The Cub Reporter: Guzman Looking Great

[David]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

Alfonso Soriano...but that's a whole other can of worms.

[CUBZ99]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

[goonys evil twin]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

 

Hendry has shown a clear pattern of overpaying for mediocrity in the past. I don't understand how you can try and defend the signing of Marquis by saying he usually doesn't overpay for starters.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

 

No, that's just the most recent example. Going back for a couple more I would say Ted Lilly and Greg Maddux.

[CubColtPacer]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

 

No, that's just the most recent example. Going back for a couple more I would say Ted Lilly and Greg Maddux.

 

The discussion is relative to the market, that Hendry offers much more than any other team-Lilly can't be thrown in there in that case, because another team was offering similar type money to the Cubs.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The discussion is relative to the market, that Hendry offers much more than any other team-Lilly can't be thrown in there in that case, because another team was offering similar type money to the Cubs.

 

That doesn't mean he's not overpaid.

[CUBZ99]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

 

Hendry has shown a clear pattern of overpaying for mediocrity in the past. I don't understand how you can try and defend the signing of Marquis by saying he usually doesn't overpay for starters.

 

If you believe that he does overpay for starters, please feel free to cite some examples. I can't recall a starter that he vastly overpaid for, prior to this year.

[CubColtPacer]

The discussion is relative to the market, that Hendry offers much more than any other team-Lilly can't be thrown in there in that case, because another team was offering similar type money to the Cubs.

 

That doesn't mean he's not overpaid.

 

True, but the original poster's point is that Hendry would only go up as high as he did if there was some other teams bidding for him as well. All of them might have been overpaying for his actual production, but the fact that Hendry signed him for so much indicates that there was a market for Marquis. I don't think anyone is questioning that Marquis is overpaid per production, but rather if he was overpaid compared to market value.

[goonys evil twin]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

 

Hendry has shown a clear pattern of overpaying for mediocrity in the past. I don't understand how you can try and defend the signing of Marquis by saying he usually doesn't overpay for starters.

 

If you believe that he does overpay for starters, please feel free to cite some examples. I can't recall a starter that he vastly overpaid for, prior to this year.

 

Are you trying to use that as defense of the Marquis signing? I don't see what it matters. But to entertain the notion, Rusch was used as a starting pitcher and overpaid. I think he overpaid for Maddux, who was making $9m as a mediocre starter.

 

He paid $90+ million for one of the worst teams in baseball, so obviously he overpays.

[goonys evil twin]

The discussion is relative to the market, that Hendry offers much more than any other team-Lilly can't be thrown in there in that case, because another team was offering similar type money to the Cubs.

 

That doesn't mean he's not overpaid.

 

True, but the original poster's point is that Hendry would only go up as high as he did if there was some other teams bidding for him as well. All of them might have been overpaying for his actual production, but the fact that Hendry signed him for so much indicates that there was a market for Marquis.

 

Since I brought up the market think, I'll state that what I said was there wasn't much of a market. There weren't 10 teams bidding heavily, that much is obvious. Maybe somebody else offered the same money, that doesn't make it a strong market. And that doesn't support the idea that he's tradable right now.

[CubColtPacer]

There is a big difference between signing a $2M backup shortstop and a starting pitcher. For bench players, Hendry has some times paid a premium because of his affection for a player (i.e. Blanco, Neifi). I can't however name too many everyday players or starting pitchers that Hendry has severely overpaid for.

 

Jason Marquis for starters.

 

So your position is that Hendry, prior to signing Marquis, has shown a pattern of overpaying starting pitchers because he signed Marquis?

:?

 

Hendry has shown a clear pattern of overpaying for mediocrity in the past. I don't understand how you can try and defend the signing of Marquis by saying he usually doesn't overpay for starters.

 

If you believe that he does overpay for starters, please feel free to cite some examples. I can't recall a starter that he vastly overpaid for, prior to this year.

 

Are you trying to use that as defense of the Marquis signing? I don't see what it matters. But to entertain the notion, Rusch was used as a starting pitcher and overpaid. I think he overpaid for Maddux, who was making $9m as a mediocre starter.

