Wade Miller

[98navigator]

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think, even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.

 

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects...

 

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

 

Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects.

 

If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

 

Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong?

 

Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano.

 

It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably.

 

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

 

Huh? How do you know the Cubs' top offer to Z is $14.5M? They are still in the process of negotiating an extension. Numbers that are leaked to the media are all a part of the process; every team will start low and every agent will start high. Both parties do so to meet so where in the middle.

 

The money given to Miller will not preclude the Cubs from extending Zambrano if they truly want to do so. Hendry has a track record of keeping the players he likes.

[radarluv1]

wow, i just realized that i'm older than wade. he will turn 31 in september. carptenter might have been a little younger but not much. wade was 28-29 in 2005 his last year in boston. its just spring training, i'm not ready to give up just yet.

[CuseCubFan69]

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think' date=' even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.[/quote']

 

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects...

 

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

 

Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects.

 

If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

 

I think it's kinda funny talking about preventing prospects from dipping their beaks, considering the 2006 Cubs. I wouldn't give up on Wade Miller yet, I am interested in seeing how he adjusts. If he can mix up speeds he can be effective, even with a mid to upper 80's arm. We'll see.

 

If Miller isn't on the 40 man the Cubs still have that pitcher the Tigers took in the draft.

 

There's no guarantee Campusano will amount to anything substantial. Again, the Cubs have gambled that they will be just fine in their bullpen without him.

 

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

[CuseCubFan69]

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think, even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.

 

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects...

 

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

 

Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects.

 

If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

 

Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong?

 

Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano.

 

It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably.

 

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

 

Huh? How do you know the Cubs' top offer to Z is $14.5M? They are still in the process of negotiating an extension. Numbers that are leaked to the media are all a part of the process; every team will start low and every agent will start high. Both parties do so to meet so where in the middle.

 

The money given to Miller will not preclude the Cubs from extending Zambrano if they truly want to do so. Hendry has a track record of keeping the players he likes.

 

Hypothetical cost. All right 16.5 then and Z wants 19. Whatever the difference the 2.5+ wasted is a significant amount of money. I agree that Hendry may go out and sign Z then what happens to that 2.5 when it comes to signing another good player? What happens when the Cubs lose out on a guy when they top off at 3 and he signs with another team for 5.5? To that player it's a huge difference and the Cubs do have to follow some kind of budget. This money could also be used for a signing bonus. If I'm operating on a specific budget I'd allocate my money differently than you would.

[98navigator]

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think, even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.

 

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects...

 

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

 

Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects.

 

If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

 

Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong?

 

Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano.

 

It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably.

 

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

 

It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston.

 

Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes.

 

I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

 

 

The opportunity costs are the price of doing business for many teams. That doesn't mean that it isn't a gamble worth taking. If the Wade Miller experiment doesn't work out the team will not be worse off. When The Cardinals acquired Carpenter, they paid him to sit for a year. He had shoulder surgeries in 2002 & 2003.

 

Sometimes the gambles are fruitful and sometimes they aren't.

[98navigator]

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think' date=' even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.[/quote']

 

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects...

 

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

 

Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects.

 

If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

 

I think it's kinda funny talking about preventing prospects from dipping their beaks, considering the 2006 Cubs. I wouldn't give up on Wade Miller yet, I am interested in seeing how he adjusts. If he can mix up speeds he can be effective, even with a mid to upper 80's arm. We'll see.

 

If Miller isn't on the 40 man the Cubs still have that pitcher the Tigers took in the draft.

 

There's no guarantee Campusano will amount to anything substantial. Again, the Cubs have gambled that they will be just fine in their bullpen without him.

 

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

[98navigator]

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think, even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.

 

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects...

 

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

 

Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects.

 

If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

 

Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong?

 

Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano.

 

It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably.

