Bruce Miles

I don't know if "lack of direction and planning" are fair terms, and I'm not defending them here. The Cubs made it their plan to draft a lot of pitchers over the last several years. On the major-league level this winter, it was Hendry's plan to get a leadoff hitter, pursue Furcal, upgrade the bullpen and upgrade the bench. Had he gotten Furcal, he still would have pursued Pierre. I suppose you can throw "improve fundamentals" and "catch the ball" as part of the plan, like them or not. As we know, Furcal didn't come here, but I don't think it was for lack of planning or effort or direction on the Cubs' part. He took more money over the short term with the chance to test free agency again after three years instead of five or six. We can agree or disagree with a team's plan. But the Cubs are pretty diligent about their planning. Let's remember, too, that there are 29 other teams out there and market forces at work. And if not for the 2005 success of the White Sox and their perceived good off-season, would this whole planning thing be an issue? I don't know. What's disturbing is the apparent lack of understanding of the White Sox success. But I was referring more to developing players. The Cubs haven't had much success and don't appear to be changing their gameplan with regard to players earning promotions or the types of players they draft (and I will confess I know less about this than other posters). While they have drafted lots of pitchers recently, they haven't gotten a lot of success from those pitchers in the major leagues (that may be unfair since they do have three homegrown starters) but of the recent drafts and the highly touted prospects, we have seen little in the way of production. Amongst position players, the Cubs have only Cedeno to show for player development. Murton looks like one good move but I am feeling like they may have been more lucky than good. These are good points. I give the Cubs only half-credit for Murton since he came up in the Boston organization. But you're right _ on position players, they haven't had much success. As far as pitchers go, Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Wuertz, Ohman, Maddux (JUST KIDDING HERE) all have had various levels of success. I don't know how the Cubs compare in this regard with other teams and their pitching prospects. There's no doubt they have to do a better job with position players. It's only been recently in this regime that positon players have been targeted (Ryan Harvey, Eric Patterson, Brian Dopirak) up high. This will be a telling year in all of their development.

I do believe Corey will be traded, but this alleged trade to the Orioles is nowhere near as close as what you might have read coming out of Baltimore today. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but there are other teams with whom the Cubs are talking.

I don't know if "lack of direction and planning" are fair terms, and I'm not defending them here. The Cubs made it their plan to draft a lot of pitchers over the last several years. On the major-league level this winter, it was Hendry's plan to get a leadoff hitter, pursue Furcal, upgrade the bullpen and upgrade the bench. Had he gotten Furcal, he still would have pursued Pierre. I suppose you can throw "improve fundamentals" and "catch the ball" as part of the plan, like them or not. As we know, Furcal didn't come here, but I don't think it was for lack of planning or effort or direction on the Cubs' part. He took more money over the short term with the chance to test free agency again after three years instead of five or six. We can agree or disagree with a team's plan. But the Cubs are pretty diligent about their planning. Let's remember, too, that there are 29 other teams out there and market forces at work. And if not for the 2005 success of the White Sox and their perceived good off-season, would this whole planning thing be an issue? I don't know.

I realize I am looking at it from my perspective. We really should look at it from Eric's. 1) Corey whined about not being promoted when he was performing in a mediocre way at AAA. There is no way he should be complaining about this although I would say it was the number one way he was mistreated. If Eric is concerned about this, he should request to meet with Fleita and discuss the organization's plans. Being older than Corey was, Eric should have a distinct advantage in maturity and perspective. 2) Corey should have just played as well as he could. Had he performed better, no one would have brought these things up. Overall, the Cubs are wrong here and again show their ignorance about baseball. Very disturbing. 3) See 2. Shouldn't have mattered to Corey. 4) He embarassed himself. I don't see how being sent down should be construed as mistreatment. Eric should be able to see that Corey wasn't getting it done. The mistake was bringing him back. 5) This isn't true. 6) Baseball is a business. He should be thankful because he will make far more money as a result of this than he would have if he was non-tendered. Eric Patterson will be fine. Trust me. He's got his own career to worry about.

