those players sign early, of course they're going to wait until teams fall into the "I NEED this player mode". The lesser players and players who are deserved of draft comp picks go first, THEN the A and B players. Give me a break. 1 - I care because the budget is NOT unlimited and the money we've spent on average performance so far could have been put to better use. 2 - yet we've already blown our second and third round picks for these guys (assuming Howry is signed). Thank goodness we lost enough to end up in the top 15 picks or we would have traded our first and second round picks in return for the potential, ever so slight upgrade in predictability (if not actual talent).

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen. Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent. The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006. Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd. Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF. I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us..... We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years. :-k Cubs Rank in MLB: 2002 2003 2004 2005 Runs Scored 22 20 16 20 Bullpen Runs 25 16 15 19 I'm not sure I can agree with your point... Take a second to examine the overall pitching and offensive stats for the 4 contenders in the AL postseason this year, and you'll obtain a clearer picture of the value of offense/pitching. Blowing over 1/3 of the money we have on one outfielder isn't going to solve the problem. lol - If you look at the stats of the AL playoff teams in other years it tells a different story. So what? Baseball is a simple game. You have to score more than the other team. Scoring runs = 50%, preventing runs = 50%. Preventing runs is split between pitching and defense. Pitching is split between starting (majority) and bullpen (minority). The bullpen is split between 6-7 guys (under Dusty). Spending $3M on a single reliever isn't the answer, either. The $10M on the OF will help a heck of a lot more.

Yeah, I was wondering when you'd jump into the fray. Spending 10-14 hours a day onsite at a customer location where they track internet access tends to reduce one's posting a bit. :(

So, have you all missed me posting on a regular basis? ;) If Hendry doesn't do something to cheer me up soon, I'm going to go nuts here. And for those still curious...signing middle aged, coming off career year middle relievers isn't going to perk me up. :D

Considering that our offense is half the game, but the bullpen accounts for 1/3 of about 35% of the game? yeah, I'd say that ranking 20th in offense was a much bigger problem than ranking 19th in bullpen ERA.

might be ADD. you should have that checked out. Is "aquiver" even a word? Or was that the ADD, too?

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen. Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent. The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006. Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd. Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF. I'm sorry, but Brian Giles alone isn't going to win the Cubs many games...he can hit 2 home runs in the first 6 innings, but when Novoa comes in and blows the lead, those Brian Giles homers means nothing. We have consisently been in the upper echelon of run scoring the last few years, and it doesn't get us anywhere. On the contrary, our bullpen has sucked big time and look where that got us..... We need to protect that dominant pitching staff in the later innings, which is something we have failed to do the last couple years. :-k Cubs Rank in MLB: 2002 2003 2004 2005 Runs Scored 22 20 16 20 Bullpen Runs 25 16 15 19 I'm not sure I can agree with your point...

Scott Eyre, 3-year trend, ERA: 3.32, 4.10, 2.63; WHIP: 1.51, 1.33, 1.08; BAA: .268, .219, .200 And the splits are even better, since Dusty will likely use Eyre more against LH batters: 2003--WHIP 1.14, BAA .219; 2004--WHIP 0.95, BAA .200; 2005--WHIP 1.04, BAA .182. Yup, looks terribly inconsistent and unpredictable to me. He apparently started taking the meds in 2002. You forgot his 4.46 ERA from that year. Ooohhh. I'm all aquiver with excitement.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen. Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent. The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006. Wuertz and Ohman have only had ONE quality year in the pen apiece. Not much of a sample size to go on - I like the idea of adding two more guys who have had more than ONE quality year, giving us twice as many options for stopping runs after Prior peters out with 110 pitches in the 6th, or Rusch struggles in the 6th after he came in to relieve Wood in the 2nd. Okay. You go with your proven vets in the pen at $3.5M each. I'll go with the youngsters and have enough money left over to pay for a $6M player. Or most of Brian Giles for RF.

