Jehrico

I'm not big on multiyear contracts for relievers either, but 2 yrs would have been doable for Affeldt. A little bit of a gamble, but not a bad one.

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.

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.

Yeah, but he could have told me in '97 that the Cubs weren't going to win the World Series that year, and I wouldn't have believed him then either.

I bet MacPhail would overpay for Pie, he seems to have held other former Cubs prospects too highly in the last couple of years.

How can you make the assumption that he'll probably be bad? He's still a good deal better than average. Cause he's 45 and injury prone? I seriously can't believe anyone is considering this a good idea. Injury prone doesn't make him less effective, it just makes him effective less often. I'm not saying I want to pay a few million dollars to get the same production Sean Marshall can give us... I just don't think it's correct to predict that he'll be bad. If he's injury prone, then you have to factor in the production that the replacement would get. IF we still have Marshall, then that's not much of a dropoff, if any at all...assuming Johnson wouldn't go down at the same time as Z or Harden inevitably will. Then you have to look at the next starter in line. The fact that we have a couple of other injuryprone starters in the rotation makes Johnson a riskier and less valuable sign for us.

Yeah, I know it's Sullivan, so take it for what it's worth. The saga continues... Paul Sullivan is a sensationalist hack...And a hobbit. Here ye, here ye. Rogers too, and De Lucca while were at it. Haven't really formed an opinion on Wittenmeyer though. Better than Sullivan, worse than DeLuca, IMO.

That doesn't make any sense. Wood may prefer to stay in Chicago on a one year deal over going to another team at 3-4 years, but he'd prefer to stay in Chicago with a 3 year deal over a one year deal. Common sense should tell you that early in the negotiating process (which is where we'd still be if the talks hadn't been ended by Hendry, the offseason is still young) Wood's camp would still be pushing for a multi-year deal. Of course they wouldn't let Hendry know that he'd be open to a one year deal until it came down to the 11th hour. I'm doubtful Wood and Hendry actually would have found common ground on a one year deal in the end (Wood probably would want some extra concessions or performance-based incentives or options for taking the one year deal), but Wood would have entertained the discussion had Hendry not jumped the gun and shut the door on the discussions.

The union doesn't have a say in it, so long as they're not taking a paycut below what the CBA provides for. The union only gets involved when teams and players are possibly going to violate the CBA, or when there is collusion driving down salaries in the marketplace. If a guy wants to accept a below-market deal that's still in accordance with the CBA in order to stay at home, the union has absolutely no say or influence in the matter.

Why? He had an ERA+ of 117 in 180 IP last year. If he's the only move, and we lose Dempster, then perhaps it's a step backwards. But he's definitely worth the one year 8-10 million dollars he's going to demand and I feel like he would be added in addition to another SP. He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

I'm Kurt Russell but the one in Escape from New York not the one In Tango & Cash. I had you pegged as the one from overboard. ;)

No, but it's been reported that Milwaukee will entertain offers for him.

I'm amazed that there hasn't been one mention of a Dunn rumor yet, at least not that I've seen. Am I just missing them, or has anyone else seen any?

Everybody hates NSBB. We're pretty full of ourselves. No its not that. We are just the biggest and most popular Cubs message board on the internet. Like all popular things, its cool to hate us. Yeah it is. There's about a half dozen posters on this board who are too full of themselves and give the forum a bad name.

Hey, I got an idea: If you are going to post rumors on the Internet, GROW THICKER SKIN. Oh boo hoo some mean people criticized you. :cry: i get worse at other forums daily. i just found it curious that a forum where i didn't post the rumor was talking sh!t about me. having said that, go ahead, say what you like. I have been called way worse at much better forums. You should know better than to say stuff like this forum is talking howry about you. It was a couple of narcissistic posters that was, and every forum has their share of narcissistic posters. You should have expected a response similar to what you got for your first post no matter where you were. Your whining about it in your first post on this thread was kind of like jumping into a pool of piranha with a bloody nose. You brought it on yourself.

But we loyal fans do.So do the other players who have been earning their checks.

Agreed on Fogg, I just used him to show where I am on signing the Unit. He was good in the second half last year, but he missed over half of 07, and wasn't good in '06. He'll turn 45 next year. No thanks.

How do you know the source isn't Andy Dolan? Because it's not. I think you need to check your humor detector.

How do you know the source isn't Andy Dolan?

I'd almost rather take a flier and see what Rothschild could do with Fogg before giving Johnson more than $5 mil (which will probably not be anywhere close to enough to get him).

Marshall for Kearns straight up with be a horrible, horrible deal on our end. Wuertz (if we had more in house options for the BP this year) would be doable, but not Marshall.

If it's true that he doesn't want to go to Atlanta now, why would he want to go there in a couple of weeks? I don't think this is playing out how Towers envisioned it would and now he's left in a bit of a tough spot. He can't just hand Peavy over to the Cubs so he's trying to create a competitive market. It may or may not work, but these GM's are getting goofy with their expectations for single players no matter how good they might be. As for the Yankee interest, it may be legit, or they may be creating a sense of urgency with Sabathia, Lowe and Burnett that their money train won't be in the station for ever. Bullseye. If I were a betting man, and I had to bet on this one, right now I'd say Peavy stays with the Padres, assuming he holds fast on his declaration that he doesn't want to play in the AL.

I'm not so sure the extreme opinions on either side are justified. You know that during the initial conversations Wood's camp didn't come right out and say "we want a 3-4 year deal, but we're open to a one year deal if that's the only way we can stay here." If it's true Wood would have accepted a one year deal, he surely wasn't going to voice it early in the negotiations, as he surely preferred longer. Hendry, as well as most posters here, probably assumed that Wood was going to demand at least a 3 year, nothing less, and decided to pay Wood the respect he deserved and not string this on once he figured there wasn't a middleground that can be reached. Once Hendry made the announcement he wasn't going to waste Wood's time, and allow him to pursue the deal he deserves elsewhere, that's when Wood came out and let his minimum requirements be known. Where Hendry screwed up was closing the door. Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, he should have said "Here's what we can offer Kerry. I know you're worth more, but this is what we can afford to offer based on other factors of the team right now. We wish you the best in finding the best deal that you deserve, but if the FA market doesn't work out the way you anticipated, this token one year offer will be on the table until (all offseason, end of December, whatever) if you want to take it." Or anything. He shouldn't have closed the door the way he did.

Filing for free agency doesn't mean he wasn't willing to come back here. He's allowed to at least keep his options open as a fallback just in case. Filing for free agency doesn't mean he HAD to negotiate with anyone but the Cubs. It was just that the option was there for him in case the Cubs didn't want him. My point is that if Kerry really means that he'd have done anything to stay here, he shouldn't have filed. After sitting on his comments all day long, something about them just doesn't feel right to me. We'll see. I'd say there's about a 99.9% chance the Cubs offer arby. If Wood really means it, he'll accept. Tim, I think you should go back to your earlier post about Hendry's announcement and bargaining positions. Hendry's only real way he could have gained leverage was showing a willingness to walk away. Players jockey for the same leverage by filing for free agency, which is essentially the same thing...showing a willingness to walk away. I think it's a done deal and Wood is gone, but Wood's filing for free agency shouldn't be regarded as much more than that. If he really is willing to come back for a one year deal, then we certainly should offer arbitration, which would basically guarantee he get at least what he got last year if he were to accept. Then he can prove he's willing to come back on a one year deal.

:evil: ](*,) :x :flame: :sick: