mhuber92211

Joe Jurevious & Travis Taylor have been pretty good #3 recievers in deep leagues.

wow, I suck. No wonder no one pays attention to me :D

Seriously speaking, what do you all place the odds of getting Giles being? Personally I am guessing less then 5%. With those odds, I was looking elsewhere for talent and realistic opportunities. Klesko is a possibility, especially if SD pays Giles. He would provide the OBP people are looking for. I honestly think that Huff is not as bad as what we saw this season. IIRC many here wanted him last offseason especailly after Sosa was dealt. If Giles is unattainable what other options are there? If Huff is not an option and people are saying no to Ibanez, who else?

Eac of these pitchers on this list will be overpaid by an abundance and be not worth it ala Pavano & Wright. If anyone I think that Byrd has the most upside as far as cost to production. He was a solid starter for the Angels this season and most likely, will remain with the team.

Bryan Price is now available from the Mariners. He wasn't a bad option recently.

Signing Giles to an "anything" contract is not my plan A. I think that Plan A should be Giles at a resonable contract. A 3 year deal would be acceptable but not 4. 3 Years and under 10 a year would be acceptable but over that is overpaying. I firmly believe that there are better options then having to overpay to get Giles. Yes he would be a valuable member of the team, but his value decreases when you have to overpay to get him. I will go on record and say that I would prefer an OF of Huff/Patterson/Ibanez with Murton as the 4th OF before I would go with Murton/Patterson/Giles if Giles would cost a 4/42 deal. In regards to the idea that Giles would be a better way to acquire a player because we wouldn't have to give up minor leaguers to get him, this is a good point. However, I like the idea of using some of our talent to acquire a player. We need to take advantage of the players we have and utilize them appropiately since they will likely never see our ML team.

I think that there is a need to be relaistic here and have a coupl eof Plan B's. This was my thought around Ibanez earlier. I honestly do not expect Giles to come to the midwest. I don't expect him to leave SD but if he does, I expect him to head up to the O.C. and fill LF for Anaheim while Anderson goes to the DH role that needs to be filled. I think that Giles is an excellent option and one that would pulg a hole I am hesitant to place such a huge expectation upon his production. I think that if we spread it around more it would make better sense and give us more flexibility in the future as well. With exploring trade options, you always have to have plan B's and C's. How about exploring a trade with SD in acquiring Klesko? He makes a ton of cash but that can be offset depending on the framework. I am sure that Maddux would accept a trade to SD and then the salary would wash. Besides that pipe dream, Ibanez is a viable plan B as is Kearns, Huff, Monroe, Jenkins, Burrell, Pierre. Trades will be available this offseaon. I like that route to the FA route.

and here 2nd. I actually think that they can beat the cardinals in a short series. Peavy is a stud and so is Eaton when he is on. I expect Woody Williams to push hard against his old team.

As for RF I would like to acquire Ibanez from the Mariners. Less expensive then Giles and would allow for the Cubs to spend FA money in '06 offseason when there are better FA available. Also Luis Gonzalez might be available for cheap.

Have you seen Huff's numbers this year? They're pretty terrible for a corner OF. Agreed, thats why he would be cheaper this offseason after his better year in '04 we we all wanted him to replace Sosa.

Putting Huff and Manny in the same group is not a good comparison. Huff is much cheaper then Manny and would provide better offensive numbers then Murton. But I think that the question you raise warrants discussion and that is would Huff's projected offense be worth the expense he would incur (likely close to 6 million). Personally I believe that we can afford Huff's contract and still acquire another impact OF bat and not be tied up for future raises for Prior and Z. I think that part of the bonus with Huff is that he can fill in for AR & Lee without a huge drop off in offensive production (assuming Murton would play LF during these rest times) and thus protecting AR from injury and Lee from becoming too tired to continue being at his most effective. To me Huff is a more logical acquisition then just giving Murton the job. It gives the team more offensive options and wouldn't come at a great cost or block any development. Huff is going into his last year of Arb eligibilty so potentially if it doesn't work out the Cubs could just let him walk and allow Pie and others to take over (or start again). The other cost question would be how much in terms of talent would Huff cost? Likely less then last offseason when (allegedlly) the Cubs attempted to deal. Would you trade Hill and a rule 5 eligible pitcher for him? Would that get it done? I think that it would be a fair trade (maybe you would have to include another throw in like Lewis). I think that its worth it.