For me, I blame the Cubs for rushing him. This goes back to his amazing year in '99 at Lansing. I said at the time, he should've gone to Daytona (even for a brief stint) and worked with the best hitting instuctor in the system at the time (Zisk). He had a good, but not a great year at West Tenn, and despite being very young for the League, the flaws were there that are still there. To me, there's no doubt in my mind the Cubs made a mistake by rushing him. I hope they've learned their lesson with Pie, but if those reports of him being called up last year if he had not injured his ankle, scare me. At this point of his career, he is more raw after his stint at AA than Patterson was after '00 and that includes Pie going to Daytona unlike Corey. I second the notion that Patterson was rushed. I believe he should have spent at least the first half of the 2000 season at Daytona. He had an OK year at West Tenn, but he no doubt would have benefited from extended time with Richie Zisk.

Actually, the "speaking his mind" part played a lesser part with the Cubs than it did with other teams as far as Walker is concerned. The Cubs, from the front office on down to some members of the pitching staff, do not like Walker's defense. And the Cubs do seem to be on a "defense" kick these days. None of us is privy to everything that goes on behind closed doors, so who knows what has gone on. Myself? I'd keep Walker and start him. But that's just me. Me too Bruce, me too. Is there any chance, that unlike with Patterson, they would choose to keep Walker for the bench though? He'd be cheaper than what Patterson was, and does not come with the baggage of being the guy everybody hated. He's instantly become their best bench player. That's an interesting question. I doubt they'd do it, though. As far as other questions go, Corey's situation will in no way affect his younger brother. He's got to do what he's got to do. I like both of these guys, and they couldn't be different from one another. Corey is quiet; Eric is outgoing. The Cubs really have no interest in Craig Wilson, at least they haven't. They don't like his money and really don't need to "free up" any dough if they really wanted him. I know there's been talk of a "platoon" with Jacque Jones, but I don't see that happening with Jones getting $16 million. He might sit against a lefty against whom he's struggled, but that's about it.

Actually, the "speaking his mind" part played a lesser part with the Cubs than it did with other teams as far as Walker is concerned. The Cubs, from the front office on down to some members of the pitching staff, do not like Walker's defense. And the Cubs do seem to be on a "defense" kick these days. None of us is privy to everything that goes on behind closed doors, so who knows what has gone on. Myself? I'd keep Walker and start him. But that's just me.

No idea at this point, but it likely won't be a top prospect. And nothing is ever done with the Orioles until it's done. I guess I can understand that it won't be a top prospect, since Corey doesn't appear to have much of a trade value. While we're still talking the word "trade", has there anything coming up on Todd Walker? From what I've been told, the Cubs have seen more "action" on Patterson of late than they've seen on Walker. Why do you think that is? A lack of interest in Walker himself, or a lack of interest in second basemen? It boggles my mind why Walker apparently has zero value at this point. I still would not assume Walker will be a Cub in 2006. I think he's gone before spring training. There's probably little interest in Walker himself for whatever reason. I've had nothing but good dealings with Walker, but maybe there's something to the concern about how many teams he's played for in X amount of years.

No idea at this point, but it likely won't be a top prospect. And nothing is ever done with the Orioles until it's done. I guess I can understand that it won't be a top prospect, since Corey doesn't appear to have much of a trade value. While we're still talking the word "trade", has there anything coming up on Todd Walker? From what I've been told, the Cubs have seen more "action" on Patterson of late than they've seen on Walker.

No idea at this point, but it likely won't be a top prospect. And nothing is ever done with the Orioles until it's done.

Realistically, you can't keep Patterson. Let's look at this from a purely human standpoint. Patterson had a horrible year in 2005. The Cubs were unhappy with him. He was unhappy. The fans were unhappy. The Cubs went out and traded for a replacement for Patterson, who was the starter for three straight years (with 2003 being cut short by injury). Now you're going to tell him, in effect if not literally, "Listen kid, we don't think you're any good. We just traded for your replacement. We can't get much for you. How about a seat on the bench?" That's a recipe for clubhouse disaster, and it won't be the media's fault because players will be lining up to weigh in on this situation (and that happens a lot more than you think, but the media take the hit for "stirring up" controversy). Hindsight is a great thing, and there was no Patterson for Vlad, Vidro and Wilkerson deal, either, by the way. Corey looked like an emerging star in the first half of '03. It just didn't work out, and it's not going to work out with Patterson and the Cubs.

Not that I've heard. Maybe some things will heat up later in the week.

At this point, the Cubs have every intention of starting Murton in left field to begin the season. That's about as much of a lock as you can have at this point.

