Jehrico

Piniella is probably saying what Hendry wants him to say. I don't think everyone understands the concept of negotiations. We're the only team left standing on Peavy's list of clubs he'll accept a trade to, and Towers has basically been ordered to trade him. The Cubs (mainly Hendry, Piniella needs to support him) need to show that they don't need Peavy as much as SD needs to get rid of him, and that we're willing to walk away, in order to keep the upper hand in the negotiations. As soon as it becomse obvious that we need him more than SD needs to trade him, then it's easier for them to ask for more from us. Piniella doesn't dictate who is on the team. His only role in these offseason talks is to support Hendry's role in negotiations.

Pinilla never pinch hit with Blanco until the roster were expanded b/c they only had 2 catchers on the 25 man roster. That's the thing.... We only did have 2 catchers, but he still pinch hit with Blanco! And I'm not saying that any fan off the street can come in and get respect from the players. But Baker got a ton of respect, and I'm sure any other manager in the majors can come to our team, get respect, and win. And as far as our bench having the best batting average.... what does that have to do with Piniella? They hit good because they are good. Blanco is not almost a .300 hitter, Fontenot is not a .900 OPS guy, Edmonds is no longer a .930+ OPS guy, Johnson is not a nearly .800 OPS guy. Hoffpauir isn't a .930+ OPS guy either. They did well because they were used in the right situations more often than not. Otherwise, they'd be starting for someone else and not sitting on our bench.

Pinilla never pinch hit with Blanco until the roster were expanded b/c they only had 2 catchers on the 25 man roster. That's the thing.... We only did have 2 catchers, but he still pinch hit with Blanco! And I'm not saying that any fan off the street can come in and get respect from the players. But Baker got a ton of respect, and I'm sure any other manager in the majors can come to our team, get respect, and win. And as far as our bench having the best batting average.... what does that have to do with Piniella? They hit good because they are good. You say Lou's obsession with matchups hurt us. I say he did very good. I already pointed out stats of some of our guys and the overall quality of our bench, and our team record as evidence. Can you provide any hard evidence to back up your assertion that Lou's use of matchups hurt the team more than it helped? Where did he rank in comparison to the other 29 managers? You say you could have won 97 games with our team. Let's look at what we actually won 97 games with... 1b - DLee...showed way less power than we projected, one of the worst #3 hitters in baseball. If you want to criticize Lou, get on him for not dropping DLee in the order. 2b - DeRosa was excellent, but it's not like he was one of the best in the league. He was 5th in the league in OPS. Don't get me wrong, that's very good, but it's not like he put up Chase Utley numbers at 2nd either. SS - Theriot got on base well, played below average defense, got caught stealing alot which negated alot of his OBP advantage for the position, showed no power. 3B - Aramis had a good year, but it was his worst since he's been with us offensively. Still one of the best 3b in the leagues though. C- Geovany Soto. No need to say more. LF - Soriano, our most expensive player, provided slightly above average offensive production for the position, missed almost a third of the season, played so-so defense aside from showing a great arm when throwing guys out at the plate. CF - platoon between Reed Johnson, who was released by the Blue Jays at the end of ST, and Jim Edmonds, who was released from the Padres. Basically, a mash of castoffs that no one else wanted. RF - Fukudome, hot start, great defense, only got worse offensively throughout the year. Finished with the 4th worst OPS in MLB among qualified RFers. Lou got considerably less production from the big bats (Aramis, DLee, and Soriano) than we expected. Geo and DeRo stepped up and were really the only consistant bright spots in the offense, Lou worked the CF situation to perfection. We had a good rotation with a several guys who couldn't be counted on to go more than 5-6 on any given start (Z, Harden, Marquis/Marshall) coupled with a bullpen that mostly failed to perform outside of Marmol and Wood. You make it sound like we had a team that rivaled the Yankees of the late 90s and anyone could have won with them, when the truth couldn't be further from what you're making of it. Lou had his flaws, and they were frustrating, but he held the team together very well and got alot out of what he had during the regular season. I doubt very many others could have guided us to 97 victories last year.

The players are competitive professionals. They will do their best, at at least a reasonable imitation, regardless of whether they respect the manager. Unless they're as talented and ignorant at the same time as Manny....

