Rumor: Cubs Looking at Signing Wade Miller

[HoopsCubs]

This is from an east coast source, who is not one of my mainstream sources - sorry, no link available. He says that Hendry (my source likes to call him the "Great Reclamator" - Dempster, Williamson, Benes, etc...) is competing with another NL Central GM to give Miller a low base/high incentive contract in 2006 with a team option for 2007. Even with a logjam in the rotation today, my source thinks this is a 2007 Hendry move given the assumption that Maddux and Wood will walk away as free agents after '06, and that Rusch will be dealt at the trading deadline or next offseason.

 

I'll, of course, let you all know if I hear more. It's a minor move, albeit, which could have major potential for 2007 if Miller can overcome his shoulder problems.

[TheDude]

I like it. As long as the contract is risk/reward structured, why not take a flier?

[David]

Vance, where ya at?

[JC]

I like it. As long as the contract is risk/reward structured, why not take a flier?

 

I'm not saying that it necessarily precludes such a signing, but the 40 man roster must be considered. The Cubs haven't been the best at 40 man maneuvering for some time now. Having a guy like Miller as "insurance" for 2007 creates problems with roster positions and Rule V losses.

 

Its sad that this organization that was purportedly pitching rich just a short time ago now finds itself in this position.

[wade]

Could it be in conjunction with the other trade rumor? I.E., someone to replace Prior in the rotation.

 

I assume Miller is ready to pitch in 2006.

[FergieJ31]

The idea of a low base/high incentive contract ... how novel! Too bad the Cubs didn't think of that concept when considering Nomar (or Maggs when he was a FA a year ago) :roll:

 

In any event, I like this idea. If the Cubs can get him and Kielty or Byrnes, and trade CPatt, I'd call it an off-season (start TWalk at 2B and keep Hairston as a supersub), and we'll try forget the Prior/Tejada nightmare.

 

We'd hate to see Miller circa 2001-2 at that other NL Cent club (Cards I imagine?)

[HoopsCubs]

I assume Miller is ready to pitch in 2006.

 

My source was non-commital on that point. I got the distinct impression that Miller would not be in any pitching shape until the 2nd half of '06 at the earliest. As I said in the opening thread, if Hendry signs him, this really looks like a 2007 move to me.

[Flames24Rulz]

i like it. Hendry's done this type of thing the last 2 offseasons with Dempster and Williamson and its worked pretty well, especially with Dempster.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Miller has a world of talent. I think this would be a great move, even if it is only for 2007.

[bc2k]

I like it. As long as the contract is risk/reward structured, why not take a flier?

 

I'm not saying that it necessarily precludes such a signing, but the 40 man roster must be considered. The Cubs haven't been the best at 40 man maneuvering for some time now. Having a guy like Miller as "insurance" for 2007 creates problems with roster positions and Rule V losses.

 

Its sad that this organization that was purportedly pitching rich just a short time ago now finds itself in this position.

 

I like this move in theory, but I do worry about the 40 man roster/Rule V repercussions.

[WrigleyField 22]

Who would we have to worry about losing to rule 5 next year?

Guys who lasted this year(notable ones)

Brownlie

Sing

Fox

Petrik

Blasko

Connoly

Hagerty

Some of those guys have some major injury issues they would have to get past. Others probably don't have the talent to stick.

 

I'm unlcear about the rules of rule 5 eligiibility, but I cant find many guys of great importance who seem to have been around long enough to warrant a spot. Harvey maybe? Guys drafted out of college in 04 would be too soo, right? Any minor league experts who could clar that up would be great. But at a quick glance it doesn't look like a lot.

 

Then theres the issue of guys who have been on for 3 years and would have to make the big league roster.

Aardsma?

Guzman

Everyone else looks like the will be established going into this year (Cedeno/Wuertz)

 

So at most you have 4 spots that might need to be cleared for guys that are must keeps. Doesn't seem like too much of a problem. That is unless of course I am missing a bunch of newly elgible guys for 2006, which I might be. This discussion would be a lot easier if I/we knew for sure who was gonna be eligible.

 

Bottom line: I'm not too worried about a rule 5 crunch.

[WrigleyField 22]

First I have to say I do like the idea of getting Wade. Secondly in hopes to answer my own question I have tried to put a possilbe scenario for a rule 5 crunch that someare worried about.

 

First it appeared I underestimated how soon guys are rule 5 eligible a bit.

 

Here is a possible 40 man roster after next offseason

Prior

Zambrano

Wade(for sake of this thread)

Williams

Hill

Dempster

Wuertz

Howry

Eyre

Guzman

Novoa

Ohman

Marshall

Marmol

Ryu

 

Barrett

Soto

Reyes

 

Lee

Cedeno

Perez

Ramirez

Theriot

Moore

 

Murton

Pie

Pierre

Jones

 

Thats 28 guys who would likely be on it.

So you have room for 12 spots. With those guys listed you're major league pitching is likely set maybe an arm or two to sing in FA. We'll be safe and say 2.

So you have 10 spots. I would say four of those would have to go towards filling out positional players for the major league team, FA signings.

Then your major league roster is set and you have at least 6 spots, maybe more if say Theriot could be ready as a backup or you dont need to sign another pitcher.

Those 6 spots could go to

1-Harvey

2-Gallagher(if he even has to be at that point)

3-EPatterson

4-Sing(although if he is on the 40man hopefully he is ready for a big league role, he'll be old 27 i think)

5-Brownlie?

6-Johnson

From the looks of it, no one left unprotected, Reed for example would be ready anyway. Different prospects will emerge and fall along the way as well. But it looks like you would only have to expose som pretty low-risk guys, like we always have to. No Siscos bein left unprotected.

 

Keeping in mind also we could see guys like Novoa/Williams traded in order to gain spots. In fact one of Novoa/Wiliams/Guzman/Ohman woul probably HAVE to be gotten rid of, its likely one will do it himself based on performance or health. If not you trade the worst for a minor leaguer not rule 5 eligible.

 

So in conlcusion I don't see why we can't get Wade. The 40man shouldn't be that much of an issue.

[erik316wttn]

I assume Miller is ready to pitch in 2006.

 

My source was non-commital on that point. I got the distinct impression that Miller would not be in any pitching shape until the 2nd half of '06 at the earliest. As I said in the opening thread, if Hendry signs him, this really looks like a 2007 move to me.

 

Make it a 2 year thing, vesting option for 3rd year. If he works out, great. We have Dempster II. If not, no big loss.

[WrigleyField 22]

I might also add that the reason that Vance- and followers of his theory such as myself, liked the idea of Wade so much was as a closer, becaus of his first inning splits. Say you can lock down the rotation other ways, and could have a dominating 8-9 of Wade-Dempster. Hope the Wuertz becomes a dominatig 7th inning guy and you are set.

 

Or you could still have Wade the good/possibly awesome starter. I love the idea. Please don't be just a rumor.

[Guancous]

I like this move. At worst, you lose near the league minimum. At best, you get a #3 starter or a great trade chip. I think the odds are in the Cubs favor that his value increases by the end of next year.

 

If the Cubs are concerned about keeping someone from the Rule V, they can trade Miller for a PTBNL.

[WrigleyField 22]

I like this move. At worst, you lose near the league minimum. At best, you get a #3 starter or a great trade chip. I think the odds are in the Cubs favor that his value increases by the end of next year.

 

If the Cubs are concerned about keeping someone from the Rule V, they can trade Miller for a PTBNL.

 

Or just not excercise his option after this year. Even simpler than a trade!

[YearofDaCubs]

Only if it's league minimum or around there. I seriously question Miller being able to come back pre-injury.

[UK1679666180]

(If healthy) I'd rather see him given a chance over Rusch, but if it came down to him or Williams, he better be pretty damn healthy to take a spot over Williams.

[SouthSideRyan]

The idea of a low base/high incentive contract ... how novel! Too bad the Cubs didn't think of that concept when considering Nomar (or Maggs when he was a FA a year ago) :roll:

 

 

Yeah, shoulda given Maggs that low base of 15M to get the high incentive.

[UK1679666180]

I wonder how much having 2/5ths of the rotations as FAs next year impacts a potential signing. Maddux definitely won't be back and they'll need to see something from Wood, that they haven't seen since '03.

[BigbadB]

I'm all for it. As stated before, Hendry seems to like rehab projects. Mike Sirotka, Dempster, Sullivan, Fox, etc...

[daske17]

I'm all for it. As stated before, Hendry seems to like rehab projects. Mike Sirotka, Dempster, Sullivan, Fox, etc...

 

I think Paul Sullivan is beyond rehabilitation.

[rawaction]

I'm all for it. As stated before, Hendry seems to like rehab projects. Mike Sirotka, Dempster, Sullivan, Fox, etc...

 

I think Paul Sullivan is beyond rehabilitation.

 

Yeah, I think he meant Williamson.

[BigbadB]

Doh!!! Yeah, I really messed that up.

[Lefty]

The idea of a low base/high incentive contract ... how novel! Too bad the Cubs didn't think of that concept when considering Nomar (or Maggs when he was a FA a year ago) :roll:

 

Unfair. Maggs got a basically guaranteed five years from the Tigers. There is no way we could have, or should have, competed with that.