Transmogrified Tiger

We'd be losing close to 16.5 mil in the deal, so if we can afford to take on Tejada's 12 million alone, I think taking on 15.5 million in that deal wouldn't be extremely difficult.

If what you are saying turns out to be true, then Hendry is probably waiting until Dec. 20 to see who gets non-tendered: maybe the Jay Gibbons/Craig Wilson platoon will be cheap. Why would Baltimore non-tender Gibbons? I'd really like to pick up Wilson on the cheap, since he apparently isn't going to fit in with "Tracyball". I'm still a proponent of bringing in Rondell White for OF depth as well.

Yeah, but is it possible part of the reason their numbers were better because there defense was improved? That could be part of the reason, I don't have the time to find and compare Fielding Independent ERA's right now, but if someone wants to, go for it.

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

I don't really think Chess is a sport, but there is a distinction. In poker, there is a (pretty good) chance that there is no way you can win a hand, since that's all you can do is take the hand given to you, especially if no betting is involved. In chess, you have control over your destiny.

That's a well written post, but there's a couple things worth pointing out. Obviously, Cedeno didn't play a full season at AAA, and there are some sample size issues. But pointing out his AAA numbers and comparing them to his career numbers is a bit deceiving, as it ignores the progression that he's had the last few years. Also, while he probably justly doesn't lend credence to the "turning point" logic, it is worth mentioning that Cedeno himself has said that he has made adjustments in regards to hitting to all fields, and that's what he's attributed to his success since AA. His K/BB ratio has improved some since then, and his point about his SLG being low is also deceiving, since his batting average is so low. Cedeno will hit for an acceptable amount of power if his batting average is at a good level(.270-.290). Added on to the fact that he also pointed out that Cedeno is at least a year young for all the levels he played at, I think calling him a "questional prospect" along with Pie(which is even more laughable) is a bit of a stretch.

Correlation does NOT equal causation. Does a world series appearance or win mean that Dusty, or Guillen, or Brenly are good managers? Of course not.

By no means am I a big Corey fan like a lot of people on this board are, but... why would KPat in RF be a "horrible" idea? Assuming we land Tejada (I know, big assumption) I'd be completely fine with Corey batting 8th for the Cubs next year. At his best Corey would be an average right fielder offensively. His defensive strength is his range, not his arm, which means that he would be wasted/ineffective defensively in RF. Most of all though, Corey in RF is an absolute failure to get production from a corner OF spot. If you go into next season with Cedeno, Murton, AND Patterson in your lineup, you're just asking for trouble, and it doesn't really matter all that much if you get Tejada, you've still got about half your lineup that has a very real chance of falling completely on its face. I think the question at hand is are the other options that much better than Corey? Will they get us into the playoffs? I think the answer is no, it would not be a big enough upgrade. So why not give Corey the chance to prove himself? It's entirely too early to give up on the trade market. The FA RF's might be slim, but there's still a good deal of offseason left to make a move for an outfielder.

By no means am I a big Corey fan like a lot of people on this board are, but... why would KPat in RF be a "horrible" idea? Assuming we land Tejada (I know, big assumption) I'd be completely fine with Corey batting 8th for the Cubs next year. At his best Corey would be an average right fielder offensively. His defensive strength is his range, not his arm, which means that he would be wasted/ineffective defensively in RF. Most of all though, Corey in RF is an absolute failure to get production from a corner OF spot. If you go into next season with Cedeno, Murton, AND Patterson in your lineup, you're just asking for trouble, and it doesn't really matter all that much if you get Tejada, you've still got about half your lineup that has a very real chance of falling completely on its face.

Patterson in RF would be a horrible, horrible thing.

And it was almost like a two level jump for him, since due to his 2002 injury he had only a little over 100 at-bats above A-ball before 2003.Do other organizations have as many injuries to their prospects like the Cubs do? It just seems there are a lot of injuries to our prospects. I think it's a combination of the following, in no particular order: 1. Bad luck 2. Drafting pitchers that are more prone to flaming out with injuries than others 3. Bad system that leads to more injuries than normal I don't know how much each plays into it, but I think all 3 are a factor.

Haha, that's true. Is that implying that it's easier to ride a winning horse to victory than it is to drive the best car to victory? I've never ridden a horse or driven a really fast car, so I wouldn't know. Or that the horse gets credit for the victory, while the car driver does as well.

In horse racing, why is the winner [Horse's Name], ridden by [Jockey Name], but in car racing it's [Driver name] driving a [Car Name/Brand]?

You realize you can't win at blackjack, right? The odds are always against you. I think that's a poor example. Did you see the example? If you hit on 19 and get a 2, does that make you smart? No, it makes you lucky. It's not a perfect example, but it's the idea of going against the best move and still having it work out. BTW, ever read "Bringing Down the House"? You can win at blackjack.

This goes back to Davhern's blackjack example. Williams took some gambles, and in some cases, he made straight out bad decisions. Having your team win the WS does not mean you were the best GM in baseball that year, or anywhere near it. It's the same reason that Dusty and Guillen and other horrible managers reach and win the world series, yet are not good managers.

Quite impressive that he managed to play 141 games with all that keeping him down.

Beane looks like Dr. Jonathan Crane in that pic.

