wilk

Yep, Lowell and Beckett to Red Sox for Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez and another minor leaguer.

So Cubs.com said Scott Moore was added to the 40-man roster but the updated roster never included him. We also know that with him on the roster we would have been at 41... It turns out the updated 40-man roster does not include Moore (so we're at 40) and minor league rosters are now frozen. I'm assuming if Moore was added and someone else released, we'd know that by now. So was it a mistake? Did they try to submit a 41-man roster and then once reviewed they had to drop someone from the list? What's the deal? Moore will apparently now be eligible for the draft but I doubt there's much concern in him being drafted.

So Cubs.com updated the 40-man roster but Scott Moore is absent. Anyone know what exactly the deal is? Also, is anyone certain whether Wood was ever officially activated off the 60-day DL? If Moore was not officially added yet because adding would bring us to 41 then it'd make sense if Wood is already officially on the roster and adding Moore might be awaiting a release or trade to free up a spot. However, if Kerry IS technically still on the 60-day DL then there would already be a free spot on the 40-man. Any clarifications? Where's Moore?

"According to the Palm Beach Post, the Marlins are close to a trade that would send Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell to the Rangers for Hank Blalock and a pitching prospect. The Marlins are asking for either John Danks or Thomas Diamond, the Rangers' top two pitching prospects. Unless they back down from that, the deal may yet fall apart. Unless the Marlins are paying a portion of what Lowell is owned, Blalock alone should be enough to get a deal done. Beckett may be worth Blalock, but at $18 million over the next two years, Lowell has negative trade value. Blalock will make $13.5 million over the next three years. Nov. 19 - 2:22 am et Source: Palm Beach Post" This doesn't seem like a very smart trade. And if Florida moves that Lowell contract, does it hurt our chances at Pierre? Hm.

I don't see how people could be scared away from Burnett but want Millwood. Burnett has been the better pitcher the last two years and Millwood has had more injury problems in that time than Burnett! Burnett has a pretty bruised history, but since returning from TJ he's had no real arm troubles and has the best K/BB of his career. He pitched 209 innings, started 32 games and was amongst the league leaders in complete games... how's that for an "injury prone" starter? Millwood on the otherhand has had "this and thats" with his elbow, back, groin and shoulder. They had comparable years last year and Burnett was much better in 2004. If anyone had an unexpected year, it's Millwood. And he'll be right in the price range of Burnett... it seems if we were to go after a top starter, Burnett should definitely be the focus. Believe it or not, sometimes surgery is successful.

More than ebing absurd, it's exaggerated. A shortstop who can hit .300/.350 has more value than a 2B who can but Cedeno doesn't lose value because he plays 2B in our lineup. He doesn't forget how to play SS and he still has that value. His production isn't more or less valuable within our lineup depending on whether he's playing SS or 2B on the field. I think what people have to come to understand is that the plan is to put Cedeno in the lineup regardless. With Furcal, Cedeno will play 2B. Without Furcal, he'll probably play SS. In either scenario he will provide us the same production. If there's an argument to be made, it's whether we risk another year of Nomar or go after Furcal. Furcal has less punch than a healthy Nomar but much more speed, much better defense, the ability to leadoff and much less risk. We're making a move for durability, speed and defense and Furcal fits it - Nomar does not.

Why is this argument always used for bringing back Nomar - Cedeno might be good. OK, but why can't we consider it Furcal AND Cedeno? I want them both playing. Nomar doesn't change whether Cedeno plays. If we kept Nomar, Cedeno would play. If we sign Furcal, Cedeno will play. Changes nothing. And why couldn't Cedeno make the "transition" from SS to 2B? More importantly, why does this problem not exist if we keep Nomar instead of Furcal? Does Nomar not have this significant "transition" that the better (defensively) Cedeno does? I don't see why anyone can consider an infield of Furcal and Cedeno a problem - especially if Cedeno does turn out to be the player you expect. He's played 2B plenty in his career, there will be no transition problem. And I don't think the decision to go after Giles is so dependent on Furcal. I don't think the Cubs would give Giles would it'd take, regardless of Furcal. They're concerned with a "decline" and the number of YEARS on the contract it'd take. Hendry seems set on filling RF by trade, and I think it's the method he'd choose either way.

