Warren Brusstar

If the deal is: Lee and Williams for Gomes, Crawford, Kazmir, and Cantu. Where do I sign?

If the Cubs signed Rondell White, would an outfield of Murton/White/Pierre be the greatest collection of terrible outfield arms in the history of baseball?

Ramirez is (1) a better hitter; (2) significantly younger; and (3) makes less money. Would Tejada be a great addition? Of course, he's the best SS in baseball (now that ARod is a 3B). But he's also a bit overrated (he's never once had a .900 OPS) and will be 30 in May. Trading Ramirez for him would be ludacrisp.

I would put Miggy ahead of Aramis. He's not a better a hitter, so I'm not sure what justification you have for doing so.

I was firmly in the "Sign Bradley" camp before we acquired a CF (albeit a CF that is inferior to Bradley). Bradley would have been a significant asset as a CF. But (1) I think it's naive to say that his purported attitude problems are not a risk; (2) Bradley isn't be anything more than a league average RF, at best; and (3) in light of 1 and 2, he's not really worth the risk.

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you? I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it. I hope you're kidding. There's more to being a GM than the trades and free agent pickups. That is like saying, "I could run Ford Motor Co. better than Bill Ford because I know alot about how car's work." That's so ignorant, it's ridiculous. And if you're that sure you could do it better, you'd better start sending you're resume out to some minor league teams. That's where you have to start. Then qualified applicants with real experience in professional sports get a sniff. I have no interest in working for peanuts for a decade so that I *might* someday have the opportunity to run a big league club. And I'm quite content in my current job, than you. In any case, whether I actually seek to become Cub GM is irrelevant to whether I could do a better job that Hendry. It isn't rocket science. You really must think it's like it is in the video games. As for the bold part - I don't even know what that means. If that's an attack on my job - then you really are ignorant. My job's pretty nice - not that you'd even know. I'd have a hard time believing you've reached college yet - other than you're reference to an obscure baseball name from the 70's/80's in your moniker. 1. I don't see any way to reasonably construe my comments as an "attack on your job." I know nothing about you. Of course, that hasn't stopped you from making assumptions about me, someone you know nothing about. 2. It means exactly what it said. As I stated in my original post, I have no desire to work for peanuts for the very remote chance of someday running a big league club. That is especially true in light of my current job, which I have no desire to leave.

keep the laughs coming, this is good stuff. :lol: :lol: I'm still waiting for any substantive reason why Jim Hendry is somehow eminently more qualified that me to be the Cub GM. First, you know nothing about me, so you can't even subjectively compare our qualifications for the job. Moreover, you haven't even identified any job responsibilities that only a "long time baseball guy" can fulfill.

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you? I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it. I hope you're kidding. There's more to being a GM than the trades and free agent pickups. That is like saying, "I could run Ford Motor Co. better than Bill Ford because I know alot about how car's work." That's so ignorant, it's ridiculous. And if you're that sure you could do it better, you'd better start sending you're resume out to some minor league teams. That's where you have to start. Then qualified applicants with real experience in professional sports get a sniff. I have no interest in working for peanuts for a decade so that I *might* someday have the opportunity to run a big league club. And I'm quite content in my current job, than you. In any case, whether I actually seek to become Cub GM is irrelevant to whether I could do a better job that Hendry. It isn't rocket science.

Stay away from cubs.com It will only get you into trouble As opposed to all of the accurate rumors you see posted at NSBB? :roll:

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you? I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

Can I hug you? That is a tremendously concise and accurate assessment of the "state of the Cubs" under Hendry.

It's frustrating me to no ends that Cubs can't recognize that the most cost-effective lead off hitter on the market is already on their roster: Todd Walker.

After the Eyre signing I don't see how it makes sense to add another reliever. (Unless we unload a few in a deal for some outfield help.) By my count our bullpen is overstocked as it is: Dempster Eyre Williamson Rusch/Williams (whichever doesn't start) Novoa Wuertz Ohman Mitre Wellemeyer Koronka JVB Some of those young guys will be in AAA, I'm sure, but some won't. I'm pretty sure Mitre and Welly are out of options, so if they don't make the big club in 2006 they're probably as good as gone. As it stands I can't see the Cubs going with anything less than seven relievers which again gives us a 12 man staff and an undermanned bench. Even then Hendry would still need to trade a chip or two or risk losing a couple of those arms for nothing. I guess the question I'd be asking (if Hendry is indeed intent on trading Walker for more relief help) is whether or not he'd be more productive than whatever bat we could get for a package of Mitre+Welly. No offense to the guys in question, but Wellemeyer, Mitre, amd Koronka are one step above worthless. I'd be shocked if any of them spent a significant span of time on the ML roster in 2006.

