Bruce Miles

Does that mean he will not be playing next year? I feel like I brought this on him through my thread. :( Nope, he won't be playing.

I'm told Calvin is now working in Scott Boras' office. They could probably use a nice guy there!

Calvin Murray is one of the nicest guys I've met in baseball. Last spring, I did a feature on nonroster players. I asked Calvin what kept him going. He grabbed my notepad and tape recorder and said, "What if I took that away from you?" Enough said. (He did it in a very nice way, by the way.) Baseball needs more guys like this.

I found one interesting stereo-type buster in working with the Cubs. I asked once about a pitcher's batting-average-against stat. I was told the Cubs look more at the pitcher's OBP-against stat because it lets them know if he walks a lot of guys. They're coming around to it. I think that's encouraging.

We'll see how guys like Harvey pan out. The farther you go down in levels, the less reliable a metric a stat like OBP becomes because of numerous factors: lack of control by young pitchers, lack of plate discipline by young hitters and the fact that a high school and/or college coach might pitch around a good hitter all game so that kid doesn't beat him. Even if you throw out intentional walks, I'm sure many a good high school kid has been pitched around and walked unintentionally so that he doesn't make the difference in game. That, to me, is where the value of scouting comes in. When that kid does get a chance to hit, how does he look to a scout? But there's no doubt the Cubs need to do a better job of drafting and developing position players. They've emphasized pitching in recent years, but soon we should see some results on the hitters in their system.

Hughes considers the Cubs as taking a balanced approach. Sure, it's weighted in favor of toolsy guys, but I don't think you'd have seen guys like Murton having the Cubs this excited a few short years ago.

Last March, I wrote a big enterprise feature on the whole scouts vs. stats thing. Here are some of the transcripts from my interview with Gary Hughes FWIW: Stats you value: What about OBP? "I've been drinking that (OBP) Kool-Aid for a long time. When I'm doing pro coverage and I get to the park and get a stat sheet, that's the first thing I've looked at for 30 years. Guess what, though? It tells me who the best hitter is. Wow. This didn't just get invented." "What Billy Beane has done in Oakland is phenomenal. That's "money-ball." Do I agree with everything in the book that they do and how they did it? No. Do I admire the hell out of what they've done? Yes, because of the fact they're constricted by money. Don't tell me Boston's a "Moneyball" team, not with a hundred-bazillion dollar payroll. That's not "Moneyball." "The first thing I look at is walks to strikeouts. The guys that best walk to strikeouts is the best. That's where you're going to see your best hitter because the guy makes contact more than he misses."

I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, but let's not stereotype Gary Hughes. Just look at the great players he brought into the Montreal and Florida organizations. And you can give him a big assist in the Cubs getting Nomar and Murton in 2004. As I've said before, he's a scout's scout, but he understands the importance of things like OBP. He'd make a fine general manager IMO.

I'm interested in knowing if those questions are screened. I've never been so I'm not familiar with the proceedure they use. If they are, most of those questions I'm sure won't be asked. Anybody know? Questions are not screened. People line up at microphones and wait their turns.

Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate them. Now it's up to the fans. I'm sure they'll come with very pointed questions this weekend. Good point by Goony on following up the Wood "answer," (an answer based on answers the Cubs have given me on the topic). We'll see what the people come armed with this weekend. Got to head over and meet with the manager and see the players.

Does this mean we can smack Dusty on the nose with a newspaper when he does something wrong? No Neifi in the lineup, bad Dusty! Only if it's the right newspaper!

What surprises me is that topic of extensions surprises anybody. We've been writing it for months. The only subtle change here, and I wrote it at the winter meetings, is that Hendry is likely to be extended this spring. The Baker extension will come later, if at all, and there's nothing to say he'll even accept it. Hendry will have some time to play with _ to see how the team performs _ before he offers an extension to Baker. A poor start gives him an out. Looking at the entire picture, the Tribune Co. likes Andy MacPhail. He's presided over a division of their bloated conglomerate that's actually made money. Those same people who like Andy MacPhail also like Jim Hendry _ a lot. Andy MacPhail thinks the world of Jim Hendry as a person and a GM. If MacPhail gave Ed Lynch 5 1/2 years, he's going to give Hendry at least that.

Yes. Not a good idea at the time or now. I'm sure Hendry would like this one back.

