Cubs re-sign Glendon Rusch

Alas, financial terms were not disclosed, [UPDATE: Thanks to AdamSt for pointing out the details in comments], but I think we can nonetheless assume that Mr. Rusch is today a very happy man.

Here are some fun stats:

1997 - 5.50
1998 - 5.88
2000 - 4.01
2001 - 4.63
2002 - 4.70
2003 - 6.42
2004 - 3.47
2005 - 4.52
Career - 4.88

Those are Rusch's ERAs for every full season he's been in the majors, along with his career ERA. Put simply, Rusch is about as average as they come. Naturally, then, it's important to lock him up for two years - gotta keep the wild-card dream alive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rusch

Not exactly the most creative move.

I like Rusch well enough, but were there any other teams knocking on his door ready to give him two years? Seems unlikely.

The Cubs' feeling that they needed to give him two years also says something about the failure of the Cubs' farm system to develop and keep healthy the large stockpile of talented pitchers they had in A-ball in 2002-03. If you're not producing your own players, you're going to sign mediocre veterans to multi-year multi-million dollar deals.

Of course, if Rusch can have two years of his 2004 season, this deal will turn out great. But the possibility of that is slim.

re: Rusch

The Cubs' feeling that they needed to give him two years also says something about the failure of the Cubs' farm system to develop and keep healthy the large stockpile of talented pitchers they had in A-ball in 2002-03. If you're not producing your own players, you're going to sign mediocre veterans to multi-year multi-million dollar deals.

Maybe, but my impatience with Hendry runs a lot deeper than that. The fact of the matter is that they don't need to sign Rusch to a two-year deal whether the minor leagues are producing or not.

Here's the thing: Rusch was originally acquired by the Cubs when they signed him to a minor league deal in April of 2004. Basically, he had had a disastrous year with the Brewers the year before, and had washed out with the Rangers(!) during spring training. But Hendry saw something and brought him aboard.

And you know what? It was a good move, the kind of thing that validated Hendry's stellar reputation as a talent evaluator. It wasn't a one-shot deal, either; finding Ryan Dempster and Joe Borowski were similar validations, and Scott Williamson may yet work out pretty well, too.

The problem, then, comes with handing out multi-year deals to guys that you found for nothing, and could replace just as easily as you found them. I know the Cubs aren't the Royals or Athletics; they don't have to be as careful with these things as those teams do. But how can Hendry not learn a lesson from his successes? Why can he not see that a guy who came to the team on a minor league invite with a highly indistinguished track record is not in any way irreplaceable?

To make my point clear, even if they're not developing the players they should be, we have a guy as our GM who has a good record of finding guys just like Rusch, but without the committment and salary demands. So what does it say about Hendry that he values Rusch so highly anyway?

Simply, I think it says that he's a GM who either doesn't recognize his own strengths, or who ignores his strengths in order to take what he sees as the safest path.

Excellent analysis.

Excellent analysis.

Rusch contract

ESPN reports $6M for two years -- http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story....

$2.75 in 06, $3.25 in 07 with $500,000 in performance bonuses.

Not the best contract signing, but not the worst. Kind of average, like Rusch.