Transmogrified Tiger

Who is your favored candidate for SS? AGonz? Neifi? Cedeno with all of 80 major league at bats? an injury prone and past his prime Nomar? Lugo Lugo Lugo Lugo Lugo... Is he available? What would it cost the Cubs? Tampa Bay supposedly talked to the Braves and Mets about Lugo a few weeks back. I have no idea what it might cost. I wonder if Lugo would come cheaper if we took Aubrey Huff's contract with him and shipped him somewhere looking for a DH? Mike Lowell style, if you will. Cubs give: Hill, Patterson, Ryu(or similar prospect) Cubs get: Lugo, Rowand White Sox give: Rowand, good prospect White Sox get: Pierre, Huff D-Rays give: Huff, Lugo D-Rays get: Hill, choice of Ryu(or similar) or Sox prospect Marlins give: Pierre Marlins get: Patterson, remaining prospect Cubs solve SS and CF with pretty good offensive fixes for not a lot in return. Sox get their DH and Pierre who they covet, for only the incumbent at CF and a prospect. D-Rays clear nearly 12 million dollars, plus get a couple of quality prospects. Marlins clear more salary in their firesale, get a cheaper replacement they supposedly are interested in, plus a prospect.

Yes, that would be overpaying for Kotsay by quite a bit.

Why not Karonka? Left-handedness, and recent fall success outweigh Aardsma's right-handedness and complete meltdown since he's become a Cub. That said, I wouldn't bat an eye if Koronka was dropped. Assuming that meant Macias was still on the roster, I will do more than bat an eye. I'm taking your philosophy on Neifi when it comes to Macias. He doesn't exist unless I hear about him.

Are you sure about that? Drafting closers to be closers has been a pretty new phenomenon. Hermanson didn't start a pro game until 1997, and had good save totals in his minor league stops. Looks right to me.

Wow, that was a ridiculous thing to say. This has hardly been 18 pages of complaining. I've seen a lot of the space used for questions, clarifications and praise. But it's good to see the spirit police spring into action to try and haul in those evil people who have the audacity to question a move made by the impeccable Cubs management team. I've read the thread, the majority of it has been complaining. Spirit police? LOL. No, it's just that no matter what Hendry does (or doesn't do) he gets slammed for it, and frankly it gets old. Signing Howry will make our team better. The specifics of the contract may not be ideal in your eyes, but answer me this: when was the last contract that a Cubs player signed that you thought WAS ideal? well, the team has sucked the last two years w/ a very sizeable payroll, so i don't think it's crazy to say they've made more than their share of bad decisions. i don't understand why gm's get the benefit of the doubt just because 'it's their job'. people suck at their jobs sometimes. and you're not talking to me, but i'm pretty happy w/ the lee & ramirez deals. I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt - I'm praising him for signing two quality relievers. And yes, I know GM's sometimes suck - trust me, I'm not Hendry's biggest fan by any means. He's sucked in getting a leadoff man for two years, he sucked at handling the Sosa situation, he's sucked at resigning mediocre (at best) veterans, etc. Hendry has a plan to improve the bullpen. So far I think he's doing a pretty good job of it. Relievers are the most unpredictable of all players or pitchers performance wise. Giving two middle relievers, one of whom hasn't had more than one good season, THREE YEAR DEALS for 8 figures is terrible. Sure they probably make your pen better for next season(Eyre may or may not), but these deals are so long Zambrano and Prior will be FA's by the time they are done. You can't make a long term commitment on such an unpredictable commodity, especially Eyre and Howry, who aren't dominant. Was Mike Remlinger so long ago? Remember Remlinger, that has a nice ring to it.

No way do either of those two win the SEC.

Why not Karonka? Left-handedness, and recent fall success outweigh Aardsma's right-handedness and complete meltdown since he's become a Cub. That said, I wouldn't bat an eye if Koronka was dropped.

Playing a brutal non-conference schedule every year will do that to you. It's worked out pretty well for them thus far I'd say. with all due respect, hawaii is not a brutal team. They're a good team, and they're very good at home. I was also addressing the sentiment of the yearly occurrence too. They cramped up real bad in the second half of that game, and were much better in that aspect against Chaminade. But even disregarding Hawaii, they now have back-to-back games in back-to-back days against top-10 teams, plus Georgia Tech and BC in the next 2 weeks. That's the brutal I was referring to. I'll be happy if they go 2-2 in those games, hoping for 3-1.

Hagerty? Sure he got returned real soon, but still....