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. You think we won all those games cuz of Lou being a great manager? The only thing he had to do was that whenever we had a lead, just put Marmol in to hold them. We won because we had great players. Lou didn't have much to do with it. I could have managed that team and gotten the same amount of victories. There are certainly legitimate issues to criticize Lou over. His use of the bench isn't one of them. No manager is perfect. None of them ever make the right call 100% of the time. The fact is however, the numbers suggest Lou did a better job then just about every other manager in the game last year at managing the bench. Just because you can think of a couple of occasions where his decisions didn't work out doesn't mean you're right. Numbers are numbers, facts are facts, and you're wrong. What numbers show that Lou managed the bench better than any other manager last year? Just cuz we had guys on the bench like Reed Johnson and Fontenot who were actually better than some of the starters like Fukudome? What numbers show that Lou did anything that any person with common sense wouldn't do? Find me another team whose bench players did better than ours collectively. Hell, we almost got a .300 BA out of Henry freaking Blanco. We got over a .900 OPS out of Fontenot. We had just about the best offensive centerfield in all of baseball by platooning Jim Edmonds and Reed Johnson. It's not a stretch to say all of those guys had good years because Lou did a good job of putting those guys in the right position. Edmonds and Johnson are not better than Carlos Beltran, Fontenot isn't a .900 OPS hitter. Blanco isn't a .292/.325/.395 hitter either. So either all of those guys were flukes and Lou is a horrible manager, or Lou did a pretty good job getting the right guys into the right matchups. Do you really believe all of those guys coincidentally had fluke seasons? Can you name another team who got so much out of their bench? As far as Fukudome, I was frustrated at Lou's insistance at playing him so much when it was obvious he just wasn't getting it, but that has nothing to do with Lou's obsession with matchups and his use of the bench. In fact, Lou's obsession with Fukudome to a flaw was actually undermines your assertion that his obsession with matchups hurts the team, as his use of Fukudome wasn't based on matchups as nearly as much as it should have been on the second half.

Assuming we don't make a deal involving the rotation, how is the 2009 rotation worse than the 2008 rotation that won the NL Central? Zambrano, Harden (part time), Dempster, Lilly, Marquis, + Marshall >>>>>>> Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Marquis, Gallagher/Marshall To be fair, our rotation right now is the same as it was in the second half last year. I expect more of the same from Zambrano and Lilly. I expect Marshall to improve. I don't expect Harden to replicate his ~2.00 ERA, nor do I expect Dempster or Marquis to do as well as they did last year. I don't expect Marshall to do so much better as the 6th starter to make up for any declines in performance from Harden, Demp, and/or Marquis. That's all based on pure guesses as to how everyone will do next year, but still...it's not unreasonable to say that as of right now, our rotation in 2009 isn't projecting to be as good as it was in the second half of last year. In other words, it has not improved, it just costs more. I still think it will be very good though.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. You think we won all those games cuz of Lou being a great manager? The only thing he had to do was that whenever we had a lead, just put Marmol in to hold them. We won because we had great players. Lou didn't have much to do with it. I could have managed that team and gotten the same amount of victories. There are certainly legitimate issues to criticize Lou over. His use of the bench isn't one of them. No manager is perfect. None of them ever make the right call 100% of the time. The fact is however, the numbers suggest Lou did a better job then just about every other manager in the game last year at managing the bench. Just because you can think of a couple of occasions where his decisions didn't work out doesn't mean you're right. Numbers are numbers, facts are facts, and you're wrong.

I hope Wood comes back too, but no matter what you say about Wood (loves Chicago, money isn't everything, etc.) he would have to be crazy to take the Cubs 1-year deal and leave $16 million on the table (in your example). I'm sure he knows his medical history better than any of us and he should take the most guaranteed money he can find in case his medical problems reappear. I don't see why that is being described as having to be crazy. He's already financially set for life. He can do whatever the heck he wants. And he could end up making a heck of a lot more than $24m over 3 years if he takes a 1 year deal and signs longterm after next season. It's a risk, but it's not a horrible risk or a crazy decision. But won't the players also be up in arms about Wood accepting a 1 yr arby deal over a 3 yr much more lucrative deal? I think they have a bigger problem with leaving dollars per year on the table rather than just years. In other words, they might be upset at taking a 2/$20 deal over a 3/$36 deal but wouldn't care if Woody was to take 1/$8 over 2/$16 or 3/$24. Not really. Teams accept more risk when they give longer deals (ask Baltimore how Albert Belle worked out for them). In exchange for accepting that risk, they ask a player to accept a little less per year than they might be able to get if they played it year by year. You give up some potential salary for security from a career ending injury. Again, the union has nothing to do with it.

I hope Wood comes back too, but no matter what you say about Wood (loves Chicago, money isn't everything, etc.) he would have to be crazy to take the Cubs 1-year deal and leave $16 million on the table (in your example). I'm sure he knows his medical history better than any of us and he should take the most guaranteed money he can find in case his medical problems reappear. I don't see why that is being described as having to be crazy. He's already financially set for life. He can do whatever the heck he wants. And he could end up making a heck of a lot more than $24m over 3 years if he takes a 1 year deal and signs longterm after next season. It's a risk, but it's not a horrible risk or a crazy decision. But won't the players asso be up in arms about Wood accepting a 1 yr arby deal over a 3 yr much more lucrative deal? No. And the union has absolutely no influence in the matter. I don't understand why people think the players association will come into play in this. Players give hometown discounts to stay where they want all of the time, it's not uncommon. Hell, how many times did Edmonds and other Cardinals allow their deals to be restructured to help the team bring other guys in? I'd like to see Z or Lee or someone like that step up and do what the Cards had some guys do several years ago for the team.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

I dunno. Once? Twice, maybe? Less than the number we won after he called the right matchup.

