Yankees interested in Zambrano?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 11:19 AM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I don't know that you really know how good some of these arms are.


All of these guys have career minor league ERAs of 3.30 or better, have 9.0 K/9 or better, and have averaged 0.5 HRs/9. Those are damn good peripherals. The only thing that worries me about any of these guys is Maine has an inordinate amount of hits/9 which is very unusual for a guy that strikes out 10 per 9 innings..
Blake Parker
Jeff Stevens
John Gaub
Scott Maine

Esmailin Caridad has ok K/9 numbers. What's impressive about him though is he picked up 3-4 MPH on his fastball (which has a lot of movement on it) when he was coming out of the bullpen for the Cubs last year when he was called up. Also, the guy doesn't give out free passes.

Jeff Gray I'm skeptical about. His peripherals aren't anything special other than his great control. He had success out of the A's bullpen last year so who knows.

Alex Maestri has decent numbers. What's intriguing about him is his Michael Wuertz-esque slider. Wuertz and Marmol have proven that a top notch slider can bring you success at the major leagues (as long as your fastball is decent).

Justin Berg is hardly worth mentioning, but he did have good success at AAA coming out of the bullpen for the first time in his career.


James Russell had some success after a few years in the crapper. Like Berg and Gray, I'm not too high on him. But, if you catch one of these guys on a hot streak, that's all you really need for a bullpen arm.


What's great about a lot of these guys is they have been groomed to be late inning relief pitchers. I have to think that three of them would be able to stick on the major league roster. As it is, a lot of these guys are already taking up the 40 man roster. Why keep them around if you're just going to buy bullpen arms?

[BT]

Scarey, from a philosophical standpoint, I have always thought it's much better to rely on your home grown arms to fill out your bullpen. However, the Cubs tried that last year, at least from the left side, and it was a complete disaster. NO ONE stepped up. And our rookies from the right side were a mixed bag as well. I liked Stevens at times, but he walked 8 guys in 12 innings. Ascanio walked 9 in 15 IP. So even if sabremetrics tell you that a pitcher making 350k a year is a better bet than a FA, you can't blame Hendry for going the Grabow route this year, rather than waiting for someone to step up from the left side.

As a side note, I think we need to stop moaning about what a terrible contract Grabow signed. After watching the likes of Hawkins and Lyons sign, Grabow's deal is at least in line with what the market was paying this year.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73015:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:26 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 27 2009, 12:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 11:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I don't know that you really know how good some of these arms are.


All of these guys have career minor league ERAs of 3.30 or better, have 9.0 K/9 or better, and have averaged 0.5 HRs/9. Those are damn good peripherals. The only thing that worries me about any of these guys is Maine has an inordinate amount of hits/9 which is very unusual for a guy that strikes out 10 per 9 innings..
Blake Parker
Jeff Stevens
John Gaub
Scott Maine

Esmailin Caridad has ok K/9 numbers. What's impressive about him though is he picked up 3-4 MPH on his fastball (which has a lot of movement on it) when he was coming out of the bullpen for the Cubs last year when he was called up. Also, the guy doesn't give out free passes.

Jeff Gray I'm skeptical about. His peripherals aren't anything special other than his great control. He had success out of the A's bullpen last year so who knows.

Alex Maestri has decent numbers. What's intriguing about him is his Michael Wuertz-esque slider. Wuertz and Marmol have proven that a top notch slider can bring you success at the major leagues (as long as your fastball is decent).

Justin Berg is hardly worth mentioning, but he did have good success at AAA coming out of the bullpen for the first time in his career.


James Russell had some success after a few years in the crapper. Like Berg and Gray, I'm not too high on him. But, if you catch one of these guys on a hot streak, that's all you really need for a bullpen arm.


What's great about a lot of these guys is they have been groomed to be late inning relief pitchers. I have to think that three of them would be able to stick on the major league roster. As it is, a lot of these guys are already taking up the 40 man roster. Why keep them around if you're just going to buy bullpen arms?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Scarey, admittedly, I know very little about these guys. You just probably told me more than I knew before. I'm not as educated on the Cubs farm system as I used to be (twin 3 year olds have robbed me from my baseball time). But no matter how good they are, baseball pitching prospects are just that...prospects. It's entirely possible that all of them end up washing out. It's possible that a few deliver - but you know that it is significantly more likely that each one is a bust. And unfortunately, there is no correlation between one and another, so you can't say that if you have a 10% chance of making it, and you have 10 guys, that one will...sure - the odds say you might, but each individual still only has a 10% chance. (and the number 10% is just yanked from my ass - it is probably much lower - since I know nothing about these guys.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73017:date=Dec 27 2009, 01:04 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 27 2009, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, from a philosophical standpoint, I have always thought it's much better to rely on your home grown arms to fill out your bullpen. However, the Cubs tried that last year, at least from the left side, and it was a complete disaster. NO ONE stepped up. And our rookies from the right side were a mixed bag as well. I liked Stevens at times, but he walked 8 guys in 12 innings. Ascanio walked 9 in 15 IP. So even if sabremetrics tell you that a pitcher making 350k a year is a better bet than a FA, you can't blame Hendry for going the Grabow route this year, rather than waiting for someone to step up from the left side.

