hawkeyecub

Let's hope he's wrong again.

Name? I can't find anyone with that line.

This whole Soriano thing doesn't make sense to me. If they view the need to get rid of walker due to his defense how do they think Soriano is going to improve it? I know it's been gone over time and time again but hearing that Soriano has come up again just scares me that it might come true!! Would Bradley be acceptable as a RF? The Cubs rarely make sense. I'm sure it has more to do with speed and tools than defense. Pierre isn't a good defender, but they apparantly had him #2 on their wish list. Either Hendry's "catch the ball" comment was a lie or he thinks speed is the most important factor when catching a ball. I agree it is baffling, but it would upgrade the offense. Having Soriano at 2nd would offset someone like Bradley in RF. He could be a decent fit in the lineup if he was hitting 5th-6th and we acquired Milton.

double post.

I just heard Levine on ESPN 1000 saying that the Cubs are still talking to the Rangers about Soriano and Mench. He says Hendry would like to take care of the outfield situation before leaving the winter meetings if possible. Still talking to the Dodgers about Bradley, probably for Walker. The Cub fan on there (either Carmen or Silvy) was defending Walker asking him why he couldn't fit there and what was wrong with him hitting 2nd. Levine kept saying he was terrible defensively, can't run and doesn't have power because he's never hit 20 HR in a season. Levine thinks he has no place on this team for some reason.

I just heard Levine on ESPN 1000 saying that the Cubs are still talking to the Rangers about Soriano and Mench. He says Hendry would like to take care of the outfield situation before leaving the winter meetings if possible. Still talking to the Dodgers about Bradley, probably for Walker.

I agree goony, but I'm not sure how much they'll have to overpay for Abreu or Dunn. If it truly costs Prior/Zambrano to get Abreu, I'll pass. But I would pursue every angle possible with him, because he would be a true difference maker and would immediately upgrade this offense. As far as Dunn, I have no idea right now. But with Casey's trade, it will probably take much more to land Dunn.

That question is tottally irrelavent unless the Cubs just traded for Podsednik. Pierre is likely better than Patterson, but only fractionally better. Suppose he gets hit in the leg with a FB. He probably will not be on the DL so he may play every day. Untill his leg fully heals he has almost no value. What? That's an absurd argument. FWIW, Pierre has played 162 games in each of the last 3 seasons and in the previous two he played 156 and 152, so he's missed a total of 16 games over 5 years.

Shawn Green

I'd go with E. Why did you leave Huff off the list? I think he's a pretty realistic target.

Huh? He posted a .922 OPS in 101 games in '03. In a full '04 season he put up a .267/.362/.424 line while playing in an extreme pitchers park. Last year he hit .290/.350/.484 in half a season, while again playing in a pitcher's park. The durability is certainly a concern, but those numbers are fantastic for a centerfielder.

Agreed, but I'm not sure that those two would land Wilkerson, would they? It should definitely be enough to land Bradley with the low price he seems to have, but I'm not so sure about Wilkerson. I guess I just have no clue what he would cost. Also I'm afraid that we may be acquiring Bradley or Wilkerson to play RF, to compliment Pierre. But if Hendry realizes he can't land Pierre, then I think he would land one of the two for CF.

If Pierre returns to a .360 OBP next year and steals at a 75 percent success rate -- is that acceptable? I'm not saying he will ... just wondering what you'd think about those numbers. say he does put up those #'s. it won't matter anyway because w/o good prospects to trade w/, the cubs are going to have jones, burnitz, wilson in rf, and the team will struggle to win 85 games. then pierre bolts for 7 year deal from the yankees and the cubs have nothing to show for trading 2-3 very good prospects. so no, that wouldn't be acceptable. Wait a second, if we give up Nolasco and Pinto, we won't have "good prospects" to trade for Bradley, Wilkerson (not necessarily that I want those two in RF, but it's very possible) Kearns or another RF? I guess I didn't realize Nolasco and Pinto were our only trading chips.

Well it's good to see that we definitely are serious about Milton. If the A's truly have dropped out, I think our chances look pretty good. I just hope we're acquiring him to play CF.

If Pierre returns to a .360 OBP next year and steals at a 75 percent success rate -- is that acceptable? I'm not saying he will ... just wondering what you'd think about those numbers. No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre. But the thing is, we don't know that. What we do know (or at least what has been widely reported) is that Hendry has had discussions with teams for Bradley, Wilkerson and Lugo.

Agreed. I would probably be willing to part with both of them for him, knowing how much the Cubs want a "traditional" leadoff man and to fill our CF hole for 1 year.

The closest would be Pie for Lugo. I'd definitely pass on that and Jim would too.