 

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

 

Huh? How do you know the Cubs' top offer to Z is $14.5M? They are still in the process of negotiating an extension. Numbers that are leaked to the media are all a part of the process; every team will start low and every agent will start high. Both parties do so to meet so where in the middle.

 

The money given to Miller will not preclude the Cubs from extending Zambrano if they truly want to do so. Hendry has a track record of keeping the players he likes.

 

Hypothetical cost. All right 16.5 then and Z wants 19. Whatever the difference the 2.5+ wasted is a significant amount of money. I agree that Hendry may go out and sign Z then what happens to that 2.5 when it comes to signing another good player? What happens when the Cubs lose out on a guy when they top off at 3 and he signs with another team for 5.5? To that player it's a huge difference and the Cubs do have to follow some kind of budget. This money could also be used for a signing bonus. If I'm operating on a specific budget I'd allocate my money differently than you would.

 

I understand your basic point but I still disagree that $2.5M is ever going to keep a major market team from making a move. If need be, they would expand their budget or get creative with contract terms to make it fit while making sure they sign the player they want.

 

Also, the Cubs have a few revenue streams that are designed to absorb payroll gambles.

[RichHillIsABeast]

It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston.

 

Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes.

 

I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

 

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil:

[CuseCubFan69]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

[CuseCubFan69]

It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston.

 

Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes.

 

I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

 

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil:

 

I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made.

[Danny82]

It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston.

 

Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes.

 

I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

 

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil:

 

I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made.

You are acting like it's a certainty that he won't positively contribute to this year's team. You don't know that yet. Pitching is more than sheer velocity, as I'm sure you know.

 

You are risk averse, that's fine. But to come up with all of these hypotheticals where this 2.5M could have better been allocated elsewhere is nothing but speculation.

[CubColtPacer]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

If Miller even pitches decently in spring training, you could definitely get more value for Miller.

[RichHillIsABeast]

It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston.

 

Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes.

 

I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

 

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil:

 

I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made.

 

Naw, that's cool. I just happen to disagree with you on the Miller signing. But I clearly remember CiNY being fine with this move at the time it was announced. It's pretty disingenuous to about face on the move now, especially since the reasons CiNY listed in his post were just as valid when the Miller signing was announced.

[CubinNY]

It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston.

 

Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes.

 

I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

 

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil:

 

I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made.

 

It's alright Cuse I have him on ignore.

 

I don't believe I've commented on the resigning of Miller after the first year.

 

The only thing I'm hatin' is being called Dude. It reminds me of all the frat boys who use to hang out at the bar I worked.

 

"Dude, she hot"

"Dude, no way"

"Awe, dude?"

"Dude, come on"

[98navigator]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

[davearm]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

[CubinNY]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

[davearm]

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

Miller, definitely.

 

The Cubs apparently couldn't get anything at all for Campusano, which is why he went into the Rule 5 instead of being traded.

[CubinNY]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

[CubColtPacer]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher.

[RichHillIsABeast]

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

 

Depending on the money paid, I like this.

 

Maybe the Cubs are finally hoping for the best and planning for the worst, instead of planning for the best and not thinking about the worst.

 

:-k

[CuseCubFan69]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does.

 

What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet.

[CubinNY]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher.

 

Put the hits and walks together and you get WHIP. To me WHIP is more important than ERA when projecting into the future.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=568&position=P&page=6&type=full

 

Edit: In additon checkout his BB/9 and K/BB

Edited February 26, 2007 by CubinNY

[98navigator]

Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

 

Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

 

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing.

 

The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

 

Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year...

 

I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

 

If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball.

 

Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value.

 

He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

 

He was decently effective at the end of that season and he never hit 90mph. I think it was reasonable for the Cubs to think he would continue to gain velocity (and he still might). Again, conventional wisdom is that pitchers are better two seasons removed from TJS. That's why they resigned him.

[CuseCubFan69]

So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it.

 

From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward.

 

This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day.

 

The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M.

 

People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury.

 

I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

 

I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away.