As a side note, I think we need to stop moaning about what a terrible contract Grabow signed. After watching the likes of Hawkins and Lyons sign, Grabow's deal is at least in line with what the market was paying this year.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well said BT. Id much rather see Grabow and Capps as the two vets and let the rest of the pen be filled with kids. Gives you a much lower chance of a complete and total disaster. And once the season starts, you won't find decent relief arms available until the trade deadline.

Again - my point wasn't to crap on the pitching prospects in the system - I know very little about them. It was that I can't see crapping on Hendry like KB does because he tried to make sure he had a good mix of veterans and rookies.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=73017:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:04 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 27 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, from a philosophical standpoint, I have always thought it's much better to rely on your home grown arms to fill out your bullpen. However, the Cubs tried that last year, at least from the left side, and it was a complete disaster. NO ONE stepped up. And our rookies from the right side were a mixed bag as well. I liked Stevens at times, but he walked 8 guys in 12 innings. Ascanio walked 9 in 15 IP. So even if sabremetrics tell you that a pitcher making 350k a year is a better bet than a FA, you can't blame Hendry for going the Grabow route this year, rather than waiting for someone to step up from the left side.

As a side note, I think we need to stop moaning about what a terrible contract Grabow signed. After watching the likes of Hawkins and Lyons sign, Grabow's deal is at least in line with what the market was paying this year.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's just not fair to compare last season's MLB ready bullpen arms to this years. From the left side, we didn't have anyone. This year, we have Gaub who at least one scout has boasted as the best lefty reliever in the minors.

Guys like Stevens and Ascanio should not be judged... unless you want to judge guys like Berg (0.75 ERA in 12.0 IP) and Esmailin Caridad (1.41 ERA in 19.1 IP) the same way.

I just don't get it. How do you find the K-Rods/Joe Nathans/Sorias if you never give your guys a chance.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73022:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?

If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73037:date=Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73022:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?

If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I was assuming that was the answer. That's why I won't blame Hendry. I'd blame him if it was complaining in year 3 that he was underperforming - but I won't blame him for what this ended up being. It was a calculated gamble - but one that failed.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73031:date=Dec 27 2009, 04:59 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 27 2009, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73017:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:04 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 27 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, from a philosophical standpoint, I have always thought it's much better to rely on your home grown arms to fill out your bullpen. However, the Cubs tried that last year, at least from the left side, and it was a complete disaster. NO ONE stepped up. And our rookies from the right side were a mixed bag as well. I liked Stevens at times, but he walked 8 guys in 12 innings. Ascanio walked 9 in 15 IP. So even if sabremetrics tell you that a pitcher making 350k a year is a better bet than a FA, you can't blame Hendry for going the Grabow route this year, rather than waiting for someone to step up from the left side.

As a side note, I think we need to stop moaning about what a terrible contract Grabow signed. After watching the likes of Hawkins and Lyons sign, Grabow's deal is at least in line with what the market was paying this year.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That's just not fair to compare last season's MLB ready bullpen arms to this years. From the left side, we didn't have anyone. This year, we have Gaub who at least one scout has boasted as the best lefty reliever in the minors.

Guys like Stevens and Ascanio should not be judged... unless you want to judge guys like Berg (0.75 ERA in 12.0 IP) and Esmailin Caridad (1.41 ERA in 19.1 IP) the same way.

<b>I just don't get it. How do you find the K-Rods/Joe Nathans/Sorias if you never give your guys a chance.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You don't. But you (generally) don't win by filling your bullpen with those guys either.

This team needs to develop the next stars from their system. But it also needs to play to win now. I don't see how it is a bad idea to get Grabow/Capps. I don't get the Hendry hatred over fucking Grabow and Capps. We are not talking about buying a full pen. We aren't talking about spending 10mm on a single reliever. We arent' talking about a deal that stopped him from doing anything else relevant. We are talking about making sure there was some help in the pen to back up some very risky young guys.

