Assesment on Hill, so far?

[Sammy Sofa]

i dont see why they would need miller next year anyway. z, prior, hill, marshall & mateo seems like a good rotation to me.

 

If their goal is coming in 3rd or 4th at best, sure.

 

just like hill is a aaaa pitcher, murton a 4th outfielder & theriot isnt a starting 2b. if the cubs went young in 2007 i think they could contend. i am tired of high priced free agents who either suck or get hurt. the future of the cubs is in the farm system not on the free agent list.

 

That's basically what we have right now and we stink. It's not that high priced free agents stink, it's only the high priced FA we pick up.

 

so did detroit & the marlins last year. this year they both seem to be doing ok. besides they young guys havent played full time the whole year. it took dusty almost the whole season to start using murton in LF everyday and theriot, soto & mateo are only getting playing time because nefi is gone and barrett, lee & rusch are injured.

 

If you want to be the Marlins, say goodbye to Barrett, Lee, Aramis, et al. Do you want all youth or what? You can't just randomly make your lineup half or more rookies and young players and keep a few vets here or there. 9 times out of 10 that kind of mix isn't going to work.

 

Soto is not going to outplay Barrett. If anything, he'll take on a Blanco-like role. Mateo is not ready to be a counted on starting pitcher for an entire year if you're putting him up there with 2 other starting rookie pitchers and you expect the team to win and hit .500.

 

Bottom line, you're suggesting a hideous team that potentially does even worse than this year's.

[C.C.]

i dont see why they would need miller next year anyway. z, prior, hill, marshall & mateo seems like a good rotation to me.

 

If their goal is coming in 3rd or 4th at best, sure.

 

just like hill is a aaaa pitcher, murton a 4th outfielder & theriot isnt a starting 2b. if the cubs went young in 2007 i think they could contend. i am tired of high priced free agents who either suck or get hurt. the future of the cubs is in the farm system not on the free agent list.

 

That's basically what we have right now and we stink. It's not that high priced free agents stink, it's only the high priced FA we pick up.

 

so did detroit & the marlins last year. this year they both seem to be doing ok. besides they young guys havent played full time the whole year. it took dusty almost the whole season to start using murton in LF everyday and theriot, soto & mateo are only getting playing time because nefi is gone and barrett, lee & rusch are injured.

 

If you want to be the Marlins, say goodbye to Barrett, Lee, Aramis, et al. Do you want all youth or what? You can't just randomly make your lineup half or more rookies and young players and keep a few vets here or there. 9 times out of 10 that kind of mix isn't going to work.

 

Soto is not going to outplay Barrett. If anything, he'll take on a Blanco-like role. Mateo is not ready to be a counted on starting pitcher for an entire year if you're putting him up there with 2 other starting rookie pitchers and you expect the team to win and hit .500.

 

Bottom line, you're suggesting a hideous team that potentially does even worse than this year's.

 

Agreed and a team that draws 3 million should not be the Marlins. And the Marlins are nothing but a .500 team. Big deal...If we are going full on youth movement, it does not mean we are going to be good. If anything the TRIB really needs to raise the payroll to at least 110 million...

[SouthSideRyan]

 

If you want to be the Marlins, say goodbye to Barrett, Lee, Aramis, et al. Do you want all youth or what? You can't just randomly make your lineup half or more rookies and young players and keep a few vets here or there. 9 times out of 10 that kind of mix isn't going to work.

 

Soto is not going to outplay Barrett. If anything, he'll take on a Blanco-like role. Mateo is not ready to be a counted on starting pitcher for an entire year if you're putting him up there with 2 other starting rookie pitchers and you expect the team to win and hit .500.

 

Bottom line, you're suggesting a hideous team that potentially does even worse than this year's.

 

A mix of rookies and young players with vets is exactly what I want. That's how you afford high priced free agents is by having your league average LF make 400,000 a year.

 

The only things I would set in stone right now for next year are

 

C: Barrett

1B: Lee

3B: Ramirez

LF: Murton

Bench MI: Theriot

Bench C: Soto

 

SP: Zambrano

SP: Hill

SP: Prior

RP: Wuertz

RP: Ohman

RP: Aardsma

RP: Eyre

RP: Howry

 

Obviously if somebody offers you a great deal for the players above you take it, but I don't see any trades that would be worth it to us for any of those guys. I'm not saying overhaul the rest of the roster, but be flexible with everybody else.

[mg420]

i dont see why they would need miller next year anyway. z, prior, hill, marshall & mateo seems like a good rotation to me.

 

If their goal is coming in 3rd or 4th at best, sure.

 

just like hill is a aaaa pitcher, murton a 4th outfielder & theriot isnt a starting 2b. if the cubs went young in 2007 i think they could contend. i am tired of high priced free agents who either suck or get hurt. the future of the cubs is in the farm system not on the free agent list.

 

That's basically what we have right now and we stink. It's not that high priced free agents stink, it's only the high priced FA we pick up.

 

so did detroit & the marlins last year. this year they both seem to be doing ok. besides they young guys havent played full time the whole year. it took dusty almost the whole season to start using murton in LF everyday and theriot, soto & mateo are only getting playing time because nefi is gone and barrett, lee & rusch are injured.

 

If you want to be the Marlins, say goodbye to Barrett, Lee, Aramis, et al. Do you want all youth or what? You can't just randomly make your lineup half or more rookies and young players and keep a few vets here or there. 9 times out of 10 that kind of mix isn't going to work.

 

Soto is not going to outplay Barrett. If anything, he'll take on a Blanco-like role. Mateo is not ready to be a counted on starting pitcher for an entire year if you're putting him up there with 2 other starting rookie pitchers and you expect the team to win and hit .500.

 

Bottom line, you're suggesting a hideous team that potentially does even worse than this year's.

i disagree. it's worked for other teams in the past and it could work for the cubs. you are starting to sound like dusty imo.

[CubsWin]

Kind of off topic, but Wade Miller isn't signed past this season. Is he?

No. Hendry wasn't smart enough to include a club option in the contract. They may have basically paid him to rehabilitate for a year only to see him walk away.

Did it occur to you that maybe Miller didn't want it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

you do know that a contract is a two way deal, right?

Yes, I do. That's my point.

 

Just because the Cubs don't hold a team option on Miller next season doesn't automatically mean that Hendry didn't think to try to get it. Contracts are a "two way deal", as you put it.

 

What was your point, exactly?

[Sammy Sofa]

 

If you want to be the Marlins, say goodbye to Barrett, Lee, Aramis, et al. Do you want all youth or what? You can't just randomly make your lineup half or more rookies and young players and keep a few vets here or there. 9 times out of 10 that kind of mix isn't going to work.

 

Soto is not going to outplay Barrett. If anything, he'll take on a Blanco-like role. Mateo is not ready to be a counted on starting pitcher for an entire year if you're putting him up there with 2 other starting rookie pitchers and you expect the team to win and hit .500.

 

Bottom line, you're suggesting a hideous team that potentially does even worse than this year's.

 

A mix of rookies and young players with vets is exactly what I want. That's how you afford high priced free agents is by having your league average LF make 400,000 a year.

 

The only things I would set in stone right now for next year are

 

C: Barrett

1B: Lee

3B: Ramirez

LF: Murton

Bench MI: Theriot

Bench C: Soto

 

SP: Zambrano

SP: Hill

SP: Prior

RP: Wuertz

RP: Ohman

RP: Aardsma

RP: Eyre

RP: Howry

 

Obviously if somebody offers you a great deal for the players above you take it, but I don't see any trades that would be worth it to us for any of those guys. I'm not saying overhaul the rest of the roster, but be flexible with everybody else.

