Amazing_Grace

This is a good post. Still doesn't really explain why Hendry felt he was worth trading for. Would it have been so bad to just hold on to Maddux for another year. It would have eliminated the need for Marquis.

As much as I like Murton, if Floyd can put up numbers like he did in 1999-2005, he's a better player than Murton. Personally, I really doubt that's going to happen. With Floyd, with the explosion in his numbers during that period and the injury problems the last two years, you can't help but think "was he juicing?" Either way, he's now 34 and isn't likely to return to prime form. If he takes a lot of Murton's AB's for an OPS of just around .800, then I'll be a bit peeved.

Is Todd Walker better enough though to warrant giving up a draft pick though? When you consider that the Cubs would have to give up (I think a 3rd round pick) as well as other teams would have to give up their first or 2nd to get Walker, it makes more sense why they would want to go with other similarly productive options at 2B now and keep the pick. I know I'd rather have DeRosa and keep that high pick to try to rebuild the farm system. OK I don't get it. If the Cubs would have given up a pick to get Walker, why didn't they have to give up a pick to get DeRosa. They were both FA's right? Did the Rangers not offer him arbritration? I thought the pick only changed hands if the player declined arbritration. If you're asking me "should the Cubs have signed Walker if he declined San Diego's arbritration offer", then no, the difference between Walker and DeRosa isn't worth a draft pick. In any event, the Cubs didn't have to trade Walker to begin with. Not trading him wouldn't have involved any picks going anywhere. Well, true, but by trading him they got a very intriguing prospect. Walker was classified as a type A free agent as a 2B, so if somebody signed him like the Cubs they would have been forced to give the Padres a draft pick. DeRosa qualified as a type B free agent because he was listed as an OF, and OF's numbers are much higher across the board than at 2B. With that, the Rangers get a supplemental pick for the Cubs signing him, but the Cubs didn't actually have to give up a pick for him. Ah, I see. It's difficult to keep baseball's arcane player signing rules straight. Who did we get for Todd Walker? Were they regarded as a very good prospect? Jose Ceda-a 19 year old pitcher out of the Dominican. He's raw, but he can really bring it-up to 99 miles an hour. He was rated as the 14th best rookie league prospect overall for the major leagues-I'm not sure where he falls on the Cubs rankings, but he definitely is worth the difference between Walker and DeRosa this year IMO. Guys that throw that hard are few and far between. I'd agree that it was probably worth it, given our minor league system's track record of developing pitching talent.

Is Todd Walker better enough though to warrant giving up a draft pick though? When you consider that the Cubs would have to give up (I think a 3rd round pick) as well as other teams would have to give up their first or 2nd to get Walker, it makes more sense why they would want to go with other similarly productive options at 2B now and keep the pick. I know I'd rather have DeRosa and keep that high pick to try to rebuild the farm system. OK I don't get it. If the Cubs would have given up a pick to get Walker, why didn't they have to give up a pick to get DeRosa. They were both FA's right? Did the Rangers not offer him arbritration? I thought the pick only changed hands if the player declined arbritration. If you're asking me "should the Cubs have signed Walker if he declined San Diego's arbritration offer", then no, the difference between Walker and DeRosa isn't worth a draft pick. In any event, the Cubs didn't have to trade Walker to begin with. Not trading him wouldn't have involved any picks going anywhere. Well, true, but by trading him they got a very intriguing prospect. Walker was classified as a type A free agent as a 2B, so if somebody signed him like the Cubs they would have been forced to give the Padres a draft pick. DeRosa qualified as a type B free agent because he was listed as an OF, and OF's numbers are much higher across the board than at 2B. With that, the Rangers get a supplemental pick for the Cubs signing him, but the Cubs didn't actually have to give up a pick for him. Ah, I see. It's difficult to keep baseball's arcane player signing rules straight. Who did we get for Todd Walker? Were they regarded as a very good prospect?

Again, I'm not on his case very much, but Ramirez did multiple times stand at the plate watching a hard hit ball thinking it was a home run and have it hit off the wall and cost him bases. There have been some hustle mistakes that have cost the Cubs at times, but the issue for Ramirez himself is way overblown. The thing is, Sammy did that all the time and no one said anything about it. Every power hitter misjudges fly balls. It's not really fair to single out Ramirez on this point.

The gopherball.

It sounds really cool. A myth???? Check this out... Yeah, that Tezuka guy was in the Yahoo article also. Apparently he swears up and down the pitch exists. The fact remains that it's a myth that Matsuzaka throws it.

