The General Managers' Meetings Thread

[RichHillIsABeast]

I think Marshall has the inside track. Then it's a toss up between Mateo, Marmol, and Guzman.

 

Gallagher likely is a year away.

 

I truly hope that Hendry is not counting on any of the above named pitchers to start the season in the rotation. Last year they all proved that they weren't ready quite yet.

 

next year isn't last year.

 

Next year isn't a good year to put those guys back into prominent roles either. They stunk. And will most likely continue to stink, as none of them showed any sort of progress as the year went on.

 

Marshall wasn't ready for a full season in the bigs. That certainly wasn't the plan during ST. He was AAA bound as soon as Prior/Miller/Wood got back in June. Obviously that didn't work out.

 

We should be happy that Guzman managed to pitch a full season. His stuff isn't the same since the last injury. No more 3 plus pitches.

 

I like Mateo. He just had a couple rough starts towards the end. No big deal.

 

Marmol is going to be one heck of a setup man or closer.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I think Marshall has the inside track. Then it's a toss up between Mateo, Marmol, and Guzman.

 

Gallagher likely is a year away.

 

I truly hope that Hendry is not counting on any of the above named pitchers to start the season in the rotation. Last year they all proved that they weren't ready quite yet.

 

next year isn't last year.

 

Next year isn't a good year to put those guys back into prominent roles either. They stunk. And will most likely continue to stink, as none of them showed any sort of progress as the year went on.

 

I can see Guzman making the leap with the added year. His performance showed he hadn't piched regularly in 2.5 years (much worse command, control, no sink on his pitches) and I think that's something that could come after the offseason.

 

Marshall really struggled (dramatically worse control, HRs given up) and got worse as the season went on. I think Mateo is a reliever, Marmol needs to improve his control in the minors and might be best served in the pen, O'Malley is no one to get excited about.

 

Anyone I forgot?

[goonys evil twin]

Marshall wasn't ready for a full season in the bigs. That certainly wasn't the plan during ST. He was AAA bound as soon as Prior/Miller/Wood got back in June. Obviously that didn't work out.

 

We should be happy that Guzman managed to pitch a full season. His stuff isn't the same since the last injury. No more 3 plus pitches.

 

I like Mateo. He just had a couple rough starts towards the end. No big deal.

 

Marmol is going to be one heck of a setup man or closer.

 

I never said these guys had no value, or they could never help the Cubs. I said next year they shouldn't be given starting roles. All of what you wrote speaks to the idea that these guys have a future. None of it supports the idea that they should start for the Cubs in 2007.

[Bull]

Furthermore, in his age 23 season Wade Miller only posted a 96 ERA+ before having two phenomenal years.

 

I can see Marshall having a path similar to someone like Maroth or Odalis Perez.

 

He could be bad, but then he also could make a few adjustments, stay healthy, and give an ERA+ between 90-110 which would make him an acceptable fifth starter.

 

The Cubs do need to add one more pitcher. Two would be nice, but I think with the addition of one solid to very good pitcher, the Cubs could be ok.

 

wouldn't an era+ of 90-110 make him an average 3rd starter rather than an acceptable 5th starter?

[goonys evil twin]

Furthermore, in his age 23 season Wade Miller only posted a 96 ERA+ before having two phenomenal years.

 

I can see Marshall having a path similar to someone like Maroth or Odalis Perez.

 

He could be bad, but then he also could make a few adjustments, stay healthy, and give an ERA+ between 90-110 which would make him an acceptable fifth starter.

 

The Cubs do need to add one more pitcher. Two would be nice, but I think with the addition of one solid to very good pitcher, the Cubs could be ok.

 

wouldn't an era+ of 90-110 make him an average 3rd starter rather than an acceptable 5th starter?

 

I certainly would not include anybody at a 90 ERA+ as an average 3rd starter.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Marshall wasn't ready for a full season in the bigs. That certainly wasn't the plan during ST. He was AAA bound as soon as Prior/Miller/Wood got back in June. Obviously that didn't work out.

 

We should be happy that Guzman managed to pitch a full season. His stuff isn't the same since the last injury. No more 3 plus pitches.

 

I like Mateo. He just had a couple rough starts towards the end. No big deal.

 

Marmol is going to be one heck of a setup man or closer.

 

I never said these guys had no value, or they could never help the Cubs. I said next year they shouldn't be given starting roles. All of what you wrote speaks to the idea that these guys have a future. None of it supports the idea that they should start for the Cubs in 2007.