Erik's quote was "Nothing good can come from having Marquis Grissom on this team. Nothing" A top character guy is something, isn't it? I highly respect the opinion of Mr. Miles, and I think he's one of the more valuable posters on this community. However, he and I must agree to disagree on this one. Grissom may be a good clubhouse guy. If Bruce says it, I believe it (kind of like Cronkite back in the day). However, I think that the extreme possibility of misuse by Dusty would greratly outweigh any potential good that Grissom could bring to the clubhouse. We had a bunch of "good chemistry" guys last year. It didn't work out that well. Once again, there is nothing here on which to agree or disagree. I'm not advocating Grissom's signing. I'm just pointing out what I know about the guy and what I've been told. On another subject, somebody mentioned Murton above. He's one of the most inquisitive young players on the team. One guy he listens to a lot: Maddux. Too bad Murton doesn't pitch, too.

Erik's quote was "Nothing good can come from having Marquis Grissom on this team. Nothing" A top character guy is something, isn't it? I highly respect the opinion of Mr. Miles, and I think he's one of the more valuable posters on this community. However, he and I must agree to disagree on this one. Grissom may be a good clubhouse guy. If Bruce says it, I believe it (kind of like Cronkite back in the day). However, I think that the extreme possibility of misuse by Dusty would greratly outweigh any potential good that Grissom could bring to the clubhouse. We had a bunch of "good chemistry" guys last year. It didn't work out that well. Once again, there is nothing here on which to agree or disagree. I'm not advocating Grissom's signing. I'm just pointing out what I know about the guy and what I've been told. On another subject, somebody mentioned Murton above. He's one of the most inquisitive young players on the team. One guy he listens to a lot: Maddux. Too bad Murton doesn't pitch, too.

Bruce seems to disagree with you. I don't agree or disagree. I'm just pointing out what I know and what I've heard about the guy. (Marquis and I could wish each other a happy birthday on the same day, though. But I'm exactly 10 years older!)

This will be a minor-league nonguaranteed contract, much like all nonroster guys sign. Because of his age, it's unlikely Grissom would go to Iowa if he doesn't make the team. That sets him apart from, say, the Calvin Murray type player. As was pointed out above on a good post, he'd probably have a Karros-type role, but in no way to the Cubs envision him as an everyday player. Gary Hughes and Grissom go way back, from their Montreal days. This will draw a few jeers here, but Grissom is known to be one of the top "character" guys in baseball and a positive influence in every clubhouse he's been in. I'll be back from vacation Monday. Happy New Year all.

I'm happy atleast one reporter is saying it. I hope it starts to come out in the Chicago Media. It has come out in the Chicago media _ if you're looking at the right paper. I don't think the letters OPS were printed in any paper but the Daily Herald today. The issue of OBP and OPS were prominent in my story and they have been ever since the Jones discussions began. Thanks for the opportunity for the shameless plug. Bruce, can I look forward to a scathing critique of this regime if and when Walker is traded for trash? If and when that happens, you got it. Seems to me Walker is one of the bigger bargains on the team right now.

There might be some interest in Perez. I'll look into it.

I'm happy atleast one reporter is saying it. I hope it starts to come out in the Chicago Media. It has come out in the Chicago media _ if you're looking at the right paper. I don't think the letters OPS were printed in any paper but the Daily Herald today. The issue of OBP and OPS were prominent in my story and they have been ever since the Jones discussions began. Thanks for the opportunity for the shameless plug.

I haven't heard anything regarding the Cubs and White. FWIW, you can put Rondell in the all-time nice-guy category. Few players actually come up to reporters to say hello first. Rondell did this every day, and when he was on opposing teams, he'd come by for a visit.

You get to a point in any negotiation where you say, "Enough, we've given it our best shot."

Hendry had absolute autonomy on this point. The Cubs were willing to go as high as six years and $57.5 million. Furcal saw the big bucks on a per-year basis in addition to the opportunity to test free agency again in a relatively short period. I can't fault the Cubs on the way they handled this.

The feeling is that Pie won't be ready to break camp with the Cubs anyway, especially in light of his injury last year. I was told by somebody, "When Pie tells us he's ready, we'll find a place for him." For now, your outfield is Murton-Pierre-Jones until further notice. Performance and injury will dictate the way things go. It could end up being a nice problem to have.

The Cubs have been looking at Jones for about a year. I began writing about it early in the winter meetings when it became apparent they were hitting a roadblock in trading for a right fielder. If something bigger is at work, it'll be for an infielder or a starting pitcher.