Diffusion

1) This time next year, there is an outside possibility that Wood is not a Cub. Rusch may have been traded, or pitched himself out of the rotation. Maddux will be gone for sure. Outside of Zambrano and Prior there are then no locks for the 2007 rotation, and that's assuming good health for our two young absolute stud top of the rotation not available for trade as far as I'm concerned aces. 2) The price of acquiring starting pitching from outside the organisation has become far, far too expensive. Aces are looking at $50m deals (like Burnett), middling pitchers are getting $20m (like Benson) just about every time. These are ridiculous prices, prices that the Cubs have fortunately been able to avoid of late (Maddux aside) because they've brought pitchers through the system. Internal options are the best means the Cubs have right now of filling any holes in the 2007 rotation. 3) The Cubs have already traded away three young pitchers that might have been able to step into the 2007 rotation. While the decision to move each of the pitchers this winter was probably defensible (Mitre out of options and would have needed to stick on the 2006 team*, Pinto only one option year left and still has significant control problems+, possibly selling high on Nolasco), the bottom line is that the Cubs have a whole lot less nearly major league ready pitching in the system now, and, sadly, they only have a pathetic haul in Pierre to show for it. As far as young pitching for 2007 goes, then, we're only really left with Williams, Hill, Guzman, Marshall and Ryu. It's certainly possible that one of the arms that's a bit deeper in the system right now (Marmol perhaps, if he really tightens up his control, Blasko or Petrick if they come back unexpectedly strong, maybe Pawelek will fly through the system mechanics be damned, maybe someone else that's off my radar right now) will push themselves into contention, but really the Cubs only have those five, and potentially three spots to fill. The attrition rate for pitchers is high, injuries could intervene, performance could take an unforeseen turn for the worse, I don't think the Cubs have enough near-ready young pitching that they can afford to cash in on its bloated value for just one year of Huff in return while staying in good shape for 2007. *Mitre should have been traded in the summer. +Pinto shouldn't have been added to the 40 in late 2003. That moving them this winter was defensible doesn't mean the Cubs don't deserve criticism. The Cubs didn't get the haul on Mitre they should have done, because they waited too long, and a Renyel Pinto with two option years left is a much more valuable commodity, and it's a real shame. 4) I'm really, really opposed, in general, to selling low on players, to selling yourself short. If the Cubs move Guzman now, I'm absolutely convinced that that's what they'd be doing. This is a still young pitcher with three genuine plus-plus pitches, great control, superb makeup. Yes, he has had problems staying healthy, worrying problems, but if he stays healthy long enough, he's going to be a top of the rotation pitcher. Yes, one year of Aubrey Huff will be more than we'll get for him in six months time if he blows his arm out, but it could also be a whole lot less than what we'd get for him if he stayed healthy for a while. I think the chance of the later happening is the greater, enough so that I really don't see a reason to deal Guzman, especially in light of my third point, at a time when injury concerns still hang over him. I'd much rather deal Williams or Ryu. In fact, Ryu and Wellemeyer I think is much closer to what Huff is actually worth given that he's only one year away from free agency, is coming off a pretty bad year and isn't too hot defensively. 5) I'm not entirely opposed to paying more (than Ryu and Wellemeyer), because of the severity of the right field hole, but if we're going to give up Hill (sell high on him, please!) instead of Ryu, I want the Devil Rays to throw in one of their surplus outfield prospects - Dukes or Bankston. I'd be willing to throw in someone else (on top of Hill and Wellemeyer) to make that happen if necessary, albeit not someone that great. Perhaps Rohlicek, Koronka, Bartosh, Valdez or Piggy, whoever the Rays like best. It's not as though the Devil Rays have any great bullpen lefties. Doing this deal though would be entirely dependent upon Abreu being an absolute no go.

To play wherever he was needed. Or to trade to a team that could use him if we didn't have room for him with all the offseason moves. I'd have brought him back as insurance. Fair enough. I too was in favour of bringing back Nomar.

Mattieu Meurton, s'il vous plait. Quant a Jacque, dites le non!

Cleveland says they will play Nomar in RF if they get him. And why didn't the Cubs think of that? Or did Nomar flat out say no to the Cubs yet it is an option for the Indians? You can't ask me that question, because I can't answer it. My first offseason move was to get Nomar back as cheaply as possible. To play shortstop?

I love Coco Crisp. Really solid bat and superb defence in LF/CF, still cheap too. I also really love Hafner, Martinez and Sizemore, and I'm reasonably cool with Peralta. Not really that high on Broussard, Belliard or Boone. They need upgrades at those positions, plus a RF. So I wonder where Nomar would fit in. 3B, 2B, RF? Wherever, I'd love the Indians even more if they got Nomar. My favourite Indian is Fernando Cabrera though, for the record.

Vibe something else. Like the fact that hardly anyone here actually cares much for the Cardinals, certainly not enough to get worked up and angry when they make stupid moves, such as this one.

If you took away the ball, it'd just be a group of men in pyjamas standing around in a field.

Oops.