 

Mateo will make starts for the Cubs this season. Bank on it.

 

* Unless he is traded/injured.

 

edit:

 

BTW, Mateo had a perfectly respectable 4.09 ERA in 9 starts before getting mauled in Colorado, which destroyed his season numbers.

 

He is ready. Colorado was just rookie growing pains.

Edited November 14, 2006 by RichHillIsABeast

[Bull]

Furthermore, in his age 23 season Wade Miller only posted a 96 ERA+ before having two phenomenal years.

 

I can see Marshall having a path similar to someone like Maroth or Odalis Perez.

 

He could be bad, but then he also could make a few adjustments, stay healthy, and give an ERA+ between 90-110 which would make him an acceptable fifth starter.

 

The Cubs do need to add one more pitcher. Two would be nice, but I think with the addition of one solid to very good pitcher, the Cubs could be ok.

 

wouldn't an era+ of 90-110 make him an average 3rd starter rather than an acceptable 5th starter?

 

I certainly would not include anybody at a 90 ERA+ as an average 3rd starter.

 

is 100 not league average?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Furthermore, in his age 23 season Wade Miller only posted a 96 ERA+ before having two phenomenal years.

 

I can see Marshall having a path similar to someone like Maroth or Odalis Perez.

 

He could be bad, but then he also could make a few adjustments, stay healthy, and give an ERA+ between 90-110 which would make him an acceptable fifth starter.

 

The Cubs do need to add one more pitcher. Two would be nice, but I think with the addition of one solid to very good pitcher, the Cubs could be ok.

 

wouldn't an era+ of 90-110 make him an average 3rd starter rather than an acceptable 5th starter?

 

I certainly would not include anybody at a 90 ERA+ as an average 3rd starter.

 

is 100 not league average?

 

Yes, and a 90 would put your 3rd starter below league average. That's not a desirable predicament.

[UMFan83]

Why does it seem like once again, the most viable player on the market (Drew) is again being ignored?

 

Edit: OMG 9999, I had no clue!

[Bull]

Furthermore, in his age 23 season Wade Miller only posted a 96 ERA+ before having two phenomenal years.

 

I can see Marshall having a path similar to someone like Maroth or Odalis Perez.

 

He could be bad, but then he also could make a few adjustments, stay healthy, and give an ERA+ between 90-110 which would make him an acceptable fifth starter.

 

The Cubs do need to add one more pitcher. Two would be nice, but I think with the addition of one solid to very good pitcher, the Cubs could be ok.

 

BTW I agree with the sentiment that Marshall should get a shot.

 

I see the rotation as

 

z

FA

3,4,5 of Hill, Marshall, Miller, Prior, or surprise young arm.

 

I don't see Hill as much a guarantee as others do, but I think he and Marshall are to be given more of a chance than the others in ST.

worst case scenario: if Miller and Prior are both out, I think Marshall is a viable replacement.

[rjchapma]

how are you telling me that a player who has played one full season in the major leagues, is better than an all-star like 8 year veteran who hits 35 to 40 homeruns every year and 100 RBI's each year. I like Murton, but this is ridiculous. Just because he batted better the Carlos Lee after the all-star break doesnt make him better. Edited November 14, 2006 by rjchapma

[David]

So two of our targets this offseason are guys we almost traded Sosa for in 2000.

 

Weren't Westbrook and Soriano (along with Jackson Melian, who we did wind up having at one point) parts of the deal that would've sent Sammy to NY?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

how are you telling me that a player who has played one full season in the major leagues is better than an all-star like 8 year veteran who its 35 to 40 homeruns every year and 100 RBI's each year. I like Murton, but this is ridiculous. Just because he batted better the Carlos Lee after the all-star break doesnt make him better.

 

He may be a better value though.

 

If the Cubs had no holes to fill, upgrading Murton to Lee might be an decent idea.

 

On the other hand, the Cubs do have a hole at CF. The wise thing would be to find a bat for CF and let Murton produce at LF.

[JWCUB]

how are you telling me that a player who has played one full season in the major leagues is better than an all-star like 8 year veteran who its 35 to 40 homeruns every year and 100 RBI's each year. I like Murton, but this is ridiculous. Just because he batted better the Carlos Lee after the all-star break doesnt make him better.

 

Younger player on the rise VS. Older player on the decline.