I think Hendry truly is going to go after Burnett. I didn't think we'd get one of Millwood/Burnett but it appears there will be a serious offer. There was also talk that Burnett has told his good friend Dempster that he'd love to play for the Cubs and play for Dusty. Yes, play for Dusty! (I know that means we're going to hear "he just wants Dusty to be nonchalant in his party animals ways", etc. but the point remains.) The truth is that since Burnett's TJ surgery there has been no real issues. He finished in the top 3 in CG last year, threw 200 innings and only missed 1 start. In 2004 he came back from TJ and pitched as well as he did in 2002 but with the best K/BB of his career. He was shut down as a precautionary measure, they found no damage and he returned. Over the last two years, Millwood has had more health problems. Millwood himself has a pretty scarred history of shoulder and elbow problems. Back and groin problems last year as well. Over the last two years, Burnett has been the better pitcher. I'm pretty surprised so many people are against a push for Burnett if the resources are truly there.

Should we have no bench then because Dusty doesn't use it right? Should we only have rookie options at 2B therefore Dusty must play a rookie? Through all the complaining I've heard about this re-signing, I haven't heard anyone suggest an alternative for the backup role. I'd prefer the route of Furcal at SS, Walker at 2B, Cedeno at backup... but Hendry has said that Cedeno's planned to start so I think Cedeno is at 2B with Furcal or SS with no Furcal. Neifi is insurance in case Cedeno falls apart and a normal backup otherwise. In that context, who would be better at backup? Make sure it's someone Dusty likes less than Cedeno so that Cedeno will be first choice? Yeah, let's build a team playing juvenile mind games with our manager! Neifi is a fine sub and he's fine insurance for starting a rookie. I very much doubt that Neifi is going to be starting with a .300 OBP over Cedeno if Cedeno is hitting better. If Cedeno is good enough to start, he WILL.

Right and signing Neifi precludes any chance at the bigger targets? The extra $1-1.5M that Neifi costs over an alternative means no Brian Giles? Who would you sign instead for the same backup role that doesn't make bigger signings impossible?

I don't see better backup infielder options. Tomas Perez? Rey Sanchez? I'd rather have Furcal/Walker startign with Cedeno backing up too but evidently the plan is for defense and for Cedeno to start. Walker will be traded to open a space for Cedeno, not Neifi. I say there's no chance Cedeno ends up in AAA. If the Cubs land Furcal, they'll deal Walker and Cedeno will start at 2B. If they don't get Furcal, Cedeno will start at SS and Walker at 2B. In any case, I think Neifi is a backup and brings better intangibles than his alternatives. Yes, $2.5 million is too much but so would anything you'd pay for Perez/Reese/Sanchez, etc. If Neifi ends up starting I won't be happy, but I'm confident Cedeno will start.

I think you're all overreacting. How is anyone surprised that Neifi was re-signed? He's been an on-field leader (how many times was Neifi the only one to calm down Z?), he's very good defensively, he's mentoring Cedeno on his defense and reads, he's a friend of Furcal (and shares the same agent), and most importantly... he's a BACKUP! What better backups were available that had the same defense and similar intangibles? Furcal will start at SS, Cedeno will start at 2B, Neifi will backup both, Walker will be traded.

Anyone know where to find bunt hits? I see bunts in play and sac bunts, but no site that keeps track of bunt hits. I know it's definitely kept track of somewhere because there have been references to it (such as Corey being #2 in the NL in bunt hits for 2004). I saw this being discussed on another board, so I was just curious if any of you knew where to find it? Thanks.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'll bump this up in case anyone else has the time to save you the trouble.

Hi, I ran into this late, and was unable to download the interview as the files are expired at YouSendIt. Is there anyone who still has access to this that could please upload it again? I am unable to post in that thread, because apparently "only users granted special access can reply." Thanks.

Skewed numbers is exactly the point.

You said that the RBI and Runs would carry over. Texas has scored 557 runs, and the Cubs have scored 473 runs. Hence, you suggested that not only would he be "as good" but that he'd suddenly become more productive on the Cubs. The Cubs lineup does NOT offer just as many opportunities. That is a fact. In any event, deciding if Soriano is good for the lineup, or a good replacement for Walker by comparing their RBI and R numbers is ridiculous. If you want to use "classic stats" you use hits, average, total bases, etc. You don't use stats that are coincidental and tell you more about the team than the player.

