Transmogrified Tiger

I don't really want Pierre extended. Maybe for '07 only, but that's not going to happen, so no extension please.

Is that a more refined "look for a pitch in your spot" appraoch?

Strikeouts are never of value, but avoiding strikeouts for the sake of avoiding of strikeouts isn't good either, which is what Goony was getting at. Someone who sacrifices the ability to hit for average and/or power to avoid K's isn't helping the team by doing so, except in specific(and ultimately rare) situations.

YESYESYES process, not results. That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra. However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals? I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? Isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?" Sisco was decidedly subpar statistically before he was drafted. And there were the aforementioned weight and attitude problems. The Sisco situation is a paradox. If they kept him, they'd probably be rushing him in his development by forcing him to the Big Leagues by '07, plus they'd send a message that subpar performances were rewarded to the entire system. They didn't keep him, and that was the wake-up call for Sisco to get mad at the Cubs and spite them, leading him to get into better shape, which is why he wasn't nearly as bad last year.

That leaves space for Z, Wuertz, Murton, Cedeno, and Novoa, plus Miller and possibly Wood starting on the DL.

This isn't difficult. Linebackers from generations ago aside, U of I hasn't been good with any consistency recently in the sport. They are a big school, in a major conference, and obviously aren't going to be competing with Middle Tennessee State in the recruiting rankings. The point is that they were terrible last year, and it's not a departure from the near past(11 wins the last 4 years, 5-19 in B10 play, including 1-15 most recently). How many 8 and 9 loss schools do you see near the top 30 in the recruiting rankings? top 50? It's great for the program that Zook's been able to do that, I'm just wondering how he did it. And no, I'm not implying any sort of illegal actions at all.

so? does that mean he shouldn't be able to recruit anyone good ever? i mean, how is illinois going to improve if they don't get the recruits? i could ask you why weber didn't get scheyer, wright, rush, or collins after sending a team to the championship game, in which they narrowly lost--not to mention turning deron williams into a top 3 draft pick and sending luther head to the rockets in the first round as well. i think you just hate the illini for whatever reason. maybe it's their recent dominance over MSU, maybe it's their perrenial dominance over mizzou, i don't know. Calm down. I don't think it's illogical to wonder why the worst team in the Big 10, who got beat soundly in all their losses, that isn't traditionally a strong football school got around a top 25 ranked class. It has nothing to do with Basketball, but since you brought it up, it's not like Weber lost those guys to Bradley and IUPUI, or that he ended up with a terrible class. It's a terrible analogy, even more so when you consider the different dynamics of building a football v. basketball roster.

so? does that mean he shouldn't be able to recruit anyone good ever? i mean, how is illinois going to improve if they don't get the recruits? i could ask you why weber didn't get scheyer, wright, rush, or collins after sending a team to the championship game, in which they narrowly lost--not to mention turning deron williams into a top 3 draft pick and sending luther head to the rockets in the first round as well. i think you just hate the illini for whatever reason. maybe it's their recent dominance over MSU, maybe it's their perrenial dominance over mizzou, i don't know. Calm down. I don't think it's illogical to wonder why the worst team in the Big 10, who got beat soundly in all their losses, that isn't traditionally a strong football school got around a top 25 ranked class. It has nothing to do with Basketball, but since you brought it up, it's not like Weber lost those guys to Bradley and IUPUI, or that he ended up with a terrible class. It's a terrible analogy, even more so when you consider the different dynamics of building a football v. basketball roster.

Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107. Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong. Uh, the numbers posted for '03-'05 are 106, 90, and 99, average of 98.

Options have nothing to do with draft pick compensation, unless you pick them up obviously. What matters is if you offer the player arbitration after the option is declined.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson. ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away. How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year? About the same way it did Jones this year. Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu. Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing? Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu. Dye 1999: 120 OPS+ 2000: 134 2001: 109 2002: 105 2003: 41 (half a season) 2004: 103 2005: 118 Jones 1999: 96 (half a season) 2000: 89 2001: 96 2002: 125 2003: 106 2004: 90 2005: 99 Dye had much more past success to base future performance. That constitutes "much more past success"??? I'm seeing a guy (Dye) that averaged 106 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('01, '02, '04), and got rewarded with a 2/$10 deal with an option for a third year. I'm also seeing a guy (Jones) that averaged 107 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('03, '04, '05), and got rewarded with a 3/$16 deal. Dye responded in '05 by posting his second-highest OPS+, @ 118, roughly 10% above the three-year average. If Jones can do 118, that would be his second-highest too, and also a ~10% improvement. These guys couldn't be more similar, statistically. Like SSR said, Jones was worse than that the previous 3 years. Jones's best years have been due to BABIP fluctuation that he isn't likely to approach again. In other words, unless he gets luckier on balls in play and hits .300(doubtful considering he's done it twice in 6 years and is leaving the turf for Wrigley's thick grass), he's going to be average at best for a hitter, never mind a corner outfielder.

i think the point someone made earlier about how cuban is very interested in statistical analysis in basketball and would likely be more of a saber-type in baseball is pretty notable though. plus, even if the new owner isn't any good, it's not like im hugely concerned about the team getting worse. at least there'd be a CHANCE of new ownership changing directions. For a hands-on owner, though, baseball is much more difficult than basketball. There are far more players and statistics, making it significantly more of a group effort. I'd love to see someone come in who can provide an equal payroll while instituting a better philosophy throughout the system, but I'm not sure how likely that is. We need new management, but there are a lot of worse choices out there than MacPhail and co. There's also much more patience involved on the baseball end.