Prior will earn $3.55m in 2006. $2m base salary, $800k signing bonus installment, $500k salary escalator for 2003 Cy Young placing, $250k escalator for 2003 All-Star selection.

Approximately C: 740 1B: 800 2B: 750 SS: 730 3B: 775(kinda tough, since there's a large group of good production, but a bit of a gap) CF: 750 Corner OF: 800 Tough to tell for some positions, but that's a decent estimate IMO. Personally, here's what I would be aiming for as a minimum from each position: 1B, LF, RF: .360/.475 3B: .350/.450 2B, CF: .340/.425 C, SS: .330/.400

It's absolutely true that .280/.340/.440 would be slightly below-average production from left field. But when you consider that Murton will be making a way, way below-average salary, and that he'd be accumulating major league experience in the process that should prove a stepping stone to greater success, the Cubs ought to be absolutely delighted if they get .280/.340/.440 over a full 2006 season out of a left fielder called Matt Murton. Absolutely delighted. Obviously, the fact that Murton and Cedeno are cheap is only really relevant if the money that could have otherwise been spent at LF or SS is ploughed into the team elsewhere, and so it's Hendry's progative that he does so, and by far the best way of doing that would be to aim as high as possible in right field. Likewise, it's pointless tolerating the first few months or years of a young player's performance, which isn't likely to be particularly great as he acclimatises to the majors, if you don't then reap the rewards once the player's matured and developed. That means that if Murton and Cedeno are given the job in 2006, it ought to be with a view towards the long-term.

I'm hopelessly lost without Search!

Horrid. Agreed. But the team is probably no worse than if Wilson, Jones or Encarnacion were in right. I'd characterise choosing Wilson, Jones or Encarnacion for right field as paying a whole lot of money for a slightly safer bet that the team as a whole sucks just a meaningless little bit less. This front office seems most likely right now to go into next year with a lineup featuring Neifi and Cedeno up the middle, Murton in left field, Slappy in centre and something like Wilson/Jones/Encarnacion/Patterson in right field.

Horrid.

We're well aware that Todd Walker isn't sensational defensively. But what he gives away in the field, he makes up and then some with his bat, which is not only well above average for a second baseman, but is also plenty timely... Todd Walker Career Splits None On, .287/.346/.443 Runners On, .295/.351/.438 When you then consider the fact that Walker is due to make just $2.5m next year, he is an absolute bargain. Also currently the best 2B option we have, comfortably, short of getting someone better than him, or getting more value for Walker he offers the team by trading him, there's really no good reason to move him. There's certainly no reason to actively shop him, or to erode his trade value by talking about second base next year as though he's already been dealt. That's why people are annoyed at the way the Cubs are treating Walker, not because he's the second coming of Rod Carew or anything stupid like that.

Hey that's what I said if the Cubs got Damon! :D Makes sense. If we got Damon, we'd definately want our outfield to be Pierre, Pie, Murton from left to right.

Watch baseball? You're having a laugh. Reading boxscores is much more fun. And it doesn't waste three hours of the day. I've perfected the art of getting everything out of the boxscore in two minutes. That means I can then spend 2 hours 58 minutes running statistical regressions.

I am so on JonMDavis' side of this argument. There are three main conversions that take place... Resources > Talent > Individual Performance > Team Performance The GM's biggest job is to squeeze as much accessible talent (via moves/non-moves) out of the resources he's given (or convinces his superiors to give him), and then to aid the conversion of that talent into individual and team performance (through the appointment of the right staff below him). That's all there is to being a GM. He has maybe a tiny bit of influence over the resource input, complete control over the first conversion, which if done right has a little bit of play in terms of the second and third conversions, and then he has some but not much influence besides that over the second and third conversions (via who he chooses as manager etc.). That means he doesn't control everything, far from it, and so judging him on win-loss record is foolish. Like judging a Formula 1 racing car driver solely on his placing at the end of a race.