 

I agree that the rookies should be given chances to play and act as the chief backup/bench players. I don't think, however, the Cubs can give up more than 2 non-pitching spots to rookies on a starting basis. Personally, I'd like to see Murton and Pie be those 2 rookies. I'd want someone like Soriano at 2nd and someone like Craig Wilson platooned with Jacque. Beyond that, you're getting too close to "blowing up" mode to make giving out longterm deals to guys like Lee, Ramirez and Barrett make any sense.

 

And pitching...is anyone seriously suggesting attempting to do better than this year with 3 rookie pitchers starting BEFORE there are any injuries or trades? That seems ridiculous to me. I like Hill as a lock to be in there and I think Marshall should be the go-to #6 guy for injuries, etc., with Guzman behind him. The rest need regular work in the minors or in the bullpen to get them more experienced.

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't think it matters what number you lay on Hill. Personally, I've thought that he could be a #2 if he reached his potential, and that seems reasonable now. But, the most important thing is to have five solid arms that you can count on in the rotation - or at least four solid arms and Prior. Hill has proven that he belongs in the rotation next year, and I feel pretty good about him health-wise... at least as good as one can feel about a Cub pitcher.

[CubsWin]

I don't think it matters what number you lay on Hill. Personally, I've thought that he could be a #2 if he reached his potential, and that seems reasonable now. But, the most important thing is to have five solid arms that you can count on in the rotation - or at least four solid arms and Prior. Hill has proven that he belongs in the rotation next year, and I feel pretty good about him health-wise... at least as good as one can feel about a Cub pitcher.

Agreed. Very well put.

 

Four solid arms and Prior. Now the debate becomes what is a solid arm and which of the Cubs "rookie" arms fit that description, if any.

 

I'm in the camp that wants one really good FA starter and one veteran 5th starter type, maybe along the lines of Wade Miller, if he shows he is ready. I think hoping for Zito/Schmidt and someone like Padilla is very unrealistic. Heck, the teams that sign Zito and Schmidt should consider themselves lucky because there will be 28 other GMs who will have lost out. So really just getting one of those top of the rotation guys is unrealistic. Still, I'm hoping for one of those and another veteran arm to compete with Guzman, Marshall and Mateo for the 5th spot and give the Cubs another experienced and moderately successful pitcher should Prior (or anyone else) go down with injury.

[mg420]

I don't think it matters what number you lay on Hill. Personally, I've thought that he could be a #2 if he reached his potential, and that seems reasonable now. But, the most important thing is to have five solid arms that you can count on in the rotation - or at least four solid arms and Prior. Hill has proven that he belongs in the rotation next year, and I feel pretty good about him health-wise... at least as good as one can feel about a Cub pitcher.

Agreed. Very well put.

 

Four solid arms and Prior. Now the debate becomes what is a solid arm and which of the Cubs "rookie" arms fit that description, if any.

 

I'm in the camp that wants one really good FA starter and one veteran 5th starter type, maybe along the lines of Wade Miller, if he shows he is ready. I think hoping for Zito/Schmidt and someone like Padilla is very unrealistic. Heck, the teams that sign Zito and Schmidt should consider themselves lucky because there will be 28 other GMs who will have lost out. So really just getting one of those top of the rotation guys is unrealistic. Still, I'm hoping for one of those and another veteran arm to compete with Guzman, Marshall and Mateo for the 5th spot and give the Cubs another experienced and moderately successful pitcher should Prior (or anyone else) go down with injury.

 

whats withh all the padilla love? the last 3 years he is 29-30 with an era over 4.50 and has averaged around 150 ip with no cg's. i would rather see marshall and mateo get a shot than to spend $ on this guy.

[abuck1220]

Kind of off topic, but Wade Miller isn't signed past this season. Is he?

No. Hendry wasn't smart enough to include a club option in the contract. They may have basically paid him to rehabilitate for a year only to see him walk away.

Did it occur to you that maybe Miller didn't want it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

you do know that a contract is a two way deal, right?

Yes, I do. That's my point.