What could Zook possibly be selling these recruits? They got beat by at least three scores in all their losses, including every single conference game. U of I isn't exactly a bastion of football tradition either.

Buy another! :D Seriously though, Cards suck/Cubs suck stuff is lame. Rivalries are fun and all, but I don't care about the Cards enough to buy a shirt solely denigrating them. This is coming from a mid-Missouri and St. Louis area resident as well.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson. ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away. How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year? About the same way it did Jones this year. Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu. Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing? Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu. Dye 1999: 120 OPS+ 2000: 134 2001: 109 2002: 105 2003: 41 (half a season) 2004: 103 2005: 118 Jones 1999: 96 (half a season) 2000: 89 2001: 96 2002: 125 2003: 106 2004: 90 2005: 99 Dye had much more past success to base future performance.

Welcome! Buy a Cubs T-Shirt instead.

Mizzou had their shots at Texas and didn't make the open shots. Can't say I was expecting a win, but at least they didn't humiliate themselves. Makes the two road games against fellow bottom feeders Texas Tech and Baylor huge games.

You know the officiating is horrible when Vitale goes nuts that they didn't get a foul called against Duke.

The Contreras+Dye/Abreu+Floyd rumors have as much credence as the "Phillies demand Prior" rumors, so how can you say that they are insisting on something of Prior's caliber?

None of those impact players play a position of need of the Cubs though (a case can be made for Beckett I suppose) The idea isn't that the Cubs should've gone out and gotten them, the idea is that the respective teams got those impact players without giving up anyone near Prior's worth.

Who are these impact players? Thome, Beckett, Glaus, Delgado, from a quick check. There may be more. EDIT: Giles and Konerko were free agents. Abreu and Tejada were rumored to be traded, along with names like Burrell and Tracy, Wilkerson and Soriano(can o' worms) were dealt. Millwood was a FA, Garland(can o' worms part deux) was rumored to be on the block as well.

I would like that vera much. Texas 80 Mizzou 50 I think this one is much more likely. Oh cmon, I've got 5 hours to live in delusion before the basketball team puts a cap on this crappy day. Let me dream.

Sorry, but you're failing to apply logic to this debate. The plan was never to develop great pitchers and then trade them. The plan was develop a core of players (which Zambrano and Prior are apart of) and then trade others for the difference makers. If Hendry doesn't have those others to trade for a difference maker, than he either failed to develop them, or squandered them frivolously. Either way, the plan was not carried through well enough. Remind me again how Hendry acquired offensive "difference makers" named Lee, Ramirez, and Garciaparra (and, hopefully, Pierre). To say that Hendry, can't/won't/hasn't done exactly what you're advocating is either misguided, uninformed, or both. By taking advantage of monetary dilemmas in the Lee and Ramirez deals, and by orchestrating a crazy enough deal that he was able to deal quantities of prospects rather than more proven qualities, the Nomar deal. In this(and other cases), the team isn't in a financial bind(although money plays a role in every deal), and there are teams willing to give the more proven commodities that Hendry is unable to provide, because of the reasons I stated before. I'm as frustrated with Hendry as the next Cubs fan, especially this off season, but I find it interesting how credit is never given for his great acquisitions (Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Nomar/Murton). Those moves are not good enough to excuse this piss poor offseason, but Hendry traded prospects for solid talent (which appears to be a large part of his plan all along). We don't have what Philly wants, it's as simple as that. Hendry certainly gets credit for pulling off those deals, the problem is that sort of situation isn't always going to be there to help you fill a need.

I would like that vera much.

Sorry, but you're failing to apply logic to this debate. The plan was never to develop great pitchers and then trade them. The plan was develop a core of players (which Zambrano and Prior are apart of) and then trade others for the difference makers. If Hendry doesn't have those others to trade for a difference maker, than he either failed to develop them, or squandered them frivolously. Either way, the plan was not carried through well enough. Remind me again how Hendry acquired offensive "difference makers" named Lee, Ramirez, and Garciaparra (and, hopefully, Pierre). To say that Hendry, can't/won't/hasn't done exactly what you're advocating is either misguided, uninformed, or both. By taking advantage of monetary dilemmas in the Lee and Ramirez deals, and by orchestrating a crazy enough deal that he was able to deal quantities of prospects rather than more proven qualities, the Nomar deal. In this(and other cases), the team isn't in a financial bind(although money plays a role in every deal), and there are teams willing to give the more proven commodities that Hendry is unable to provide, because of the reasons I stated before.