I still think the Fish should have gotten more - say, Hanley and Lester. Well yeah, but Ramirez and Sanchez is still a pair of quality prospects. This isn't Ramirez for Hill and Bruback, which is the impression I'm getting reading parts of this thread. An under acheiving can't miss middle infield prospect and a good but not "A+" pitching prospect for a questionable third baseman. (and don't kid yourself, at the time of the trade, Aramis was very questionable. link You're right!! The Marlins are throwing in a frontline pitcher and cash too! The Pie-Rats threw in Kenny Lofton. i wouldn't mention bruback and "A+" in the same sentence. That's what I was saying. He was good, but not a top prospect. Pittsburgh let him go within a week of acquiring him. He's not remotely comparable to Sanchez.

Playing a brutal non-conference schedule every year will do that to you. It's worked out pretty well for them thus far I'd say.

To me, Aardsma would be the logical choice.

It was reported that it is only for 2006. The ESPN report says it goes beyond next year:

Which reliever are you referring to? Eyre, whose contract is 2 yrs + option year, or the pending Howry deal? Specifically Eyre(see underlined), but it applies to both. Eyre has a player option, there's no way in the world he's going to turn that down. Howry's discussed deal has been for 3 years as well.

Great, you sit around and wait for Todd Wellemeyer and Roberto Novoa and Cliff Bartosh to figure it out and have a "high BABIP" year. Me, I won't be holding my breath. I like my odds better on going with guys that have at least shown they can have ML success, than guys who have never had any. Or, we could use that money to sign someone like Ryan who's been lights out for a while, or trade for someone who's capable and we don't have to make a 3 year commitment to. Not unless Dempster wants to set-up. Ryan says he wants to close, which is why the Yanks are not getting him. Then let Ryan close.

Come on. Look through the thread, I've gone to WHIP, K/BB and in previous threads more than that to make my case about Eyre. Eyre in 2005 was great. He had a WHIP near 1, OPS against under 600, 2.5 K/BB, etc. Aside from that, there's not a whole lot to be impressed about IMO. 2003-2004 he was about 1.4 WHIP, near 700 OPS against, K/BB under 2, etc. Those numbers are similar(K/BB, WHIP) or marginally better(OPS against, K/9) than the rest of his career as a reliever, which is far from stellar. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, we gave him three years. Almost 1100 days. The Cubs will play almost 500 games in that span. When Eyre's contract runs out we'll be voting for another president. For a middle reliever that's never had more than one year of production that would be deserving of 3-4 million a year, that's terrible. If we gave Eyre 1 year 3-4 mil, or 1+ an option, I wouldn't be upset, since you're taking the gamble he can sustain it. I may be upset about how much they're paying for a gamble, but ultimately it's not a terrible move. Giving that same gamble 3 guaranteed years when he's 32 years old and you aren't in dire straits for a LH reliever? Unacceptable IMO. I apologize for missing your use of stats earlier in this thread. It is true that his WHIP in '03 and his ERA in '04 were not inspiring. That said, it seems we are looking at the same stats and interpreting them differently. I see a pitcher who at the age of 30 was finally diagnosed with ADHD and his first treatments (drugs and life management changes) began during the 2002 season. Since that time, Eyre has steadily improved without regressing at all. And if we look beyond his WHIP in '03 and his ERA in '04, the other numbers show a different story and I believe a more complete picture of Scott Eyre. Each year since receiving treatment, his K/BB ratio has improved. Each year his H/IP ratio has improved. Each year his walks per inning has improved. Each year his WHIP improved. Each year his AVG/OBP/SLG against righties and lefties improved, finally culminating in an excellent campaign last season. Is there reason to believe that he may regress a little? Sure. Is there also reason to believe that his regression will still have him get lefties out to the tune of .200/.241/.390 like he did in '04? Yes. If he regresses against righties to somewhere in between his '04 and '05 performances against them, I think you'll be quite pleased. But there is also reason to think he may not regress. Given that he has improved every season since being diagnosed, the main reason we expect him to regress is that it is difficult to imagine him improving upon last season. And thats a good thing. What evidence do you have that suggests the trend I clearly outlined will suddenly reverse? I guess it's a difference of opinion. I don't see a trend of improvement, especially when compared to the rest of his relieving career. 2003 was a bad year, 2004 was okay(slightly better than his career), and 2005 was great. His peripherals in 2003-2004 aren't that different, from each other or from his career marks. That's why 2005 is the fluke to me, and if he regresses to his 2004 marks, he's not worth the contract IMO. And again, not addressed to any one person. It's a three year deal to a middle reliever. I can't overstate this. That's a long long time, way too long for someone of Eyre's abilities.