What am I missing? Are guys (other than KB, who we all know hates nearly anything Hendry does) really bashing Hendry for resigning Grabow to a low risk, low cost deal, and for pursuing a guy like Capps who could be a strong contributor to the pen and a backup closer if something goes wrong?

Scarey - I'm with you - you need to roll the dice on kids with a few of your slots. I'm just not supporting doing it with every slot in your pen.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=73048:date=Dec 28 2009, 12:54 AM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 28 2009, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Are guys (other than KB, who we all know hates nearly anything Hendry does) really bashing Hendry for resigning Grabow to a low risk, low cost deal, and for pursuing a guy like Capps who could be a strong contributor to the pen and a backup closer if something goes wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm not up in arms about Capps. He's been a solid reliever with one shitty year last year. The thing is. Grabow really isn't that good. I think he's been lucky for several years. Do you realize that for his career he has a 1.44 WHIP? Just for reference, Kevin Gregg has a career 1.32 WHIP and I would have been quite unhappy if he had signed a 2 year 7.5 mill deal with the Cubs.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Scarey - I'm with you - you need to roll the dice on kids with a few of your slots. I'm just not supporting doing it with every slot in your pen.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I've never promoted this idea. You already have Marmol, Guzman, and Marshall who have all had success as relievers. Throw the guys I just listed and see what sticks. I don't think a Marsmol, Guzman, Marshall, Parker, Gaub, Caridad bullpen looks too bad personally.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73047:date=Dec 27 2009, 11:40 PM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73037:date=Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73022:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?

If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I was assuming that was the answer. That's why I won't blame Hendry. I'd blame him if it was complaining in year 3 that he was underperforming - but I won't blame him for what this ended up being. It was a calculated gamble - but one that failed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So a GM only makes a mistake if the consensus is that the move is a disaster that is guaranteed to end as badly as any move ever has in history?

Gotcha.

I would have thought it would be ok to call a move a mistake if, for all the reasons folks were fearing, a deal ends very badly. Too simple, I guess.

[Coldneck]

Cherp, the Grabow signing is the current example of Hendry signing replacement level players to expensive multiyear deals. In a vacuum, the Grabow signing isn't a big deal. But when the team has repeatedly said it doesn't have payroll flexibility and Hendry has a history of signing Miles, Neifi, Blanco, Howry, Eyre, etc. (I'm forgetting some others) to multi year deals the Grabow signing is the straw that broke the camel's back.

On second thought, the Grabow signing sucks if looked at in a vacuum too. We could have offered him arbitration and paid him about the same for one year instead of two. I guess you could say it was a gamble because we'd save $1M next year if he is successful this year. But it's an unnecessary gamble.

Let me also say that I respect your arguments and appreciate your informed baseball opinion.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=73054:date=Dec 28 2009, 07:59 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 28 2009, 07:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73047:date=Dec 27 2009, 11:40 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73037:date=Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73022:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?

If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I was assuming that was the answer. That's why I won't blame Hendry. I'd blame him if it was complaining in year 3 that he was underperforming - but I won't blame him for what this ended up being. It was a calculated gamble - but one that failed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So a GM only makes a mistake if the consensus is that the move is a disaster that is guaranteed to end as badly as any move ever has in history?

Gotcha.

I would have thought it would be ok to call a move a mistake if, for all the reasons folks were fearing, a deal ends very badly. Too simple, I guess.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Once again, I agree with Ace. If we signed Bradley for a really cheap, short term contract than the gamble might have been worth it. But we signed Bradly to an expensive, 3 year contract, for which the gamble cannot be justified. At least we have Silva.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73054:date=Dec 28 2009, 06:59 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 28 2009, 06:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73047:date=Dec 27 2009, 11:40 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73037:date=Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73022:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).

Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.

Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?

Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.

Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?

If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I was assuming that was the answer. That's why I won't blame Hendry. I'd blame him if it was complaining in year 3 that he was underperforming - but I won't blame him for what this ended up being. It was a calculated gamble - but one that failed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So a GM only makes a mistake if the consensus is that the move is a disaster that is guaranteed to end as badly as any move ever has in history?

Gotcha.

I would have thought it would be ok to call a move a mistake if, for all the reasons folks were fearing, a deal ends very badly. Too simple, I guess.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Of course it is easy to call it a mistake in hindsight - he had to eat a miserable contract to ship out the assbag. Nobody disagrees that it was a mistake. The point I am failing to make clear is that despite the fact that in the end, it was a mistake, nobody expected it to be a mistake in year one that would require this drastic a move. This was not projectable. It is easy to say Soriano will suck in the back end of his contract - but nobody said Bradley would suck so bad in year 1 that this would be the end result.