 

He paid $90+ million for one of the worst teams in baseball, so obviously he overpays.

 

You don't think another team would give Rusch that money after two years of being an above average pitcher and then an average pitcher and also being left-handed? I very much disagree.

 

Again-the discussion is if another team would trade for him, so money related to production doesn't mean as much as the pitcher's perceived market value. Marquis had value out in the market, and some team would have paid him 4-6 million if the Cubs hadn't.

[CubColtPacer]

The discussion is relative to the market, that Hendry offers much more than any other team-Lilly can't be thrown in there in that case, because another team was offering similar type money to the Cubs.

 

That doesn't mean he's not overpaid.

 

True, but the original poster's point is that Hendry would only go up as high as he did if there was some other teams bidding for him as well. All of them might have been overpaying for his actual production, but the fact that Hendry signed him for so much indicates that there was a market for Marquis.

 

Since I brought up the market think, I'll state that what I said was there wasn't much of a market. There weren't 10 teams bidding heavily, that much is obvious. Maybe somebody else offered the same money, that doesn't make it a strong market. And that doesn't support the idea that he's tradable right now.

 

I would agree that he's not tradable right now-I think he could be tradable without picking any part of the contract up by a month in (although I don't think the Cubs would do it).

[Jehrico]

Thought I would throw in my 2 cents on Guzman despite the Marquis discussion...I share the same concern over his workload last year, and am concerned about him starting. He was hurt and limited in innings pitched in '03, '04, and '05. Last year was his first full year pitching in quite awhile. Then, when the season was over, they sent him to pitch in the winter leagues. I would have rather they given him the time off to make sure he's fresh for the offseason rather than throwing competitively. If he flames out this year, I think that will be a major contributing factor.

 

That said, if he's not pitching in Chicago, he'll be pitching in Iowa, so worrying about how he'll hold up after his workload the last year isn't going to do any good. His innings aren't going to be any more limited in either case. Considering that, if he's one of the best 5 starters coming out of ST, I'd rather he were pitching in Chicago than Iowa.

[goonys evil twin]

I would agree that he's not tradable right now-I think he could be tradable without picking any part of the contract up by a month in (although I don't think the Cubs would do it).

 

He could, only if he pitches really well for the first month, and a big money team is desperate for starting pitching.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Lou says that Guzman looks 'exceptional,' and it sounds like Gallagher impressed him as well.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Young arms: Righty Angel Guzman looked good during live batting practice Monday, as did nonroster prospect Sean Gallagher. Another intriguing prospect is side-arming lefty Clay Rapada, who also tossed live b.p.

 

“I saw a couple of them today; they’re pretty darn good,” Lou Piniella said. “First of all, I’ve been impressed with the quality of arms here. But today, I saw a couple of kids who threw the ball exceedingly well. One of them was Guzman. And the other one was Gallagher. They were exceptional.

 

“Guzman looked nice. I guess he had shoulder surgery a few years back. He’s getting it all together.”

 

I like news like this! Keep that deep rotation competition going!

 

Great news in regards to Gallagher, other reports from AZ had Gallagher as not looking too great.

 

To be fair to those other reports, they were based on Gallagher's first day or two in the big league camp. I'm sure as he got his feet wet, he started doing his thing.

[CuseCubFan69]

Lou says that Guzman looks 'exceptional,' and it sounds like Gallagher impressed him as well.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Young arms: Righty Angel Guzman looked good during live batting practice Monday, as did nonroster prospect Sean Gallagher. Another intriguing prospect is side-arming lefty Clay Rapada, who also tossed live b.p.

 

“I saw a couple of them today; they’re pretty darn good,” Lou Piniella said. “First of all, I’ve been impressed with the quality of arms here. But today, I saw a couple of kids who threw the ball exceedingly well. One of them was Guzman. And the other one was Gallagher. They were exceptional.

 

“Guzman looked nice. I guess he had shoulder surgery a few years back. He’s getting it all together.”