Is Todd Walker better enough though to warrant giving up a draft pick though? When you consider that the Cubs would have to give up (I think a 3rd round pick) as well as other teams would have to give up their first or 2nd to get Walker, it makes more sense why they would want to go with other similarly productive options at 2B now and keep the pick. I know I'd rather have DeRosa and keep that high pick to try to rebuild the farm system. OK I don't get it. If the Cubs would have given up a pick to get Walker, why didn't they have to give up a pick to get DeRosa. They were both FA's right? Did the Rangers not offer him arbritration? I thought the pick only changed hands if the player declined arbritration. If you're asking me "should the Cubs have signed Walker if he declined San Diego's arbritration offer", then no, the difference between Walker and DeRosa isn't worth a draft pick. In any event, the Cubs didn't have to trade Walker to begin with. Not trading him wouldn't have involved any picks going anywhere.

Regardless of their long-term plans, the Cubs can't afford not to stick with Barrett at catcher through this season. Their offense is OK, but isn't good enough to play all-glove no-hit players at 2 positions (C and SS). Now, if Theriot were to win the starting SS job at some point in this season, trading Barrett might become feasible, depending on the deal. I doubt that Barrett stays with the Cubs after this year. He'll be a FA and if he has another year like his last, he'll be due a big payday. There are really no "long-term" solutions at catcher. More than any other position, catchers break down as they age and become injury risks. The few that are solid offensive players almost all switch positions or DH at the end of their career. Pudge is the only guy I remember that was a decent offensive player that has remained a catcher his entire career. On another note, I think that the Cubs roster is mostly set except for the 5th starter, the last couple pen guys, and the second backup IF. I'd expect that at midseason, the Cubs will probably be looking to upgrade their offense somewhere, and maybe to unload Marquis. The two positions that I'd expect are possible upgrade spots are 2b, where DeRosa/Theriot may both tank, and Izturis, who stinks to begin with and is often injured. If the Cubs don't extend Z, look for a possible Tejada trade.

For the life of me I don't understand why Todd Walker hasn't wound up starting somewhere. He consistently puts up a .350 or above OBP, rarely strikes out, and is left-handed. Perhaps we see in Todd Walker the extent to which MLB overestimates the importance of defense at some positions. Honestly, I'd feel better with Todd Walker starting at 2b than Mark DeRosa, and as of now, DeRosa is making more money. Look at the career stats of these players and tell me why Walker isn't more worthy of a starting 2b job than DeRosa?

This was the first I'd heard of it being a myth, though that doesn't say much.

So far, Lou is sounding much better than Dusty ever did. With Dusty, you'd hear meaningless drivel about sticking with horses and endless justifications for playing bad players. Now, what a manager says and what he does are two entirely different things. We'll see if Lou actually benches Jones against lefties and benches Marquis for Guzman/Miller.

Baseball is not a sport where "hustle" and "intangibles" make very much difference at all. At most, a guy that runs out every single grounder might get a few more hits over the year, but then if the guy is slow, as Ramirez is, it probably makes no difference at all. I suppose if the SS airmails the base entirely, it might prevent a guy from getting 2nd, but how many times does this happen. Has anyone ever accused Ramirez of trotting from 2b to home plate while trying to score, or not charging a bunt up the 3b line? When Ramirez is accused of not hustling in some way that actually can make a difference in a baseball game, I'll care. I hope Ramirez reads this thread so he can see not all the fans are on his case.

This isn't terribly surprising to hear. To me, the comments still seem like they may be thinking that Theriot could win the starting 2b job in ST or take over later. Lou didn't exactly say DeRosa would start at 2b, just that he fits more in the infield and that we have enough outfielders, which is certainly true.

I found this article on Yahoo about the gyroball that Matsuzaka supposedly throws. The article is pretty interesting because it claims that he doesn't really use the pitch, and that the gyroball is really nothing more than a fastball thrown with a particular spin. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-mlb_07_gyroball022107&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

i think this would be a big mistake. if he can stay healthy in the pen, with his stuff he will be very successful. he has proven the last few years that he cannot handle starting and to move him back would quite likely threaten him with a career ending injury. with guys like guzman, veal & gahallager and perhaps mateo on the near horizon to go along with z, hill, lilly, marquis, miller and hopefully prior the rotation will be very solid without him and the pen will be that much stronger with him. The rotation may or may not be solid. I think it would be a mistake to move him to the rotation quickly. But there's nothing wrong with moving him back there eventually. Except that he's proven that he can't stay healthy in the rotation, which is why he's moving to the pen. I think if Wood has a future in baseball it's as a reliever. I would be surprised if Wood doesn't end up a very good closer. Cutting out the curveball is a no-brainer. It's always been this pitch that put so much stress on his arm. I guess he felt he must have really needed it to be effective, or he would have cut it out sooner. A reliever only really needs 2 pitches to be effective and 3, which Wood will have even without the curve, is a bonus.

