CubinNY

I'm not convinced the Cubs have a CF target. This is perhaps the most ridicilous offseason of the Hendry era. They may just rush Pie.

This kind of stuff happens far too often. For conspiracy theory nuts only: When I lived in Columubs OH I use to work out at this gym. The guy who worked there was huge. Becuase I generally worked out around 10:30 am there weren't a lot of people at the gym and I kind of got to know him, but he scared me too much to call him a friend. He use to spot me and we worked out together. He was a bookie, an enforcer, and a drug dealer, mostly steriods. People would come by and give him money all the time and he disappear to his car. Anyway, he told me that there are a lot of guys in big time college and pro sports who are beholden to organized crime. The mobsters get tips about injuries, game plans, and such and pay the player or more often forgive gambling debts. They rarely ask guys to throw games becuase it is almost always too obvious. When/if a guy decides not to play ball with the mobster any number of things can happen including a police tip about drugs, a rape charge, DUI arrest and such. They know the player's lifestyle and habits and use their own behavior against them. Not saying it's true, just interesting

Where do you come up with this stuff? I agree with him. You can't just go to a 4 man rotation b/c it makes statistical sense. If we brought guys up through the minors using a 4 man rotation, the mental approach and physical approach (limiting pitch counts, getting your body adjusted to the different strain and healing processes) would be different. Expecting to take a crowd of guys raised on the 5 man rotation to go to a 4 man rotation and put up similar numbers and avoid injury is silly. I'd be all for going to the 4 man rotation in the minors and raising the next gen of pitchers on it, but converting current ML pitchers to the 4 man is just asking for injuries. Except in the playoffs when it really counts. BTW: I'm not supporting a 4 man rotation. My question had nothing to do with a 4 man rotation. It has to do with the bolded above.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

I was one of them. And I'd still rather have Cedeno than Furcal. But I'd rather have Furcal than Cesear, so now I wish they'd got the contract done. It would also mean they wouldn't have signed Soriano and maybe have gone after Drew. It's the freaking butterfly effect. :spin: If you still want Cedeno rather than Furcal, and you want Furcal rather than Ceasar, does that mean you want Cedeno starting at SS in 2007? Not necessarily. I was thinking about cost and production. Furcal is obviously the best player of the three. I still think Hendry would have picked up Slappy though. The Cubs had no viable alternative at CF after Patterson was traded for two sticks of bubble gum. We just have to hope Izturis has a break out year, just like last year we had to hope Cedeno would carry his good winter league numbers into the season. The Cubs are dependent on "hope" more than other team I can think of.

What does CHONE stand for and how are the predictions calculated?

I was one of them. And I'd still rather have Cedeno than Furcal. But I'd rather have Furcal than Cesear, so now I wish they'd got the contract done. It would also mean they wouldn't have signed Soriano and maybe have gone after Drew. It's the freaking butterfly effect. :spin:

I'm against using Rusch, but I really like the idea of tandem starters. And I don't think agents would mind so much if it were sold correctly. Z would be throwing fewer pitches per game, obviously, but he would be getting more innings per year, giving him a chance to increase strikeout numbers and some other counting stats. I like the idea too. However, there are other costs as well, mostly unimportant in the grand scheme, No wins for the guy who pitched first/second so no Cy Youngs, a team would also have to probably carry more pitchers which might limit bench options. There are probably a few more, but I'm not interested enough to continue.

Why exactly is Hendry so enamored with him? That's what I don't understand. Izturis is just another in a long line of slick fielding/no hit SS's who come and go in this league, and are soon forgotten. Hendry likes him because he likes that long line of slick field SS. He has acquired about 30% of those that have been in baseball at one point or another during his regime. His love for Izturis is because of his defensive reputation and the fact that he doesn't strike out. Hendry values the ability to make outs when putting the ball in play. Over 162 games, Izturis will probably strike out less than 75 times. That's not Juan Pierre, or even Ichiro, but it's low. It's lower than guys like Royce Clayton. Hendry is also the type of guy that will judge a player on what he has done at his peak, and just assume that's what he'll do as a Cub. And at his peak Izturis hit a lot of singles and had an acceptable average. Izturis is only 26 years old. Is it really that bad to assume he can reach prior peaks, and possibly surpass them? (note: asking this question doesn't make me an Izturis lover or Hendry defender...in fact you could simply replace Izturis with any other 26 year old hitter and apply the same question) This is a good post. To be fair, I got a lot of e-mails after the December 2002 trade of Hundley to the Dodgers for Grudz and Karros. Most people said Grudz sucked, he was past his peak performance and it was downhill from there. Well, ol' Grudz has done pretty well for hisself. He's not a great player, but he proved a lot of his detractors wrong. Izturis is their guy. We'll see what he can do healthy. No disrespect to Bruce, But Grudz worst season in the majors is pretty damn close to Izturis' best. Izturis has had 5 full seasons in the majors and only managed to a respectable OBP once (.330). He's a black hole in the line up. IMO, Hendry subscribeds to outdated theories born in the dead ball era of the 1970s and 80s. The chief of which is that the SS is there only for his defense. It stinks, but I knew when Hendry traded Maddux for him he'd be the Cubs guy for the forseable future.

wow. how can pagan be said to have "done his time" in the minors yet still be considered an unknown? he had 2500 mediocre at best minor league ab's...i think it was pretty clear what he brought to the table (not much). Pagan spent 6 years in the minors. That's "doing your time." He never made it to the show, meaning it was an unknown how he'd perform at the ML level. That's all I meant by calling him an "unknown." actually a guy's minor league numbers can be a pretty good indicator of what type of major league player he'll be. he was quite "known". and what a surprise...pagan's big league numbers were right in line with his career minor league numbers...terrible. Yes, they can be a pretty good indicator, but they're not the ultimate say on what a player will do. Minor league do not always translate. Would you like me to list the myriad examples of this? There are tons of players who can rip apart the minors but can't get it done in the majors. Likewise there are some players that aren't world burners in the minors who can contribute at the ML level. Pagan is one of those, IMO. Sorry I don't have a stat to show that. I tend to agree with you. Here's two recent guys with awesome minor league numbers but can't hit major league pitching-DuBois and Restovich. Great fastball hitters, but the old curve kills them. And exactly how does this support his argument? Pagan had crappy numbers in the minors. Are people supposed to think he's going to be even a decent bench player becuase some players who have good numbers in the minors don't in the majors when he's had bad numbers in the minors too? It doesn't logically follow. The Cubs bought his contract for like $10,000 from the Mets.