 

Just because the Cubs don't hold a team option on Miller next season doesn't automatically mean that Hendry didn't think to try to get it. Contracts are a "two way deal", as you put it.

 

What was your point, exactly?

 

that nobody held a gun to hendry's head and forced him to sign miller w/o an option. hendry could have said no option, no contract. you make it sound as though hendry had no choice.

[A New Era]

Kind of off topic, but Wade Miller isn't signed past this season. Is he?

No. Hendry wasn't smart enough to include a club option in the contract. They may have basically paid him to rehabilitate for a year only to see him walk away.

Did it occur to you that maybe Miller didn't want it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

you do know that a contract is a two way deal, right?

Yes, I do. That's my point.

 

Just because the Cubs don't hold a team option on Miller next season doesn't automatically mean that Hendry didn't think to try to get it. Contracts are a "two way deal", as you put it.

 

What was your point, exactly?

 

that nobody held a gun to hendry's head and forced him to sign miller w/o an option. hendry could have said no option, no contract. you make it sound as though hendry had no choice.

 

It was a $1 mil deal. No huge loss. What's your beef?

[CubColtPacer]

Kind of off topic, but Wade Miller isn't signed past this season. Is he?

No. Hendry wasn't smart enough to include a club option in the contract. They may have basically paid him to rehabilitate for a year only to see him walk away.

Did it occur to you that maybe Miller didn't want it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

you do know that a contract is a two way deal, right?

Yes, I do. That's my point.

 

Just because the Cubs don't hold a team option on Miller next season doesn't automatically mean that Hendry didn't think to try to get it. Contracts are a "two way deal", as you put it.

 

What was your point, exactly?

 

that nobody held a gun to hendry's head and forced him to sign miller w/o an option. hendry could have said no option, no contract. you make it sound as though hendry had no choice.

 

It was a $1 mil deal. No huge loss. What's your beef?

 

In addition, that 1 million dollar deal was signed on January 23rd. There was nobody on the market by that point. Hendry still had money to spend-so he took a gamble on Miller coming back early. There was no real downside to that deal- all that 1 million would have done otherwise would be to go in the Tribune's pockets-It was good that he at least tried, even if it didn't work out.

[CubsWin]

Kind of off topic, but Wade Miller isn't signed past this season. Is he?

No. Hendry wasn't smart enough to include a club option in the contract. They may have basically paid him to rehabilitate for a year only to see him walk away.

Did it occur to you that maybe Miller didn't want it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

you do know that a contract is a two way deal, right?

Yes, I do. That's my point.

 

Just because the Cubs don't hold a team option on Miller next season doesn't automatically mean that Hendry didn't think to try to get it. Contracts are a "two way deal", as you put it.

 

What was your point, exactly?

 

that nobody held a gun to hendry's head and forced him to sign miller w/o an option. hendry could have said no option, no contract. you make it sound as though hendry had no choice.

No, I make it sound like it takes two to tango and what they could mutually agree upon was one year, one mill plus a mill in incentives and no 2nd year option. Let's be honest, if Miller didn't want a 2nd year, he had other suitors willing to give him that. Hendry couldn't force him to accept one.

 

But certainly, you're right, Hendry could've walked away and not signed Miller. Are you saying that's what you wish he would have done?

 

I think Hendry thought it was worth the gamble to have Miller on the books for a mill and have the possibility of him be ready to go in the 2nd half rather than have nothing at all and be a million dollars richer. This way, the Cubs would also have an established year long relationship with him and would have had a year to evaluate whether Miller was worth investing in. Sounds well worth the money to me.

 

Do you think it was a poor use of the Trib's resources? Because we clearly can't criticize Hendry for not forcing Miller into accepting an option year which is what I was originally responding to.

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't think it matters what number you lay on Hill. Personally, I've thought that he could be a #2 if he reached his potential, and that seems reasonable now. But, the most important thing is to have five solid arms that you can count on in the rotation - or at least four solid arms and Prior. Hill has proven that he belongs in the rotation next year, and I feel pretty good about him health-wise... at least as good as one can feel about a Cub pitcher.

Agreed. Very well put.

 

Four solid arms and Prior. Now the debate becomes what is a solid arm and which of the Cubs "rookie" arms fit that description, if any.

 

I'm in the camp that wants one really good FA starter and one veteran 5th starter type, maybe along the lines of Wade Miller, if he shows he is ready. I think hoping for Zito/Schmidt and someone like Padilla is very unrealistic. Heck, the teams that sign Zito and Schmidt should consider themselves lucky because there will be 28 other GMs who will have lost out. So really just getting one of those top of the rotation guys is unrealistic. Still, I'm hoping for one of those and another veteran arm to compete with Guzman, Marshall and Mateo for the 5th spot and give the Cubs another experienced and moderately successful pitcher should Prior (or anyone else) go down with injury.

 

whats withh all the padilla love? the last 3 years he is 29-30 with an era over 4.50 and has averaged around 150 ip with no cg's. i would rather see marshall and mateo get a shot than to spend $ on this guy.

 

He pitched well last year in the second half after struggling with a lingering biceps injury from the previous year. And, his numbers aren't spectacular this year, but a 4.27 ERA is a good year at a hitter's park like the one in Arlington - whatever it's named this year. If he makes all his starts and pitches better than league average, that's worth something.

[Guest]

I agree that the rookies should be given chances to play and act as the chief backup/bench players. I don't think, however, the Cubs can give up more than 2 non-pitching spots to rookies on a starting basis. Personally, I'd like to see Murton and Pie be those 2 rookies. I'd want someone like Soriano at 2nd and someone like Craig Wilson platooned with Jacque. Beyond that, you're getting too close to "blowing up" mode to make giving out longterm deals to guys like Lee, Ramirez and Barrett make any sense.

 

And pitching...is anyone seriously suggesting attempting to do better than this year with 3 rookie pitchers starting BEFORE there are any injuries or trades? That seems ridiculous to me. I like Hill as a lock to be in there and I think Marshall should be the go-to #6 guy for injuries, etc., with Guzman behind him. The rest need regular work in the minors or in the bullpen to get them more experienced.

You realize that of the players you mention in this post only one will be a rookie next year, right? Murton, Marshall, Guzman, Hill, Mateo, Marmol & Cedeno will all be second year players next seson.

[Sammy Sofa]

I agree that the rookies should be given chances to play and act as the chief backup/bench players. I don't think, however, the Cubs can give up more than 2 non-pitching spots to rookies on a starting basis. Personally, I'd like to see Murton and Pie be those 2 rookies. I'd want someone like Soriano at 2nd and someone like Craig Wilson platooned with Jacque. Beyond that, you're getting too close to "blowing up" mode to make giving out longterm deals to guys like Lee, Ramirez and Barrett make any sense.

 

And pitching...is anyone seriously suggesting attempting to do better than this year with 3 rookie pitchers starting BEFORE there are any injuries or trades? That seems ridiculous to me. I like Hill as a lock to be in there and I think Marshall should be the go-to #6 guy for injuries, etc., with Guzman behind him. The rest need regular work in the minors or in the bullpen to get them more experienced.

 

You realize that of the players you mention in this post only one will be a rookie next year, right? Murton, Marshall, Guzman, Hill, Mateo, Marmol & Cedeno will all be second year players next seson.

 

You're right, it's inaccurate to use that term across the board. Change it out with "young player" and I'll still stick by what I said. Either go with a full-on youth movement or play them only when and where you REALLY can instead of the team going out of their way to make room or not even bothering to try and upgrade. If the team falls somewhere in the middle it's not going to do much. The Cubs simply don't have that kind of team right now. It's a waste to hold onto Barrett, Lee and Aramis because while some of the young players seem to be good, very few of them seem to be THAT good. Contrary to what some seem to think, I highly doubt we have a crop of Marlins waiting in the wings.

[goonys evil twin]

Ok, so um, maybe Hill can be the co-ace next year.