 

I like news like this! Keep that deep rotation competition going!

 

Great news in regards to Gallagher, other reports from AZ had Gallagher as not looking too great.

 

To be fair to those other reports, they were based on Gallagher's first day or two in the big league camp. I'm sure as he got his feet wet, he started doing his thing.

 

He was probably nervous as heck. Let's hope he continues to progress like we hope he can.

[CUBZ99]

Lou says that Guzman looks 'exceptional,' and it sounds like Gallagher impressed him as well.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Young arms: Righty Angel Guzman looked good during live batting practice Monday, as did nonroster prospect Sean Gallagher. Another intriguing prospect is side-arming lefty Clay Rapada, who also tossed live b.p.

 

“I saw a couple of them today; they’re pretty darn good,” Lou Piniella said. “First of all, I’ve been impressed with the quality of arms here. But today, I saw a couple of kids who threw the ball exceedingly well. One of them was Guzman. And the other one was Gallagher. They were exceptional.

 

“Guzman looked nice. I guess he had shoulder surgery a few years back. He’s getting it all together.”

 

I like news like this! Keep that deep rotation competition going!

 

Great news in regards to Gallagher, other reports from AZ had Gallagher as not looking too great.

 

To be fair to those other reports, they were based on Gallagher's first day or two in the big league camp. I'm sure as he got his feet wet, he started doing his thing.

 

Good point. Still glad to see that Gallagher is starting to impress.

[Laura]

AZ Phil has another update at The Cub Reporter. He notes in the comments section:

 

Roberto Novoa does have one minor league option left, so if he doesn’t make the Opening Day roster, I would expect him to be optioned to Iowa rather than traded. It’s just as likely that Michael Wuertz will get optioned out as Novoa, though, because Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

[goonys evil twin]

AZ Phil has another update at The Cub Reporter. He notes in the comments section:

 

Roberto Novoa does have one minor league option left, so if he doesn’t make the Opening Day roster, I would expect him to be optioned to Iowa rather than traded. It’s just as likely that Michael Wuertz will get optioned out as Novoa, though, because Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

[CuseCubFan69]

AZ Phil has another update at The Cub Reporter. He notes in the comments section:

 

Roberto Novoa does have one minor league option left, so if he doesn’t make the Opening Day roster, I would expect him to be optioned to Iowa rather than traded. It’s just as likely that Michael Wuertz will get optioned out as Novoa, though, because Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Thanks. Some guys just take a little longer to get ready than others. Wuertz has proved he can be a decent reliever in the past and I'm not too worried about him unless he has an injury. If these two guys get sent down, is there room at Iowa for them? And, if they are there that team is going to have a pretty good 1-2 reliever tandum.

[CubColtPacer]

AZ Phil has another update at The Cub Reporter. He notes in the comments section:

 

Roberto Novoa does have one minor league option left, so if he doesn’t make the Opening Day roster, I would expect him to be optioned to Iowa rather than traded. It’s just as likely that Michael Wuertz will get optioned out as Novoa, though, because Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

 

Sure, but who do you get rid of then? There are too many bullpen guys, somebody who is talented has to either be sent down, released, or traded, and so pretty much all of the jobs down there are up for grabs.

[goonys evil twin]

AZ Phil has another update at The Cub Reporter. He notes in the comments section:

 

Roberto Novoa does have one minor league option left, so if he doesn’t make the Opening Day roster, I would expect him to be optioned to Iowa rather than traded. It’s just as likely that Michael Wuertz will get optioned out as Novoa, though, because Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

 

Sure, but who do you get rid of then? There are too many bullpen guys, somebody who is talented has to either be sent down, released, or traded, and so pretty much all of the jobs down there are up for grabs.

 

I don't care about their talent, I care about the results. Novoa should not be considered a serious candidate to unseat Wuertz in spring training. The bullpen of Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Wood, Wuertz, Ohman and Cotts should be all but set. If Wade Miller isn't good enough to crack the rotation, then cut him lose. There isn't a single "kid" who should be given a bullpen job over Wuertz. The only possible way he should be optioned is if everybody, by some miracle, is 100% healthy and pitching great. That's unlikely.