Yes, with the pitchers jogging in the outfield, the manager signing autographs, and 1/2 the ball club there I could see how the pressure could get to a kid. Every game I've evered played whether it be a playoff game or beer league softball I've tried my damnedest. I really don't think guys who've played the game their entire life and are getting paid are any different.

I'm still pretty pissed off that they stayed with Hawkins even though he just sucked as a closer. That team had one hell of a rotation and Prior was really coming on at the end of the year. Thanks Latroy/Dusty. In 2004 I was at two of the memorable Hawkins's efforts. Eric' Milton's near no-hitter, then near loss after Patterson roped a double. LaTroy loses it in the bottom of the 9th. The final week in Shea when Victor Diaz went deep. Both times Prior started the game and pitched very well.

Hendry subcribes to the "earn it" policy. Some guys don't get it done in ST, others step up. Pagan stepped it up bigtime. If what you say is true, Hendry is a worse GM than anybody realizes. Spring training is about the absolute worst time to be making decision about your 25 man roster. A great amount of the time teams are playing people who won't even make the 25 man roster and might never make it for even a cup of coffee in MLB, not to mention the limited number of ABs in the six weeks of get in shape, golf after the game, don't go on road trips, split squads, get in to get some work done baseball. Shoot, I've already mentioned some of the myraid problems with evaluating talent during ST. One last thing, if what you say is true Brandon Sing should have been on the 25 man roster out of spring trainging last year. And the year before "Die Hard" what's his name should have been on the 25 man roster.

The Mets version of Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell, or Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz. Doyle Alexander helped Detriot get to the 84 WS and win it. I'd say that wasn't such a bad trade for Detriot. If Kazmir get healthy, and reaches even some of his potential the Kazmir for V. Zambrano trade has to be one of the worst trades in recent memory. I have no idea what the Mets were thinking.

He looks like Beltran. Looks like Beltran, hits like Beltran's grandfather.

I thought Hendry use to be a scout? What has Angel Pagen ever done to warrent a roster spot, let alone be considered for a starting postion?

I bet the Padres sign him I do too. Hendry is taking a huge gamble with DeRosa. I hope he pans out.

It's the silly season. Bruce, One question. Do you know if the Cubs have any interest in upgrading at either SS (Izturis) or 2nd (DeRosa/Theriot)? There is a rumor that Marcus Giles might be non-tendered. The Cubs will not look into Marcus Giles if he's non-tendered. They're happy with their infield, as you heard Mr. Hendry say. I kind of figured that. Thanks Bruce!

It's the silly season. Bruce, One question. Do you know if the Cubs have any interest in upgrading at either SS (Izturis) or 2nd (DeRosa/Theriot)? There is a rumor that Marcus Giles might be non-tendered.

Then according to Chris Carpenter's "past performances", http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/carpech01.shtml he would had continue to be a talented, but crappy pitchers. "Past performances" is not the best predictor, because doesn't take into account different variables. It's a definition. You cannot predict by things that have not happened yet. I think what you mean is that there are things beyond stats that can be used to predict, but those are most assuredly still past performance. There is quite literally nothing aside from past performance and wholely irrational beliefs that can be used to predict future performance upside? tools? makeup? what do your base them on? your crazy imagination, or his past performance? What if you're a scout, and a guy has great past numbers, but you go out and see him play somewhere and talk to him and it becomes painfully obvious the man has suffered a mental collapse? Do you still sign him because of his past performance? Or let's say there's a guy who has been pretty mediocre all his minor league career, and you visit him, ask him to get an eye test and he comes back with 20/200 vision? Do you write him off because of past performance? Everything is relative. A player needs to be compared relative to his age and level of compitition.

Mostly because he was injured and missed most of last year. I think it is way, way too early to write off Dopirak. Maybe it's too early, but it's definitely not way, way too early. He turns 23 in a week, and he's had an atrocious minor league career. It would be passable for a slick fielding middle infielder, but he's had only one good season, and that was in low A. He sucked in high A and sucked in AA. It's hard to defend the claim that it was mostly because he was injured last year. His completely healthy FSL numbers would not seem to indicate he was ready to do anything in AA, even if he was healthy. - one way then. I'd like to see him get healthy and see what he can do in Severville this summer. If he posts good numbers I'll be on the Dope dealing bandwgn.

Mostly because he was injured and missed most of last year. I think it is way, way too early to write off Dopirak.

Why are people not talking about Floyd taking ABs away from Murton?

My hope is that the Cubs can stay in contention until late June early July and look to deal some surplus pitching for a decent SS. They are going to have to find OBP somewhere.

What makes you say this? Rothschild hasn't gotten anyone into form on a consistent basis since he's been in Chicago. Dave Duncan and Leo Mazzoni couldn't get him into form, but Rothschild can? Lilly hasn't had a sub 4.00 ERA since 2002 when he only started 16 games. He's a fly ball pitcher in NL Central. The Cubs will have to have everything go right for them for a chance to win the NL Central. Right now they look like a .500 ball club.