But hasn't Soriano said he doesn't want to be bounced around anymore? I agree that what you just wrote would probably be best for the team right now. Hendry believes that Pie will be ok in right field. He has the arm for it. So, if Soriano doesn't want to move from CF to RF when Pie is ready, Pie plays RF. I personally believe that if Soriano sees that it's best for the team to move to RF for Pie, he'll do it. Either way, the line-up would look the same. I agree with this. I used to think he hated moving positions in Washington and that he signed with the Cubs partly because Jim agreed not to do that, but since he's been so receptive about moving to CF, I'm not so sure that's the case. We need to remember that Soriano is in a very different situation than what he was in Washington. He may well have wanted to play 2b because he thought he'd net a bigger contract as a 2b than as a LFer. Now he's making 136M over 8 years to play for the Cubs one way or the other, and it would be tough to trade him. If he wants to win, it's in his interest to do what's best for the team, including moving positions. He'll be in Chicago till he's 38, so he doesn't have to worry about ever signing another contract.

Wow, what a joke of a show Baseball Tonight is going to be. Why not just call it Peter Gammons and the three stooges.

Way off topic here, but I love your avatar. That whole situation was so ridiculous. Did not one person working for the city watch Adult Swim and realize this was a marketing stunt, or were they just ignored. Nothing quite so funny as an entire city made to look like morons to the entire nation.

I'm 50/50 on this year's team. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. Piniella is saying all the right things. People are arriving in ST healthy. We have some promising young players that can make an impact this season. The team's offense should be much improved and the pitching staff could be also. There are still a lot of things that can go wrong and reasons to be pessimistic too. The team's OBP could be only slightly better than last year. Floyd may suck up most of Murton's at-bats without being any more productive. We have a full season of Cesar Izturis to look forward to, possibly as an out machine in the 2 spot. There's a good chance Marquis's contract will end up being the worst the Cubs have handed out since Todd Hundley, and there's an equally good chance that contract will keep him in the rotation all year despite his blocking more productive young players. I think there's certainly a lot more hope than last year, and the longer the offseason has gone, the more optimistic I've gotten, but still, the Cubs were really really really bad last year, and it's tough to go from worst to first.

The likeliest reason is that this is a very slow period for baseball newswriters and they have to print something, so they stir the pot by interviewing a few remaining FA's that have every incentive to promote themselves any way they can. Are the Cubs really interested in Finley or does Finley just want the rest of MLB to think that?

My five keys to a successful Cubs season: 1) A healthy and fully recuperated Mark Prior There is nothing bigger than this that is still up in the air. Adding a 2003/2004 Mark Prior to the rotation would make this the team to beat in the NL. 2) Soriano hitting like 2006 instead of 2005 Biggest x factor on the offensive side 3) Hill is for real If Hill can show that his control gains from 2005-2006 and that his home run prevention from 2006 are sustainable...he's going to be a very, very good pitcher. Because he's going to strike a whole bunch of people out. 4) Supplanting Izturis at SS The light bulb that went on for Ronnie in the second half of the winter where his walk rate quadrupled is a very hopeful sign. He may not be the 2003 version of Izturis in the field, but neither is the 2006 version of Izturis. If Ronnie could push Cesar out of a job by the break, it could be great thing for this team. 5) Wood able to close If Kerry is healthy enough to pitch a closer's load from the pen, we don't have to be concerned with whether or not Dempster can close. If Ryan hangs onto the job through great performance, fantastic. Otherwise we have a potential dominator out there if he can go. If these five things go the Cubs way (and they all very well could), this team will be a powerhouse. Heck, if even the first few of them go the Cubs way, we'll be the team to beat in the NL. Your keys are better than Lou's. I'd only add that I think Lee, Ramirez, and especially Barrett must be healthy most of the season.

He's right about Soriano. He's wrong about the rest of it, IMHO. Izturis is at least as bad with the bat as he is good with the glove, and unlike every other pro sport, in baseball offense>defense. He won't hit .280. We'll be damned lucky if he hits .250 with a .300 OBP. With both Theriot and DeRosa on the team and B. Hill and Cedeno in camp, I don't think it matters much if Izturis even plays a game. Dempster is irrelevant. Closers are easily replaced as every year some washed up starter or reliever stuns baseball by being an effective closer. Most don't last, but teams usually find somebody for one season. Dempster himself wasn't viewed as a closer at all until he suddenly was thrust into the role in 2005. People already on the roster that could conceivably replace him include Wood, Howry, Wuertz, and Eyre.

So when was the last time it happened in a full season?

That's great. Of all the reasons to put Hill in the rotation, will the stupidest one end up carrying the most weight? It certainly does seem like an awfully "Cub" thing to happen.