Other than his stubborn refusal to admit that Remlinger should not be used as a LOOGY and his decision at the beginning of last year to go with Rusch in the bullpen and Dempster in the rotation, how has Baker "mismanaged the pen?" Don't get me wrong -- Baker's faults are legion. Yet, his "mismanagement of the bullpen" is a purported fault that is repeated ad nauseum despite the fact that I have not heard a single compelling argument (other than the ones cited above) as to why this is so. He has a repeate history of: overusing guys while leaving others with many day between outings. Bringing the wrong guy in to face a batter Using a guy for one batter who should be used the entire inning. Double switches for no good reason Besides isn't the part I bolded enough? Plus: Getting some guys work in a blowout when the Cubs are winning that haven't pitched. No reason to have a starter still pitching when the score is 8-1 and you have 12 pitchers on the staff. Overusage of pitchers that just came off surgery. Putting young players in difficult situations in their first time up and then not pitching them for around 10 days. If they fail how does this help them? Not to parse to fine a line, but I view your first two points as issues relating to his handling of his starters. And I agree with you. Perhaps I should be more direct in my question: Which of these purported Baker failures would have made Andy Sisco a worse pitcher if he had been with the Cubs? I'll hang up and listen for my answer. :D

Responding to these in order: I can't respond one way or the other. Clearly, he used Wuertz a lot in the first half of the season last year. But Wuertz was our only reliable reliever during that time frame. Sounds like a lot of hindsight to me. Ditto I view that as lineup mismanagement, which is distinct from bullpen mismanagement. And in any event, I don't see how that would have made Sisco a worse pitcher if he were still with the Cubs.

Other than his stubborn refusal to admit that Remlinger should not be used as a LOOGY and his decision at the beginning of last year to go with Rusch in the bullpen and Dempster in the rotation, how has Baker "mismanaged the pen?" Don't get me wrong -- Baker's faults are legion. Yet, his "mismanagement of the bullpen" is a purported fault that is repeated ad nauseum despite the fact that I have not heard a single compelling argument (other than the ones cited above) as to why this is so.

I hate Hendry's and Dusty's obsession with Neifi as much as anyone. But it's absurd to imply that the Cubs can't win with Neifi playing SS and hitting 8th. The White Sox bolstered the notion that a dominant defensive SS can make a huge difference -- moreso than any defensive position on the field. Neifi is much like Juan Uribe, although not quite the same power. Frankly, the anti-Neifi rhetoric has gotten out of control on this board. That said: 1. $2.5 million was way too much to pay for Neifi; and 2. My head will explode if Dusty ever hits Neifi higher than 8th. Ever.

Once again, Hendry signs a reliever whose market value is at its absolute highest. Will scott Eyre make the Cubs a better team? Probably. Are there a litany of left handed relievers that would have cost the Cubs a third of the price and helped just as much? Yes. The $5-6 million that the Cubs are spending on Neifi Perez and Scott Eyre could have paid for Giles.

Colletti is a former PR guy for the Cubs. Good for him.

the sad thing is that we're now going to see 10 replies talking about how much they hope we actually do have that lineup. That's the spirit! Genralize and make unsubstantiated predictions! Where has it said that the Cubs are at all interested in Jones (other than Gary Matthews talking to someone at the airport)? Hendry has had a man crush on Jacque Jones for years.

the sad thing is that we're now going to see 10 replies talking about how much they hope we actually do have that lineup. It's not a terrible lineup, mind you. But with the Cardinals in our division, the wild card will be the ceiling.

I'm done even looking at this board for the offseason. The inevitably of the following lineup is amazing: Pierre, CF Furcal, SS Lee, 1B Ramirez, 3B J. Jones, RF Barrett, C Murton, LF Cedeno/Perez, 2B Mark it down now. I'm gonna go cry now.

OK. I've played a 20 seasons on DMB, using 2004 statistics, with the lineups below. I gave each team an identical pitching staff and placed each team in a "neutral park": Detroit (High Average, No Walks, Modest Power) Alex Sanchez, CF Ichiro, RF Jason Kendall, C Sean Casey, 1B Shea Hillenbrand, 3B Carl Crawford, LF Jack Wilson, SS Tony Womack, SS All of the above were +.300 hitters (other than Crawford) with sub-.400 OBP (other than Ichiro) and sub .500 slugging (other than Casey) Oakland (Low Average, High Walks, Good Power) Mark Bellhorn, 2B Milton Bradley, LF Carlos Beltran, CF Jim Thome, 1B Eric Chavez, 3B Jorge Posada, C Brad Wilkerson, RF Bobby Crosby All of the above hit .278 or lower, with a good number walks. I gave each team an identical pitching staff (which I picked at random): Maddux, Ishii, Escobar, Pavano, Batista Timlin, Mitre, Marte, Hoffman, Wise I ran 20 simulations. Team B (Oakland) was better in 19 of the 20 seasons, with a high win total of 102, a low total of 80, and an average of 87 wins. All but 2 of the 20 sims had Oakland winning between 80-89 games. In the two outliers, they won 96 and 102 games.

No.

Fair enough - I think a difference in ERA of .10 could be explained by pitchers having to pitch in different "pressure" situations. But Santana's ERA was 2.87 (vs a park-adjusted league average ERA of 4.40) while Colon's ERA was 3.48 (vs a park-adjusted league average ERA of 4.19). That discrepancy, plus Santana's advantage in K/9 (9.25 vs 6.35 for Colon), I think give Santana the edge in the Cy Young voting. FWIW, the two pitcher's BB/9, HR/9, and IP were basically even. I don't disagree. Santana clearly should have won the Cy Young. My point is only that ERA and other run preventation metrics do not correlate 100% with effectiveness (which can be defined only as helping your team win baseball games). Of course, ERA is leaps and bounds better than Wins as a tool to measure effectiveness. It's just not perfect.