Jump to content
North Side Baseball

frostwyrm

Verified Member
  • Posts

    4,480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by frostwyrm

  1. Pass. If Zito actually gets 7/105 I shudder to think what Carlos Zambrano will get.
  2. The difference is that ARod costs more than the money-he also costs the players that it would take, and then the extra money that it would take to replace those players. Even if we got a good deal (Hill+Erye+ good prospect), we'd still have to replace Hill with one of the pitchers on the FA market, say Padilla for 9 per. Would you want ARod+Padilla for 25 mil or Soriano+Hill for 18 mil, not to mention that Erye and the good prospect are gone also? That's also one of the best case scenarios-if Arod costs more then that, then it becomes harder and harder to replace the talent we'd have to give up. If it were up to me I'd just give the Yanks Z and forget about 2007. That's vastly preferrable to the Soriano proposals I'm seeing, and IMO a 2007 run is unlikely anyway.
  3. Rather than give an inferior player an ARod type deal, why not just go after ARod?
  4. Soriano will get at least a $15M average annual salary over 6-7 years. If you front load a contract that big you end up paying $20M annually for 3 years. That's okay for the Yankees but not for anyone else.
  5. I hate this pattern of players have a career year right before hitting free agency, then getting an absurdly huge contract based on that one season. I did want Soriano but now I'd much rather go after ARod.
  6. I have to agree that Aramis is likely to have phsyical issues as he ages. I just don't like his body type at all. He was supposed to have worked out hard in the offseason, but a visual inspection of his physique doesn't reveal any difference to me. His body still has the same general softness in appearance. Obviously he must have done something right because he was able to stay healthy this year, but I would have felt a lot better about him if looked more buff or moved better. In motion he still looks heavy-footed, stiff, and generally unathletic. I think he'll probably be a fine 3B for 2-3 more years but I don't expect him to age well.
  7. I doubt Izzy has significant trade value. We'd probably have to eat cash to move him, and Jim can't afford that type of embarrassment. Izzy will start at SS next opening day, and after landing on the DL a few times Jim will spindoctor Izzy as another hard-luck injury story.
  8. I really hope Lou doesn't make Izturis the everyday #2, as Dusty was planning to do. I actually like Murton quite a bit at #2. If we get Soriano I suppose we could have Murton lead off and put Soriano at #2. Not sure if Lou would play it that way.
  9. I suppose rebuilding for 2008 is a moot point because we all know Hendry won't do it, but I would. I just don't think Hendry and our rookie callups did enough in 2006 to create a likely contender in 2007. I would certainly be shopping Z right now. We could get huge value for him, and he's a FA after 2007 anyway. I'd love to trade for some top-tier young guys who could help in 2008.
  10. Alright, I'm a bit drunk too, but I don't see any proof that the Cubs are out of the bidding for Aramis. He just wants to get full market value for his services and going to free agency is the best way to ensure that outcome. Hendry has the money and motive to match and if necessary beat full market value. It could still happen.
  11. I blame MacPhail for this stupid out in his contract unless hendry has been trying to lowball him. Ramirez is going to go where the money is. A lot of people are awfully critical of MacPhail giving A-Ram that out...without knowing all the relevant information. The funny thing is, none of us know if he even would have been a cub the past couple of years without that clause in his contract, do we? Actually we do know. Katz came in at the end of the negotiations and negotiated some "sweetners" into the contract...this being one of them. Terming the opt out clause as a "sweetner" implies that it was an add on to a basically already negotiated contract, not a must have that was in the way of finalizing the contract. The ability to void the last 2 years of the deal is one whale of a sweetener. I hope Hendry learned his lesson.
  12. The danger is that Hendry might have to pay above market value due to the crappy seasons the Cubs have had recently.
  13. Perhaps, but maybe not. On an ERA+ basis, the results are mixed. Schmidt was better last year, 126-116, but Zito was better the year before, 116-94. Zito also has the career number, 127-110. I don't think there's anything close to a guarantee that Schmidt will be better in 2007, and anything beyond that might go even further into Zito's favor. With Zito you pay for his track record of durability. 6 straight years with at least 213 IP is pretty awesome. It's one of the biggest reasons I believe he should be a primary target for the Cubs.
  14. Hendry has the money and motive to beat anyone's offer by a substantial margin, and I'm sure he'll do it if push comes to shove. The Angels or Dodgers GMs can't possibly be as desperate as Hendry. For Hendry it's almost a choice of re-signing Aramis or looking for a new job.
  15. I think Hendry will overpay if necessary. For the sake of his job security he can't afford to lose Aramis. This is primarily going to come down to Aramis's willingness to rejoin a last place team when there are offers from contenders.
  16. Did Zito really say he won't play for the Cubs? What is the source?
  17. What do you do with him after 2007? He'll be a free agent. Do you sign him to a deal comparable to Veritek's? Do you let him walk? There's an obvious way to handle it. Trade Barret and Z, who will be enormously expensive free agents after 2007. Their trade value is very high. Use it to get parts that will help in 2008. Forget about 2007. Not saying Hendry will do this, but I would.
  18. Yeah Dusty, that 2003 team was a real drag for you to have to manage that first year. Yep, Dusty is a God when it comes to making a team better. What an ego. Dusty still doesn't know that the 2001 team won the same 88 games as the 2003 team, but with half the talent.
  19. If it were my call I'd keep Murton and Pie simply because they make 2008 look a lot more promising. Selling the farm for a run in 2007 is a bad idea IMO. I think we're most likely a year away from contending.
  20. Not trading Pierre is making even more sense now.
  21. Laugh out loud funny. I still wonder how in the hell Dusty ever got this "leader" reputation. He's the exact opposite of a "take-charge" manager - essentially he's a non-leader. I still remember a spring 2004 column by Phil Rogers in which he said Dusty's leadership gave the Cubs a 5 game lead before the season even began. That's embarrassing.
  22. There was no incentive to listen to an offer last winter/spring? I doubt that. There is always incentive for a player to talk about an extension. More guaranteed years and more money is incentive enough. If Ramirez suffered the same injury Lee had, or had a down year, he wouldn't be in line to get the monster contract he'll get this offseason. That's why guys will always listen to offers. True. For example, Nomar turned down a 4/60 extension offer from the Red Sox and has been on one year deals ever since. He gambled and lost, although I'm sure he won't end up on welfare anytime soon.
  23. The following is totally warranted: :roll: This whole thing wreaks of smear job. It's like they unleashed a horde of critical articles to gauge public opinion. I'm not sure it's a smear job in the sense of the Cubs are testing the waters. Writers write like this all the time. Rozner has his favorites (who not so coincidentally take his phone calls), like Maddux, and he takes cheap shots at lots of others. It's pretty easy to get away with writing what he wrote about Ramirez. All he has to do is wave at one ball, and people will assume he does it all the time. He hedges his bets, however, by saying the Cubs "have to overpay" Ramirez, as if he's begrudginly accepting that there is no better option. I think he's suggesting that the best option was to go into rebuilding mode in July and look to 2008. A case could be made for that. I do agree the sniping at Aramis is way overdone, but he brings some of it on himself. He doesn't loaf nearly as often as his critcs imply, but he shouldn't loaf at all. People just hate a display of laziness from an athlete, even if he doesn't do it very often.
×
×
  • Create New...