Tejada making like his remarks were misconstrued makes him seem like a better employee, and may make more teams interested in him as well. That doesn't make sense to me. If a team inquired about Tejada and found he was still available, wouldn't they know that his remarks were just a ploy? Its about the desperation of the club that goes to the value you can expect in return. It has a very real effect on negotiations. But how is another team going to value Tejada more when they know that his comments were just for show? I think in this case, it's more about saving face than trying to drive someone's value up. I'm talking specifically about Jehrico's quote: "Tejada making like his remarks were misconstrued makes him seem like a better employee, and may make more teams interested in him as well."

Tejada making like his remarks were misconstrued makes him seem like a better employee, and may make more teams interested in him as well. That doesn't make sense to me. If a team inquired about Tejada and found he was still available, wouldn't they know that his remarks were just a ploy? Its about the desperation of the club that goes to the value you can expect in return. It has a very real effect on negotiations. But how is another team going to value Tejada more when they know that his comments were just for show?

I never said he was the best GM in baseball but a lot of you are discounting what he did. What's the difference between the White Sox in '04 and '05? Pitching, pitching, pitching, and some defense. If you want to give Williams credit for making the defense better, fine. But he had nothing to do with half their rotation pitching out of their mind.

Tejada making like his remarks were misconstrued makes him seem like a better employee, and may make more teams interested in him as well. That doesn't make sense to me. If a team inquired about Tejada and found he was still available, wouldn't they know that his remarks were just a ploy?

HAHHAH yet all of these pieces got them to the WS. Why the hate? Is it bitterness? Hey, I'm a Cubs fan and I give credit where it's due. KW deserves credit for winning. It's bitterness, yes, but all these moves were much more likely to be bad ones than good ones. The fact that all of these guys ended up having their best years ever (or in Dye's case, his best year this millennium anyway) is just plain lucky. I call BS. It is not lucky. It was risky yes but some of these players were quality. A team wins a WS and it's all about luck? Come on. There's more to it than that. So if the Cubs win the WS this year, does that make all the bad moves Hendry made good? Of course not. Every team has a chance to win the WS, winning it doesn't mean you made the right moves, or even competent ones. The white sox had Rowand who the previous year had a breakout year yet didn't do so great last year. Dye was a solid pickup for them in RF. Podsednik was their leadoff hitter. Upgraded the catcher position. The pitchers were huge for them but let's not forget most of them came here via trade, waiver pickups, and FA signings. He also picked the manager to take them to the WS. A manager that is better than ours. If we win the WS I will give credit to Hendry, the manager, and the players for getting us there and winning. It's a combination of a lot of things and not all luck. The White Sox did it, we are still waiting and probably for a long time to come. If you want to argue that Williams made good moves, go ahead. I'll disagree mostly, but that's different than saying "He won a WS, so he's good". That's just backward logic.

I think you grossly undervalue Tejada. And completely ignore the situation the Cubs face. They are getting a crap RF regardless. It's either Jones/Encarnacion/Wilson + Tejada, or one of those guys without Tejada. If they can get Abreu, great. But I don't see them getting anybody of value for RF. And I don't see them getting any better player via trade with these guys in the future. How can you say they are getting a crap RF for sure on December 13? How much would you give up for Cliff Floyd? He's likely going to outproduce Tejada with similar defense at a much cheaper cost(years, dollars, and players) at a position without a cheap alternative. On the other hand, he's 3.5 years older and plays a less scarce position. If we're giving up this much just so that we avoid the worst case scenario for this year, why not give up less to get more production for '06?

HAHHAH yet all of these pieces got them to the WS. Why the hate? Is it bitterness? Hey, I'm a Cubs fan and I give credit where it's due. KW deserves credit for winning. It's bitterness, yes, but all these moves were much more likely to be bad ones than good ones. The fact that all of these guys ended up having their best years ever (or in Dye's case, his best year this millennium anyway) is just plain lucky. I call BS. It is not lucky. It was risky yes but some of these players were quality. A team wins a WS and it's all about luck? Come on. There's more to it than that. So if the Cubs win the WS this year, does that make all the bad moves Hendry made good? Of course not. Every team has a chance to win the WS, winning it doesn't mean you made the right moves, or even competent ones.

Only Nolasco and Guzman on that list has a difficult to replace upside, and Nolasco is already gone. Marshall, Gallagher, Ryu and others are down there waiting to climb the list. EPatt could be rostered as early as 2007. None of these guys is a can't miss prospect, or an extremely highly rated prospect. They are all very similar to somebody else in the system maybe a year behind. The Pierre trade was more painful, considering they gave up a similar package just without the bat, and it was for a much less impactful player. The Cubs don't have a star studded system, they have a depth filled system. The best way to use prospect depth is by trading it, before you lose them to Rule 5, before they crap out, and before Dusty gets to run them out of town. The top 2 prospects would still be here, as would be the rest of the top hitting prospects, and several arms. Who are the others? Marmol? Johnson? Petrick or Blasko? You're trading from the depth for sure, but you're completely eliminating it. Tejada isn't worth that, plus the issue of still needing a RF, and now a SP with significantly fewer trading chips, and 12 million fewer dollars.