David

No, I wouldn't do it.

Who said 4 years anyway? I'd be much happier with a 3-year, 30 million contract than a 4-year, 36 million contract. Also, if we do land Furcal, there's no question we'd move Todd Walker in my mind. Cedeno is gonna be cheap for a long time, and with the added expensive contracts of Furcal and hopefully Giles, not to mention someone in the Starting pitching role, Cedeno will be a much better bargain. Plus, he'd be a decent 2 hole hitter as well. Also, this is very exciting. I can't wait until Nov. 11th. I'm not sure that the $2 million or so that Walker would make more than Cedeno is worth the downgrade in expected performance. I think Walker is plenty enough of a bargain as it is.

or move Walker & give both Cedeno & Furcal time @ 2nd & SS. What exactly is the benefit of that?

BTW... Let's not get ridiculous here... This isn't a Preston Wilson or Juan Encarnacion situation. Those are the type of acquisitions I'd be "resigned" to. Furcal would be a positive addition to the team. I'm just bothered by the fact that we'd be overpaying for him when we could be better off re-signing Nomar for far less money. He's not Orlando Cabrera...(another example of the type of addition I'd be "resigned" to). He's good.. He's just sort of overrated. But I'd take him. He can get on base at a .350 plus clip... From 2003-2005 he stole 100 bases out of 118 attempts (85%), which is well over the break-even point. In other words, his ability to steal is good enough to help an offense rather than hinder it. Again, I'd rather take a chance on Nomar... but Furcal isn't anywhere near the type of player I'd be resigned to the Cubs acquiring.

The Cubs are after Giles, we've heard that much. And I can't say that I doubt it at all. We need help in the OF and he's the best outfielder available. There's more than enough money available to go after both Giles and Furcal (although I'd rather go the Nomar route). As for Jones, if Jacque Jones is in the Cubs outfield next year, I won't watch a game. And I expect to watch just about every single one. :wink: That's not to say we'll have Giles for sure. I just don't think there's any reason to expect a J. Jones signing.

I think/hope that second part is just Sullivan speculating. I doubt he has anything concrete to back that up.

:lol: :lol: BTW.. Can I be the first? NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE NO TRADE CLAUSE!!!!!1111one1!

BTW - ARod is a pansy!!!!!11111oneone!! I'll take him at SS next year, though

I wonder if that includes things expressly forbidden by law? :-k ARod isn't breaking the law. And the whole questioning ARod's character because he hangs out with Phil Hellmuth is ridiculous. He's a grown man, he can play poker if he wants to. I don't think it's reasonable at all to question his character. It's just that to some people, pro-athletes gambling is a little bit of a shady proposition. Dangerous territory. I have no problem with MJ gambling with his golf buddies, but he sure caught a lot of flack for it. I'm guessing the Yanks and MLB don't want the PR hit, more than anything else.

Again, when I checked earlier in the year, the White Sox didn't score runs any more consistently than the Cubs. So they're scoring fewer runs, and they aren't being any more consistent than the Cubs's up and down offense. What's the benefit? You'll get no argument from me.

Technically, you are... Congrats. So am I. :-$

[rant]...What frustrates me even more is the fact that people want to pin the failures of the Cub offense to failings in all these "little things" like moving a runner over, hit and runs, situational hitting and all that nonsense. Too many sluggers, they say. NO. If we had a lineup full of Derrek Lee's or Aramis's, offense would not be a problem. The problem is the Neifi Perezes, Jose Maciases and Corey Pattersons.. and the problem is exacerbated by them hitting in the top two spots in the lineup. NOT because we need a so-called leadoff man up there, but because they are getting the most at bats out of anybody on the team when they are hitting there. We DON'T need "gritty, scrappy" players. We DON'T need "clutch hitters." These labels mean NOTHING. What we need are hitters who get ON BASE consistently and WORK the count. More baserunners and tired pitchers will inevitably lead to more runs and more wins. [/rant]