There hasn't been one since Doug Glanville. Eric Hinske, to a degree. Have to throw Sisco's name out there too in that case. Sisco is not a position player, and the jury is still out now that the Royals can send him to the minor leagues. I left the room and came back and reread the position player thing, you're too quick Bruce. :D An old trick I learned watching Jeopardy _ buzz in quickly.

Ross Gload came to the Cubs in a minor-league trade from another organization. The previous regime drafted Kieschnick and he was let go in the 1997-98 expansion draft. Trading Eric Hinske was a mistake. He was a good hitter when the Cubs drafted him. They didn't need to do much with him. Jackson has been bothered by injuries. Hitting hasn't entirely been Kelton's problem. The Cubs probably overvalued Bobby Hill. Some of this may be related to hitting instruction. Some not. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around among the players themselves, Cubs scouting and hitting instruction. As I've said, we'll really get a handle on things once we see how Harvey, Pie and Dopirak pan out, if they do.

There hasn't been one since Doug Glanville. Eric Hinske, to a degree. Have to throw Sisco's name out there too in that case. Sisco is not a position player, and the jury is still out now that the Royals can send him to the minor leagues.

That's really not an argument in favor of Hendry. Hill and Choi were tagged as utility and platoon players, respectively. Also, please factor in that the players that those 2 were benched for weren;t exactly all star producers. I just thought it was a cool trivia question.

There hasn't been one since Doug Glanville.

Bruce, Good points, although I will debate one point: At what point does a farm system become useless or wrecked if we never trust the young position players enough to make the system matter? I'm really hoping that Hendry's words about Murton and Cedeno starting ring true. However, we don't have a manager who trusts young players enough to rely on them and trusts them to push through the slumps that will happen. What's even worse is that Baker is in a contract year, so he's more apt than ever to play it safe with veteran options, especially if either Murton or Cedeno start out slowly. As a former farm director, yes, Hendry improved the farm system overall. However, what good will that do us if we cannot develop our own inexpensive position players as Zambrano, Prior, Ramirez and Lee become more expensive? These are good points. Like the trade or not, Hendry used the farm system to get Juan Pierre. There are some very subtle ways a GM can get his manager to play young players. One of these occurred in 2003, when Corey Patterson was still an up and coming young player. Baker had to play him because he had no viable alternative. There is really no viable alternative to Matt Murton, at least right now. And no, John Mabry will not be last year's Todd Hollandsworth _ the organization will not stand for it. Overall, how productive is the Cubs' farm system vis-a-vis the other 29 clubs. I don't know off-hand. Sometimes stuff just happens, too: What happens if David Kelton doesn't get the yips at third base? What happens if Richie Lewis doesn't break a leg? What happens if Felix Pie doesn't get hurt? On top of that, the Cubs concentrated most of their efforts on pitchers over Hendry's years as scouting director. We'll get a better idea _ and very soon _ on the chances of guys like Dopirak, Pie, Harvey, Sing and others. Right now, the Cubs' farm system is reasonably well regarded by Baseball America and very well regarded by baseball people. Stuff does happen, but it happens to every ML club. The key is giving the guys that do make it through the Darwin-like minor league process a fair chance to shine. And that doesn't mean a halfhearted platoon, or a few starts here and there over the course of a month. It means regular, extended play. Murton will probably get that by virtue of his great debut, but how much rope will he have? Worse, the Cubs do have a viable alternative to Cedeno, and he's an alternative that the Cubs overvalue for some reason. There's no doubt Neifi should not have been given a two-year contract. But if Ronny Cedeno is healthy, he will be the shortstop. I look for Perez and Hairston to share time at second base. Hairston's stock seemed to rise within the organization in the second half of the season. If Murton starts and gets the bulk of the time in left field and Cedeno does the same at short, that's one and a half players from the system (since Murton came from Boston originally). You can also say that the Cubs used their farm system to get three other starters (Lee, Ramirez and Pierre). Again, I'd like to see how all 30 teams have done with their farm systems in the last 10 years, both in terms of position players and pitchers.