No, middle relievers for pricey 3 year deals are bad ideas. Especially ones like Eyre who don't have any sustained success. As an aside, does anyone know what happened to Howry's K's this year? Look, I agree that 3-years and 3.75 mill is a lot more than any of us wanted to spend. But you certainly don't think that going to battle with a pen of Dempster, Ohman, Wuertz and the question mark of Williamson would be enough, do you? Assuming you don't and you agree with the need to improve the bullpen, who would you have gotten instead of Eyre who would have been just as good but much cheaper? Dotel, Howry, and maybe some others I haven't stumbled upon would be good FA's for 1-2 year deals. I've been campaigning for quite a while to make an acquisition via trade. Minnesota, Cleveland, and maybe a few others have overloaded bullpens and are under cash constraints. Romero and Riske are both arby eligible set up men with cheap, capable replacements. Prime trade targets. I'd also target Betancourt from the Cleveland pen, I've advocated trying to get him and Crisp in a deal where we give up a bit of talent. This is another indictment of the Eyre signing. Making it as early as it was, before other options potentially open up.

No, middle relievers for pricey 3 year deals are bad ideas. Especially ones like Eyre who don't have any sustained success. As an aside, does anyone know what happened to Howry's K's this year? Three years of sustained success isn't enough? Can't anyone look beyond the one stat of ERA in '04 to gain a more complete picture of Eyre? Come on. Look through the thread, I've gone to WHIP, K/BB and in previous threads more than that to make my case about Eyre. Eyre in 2005 was great. He had a WHIP near 1, OPS against under 600, 2.5 K/BB, etc. Aside from that, there's not a whole lot to be impressed about IMO. 2003-2004 he was about 1.4 WHIP, near 700 OPS against, K/BB under 2, etc. Those numbers are similar(K/BB, WHIP) or marginally better(OPS against, K/9) than the rest of his career as a reliever, which is far from stellar. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, we gave him three years. Almost 1100 days. The Cubs will play almost 500 games in that span. When Eyre's contract runs out we'll be voting for another president. For a middle reliever that's never had more than one year of production that would be deserving of 3-4 million a year, that's terrible. If we gave Eyre 1 year 3-4 mil, or 1+ an option, I wouldn't be upset, since you're taking the gamble he can sustain it. I may be upset about how much they're paying for a gamble, but ultimately it's not a terrible move. Giving that same gamble 3 guaranteed years when he's 32 years old and you aren't in dire straits for a LH reliever? Unacceptable IMO.

No, middle relievers for pricey 3 year deals are bad ideas. Especially ones like Eyre who don't have any sustained success. As an aside, does anyone know what happened to Howry's K's this year?

I still think the Fish should have gotten more - say, Hanley and Lester. Well yeah, but Ramirez and Sanchez is still a pair of quality prospects. This isn't Ramirez for Hill and Bruback, which is the impression I'm getting reading parts of this thread.

Michigan State bounces back and thumps Chaminade. They play Gonzaga tomorrow, who beat Maryland. Elsewhere, Texas survived West Virginia by 1, and Iowa knocked off UK.

Wrong wrong wrong. Look at the Red Sox of 03, with the closer by comittee. Then they fail horribly, realize they need a closer, sign Foulke, and win the World Series. Houston had Lidge. St. Louis has Isringhausen, White Sox had Hermanson/Jenks. The truth is that having a great closer and setup man shortens the game to 7 or 8 innings. Guess how Isringhausen and Hermanson became closers. Nathan, Dempster, and Gagne too.

How, if you have a team that has an operating budget, can you have the cost of one signing not affect who else you can sign? Especially when you sign them to 3 year contracts, which most certainly will impact future decisions.

You have to be kidding me. Replace your Burnitz level production (17 win shares) with Giles (35 win shares). 6 wins, right there. guess where that puts us? Eyre + Howry(Assuming somehow they repeat their career years): 18 win shares, rounding up. Wuertz + Ohman: 12 win shares So all we need to do is have those two repeat their seasons and we'll be 2 wins better. And we'll have both for 3 years!

Carroll and Brown have much more talent than JoePa, their coaching jobs aren't as impressive. Weis & Spurrier inherited lesser teams, but Spurrier has 4 losses, and Weis lost more than one game with a subpar schedule(I'M BIASED). Miles inherited a great team, but he's probably my runner up because of the hurricane circumstances. Shula's done a great job, but he's lost two in a row, probably above the other multiple loss coaches, same plane with Carroll and Brown. JoePa for me.