What is your opinion based on? Ethier slaughtered AA pitching in his first go round and continued to mash in the fall league. Pinto on the other hand was in his second tour of Duty in AA and showed last year he was unable to handle AAA batters. Ethier takes walks and hits for power at a league appropriate age. There seems to be a disconnect between fans lofty expectations of the Cubs prospects and reality. Also, it is possible that Dodgers were looking for a higher level OF prospect to replace Bradley and if that was the expectation, the Cubs didn't have a prayer of landing Bradley in the first place. Ethier hit .319/.385/.497 in 505 at-bats at AA his first time around, which I wouldn't classify as slaughtering anything considering that the Texas league is very hitter friendly and a lot of Ethier's average was driven by hitting .356 on balls in play. I would certainly say he had a very nice season, but let's not get carried away. In the Arizona Fall League, playing in extreme hitter's parks against probably less advanced pitching than he faced in Double-A (no-one sends their best arms to Arizona), Ethier hit .366/.495/.598 in 82 at-bats. Good for him is all you can say to that, because you certainly can't draw any conclusions from such a small sample size in such abstract baseball conditions. Meanwhile, last year, Ethier hit .313/.383/.442 (.354 on balls in play) in his first go at the equally offensive California league (High-A). Solid but far from spectacular numbers that fit with him being a line-drive hitter with nothing more than gap power, decent but not great plate discipline. Defensively he's limited to the corners in the outfield. In the long-term, in a neutral environment, I think that Ethier projects as something like a .280/.340/.430 hitter, which isn't bad, but it isn't particularly great either. Right now he's essentially Matt Murton with a good chunk less average, a bit less patience and a bit less power, and without any success at Triple-A or the major leagues. And with prospects, especially ones without a spectacular skillset like Ethier, the next step up the ladder could always be their last. He's six months younger than Murton, and was taken in the same draft, 30 picks after Murton. He's Matt Murton-lite. And Murton isn't the greatest prospect that's ever lived either. Renyel Pinto is a big strong young lefty with three true plus pitches in his low nineties fastball, slider and changeup, plus he has a somewhat deceptive action, and so he has a really high ceiling. What's holding him back is just his ability to locate those pitches (which is why he didn't succeed at Triple-A, and ended up repeating at West Tenn). That's not to say that that's not a significant problem, but it's a lot more likely he overcomes that and so becomes a fine major league number three starter than it is that Ethier suddenly develops corner outfield power. Ethier has the higher floor though, he's probably more likely to fashion a worthwhile major league career than Pinto. Pinto has just one option year left (well done Hendry for absolutely wasting the first one), Ethier was only just added to the forty man roster this November. Starting pitching is a much more valuable commodity than corner outfield hitting, especially with the way that the SP market has gone these last two offseasons. The Dodgers may not have wanted a pitcher in return for Bradley. But all in all, I'd say that Pinto is the better prospect and the better acquisition, and I don't think it's particularly close.

Abreu's is slightly onerous though. We are talking about a guy that's pegged to earn $13m this year and $15m next, with a $2m buyout of a $16m option for 2008, that'll be 32 come Opening Day next year and that did just .260/.376/.411 after the All-Star Break in 2005, with just 6 home runs and 10 stolen bases in 15 attempts.

If Williams now deals a starter of his own for immediate offensive help, I like the way he's exploiting the starting pitching market. Garland + Uribe for Tejada I don't think is that far fetched, probably a bit short, and it'd be a fantastic bit of work by the Sox. Sell high on Garland, who you've replaced with Vazquez, and an upgrade from Uribe to Tejada for the price of Young and whatever else it costs to secure Miggy, if anything. El Duque had negative trade value, he's old, useless (5.12 ERA in 2005, 4.97 FIPS) and due to earn $4.5m plus incentives in 2006. But my guess it that Williams isn't thinking along the same lines as me, and so has just dealt one of his best prospects for a surplus starter.

Abreu is only a possiblity if Philly lowers their trade expectations. Insisting on Prior or Zambrano is not reasonable. Except they're not, for the millionth time, insisting on Prior or Zambrano. In talks with other clubs, including National League clubs, they've been reported to have asked for Matt Clement, Barry Zito, Erik Bedard, Derek Lowe, Brad Penny, Jason Schmidt and Jason Marquis amongst others. None of those pitchers are anywhere near as valuable right now as Prior or Zambrano, though a healthy Schmidt and an on-form Zito aren't too far back, and Bedard in about eighteen months could be damn good. What's going on here is that the Phillies are making it known that they want a good starting pitcher for Abreu, they're trying their luck with a few names, and every single team they're talking to is saying no. The reason that the A's said no to Abreu was almost certainly the money and not, despite Beane's insisting otherwise, that he doesn't want to move Barry Zito. Beane's clever enough to know that in Zito he has a widely overvalued pitcher that's going to hit free agency in one year's time, and the A's aren't going to be able to re-sign him. And the pitching market this winter is making a lot of teams desperate, pushing Zito's value up even more. Beane saying he's not going to trade Zito only gives him an even better trading chip. So what Hendry needs to do here is get in the middle of things... Phillies get: Barry Zito, Rich Hill A's get: Jerome Williams, Ryan Madson, Adam Greenberg Cubs get: Bobby Abreu, $5m towards 2007 from Phillies Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

I'm not sure how Floyd is a realistic possibility if the Cubs are sending every single frigging possible trade chip they own to the O's for Tejada! Get Abreu, stick with Walker and Cedeno up the middle.

So what you're saying is that comparatively the Pierre deal totally sucks for the Cubs. I've said that all along, and let's just say this deal sure ain't changing my mind.

Andre Ethier, for the record, is hardly a "top prospect". A good hitter for average with very nice patience but not that much in the way of power, limited to the corner outfield defensively, he'll turn 24 next April and his only experience above Double-A was this year's AFL. He ripped the cover off the ball there, but it is a ridiculously favourable hitting environment down in Arizona, so you have to be wary of going overboard. Baseball America ranked him "inside the top twenty" last year, and I don't see much in his year at Midland that will have changed that. Right now I'd suggest he's around about the same in prospect status as Matt Murton was coming into this year, maybe a bit less.