 

Wuertz is a top 3 arm in the Cubs bullpen, as far as showing he can be an effective reliever. The decision to option Wuertz or not should not lie in his spring training results. He's shown enough in the past, when it matters, to comfortably ignore spring results.

[CubColtPacer]

AZ Phil has another update at The Cub Reporter. He notes in the comments section:

 

Roberto Novoa does have one minor league option left, so if he doesn’t make the Opening Day roster, I would expect him to be optioned to Iowa rather than traded. It’s just as likely that Michael Wuertz will get optioned out as Novoa, though, because Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

 

Sure, but who do you get rid of then? There are too many bullpen guys, somebody who is talented has to either be sent down, released, or traded, and so pretty much all of the jobs down there are up for grabs.

 

I don't care about their talent, I care about the results. Novoa should not be considered a serious candidate to unseat Wuertz in spring training. The bullpen of Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Wood, Wuertz, Ohman and Cotts should be all but set. If Wade Miller isn't good enough to crack the rotation, then cut him lose. There isn't a single "kid" who should be given a bullpen job over Wuertz. The only possible way he should be optioned is if everybody, by some miracle, is 100% healthy and pitching great. That's unlikely.

 

Wuertz is a top 3 arm in the Cubs bullpen, as far as showing he can be an effective reliever. The decision to option Wuertz or not should not lie in his spring training results. He's shown enough in the past, when it matters, to comfortably ignore spring results.

 

I would agree that Novoa should not get it over Wuertz-I disagree a little bit about Wade Miller, although I think you did mention it if everyone is healthy and pitching good. If Wade is pitching well (and better than Wuertz) and everyone is healthy in the rotation in front of him, which means he can't crack the rotation, then I can certainly understand why they would rather option Wuertz than release Miller. That's the only case I see where the bullpen might change over ST though.

[goonys evil twin]

Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

 

Sure, but who do you get rid of then?

 

I don't care about their talent, I care about the results.

 

He's shown enough in the past, when it matters, to comfortably ignore spring results.

 

I would agree that Novoa should not get it over Wuertz-I disagree a little bit about Wade Miller, although I think you did mention it if everyone is healthy and pitching good. If Wade is pitching well (and better than Wuertz) and everyone is healthy in the rotation in front of him, which means he can't crack the rotation, then I can certainly understand why they would rather option Wuertz than release Miller. That's the only case I see where the bullpen might change over ST though.

 

This is my main argument. It's silly to claim Wuertz has to have a better spring than he did last year to "win" a job. Wuertz has a job. He's the Cubs 3rd best reliever, possibly 2nd. The only way he should lose his job is if you are in the unlikely situation where everybody else is great. Wuertz doesn't need to do anything this spring to "win" a job.

[CuseCubFan69]

Wuertz’s “live” BP sessions have been terrible so far, and he’s going to have to have a much better ST than the one he had a year ago to win a bullpen job.

 

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs.

 

Sure, but who do you get rid of then?

 

I don't care about their talent, I care about the results.

 

He's shown enough in the past, when it matters, to comfortably ignore spring results.

 

I would agree that Novoa should not get it over Wuertz-I disagree a little bit about Wade Miller, although I think you did mention it if everyone is healthy and pitching good. If Wade is pitching well (and better than Wuertz) and everyone is healthy in the rotation in front of him, which means he can't crack the rotation, then I can certainly understand why they would rather option Wuertz than release Miller. That's the only case I see where the bullpen might change over ST though.

 

This is my main argument. It's silly to claim Wuertz has to have a better spring than he did last year to "win" a job. Wuertz has a job. He's the Cubs 3rd best reliever, possibly 2nd. The only way he should lose his job is if you are in the unlikely situation where everybody else is great. Wuertz doesn't need to do anything this spring to "win" a job.

 

I agree but the numbers game may come into play that determines what happens and also the deals Hendry made to sign Miller and any others. I'm not saying that's right but it may be wh something that doesn't seem right may happen.