Calm down, it's December 6th. To ask what he's up to is absurd. It's been widely reported that the Cubs are as active as anyone at the winter meetings. I don't want Furcal for $13M, don't want Soriano and none of the pieces the Mets added.

I think you mean he's their new manager, not GM.

Well, I think it's not that hard to differentiate between the catch-all "they all sucked" and what I consider to be the more rational "these specific people failed at their jobs and need to be replaced, although the core of the team is just fine". Mike Downey can go off in the paper and suggest it's beyond reasonable for any stupid fan or media member to complain about Kyle Orton's production at QB and call for a change, or a more reasonable person can actually look at the situation, weigh the different sides objectively and come to a reasonable conclusion that doesn't depend solely on impassioned rhetoric or half-assed use of stats. Right. And once again I complain about things the same way you outlined in your post. Coaches, front office people and players aren't immune from cricism. But there are a number of people who view things as black and white as "this player sucks, this coach has no idea what he's doing, this GM is incompetent" and believe it to be true. They're the ones I'm talking about.

Did they actually report it or was it the same speculation they've had all day? They really don't have a clue. They've repeatedly said it was his choice to go to Oakland so that was the most likely destination. This ignores that he has no choice in the matter.

What exactly is the problem you speak of? That some people in the younger generation don't automatically bow down to the wisdom of a guy who got the job of GM? That's a problem? Thinking you could learn to do a job that requires no specific degree after a reasonable amount of proper training is somehow a problem? Flying airplanes is much more complicated than being a GM, but it doesn't take a mensa member to learn to fly airplanes. Any non-idiot who can stay focused and calm under stress can learn to fly an airplane. Come on, you should know I wasn't saying to bow down to all GM's. I agreed with your last post. I don't agree with people who think they could come in off the street and be a successful GM or coach. I'm not saying you have to be a lifer, but it takes a good amount of experience and training. The "problem" I was speaking of may not necessarily be a problem, but it is at least an annoyance in my opinion. No one is good and there aren't many sports figures who are even liked anymore. On forums like this when talking about a team that had a winning record, 2/3 of the team "sucked." The GM and managers both "suck" and are "idiots who are clueless, worthless incompetent, fill in your choice of adj." It's universal. I wonder how some can even be happy when their teams win, after claiming that they hate half the team because they're worthless. I'm not trying to be an old guy who thinks young people don't know anything and things were better in my day. Like I said I'm still in my thirties. It's just clear that the sports landscape has changed significantly over the last 10+ years.

I think any reasonably intelligent person with a firm grasp of logic, reasoning, economics and the game of baseball could be turned into at least an average GM given 5 good years working in a front office. Nobody is going to come off the street with no background and be great, just like you couldn't find somebody with no experience in the field to successfully manage a restaurant right off the street. But managing a restaurant isn't surgery, neither is running a baseball team. Your biggest obstacle would probably be all the jealous lifers who think they are somehow entitled to the position because they put in the time with the good ole boys and no the ins and outs of the conventional wisdom of baseball. Being field manager would be much different, of course, and I wouldn't even think about trying it. But if I didn't need my current paycheck, I'd be very confident that after taking a job with a well run front office for the next half decade, working 15 hours a day, being exposed to all aspects of the organization, I could take on a GM role somewhere with an above average team and as good a job as many GMs who have been in the game in recent years. Unfortunately, baseball prides itself on its ability to pay new guys crap, and I'm not in a position to accept that. Now that I can live with. At least you broke it down and admitted some of the difficulties that would exist and what you would have to do to be successful. Your second paragraph is similar to what Theo did. Listen, I'm not saying that the only people capable of being competent GM's are the people working in those positions currently. But being a GM simply isn't deciding what free agents you want, who you want to trade for and doing it like some tend to think. It's like the people who think they could be a better manager than Dusty because they think they could fill out a lineup card better. While that may be true in some cases, it's not quite that simple.

Yes, I'm sure that people are coming to these conclusions entirely based off of video games and fantasy sports. If you don't acknowledge that part of that is the problem, then you aren't paying attention. Some of you are just not old enough to remember what sports were like before video games and fantasy sports. That's not a knock, it's just the way it is. I'm only in my thirties, but things just weren't scrutinized 15-20 years ago to the level they are today. Of course there was second-guessing, but the internet, video games, fantasy sports, talk sports radio and constant access through television have made everyone an expert. Every coach or GM is an idiot today and every high school/college kid, or joe schmoe could do much better. It doesn't matter if they never played the game or have never had to deal with any of these people.

Wow, at least this is good for a laugh. Ah the wonders of the video game, sports-talk radio, message board generations. "Hey I won it all on Madden, I could be a better NFL head coach than _____." "I put together a team on MVP that won the World Series, clearly I would be a better GM than Hendry." Brilliant!