David

That doesn't really qualify as news.

Personally, I was not very confident in Borowski heading into 2004. Sort of the way I'm not all that confident in Dempster now, except even more so amidst reports that his fastball was down to the mid-high 80's. Derrek Lee was considered a slightly above average offensive 1B at best, and Barrett was a huge question mark. Those two definitely worked out (although Lee much moreso in 2005), but I would very much dispute that we looked all that great on paper going in to 04. Also, like you said, shortstop was a HUGE weakness. Oh, and Aramis had yet to show the progress in his game that we have witnessed over the past two seasons. Of course, I was really optimitistic, because I was blinded by our 88 win team having made it to within 5 outs of the World Series. Still, the moves worked out far better than we should have expected (Barrett, ARam especially..then there was the fact that Alou had a season that lived up to his contract for once) and the 2004 team should've won more than 89 games. I think the blame for that lies with Dusty (pitcher overuse, misuse, bad lineups, bad attitude, all of it)...and Hendry seems willing to go down in flames with Dusty B. Goode..

Unfortunately, based on your report, it was the hosts who discussed the Cubs, not his agent. That's basically the same as us discussing it here. Of course, there's a decent chance we're one of those 12-15 teams (although that's probably a bit of an exaggeration). I won't lie, though. I'm glad to hear that the Cubs were at least talked about. I just don't think it means that much.

You have got to be kidding me. Did we make the playoffs in 2004 or 2005? Maybe you don't know this but we were 4th in our division last year. That is terrible!! All I care about is results and the past two year Hendry and Baker did nothing of the sort. I concede that Hendry sold us short in 2005, but very little of the blame for the 2004 season can be laid at Hendry's feet. Yea, it can. Isn't he the one who went out and hired Dusty? Hendry is the GM of this team. He is entirely responsible for what happens with this team.

I want Neifi Perez nowhere near this team. Baker would find too many ways to get him playing time, even if those guys ahead of him didn't get hurt. Not only that, but Neifi doesn't do anything particularly well...we can likely get better than his production from Cedeno (in the case of an injury)...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051028cubs,1,1825971.story?coll=cs-home-headlines :x :x UGH, do not like the sound of that at all.. (the bolded part) Jacque Jones or Juan Encarnacion, here we come.. bleh Then again, it's Paul Sullivan, so take it for what it's worth.

So, we're not supposed to say good job when our GM makes a good move? That's news to me. What are we supposed to do? Complain? Well, I sort of agree that it should be expected. Especially when it's something as simple as these moves. But I'm glad it happened...because, unfortunately, with Hendry's track record since 7/31/04, it's hard to know what to expect.

I'd honestly give him anything within reason.. say, up to 12 million per. We have tons of money to spend this offseason and unfortunately we do not have the upper hand in these negotiations (if, in fact, there are any). We are DESPERATE for a productive OF bat and right now he's the only one on the market. It'd be a shame to waste Prior and Z's "cheap" years...That's for sure.

LOL.. I love how people feel so compelled to include the Yanks in every major free agent discussion that they go as far as this. Not a knock on you at all...It's just an amusing thought.. They'd have 3 "star" starting SS in their everyday lineup. Furcal in CF.. :lol:

With a little Milton Bradley sprinkled in... =P~ Furcal, Murton, Lee, Giles, Aramis, Bradley, Walker, Barrett Prior, Zambrano, Burnett, Wood, Maddux =P~ =P~

I think it's about time the thread title is changed on this one... This one has officially been debunked... We can now go back to hoping that we'll get the only OF worth a darn in free agency (until somebody else signs him).

Yes.

won't corey sit on the bench & pout?? wonder who Texas would give up for Patterson?? Not enough to justify trading him. No reason to sell low; we have nothing to gain by trading him. As for him pouting, where do you get that idea? He expressed disappointment but didn't cause any stir when sent down to AAA. And Corey has never shown anything to indicate that there's anything wrong with his attitude. I'm not sure where people get this idea that he's any sort of a problem in that department.