[mg420]

I don't think it matters what number you lay on Hill. Personally, I've thought that he could be a #2 if he reached his potential, and that seems reasonable now. But, the most important thing is to have five solid arms that you can count on in the rotation - or at least four solid arms and Prior. Hill has proven that he belongs in the rotation next year, and I feel pretty good about him health-wise... at least as good as one can feel about a Cub pitcher.

Agreed. Very well put.

 

Four solid arms and Prior. Now the debate becomes what is a solid arm and which of the Cubs "rookie" arms fit that description, if any.

 

I'm in the camp that wants one really good FA starter and one veteran 5th starter type, maybe along the lines of Wade Miller, if he shows he is ready. I think hoping for Zito/Schmidt and someone like Padilla is very unrealistic. Heck, the teams that sign Zito and Schmidt should consider themselves lucky because there will be 28 other GMs who will have lost out. So really just getting one of those top of the rotation guys is unrealistic. Still, I'm hoping for one of those and another veteran arm to compete with Guzman, Marshall and Mateo for the 5th spot and give the Cubs another experienced and moderately successful pitcher should Prior (or anyone else) go down with injury.

 

whats withh all the padilla love? the last 3 years he is 29-30 with an era over 4.50 and has averaged around 150 ip with no cg's. i would rather see marshall and mateo get a shot than to spend $ on this guy.

 

He pitched well last year in the second half after struggling with a lingering biceps injury from the previous year. And, his numbers aren't spectacular this year, but a 4.27 ERA is a good year at a hitter's park like the one in Arlington - whatever it's named this year. If he makes all his starts and pitches better than league average, that's worth something.

 

since cubs have guys like marshall & mateo, i dont see why they would want padilla. he gets hurt alot and makes 3+ million a year. imo they should stick with some of the young pitchers they already have.

[goonys evil twin]

since cubs have guys like marshall & mateo, i dont see why they would want padilla. he gets hurt alot and makes 3+ million a year. imo they should stick with some of the young pitchers they already have.

 

Well, they want somebody who is a decent bet at 200 innings. Padilla was a reliever, then turned into a 200 IP guy overnight. I believe that quick increase in workload played a part in his 2004/2005 setbacks, as he was always hindered by nagging type injuries, as opposed to TJS season ending stuff. From what I remember, he was having triceps issues and groin issues, but not major shoulder and/or elbow problems. I think he's quite capable of giving a team 115 or better ERA+ next year over 200 innings, which is exactly what the Cubs are looking for.

 

Marshall and Mateo don't erase that need.

[mg420]

since cubs have guys like marshall & mateo, i dont see why they would want padilla. he gets hurt alot and makes 3+ million a year. imo they should stick with some of the young pitchers they already have.

 

Well, they want somebody who is a decent bet at 200 innings. Padilla was a reliever, then turned into a 200 IP guy overnight. I believe that quick increase in workload played a part in his 2004/2005 setbacks, as he was always hindered by nagging type injuries, as opposed to TJS season ending stuff. From what I remember, he was having triceps issues and groin issues, but not major shoulder and/or elbow problems. I think he's quite capable of giving a team 115 or better ERA+ next year over 200 innings, which is exactly what the Cubs are looking for.

 

Marshall and Mateo don't erase that need.

 

i would still rather see marshall & mateo starting for the cubs than padilla. he might be healthier in 07 or he might have another 150 ip year but even when he's 100% he's not impressive enough for the cubs to spend 4 mil/ year on him imo. there is more than enough talent in the system pitching wise if the management would just have some confidence in them.

[goonys evil twin]

i would still rather see marshall & mateo starting for the cubs than padilla. he might be healthier in 07 or he might have another 150 ip year but even when he's 100% he's not impressive enough for the cubs to spend 4 mil/ year on him imo. there is more than enough talent in the system pitching wise if the management would just have some confidence in them.