You are being entirely too negative about the quality of Eyre and Howry. These guys aren't scrubs. As for the money, big deal, at least it's being spent on something here that can help the team, unlike the Neifi and Rusch signings. An improved Cub bullpen is worth an extra 8 to 10 games over the course of a season. That's puts us back to the upper 80 win total category and a playoff contender again. Add a leadoff man and some respectable outfielders and this team is ready to go. Both of these guys are average players who happen to be coming off extremely lucky seasons. Not only were both lucky on a balls in play perspective, but both were well under their typical HR/IP last year. We're committing 7M/year and getting pitchers no better than Wuertz and Ohman. Who knows, maybe they're durable enough to hold up to Dusty's usage patterns. That would be a plus. Whoa whoa. You're saying that Howry and Eyre are equal to Wuertz and Ohman? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Ohamn career era - 4.17 Eyre career era - 4.52 Wuertz career era - 3.96 Howry career era - 3.58 Tim, I expected better out of you than career ERA. You are a wiz with the stats. What matters most is what have they done in the last two years or so. Pitchers figure things out during the course of their career's. It sure looks like Eyre has. Eyre suffered from an undiagnosed disease earlier in his career which has since been diagnosed and treated. You can claim that his disease had nothing to do with his earlier struggles, but concentration is a key to success for any athelete. Plus, is it just coincidence that ever since receiving treatment for his ADHD, he has steadily improved? Is Hendry spending a lot for him/them? Perhaps. But it will only matter if he doesn't have enough money left over to improve the offense the way it needs to be improved. Do you know what his payroll is this season? Do any of us? What matters is that Eyre and Howry both benefited from lower than expected home run rates and ridiculously low batting averages on balls in play (which is pretty much random from year to year, for those not paying attention).

Looking at the year by year stats for Eyre and Howry, what is it that is there that inspires confidence in you that they're especially predictable? Since you choose to belabor your point...it was reported extensively that Eyre suffers from acute ADD, and has been on treatment for it the last few years. His numbers have been outstanding in that time. Yes, I would consider a three-year run after a life-changing event a run of sustained performance that leads to some confidence that the trend will continue. Bob Howry had three solid years for the White Sox--two of which were terrific--then started having arm trouble, culminating in surgery in 2003. Since coming back from surgery, his numbers are excellent to near-ridiculous. Yes, I think that constitutes a trend of good pitching that the odds say can reasonably be expected to continue. So you're a big fan of Eyre's 4.10 ERA in 2004? I'm glad you're happy spending that kind of money on peformance you can get at league minimum. I'm not.

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen. Ahh....since we sucked last year we shouldve just taken our chances on more schlubs that weren't proven and never had dominant seasons like Novoa and almost every other guy in our bullpen.....that would get us really far next season. Once again, I'm tired of watching our bullpen blow game after game, and if it takes 7 mil to help that out (especially in regards to the fact we had 30 to spend), that is definitely money well spent. The point is that neither vet has "proven" to be reliably exceptional across their careers. Nor have they proven to be consistently better than what we could expect from Wuertz & Ohman in 2006.

Whoa whoa. You're saying that Howry and Eyre are equal to Wuertz and Ohman? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Ohamn career era - 4.17 Eyre career era - 4.52 Wuertz career era - 3.96 Howry career era - 3.58 Derrek Lee career OBP - .363 Ryan Freel career OBP - .369 Aramis Ramirez career OBP - .329 Bobby Hill career OBP - 343 So are Lee and Freel equal? Are Ramirez and Hill? You can't just look at a player's career stats and tell me that they are one and the same at the current stage. Interesting effort, but don't you think that ERA is a bit more encompassing a stat for a pitcher than OBP for a hitter? BTW - I wish we had Freel. ;) Perhaps, but you're missing the point that career stats don't mean near as much as recent stats. And I'm a big Freel fan myself. I'd love to pry him away. And I'm saying that you need to place performance within a context. Even if you want to look at a four year sample for Eyre, he's had ERA's of 4.46, 3.3, 4.1 and 2.63. So, what are we gonig to get in 2006? Well, looks like it's a 50/50 shot of an ERA above 4.0 for our $3M. Gee, that's tough to find...

Ah, finally. The "proven veteran" phrase has arisen.

Looking at the year by year stats for Eyre and Howry, what is it that is there that inspires confidence in you that they're especially predictable?