Link? I'm not doubting your source at all. I'd just like to read the rest of the article.. :wink:

Not a very big jump in the NL West... :)

Ya gotta admit.. IF healthy (BIG "if," I know), that would make one hell of a starting rotation... Better than 2003 even... Prior, Zambrano, Burnett, Wood, Maddux (in no particular order, except Maddux at #5)... And in the playoffs, that would be... WOW.. just wow..

I highly doubt Lee will ever do any better than he did in 2005. I'd love it if he proved me wrong, though.

What makes you say that? Because I cannot think of a single trade that John Scherholtz got fleeced in. Not one. Denny Neagle...and yes, he had a GREAT 1997... But still, imagine if we gave up Prior or Z a few years ago for 2.5 years of a very good (at best) veteran pitcher... I wouldn't be too happy. EDIT - This probably would look a lot better for me in 2003... With Schmidt's recent decline/injuries, not as much... Who was the 1B prospect they gave up in that trade anyway?

The really sad thing is that most of these holes could've been filled with last year's free agent class. :x

Sure he won a series, but with a massive payroll, and he has only been a GM for 3 years. You can't even say he has a track record. You can't justify paying him as much as guy like Shuerholz, who had put together 14 consecutive division winners. It's not like he is a super genius. He let both Lowe and Martinez walk this year and did little to improve the bullpen when it was obvious it was pretty bad, and that is why they went out of the playoffs like lambs. I give him credit for Ortiz, Schilling, Millar and Foulke, but I think a lot of guys could have put together a winner with 140 million dollars. He is a good GM, but not elite just yet. What do you hire a GM to do? Win the World Series. Maybe more than once if he can. He did it. He went out and got the players that would win a World Series and they did it. They did it going head to head against a 200m payroll team. If Schilling was healthy all year this year, they might have done it again this year. If the GM who puts together a 140m team can't be afforded 1.5m or whatever it is he actually wants, I don't know what to say. Without him, they may have been sitting at home in October last year. There have been a few average-poor GM's who have won titles. Kenny Williams is a prime example. Should he get top dollar? It's not the amount alone that bothers me, but the amount relative to other general mangers who are better. Sustained success is more indicative of a good GM than one WS title. I just can't see how you can pay a guy with only 3 years experience mor ehtan a guy like Schuerholz, who has overseen the management of 14 consecutive division titles, 3 pennants and a Championship. Epstein is a neophyte GM, and you can't just pay him more money than guys who have done far more than he has, and done it for longer. Giving Epstein top dollar would be like making Miguel Cabrera the biggest contract in the game right now. Yes he has been impressive, but it been over too short a period to anoint him elite. Let him win a few more division titles and pennants. Bad analogy...Epstein will be a FA in a week, Cabrera is under the Marlins control for many more years. Plus, if Cabrera WERE a free agent right now, I don't doubt that he'd get one of the richest contracts in Major League history...

Neifi Perez. Bank on it.

Here's hoping that the Rockies give Neifi an offer that he can't refuse. Rotoworld speculates that the Yankees might have interest in him as well. Wow, FINALLY some good offseason news! Thanks for passing it on.. Now, let's just hope it's an offer he can't refuse.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...?

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it? You couldn't tell that my answer's no? Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either. Cmon man. YOu should be able to tell that I was saying that Pierre's a viable option even though his obp over the past 3 years and his career (.350-355) aren't stellar. He's viable cause he's really fast, and he gets on base at a good clip. Anaheim, CWS, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta have done well w/out stellar obpers. You're right. His 70-ish stolen base percentage makes him a viable leadoff option when Hairston isn't. How could I have missed that...

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out. So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success. Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true? The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen. I'll have to find the thread where I cited them. I'll just take the CW of people who have actually played the game over guys who wish they did. Sorry. YEA... we're just jealous cuz Dusty's been with better gals than we could ever hope!!