 

Marshall and Mateo have done nothing to indicate they could outperform Padilla next year, and neither is a safe bet for 200 IP (probably Hendry's biggest desire). I'd be happy with giving Padilla a 3/21m deal, it's not like his signing will mean there is no room for anybody else. Even if he's here, there would be 2 spots open. The Cubs can't ignore other pitchers because of the guys they already have.

[mg420]

i would still rather see marshall & mateo starting for the cubs than padilla. he might be healthier in 07 or he might have another 150 ip year but even when he's 100% he's not impressive enough for the cubs to spend 4 mil/ year on him imo. there is more than enough talent in the system pitching wise if the management would just have some confidence in them.

 

Marshall and Mateo have done nothing to indicate they could outperform Padilla next year, and neither is a safe bet for 200 IP (probably Hendry's biggest desire). I'd be happy with giving Padilla a 3/21m deal, it's not like his signing will mean there is no room for anybody else. Even if he's here, there would be 2 spots open. The Cubs can't ignore other pitchers because of the guys they already have.

 

and padilla is? i beg to differ. they can however avoid overpaying for often injured veteran's when they have plenty of talent in the system ready to contribute.

[goonys evil twin]

i would still rather see marshall & mateo starting for the cubs than padilla. he might be healthier in 07 or he might have another 150 ip year but even when he's 100% he's not impressive enough for the cubs to spend 4 mil/ year on him imo. there is more than enough talent in the system pitching wise if the management would just have some confidence in them.

 

Marshall and Mateo have done nothing to indicate they could outperform Padilla next year, and neither is a safe bet for 200 IP (probably Hendry's biggest desire). I'd be happy with giving Padilla a 3/21m deal, it's not like his signing will mean there is no room for anybody else. Even if he's here, there would be 2 spots open. The Cubs can't ignore other pitchers because of the guys they already have.

 

and padilla is? i beg to differ. they can however avoid overpaying for often injured veteran's when they have plenty of talent in the system ready to contribute.

 

That was the plan this year and it didn't work. There's a difference between having arms that are ready to contribute, and having arms that can go give you 32 starts 200 IP and a 4.00 ERA.

 

If you're going to ignore what I said about Padilla's injury fine, but he's a much better bet to go 200 solid innings next year than Mateo or Marshall. It's not even close.

[mg420]

i would still rather see marshall & mateo starting for the cubs than padilla. he might be healthier in 07 or he might have another 150 ip year but even when he's 100% he's not impressive enough for the cubs to spend 4 mil/ year on him imo. there is more than enough talent in the system pitching wise if the management would just have some confidence in them.

 

Marshall and Mateo have done nothing to indicate they could outperform Padilla next year, and neither is a safe bet for 200 IP (probably Hendry's biggest desire). I'd be happy with giving Padilla a 3/21m deal, it's not like his signing will mean there is no room for anybody else. Even if he's here, there would be 2 spots open. The Cubs can't ignore other pitchers because of the guys they already have.

 

and padilla is? i beg to differ. they can however avoid overpaying for often injured veteran's when they have plenty of talent in the system ready to contribute.

 

That was the plan this year and it didn't work. There's a difference between having arms that are ready to contribute, and having arms that can go give you 32 starts 200 IP and a 4.00 ERA.

 

If you're going to ignore what I said about Padilla's injury fine, but he's a much better bet to go 200 solid innings next year than Mateo or Marshall. It's not even close.

 

unless you are an MD, i dont see what good it does to speculate about his injury and the effect it has had on his pitching the last 3 years. i guess just like in so many other cases we will agree to disagree.

[goonys evil twin]

unless you are an MD, i dont see what good it does to speculate about his injury and the effect it has had on his pitching the last 3 years. i guess just like in so many other cases we will agree to disagree.

 

Wait, so now only doctors are allowed to speculate on injuries and the potential effect on a pitcher going forward?

 

Okay, well Marshall's injury history makes him a much bigger risk than Padilla, but I guess you aren't speculating that he's past that and will do just fine next year.