Whoa whoa. You're saying that Howry and Eyre are equal to Wuertz and Ohman? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Ohamn career era - 4.17 Eyre career era - 4.52 Wuertz career era - 3.96 Howry career era - 3.58 Derrek Lee career OBP - .363 Ryan Freel career OBP - .369 Aramis Ramirez career OBP - .329 Bobby Hill career OBP - 343 So are Lee and Freel equal? Are Ramirez and Hill? You can't just look at a player's career stats and tell me that they are one and the same at the current stage. Interesting effort, but don't you think that ERA is a bit more encompassing a stat for a pitcher than OBP for a hitter? BTW - I wish we had Freel. ;)

You are being entirely too negative about the quality of Eyre and Howry. These guys aren't scrubs. As for the money, big deal, at least it's being spent on something here that can help the team, unlike the Neifi and Rusch signings. An improved Cub bullpen is worth an extra 8 to 10 games over the course of a season. That's puts us back to the upper 80 win total category and a playoff contender again. Add a leadoff man and some respectable outfielders and this team is ready to go. Both of these guys are average players who happen to be coming off extremely lucky seasons. Not only were both lucky on a balls in play perspective, but both were well under their typical HR/IP last year. We're committing 7M/year and getting pitchers no better than Wuertz and Ohman. Who knows, maybe they're durable enough to hold up to Dusty's usage patterns. That would be a plus. Whoa whoa. You're saying that Howry and Eyre are equal to Wuertz and Ohman? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Ohamn career era - 4.17 Eyre career era - 4.52 Wuertz career era - 3.96 Howry career era - 3.58 What part of Eyre's post-ADD story did you not read? Ohman and Wuertz career ERA? Small. Sample. Size. Look, I like Ohman and Wuertz, I want them in my bullpen. But you are exaggerating your point to argue they are as good as Eyre and Howry, respectively. They are not. Wuertz and Ohman have been playing for A LOT less time than Howry and Eyre have.. Yes, they have. So, you, like Dusty, want to pay guys the big bucks becuase they "been there", eh?

"Lucky" is simply shorthand. Eyre's career ERA is 4.52. Can you tell me what he's changed to drop his hr rate? What did he do to lead to hitters having less success on balls in play than in previous years? Or is possible that it was just one of those years where the ball bounced his way. Basically any reliever good enough to stick around MLB for a number of years is going to have a season where his numbers look great. They usually proceed to get a big contract from some dim-witted team thinking he's "turned the corner". They usually getting stuck paying big money to guys like David Weathers for three years.

You are being entirely too negative about the quality of Eyre and Howry. These guys aren't scrubs. As for the money, big deal, at least it's being spent on something here that can help the team, unlike the Neifi and Rusch signings. An improved Cub bullpen is worth an extra 8 to 10 games over the course of a season. That's puts us back to the upper 80 win total category and a playoff contender again. Add a leadoff man and some respectable outfielders and this team is ready to go. Both of these guys are average players who happen to be coming off extremely lucky seasons. Not only were both lucky on a balls in play perspective, but both were well under their typical HR/IP last year. We're committing 7M/year and getting pitchers no better than Wuertz and Ohman. Who knows, maybe they're durable enough to hold up to Dusty's usage patterns. That would be a plus. Whoa whoa. You're saying that Howry and Eyre are equal to Wuertz and Ohman? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Ohamn career era - 4.17 Eyre career era - 4.52 Wuertz career era - 3.96 Howry career era - 3.58

You are being entirely too negative about the quality of Eyre and Howry. These guys aren't scrubs. As for the money, big deal, at least it's being spent on something here that can help the team, unlike the Neifi and Rusch signings. An improved Cub bullpen is worth an extra 8 to 10 games over the course of a season. That's puts us back to the upper 80 win total category and a playoff contender again. Add a leadoff man and some respectable outfielders and this team is ready to go. Both of these guys are average players who happen to be coming off extremely lucky seasons. Not only were both lucky on a balls in play perspective, but both were well under their typical HR/IP last year. We're committing 7M/year and getting pitchers no better than Wuertz and Ohman. Who knows, maybe they're durable enough to hold up to Dusty's usage patterns. That would be a plus.