Did you follow the team last year? We had the second best record in all of baseball last year, and you're complaining about him costing us games based on matchups? Did you not notice that we were one of the best clubs at winning when not leading after the 6th inning last year? Last I checked, Blanco had a pretty good year with the bat off of the bench. So did just Fontenot. So did Hoffpauir. So did Johnson. So did Edmonds. Hell, even Cedeno didn't do too bad (compared to my expectations). Did all of these guys just happen to peak off of the bench or in part time roles by coincidence? Our bench was extremely productive compared to the rest of the league. That would lead me to believe that Piniella managed the matchups EXTREMELY well last year. You want to complain about Lou costing us games based on lousy managing, but the numbers show the exact opposite of what you're complaining about. It's almost like you didn't know we let Dusty go after 2006, and mistook the Reds for the Cubs this year as a result.

You're putting waaaaay too much into an offseason quote from a manager.

oh yeah they did Yes, I can vouch for this. The Ramirez/Lofton trade was met with a lot of mixed emotions and the overall tone at the time was negative. The Lofton part of the trade excited me at the time. I sure don't remember any mixed emotions. It seems to me that everyone (including the writers) thought that the Cubs were the big winners in the deal. I'm just talking about the reaction here on NSBB. I distinctly recall more than a little negative reaction here. I was surprised because I considered it a pretty good deal at the time. What I remember most was some guy in one of the power rankings saying "the Cubs will find Ramirez and Lofton aren't enough, and will fade out of the race" or something like that. Which was pretty funny when we began our run and won the division. They weren't. We won the division because the mighty Randall Simon put us on his back and carried us into the postseason. :good:

Unfortunately, not one of these guys is any good. I imagine that the Twins are being unreasonable and are asking for effective relief pitching. Marmol for Young + ??? I don't want to trade Marmol, just throwing crap at the wall to spur conversation. However, everyone is tradeable for the right price, including Geo.

Considering the glut of closers on the market this year, and the projected relative dearth of closers on the market next year, it might not be a bad move for Woody to come back here for a year, accumulate another healthy year on his resume (knock on wood...), and hit the FA market next year. My guess is he'd likely draw significantly more demand on the market next offseason than this one, esp if he stays healthy for another year.

Finally some who realizes that the mentioned names haven't been traded for Teahan. Calm down Hendry-lynchers until a deal is made. If that is what it will take to get Teahan, what the heck will it take to get DeJesus? Yuck. (Not that I am advocating getting either) That's not necessarily what it will take to get Teahan. Think of the old business adage...you never accept the first offer. KC's first asking was obviously higher (or at least should have been, negotiation 101) than what their bottom line is. That said, the article is vague as to whether their first request for Teahan was for both or either. I'm guessing that the original request was for both, but they'd settle for Fontenot + B level prospect(s) (ftr, I wouldn't do that...).

It was addressed on the previous page. The deadline is Dec. 1. Actually, that's a slightly different question. The Cubs have until December 1st to offer arbitration. If the Cubs do offer it, Wood has until December 7th to accept it. If Wood accepts arby for less money after all this, I'm going to laugh. I'll jump with joy, because that guarantees he's coming back for at least another year.

Let's not jump on Hendry yet...it sounds like he's asked KC about Teahan, and Marshall and/or Fontenot was their original response. That doesn't mean that Hendry has offered either, nor does it mean that either of those guys are what KC will settle for if Hendry does come back with a counter-offer. Or, maybe KCs initial request will let Hendry know there isn't a match to be made here. Hopefully Hendry is smart enough to not move either Fontenot or especially Marshall for him.

Maybe if they throw in Greinke...

Last minute pick... Pick one...Portis, Antonio Pittman, or BGJE? I was planning on Portis being good to go this week, no good options on the board right now...

You all know who you are. i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?" That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

I don't know...it'll help guys like Bernie, Mariano, and Jeter who were on those championship teams for sure, but Mussina is kind of (one of) the posterboy(s) for the Yankee's postseason failures since their championship run ended, as he was the big acquisition that offseason following the last championship, and they haven't won it all since he's been there.

Don't forget the fact that he never got that elusive ring... He was the oldest first-time 20-game winner this last year in the history of the sport. Does anyone know who the last pitcher was to retire after winning 20 games? Any other pitcher ever win 20 games, then never pitch another inning?

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis. He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years. ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats. That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons. Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career. To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky. First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.