WHAT? That's not what I'm saying at all. How the heck do you claim I said he'd hit 14 HR? The issue is that you apparently believe that runs and RBIs are self-contained, independent numbers and that is undeniably wrong. They have to do with the team, the situation, and coincidence. So Manny Ramirez would have the same number of RBI if he were on the Pirates? Is that what you're saying? It's not about if you "believe in" sabermetric stats, they also give real production. Are you suggesting they are hypothetical or imaginery? Because they're not. How often you get on-base is real, too. Texas has scored the 3rd most runs in baseball - does this have nothing to do with having high R or RBI numbers? If you think these numbers have more meaning than the numbers I gave, you're simply wrong. RBI and RUN do NOT carry over by team. The idea that you think Manny Ramirez would still drive in 130 runs on a team like the Pirates is pretty absurd. Yes, Soriano obviously hits more homeruns. Outside that, there isn't very much unless you want to ignore all complex numbers and dismiss them as not real production, and assume RBI and R are the true measure of a player's production. Similarly, a pitcher's Wins carry over from the best team in baseball to the worse, right?

Shall I repeat: Walker has a .275 EqA, Soriano has a .288 EqA. Walker has a .297 batting average on balls in play, Soriano has a .295. Walker has a .313 BA with runners in scoring position, Soriano has a .270. Walker has a 24.3% line drive percentage, Soriano has a 21.5%. (It's estimated that line drives fall for a hit around 75% of the time...) There's a number some of us like to use called GPA - or Gross Production Average. It's not exactly the be-all and end-all but it is a variation of OPS and adjusted for ballpark factor. Generally, the scale is similar to the scale for batting average. Walker's GPA is .275. Soriano's GPA is .257. Or should we ignore these because they're a bit more abstract? I don't get how anyone tries to use RUNS or RBIs in any discussion. Those are situationally coincidental. They are not talent numbers. You can't subtract Walker's runs from Soriano's and say we would have scored those runs. Would Manny be the RBI machine he is if he played for the Royals? Yeah, he leads in RBI, but Boston also has the highest OBP out of the #1 and 2 hitters in baseball. I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with it... Soriano adds more power, and more speed. He also does it less consistently and less situationally, gets on base less, has worse defense, whines more, is not the leader that Walker is, and it can be argued that all things considered he adds to the team where we don't need it, and subtracts from the team where we do need it. Does that justify paying him 3x what we pay Walker, and losing pieces that could goto a trade that WOULD improve the team?

Bruce Levine on ESPN 1000. He didn't mention Texas giving up anything additionally, but I'd think we'd at least get a prospect as well... I agree that it's much better than losing Hill, but I don't want to give up Walker, and Soriano adds more power and speed but does nothing to improve the consistency and tendency to be hot/cold. Plus I thought this was interesting:

Supposedly the package set up for Soriano is Walker + Pinto + Mitre + Wellemeyer. Yuck? EDIT: From Bruce Levine on ESPN 1000.

That's my understanding too. I don't think he has a no-trade clause, but he has threatened to retire if he's traded to a team he doesn't want to play for. ''I didn't say I didn't want to go to the Cubs,'' said Mesa, whose ERA dropped to 1.50. ''San Francisco broke up the deal. I didn't want to go to San Francisco and play. I had no problem with the Cubs. I played for Dusty before in San Francisco in 1998. He gave me a good opportunity after Cleveland traded me to San Francisco, so I've got nothing against Dusty.''

This isn't true. The poster at Cubs.com obviously just misunderstood. Hendry is in talks with the Reds about both Dunn and Kearns, but not in prospect of acquiring both.

Because that list doesn't compare. It's their best outfield prospect and their best pitching prospect. It's the equivalent of us giving up something like Corey Patterson, Felix Pie and Sean Marshall or Rich Hill.

Levine reported it on ESPN 1000 saying that the Cubs were talking to both Texas and Cincy about Soriano and Dunn. I see. Well, I'll join the crowded opinion of "Dunn please!!"