Bruce, Good points, although I will debate one point: At what point does a farm system become useless or wrecked if we never trust the young position players enough to make the system matter? I'm really hoping that Hendry's words about Murton and Cedeno starting ring true. However, we don't have a manager who trusts young players enough to rely on them and trusts them to push through the slumps that will happen. What's even worse is that Baker is in a contract year, so he's more apt than ever to play it safe with veteran options, especially if either Murton or Cedeno start out slowly. As a former farm director, yes, Hendry improved the farm system overall. However, what good will that do us if we cannot develop our own inexpensive position players as Zambrano, Prior, Ramirez and Lee become more expensive? These are good points. Like the trade or not, Hendry used the farm system to get Juan Pierre. There are some very subtle ways a GM can get his manager to play young players. One of these occurred in 2003, when Corey Patterson was still an up and coming young player. Baker had to play him because he had no viable alternative. There is really no viable alternative to Matt Murton, at least right now. And no, John Mabry will not be last year's Todd Hollandsworth _ the organization will not stand for it. Overall, how productive is the Cubs' farm system vis-a-vis the other 29 clubs. I don't know off-hand. Sometimes stuff just happens, too: What happens if David Kelton doesn't get the yips at third base? What happens if Richie Lewis doesn't break a leg? What happens if Felix Pie doesn't get hurt? On top of that, the Cubs concentrated most of their efforts on pitchers over Hendry's years as scouting director. We'll get a better idea _ and very soon _ on the chances of guys like Dopirak, Pie, Harvey, Sing and others. Right now, the Cubs' farm system is reasonably well regarded by Baseball America and very well regarded by baseball people.

Just my gut feelings here: As long as Jim Hendry still wants to be the Cubs' GM in 2007, I'd say there is a 99% probability of him having that role in 2007. I'd say only a 90-loss type season in 2006 will cost him his job. Mind you, I don't personally think Hendry has earned another contract, but it's very unlikely that MacPhail and Fitzsimons would let him go. On the flipside, if Dusty Baker still wants to be the Cubs' field manager in 2007, I'd say he needs to guide them into the playoffs in 2006. Mr. Hoops' post is pretty much right on. Neither DePodesta nor Epstein will be the Cubs' general manager any time soon. Jim Hendry is likely safe through 2008. We're all entitled to our opinions, and certainly Hendry has had some successes and failures. The one charge I found unfair in this thread was that he somehow wrecked the farm system. Huh? Take a gander at a Cubs media guide from, say, 1995, 1996 or 1997. When you get through heaving, take a look at it now. In the interim, the Cubs have stepped up _ no, more like created _ a presence in Latin America. Having a good farm system means two things: moving players up to your own big-league team and giving the organizaton good, low-cost alternatives to expensive free agents, and using the farm system to make trades. Obviously, the Cubs have done better in the latter category _ see Bobby Hill, Hee Seop Choi and others. A few years earlier, the Cubs would not have had the minor-league talent to fetch an Aramis Ramirez or a Derrek Lee, two star players nowadays. Hendry also drafted Jon Garland, who was foolishly traded away by Ed Lynch. They all haven't worked out: Ben Christensen, Todd Noel and, at least so far, Luis Montanez. But overall, the Cubs' farm system is light years ahead of where it was a decade ago.

Wuertz was way overused, no doubt about it. I think he still has good potential. I'm not sure where the Cubs "rank" in developing their own arms for these roles. Do many other teams do it better? I don't know. Or do other teams go outside and pick up veteran guys to pitch the seventh and eighth innings? I don't have the research in front of me. Farnsworth certainly looked to be one of those guys, at least for a while. It should be loads of fun watching him deal with New York and all of its pressures and pleasures. We'll see how that turns out. As much of a flashpoint as Neifi has been on this board, I don't think Fontenot would have been better. That said, there is no way in the world I would have given Neifi a two year contract worth $5 million, and I told the Cubs that (they told me I was entitled to my opinion). You raise great points, concerns and questions. I wish I had better answers.

Sorry about the double post above. Got a little overzealous there. I might add that the course of history might have been different, too, had David Kelton stuck with third base or the Cubs not traded Eric Hinske, two position players from their 1998 draft (same draft as Corey).

How do you feel the rest of the Baseball world feels about Corey? It seems as though us Cubs fans tend to value our own players more than they are worth. In other words, do you see Corey being traded for a prospect or something similar? I personally don't expect solid major league talent in return for our streaky fake leadoff hitter. I don't think Corey's stock is that high in the baseball world right now. No, the Cubs won't get a whole lot in return for him.

How do you feel the rest of the Baseball world feels about Corey? It seems as though us Cubs fans tend to value our own players more than they are worth. In other words, do you see Corey being traded for a prospect or something similar? I personally don't expect solid major league talent in return for our streaky fake leadoff hitter. I don't think Corey's stock is that high in the baseball world right now. No, the Cubs won't get a whole lot in return for him.