I was listening to LA radio on my way to work today and they were talking Jim Tracy and his apparent "lame duck" status. They have no doubt that he is gone this season. What was interesting is that they mentioned Chicago as a possible opening for managers. In total they counted LA, TB, Pittsburgh, Fla, KC & Baltimore as possible open jobs. Interesting to be included in that by national media. I am all for a Tracy/Dusty swap.

I disagree with the concept that a "proven" closer exists outside of Rivera. There are many of these "elite" pitchers that all of some question marks to them. I think that a closer is more made then purchased. I can't think of one successful closer that has been acquired on the FA market that has been worth their contract. Look at our history as a prime example. Our most successful closers are the ones that we didn't sign in that role. I think that developing a closer is much more important and I believe that Dempster has been an example of that development. Will he be successful for 3 years in that role? I hope so. If not, then it is important to continue to develop a closer as a setup guy, ala Dotel & Lidge in Houston while Wagner was there and Rivera while Wetteland was there. Successful closer stories come from being thrown into the fire or being taught specificall for that role. I believe that Dempster has an opportunity to become a "Percvial/Benitez" type of closer. He will have his ups and downs but overall be effective. P.S. I wouldn't count on having Novoa in the pen but I would count on Rusch being there.

:lol:

Huff would be a last ditch effort for me, if the Cubs couldn't land anyone else. I'd have Giles on my list first, followed by several potential trade targets, including Wilkerson and Floyd. If the Cubs get Huff, SS and CF better be manned by more productive bats than they were this year (Nomar healthy would be more productive). But Huff isn't a RF correct? I was thinking that Huff would be the LF option and that Giles would be in RF. With Corey in CF and Murton as the 4th OF.

i don't see it?!? edit: nevermind :oops:

It'd be used too often :P

I would still like to explore an Aubrey Huff deal. With his "off" year this year and Baldelli returning next season Huff is expendable and most likely cheaper then this same time last season. I would trade Hill for Huff. Murton can be a nice 4th OF. Besides if AR gets injured again Huff can easily slide in and cover 3B and we wouldn't have a huge drop off.

me too

Not to take this out of context, but I was hoping that this part of your comment could be explained. Is it that gambling is no longer considered a "sin" type of activity like smoking or just that the lack of enforcement of gaming contols makes gambling too easy?

Really? His career winning % begs to differ. Regardless of the excuses here and other things to look at like the infurating moves, most people look at the bottom line. The bottom line is that the CUbs have won and have posted a better record under Dusty then under someone else. It doesn't matter about payroll, or talent or time all that matters is the bottom line. Now can the bottom line improve? Of Course. Can it improve under Dusty? Most likely not, and I understand that this is the point to want to replace Baker. But does it really call for the derogatory nicknames? I am all for a change but I won't ignore the postives that Baker has brought to the team.

So lets fire Dusty and replace him with Jim Tracy who has a terrible record in LA but (IMO) a better manager. Its hard to ask what the average fan would say because we are die hards, but in reality, Baker has proven to be a winner.

So how do you justify firing a Cubs manager to the average Cub Fan that sees 2 and possible 3 straight winning seasons? Here's a question, who was the last Cub manager with a better 3 year record then Dusty's? P.S. can we edit the title of this thread? It's a bit rude.

what about switching Hairston's with AZ? (oops, i guess this should be a bench comment)

The question on Furcal money is who will be bidding against us? Who needs a SS and of those teams, who can afford his asking price? It sounds like a situation where the Cubs can control a "buyers" market. With Nomar now having played more 3B this season then SS I think that it would be harder to resign him to an incentive laden deal then it would be getting Furcal to agree to Cabrera money (3yrs 18 mil). Nomar will likely have 3B suitors in LA, SD, ANA (Possibly depending on McPherson's hip) and several other locations. It wouldn't surprise me to see him get a 2 yr deal similar to Steve Finley's. Therefore, the question that needs to be decided is if Cedeno or Furcal are the answers to SS. If Furcal signs a 3 yr deal, what do we do with Cedeno? Is it fair to think that Cedeno will be able to continue hitting like he has this season? He bounced around so much, he was never able to "settle in" on a team. His trade value won't be too high as many teams don't need a SS. If he is regulated to back up duty again, will this help him mature? We have already heard him say that he needs regular play to keep it going. My vote is for Furcal and have Cedeno take over as the regular Iowa 2B. Have him get 400 AB there in a full season so he can fill Walker's shoes in 2007. I would rather have Fonetnot as the backup INF then Cedeno as that is what his ceiling is anyhow. Cedeno has the talent to be an everyday player, we should keep the concept of that there so he con contuie to acheive that ceiling.