[David]

how are you telling me that a player who has played one full season in the major leagues is better than an all-star like 8 year veteran who its 35 to 40 homeruns every year and 100 RBI's each year. I like Murton, but this is ridiculous. Just because he batted better the Carlos Lee after the all-star break doesnt make him better.

 

I'll take the guy who is 5 years younger, millions and millions cheaper, and showing signs of very good production over the 8 year vet headed for the downside of his career.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

how are you telling me that a player who has played one full season in the major leagues is better than an all-star like 8 year veteran who its 35 to 40 homeruns every year and 100 RBI's each year. I like Murton, but this is ridiculous. Just because he batted better the Carlos Lee after the all-star break doesnt make him better.

 

Because home runs and especially RsBI are very poor measures of how good a player actually is offensively. And even then, Lee doesn't hit "35 to 40 homeruns every year and 100 RBI's each year". Heck, this was the first time EVER he had hit even 35(he finished with 37).

[rjchapma]

first off hes not on the decline. You guys need to get this into you head that you cant say someone who had only played one season is better than a good veteran player. I agree I think we need SP, and a CF over a better LF. On the other hand though someone making that statement because of second half statistics of one year is ridiculous.

[Derwood]

first off hes not on the decline. You guys need to get this into you head that you cant say someone who had only played one season is better than a good veteran player. I agree I think we need SP, and a CF over a better LF. On the other hand though someone making that statement because of second half statistics of one year is ridiculous.

 

No, don't you see? Once baseball players hit the mythic age of 32, they automatically go down every year (even when they don't)

[rjchapma]

So im not arguing that we need Carlos Lee, Murton is much cheaper I agree with that and we need other positions first, but I comepletly disagree with the comment that Murton is better the Lee. Until Lee actually declines, and Murton plays 8 seasons you cant tell me hes better. Plus you are basing your argument on one half of a season.

[rjchapma]

theres many guys over the age of 32 who are still hitting the crap out of the ball. heck DLee is a year younger and no one is saying he is on the decline.

[David]

first off hes not on the decline. You guys need to get this into you head that you cant say someone who had only played one season is better than a good veteran player. I agree I think we need SP, and a CF over a better LF. On the other hand though someone making that statement because of second half statistics of one year is ridiculous.

 

 

Albert Pujols, Ryan Howard, Miguel Cabrera and many others would beg to differ.

 

 

 

(Here come the very predictable replies saying that I'm somehow comparing Murton to these future Hall of Famers)

[CaliforniaRaisin]

first off hes not on the decline. You guys need to get this into you head that you cant say someone who had only played one season is better than a good veteran player. I agree I think we need SP, and a CF over a better LF. On the other hand though someone making that statement because of second half statistics of one year is ridiculous.

 

Why?

 

Are you telling me that guys like Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, etc. were worse than good veteran players after their first full season?

 

Why can't Lee be on the decline? He's 30, overweight and will soon need to DH.

 

On the flip side, Murton can be had for less than a million dollars for the next few years, allowing the Cubs to fill other holes in the team.

 

Why are we supposed to ignore Murton vs. Lee in the second half? Because you guy didn't perform as well, despite playing in the hitter's haven that is the Ballpark in Arlington?

[Derwood]

So im not arguing that we need Carlos Lee, Murton is much cheaper I agree with that and we need other positions first, but I comepletly disagree with the comment that Murton is better the Lee. Until Lee actually declines, and Murton plays 8 seasons you cant tell me hes better. Plus you are basing your argument on one half of a season.

 

Lee had career highs in HR, RBI and SLG this year. Clearly on the decline

[WrigleyinEngland]

Why do we need a better LF? If we upgraded in other positions? Drew is flat out a better player than Lee. He can hit,defend, get on base, hit the long ball drive in runs. He could also play CF. The upgrade from someone like pierre to him is astronomical, the upgrade from Murton to Lee is not astronomical if you put someone like drew in CF and Durham at 2B. Thats 3 On Base machines to place in your lineup. Murton also runs well and will have far better range than Lee.Murtons trade value will be far higher in coming years to boot.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

first off hes not on the decline. You guys need to get this into you head that you cant say someone who had only played one season is better than a good veteran player. I agree I think we need SP, and a CF over a better LF. On the other hand though someone making that statement because of second half statistics of one year is ridiculous.

 

No, don't you see? Once baseball players hit the mythic age of 32, they automatically go down every year (even when they don't)

 

You think Lee is going to improve as he ages? He's not the athlete/fitness freak that guys like Bonds are.