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense. It's not that simple. Lineup position is relevant and so is baserunning ability. In late inning games, you need to be able to get guys on and move them over. People with great baserunning ability can steal, score from first, go first to third, and all the little things. You cannot simply look only at the statistical numbers. I believe if you asked Kenny Williams or Ozzie Guillen they would greatly disagree with you that getting Scott made the offense worse. It just made it different. Lost a bopper but gained a catalyst. Looking at purely numbers can be decieving. It's important to have a balanced lineup. Moving a runner, stealing, and all those "little things" are done in an effort to score more runs. Ultimately, you're trying to score runs. You cannot argue that a team with a better on-base percentage and slugging percentage isn't going to score more runs than one deficient in these categories, even if that second team is better at the "little things." More runs (especially over 100 more runs) = a better offense and a much greater chance of winning. All this situational nonsense means nothing when you get down to the bottom line of runs scored and wins.

You're right... and I'll take better over "more balanced" every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense. so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you. omg. you can't seriously believe that. you're reasoning from the final result and saying that everything they did (including having scotty pod) contributed to success. that isn't even logical. show me where i said "everything"? huge difference does not equal everything. you said the white sox success was due to scott, with no justification other than he was part of the 2005 WS team. logically, that means everything that composed the '05 team was also the reason they won, which is ridiculous. again, show me where i said the sox's success was due to scott? i said he made a huge difference in the offense. you speak of logic yet you do not speak logically. Yes, he did make a huge difference. Exchanging Carlos Lee for Scott Podsenik made the Sox offense a LOT worse.

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense. so i guess 60 sb's had little effect on the sox's offense. Nope. It helped. His 59/82 (72%, is that even past the break-even point?) steals helped them score 124 fewer runs. If you think the Sox lineup was somehow better in 2005 than in 2004 because of the changes made in the offseason, I've got some swampland you might be interested in acquiring.

When is the last time that Hendry vastly overpaid for a big time free agent? Sure he slightly over pays on 1 to 3 year deals, but I can't think of a deal of 4 or more years that he has overpaid. Chicago told Furcal's agent that we'd be "big players" in the "Furcal sweepstakes." That sounds like overpaying to me. I think you're reading a little too much into that. All I take it to mean is that they have a strong interest. It's just wording. That's not to say that I don't think Hendry will overpay for Furcal if we end up with him, though. I think whoever ends up with Furcal is going to be overpaying.

I wonder if that includes things expressly forbidden by law? :-k

No need to be snide. They replaced Carlos Lee with Scott Podsenik. That did not in any way, shape, or form, improve their offense. Lineup position is irrelevant. No matter where either one of them hits, if you replace Podsenik with Lee, it's a downgrade on offense.

I doubt they'll be a major player. I don't think they'll spend with the big boys, especially if they're trying to keep Millwood.

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense. so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you. It did make a difference. They scored less runs. Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games... maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo. I happen to believe that their success had a lot more to do with their team ERA going from 4.91 to 3.61, than their runs scored going from 865 to 741. But that's just me. The Sox didn't win because they weakened their lineup, they won because their pitching was great. You still have to score to win and imo a guy who gets on base at a .350 clip right off the bat is in no way shape or form a negative to the offense. It is when he's replacing a guy who got on base at a .366 clip (and slugged .525).

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense. so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you. It did make a difference. They scored less runs. Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games... maybe its not how many runs you score but when you score them. of course they had great pitching but having a leadoff guy who can get on base and steal was more important to their offense than having carlos lee who drove in a ton of runs. it is a question of a balanced lineup imo. I happen to believe that their success had a lot more to do with their team ERA going from 4.91 to 3.61, than their runs scored going from 865 to 741. But that's just me. The Sox didn't win because they weakened their lineup, they won because their pitching was great. EDIT - just for fun, had the Sox offense from 2004 been combined with the Sox pitching from 2005, they would've had a pythagorean win total of around 104.

The White Sox scored less runs in '05 than '04, and at last check didn't score any more consistently than the Cubs's offense. so you are saying that having scott lead off in 2005 didnt make a huge difference in the white sox's success in 05? i think the sox players would beg to differ with you. It did make a difference. They scored less runs. Of course, the pitching was good enough to win well over 90 games...

Just. Say. No.

The funny thing is, I'm not sure we've had an official Giles thread even though he's almost everyone's #1 choice here. Of course, everythread ends up a Giles thread somehow.. :lol: