BigbadB

Of course he likes Theriot. And if he likes him that much, he can turn Theriot into the super sub he so desires. Theriot can fill in for Pie in CF against a tough lefty, fill in for DeRosa at 2nd and once in a blue moon give Greene a day or rest or even fill in for Greene if he goes on the DL. The Padres won't want Theriot. They'd probably want Cedeno since he has much more upside than Theriot. I'd put together a package that rivaled or might even be better than what they offered for Roberts to get Greene. Greene is a bigger need to this team than Roberts, IMO. And the defense would get an even bigger lift than it already has with Greene shagging balls at SS.

We are definitely better with him than without him.

No, I get tired of you (or anyone else) saying that because Lou or Hendry or Steve Stone or Jesus Christ agrees with you than you're right. If you want to argue something, make an argument. "Steve Stone says so" doesn't count. Wrigley23, I understand the point of view that someone who does something for a living has more expertise in a given field and is privy to information that the rest of the world isn't. Working in finance, I usually take offense to people trying to beat the market on a hunch or a tip, because there are people with better models and greater resources on the other side of any trade. But I think that line of thinking doesn’t work as well in a baseball context. The difference is, with baseball, most of the information about player performance, potential and likely outcomes is readily available. Additionally, an organization's philosophy generally can be easily surmised by the public record of their player development and personnel decisions. Let’s look at a couple of public facts: (1) Jim Hendry, when questioned a couple of years ago about the team's inability to get on base, responded by claiming that getting on base was not the problem. He argued the team was towards the top of the league in batting average, completely disregarding the fact that they were near the bottom in OBP. His inference was that the problem was driving runners in scoring position in. However, the team was no worse that league average with runners in scoring position. (2) There are other GMs around the league who value advanced statistics in evaluating players. I would point to the following quote by the new GM of the pirates, Neal Huntington (not that this will make him successful, but just noting that others out there think about these things). "We are going to utilize several objective measures of player performance to evaluate and develop players. We'll rely on the more traditional objective evaluations: OPS (on base percentage plus slugging percentage) , WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched), Runs Created, ERC (Component ERA), GB/FB (ground ball to fly ball ratio), K/9 (strikeouts per nine innings), K/BB (strikeouts to walks ratio), BB%, etc., but we'll also look to rely on some of the more recent variations: VORP (value over replacement player), Relative Performance, EqAve (equivalent average), EqOBP (equivalent on base percentage), EqSLG (equivalent slugging percentage), BIP% (balls put into play percentage), wOBA (weighted on base average), Range Factor, PMR (probabilistic model of range) and Zone Rating." (3) This is a personal anecdote - On Steven Levitt's blog a few months ago, he lobbied for his grad assistant to get a job with a major league team. I went to grad school with that assistant, and he get got plenty of interest from a number of MLB teams, but noted that the Cubs front office had no interest in someone with his background. Now, given the public nature of facts like these, and the team's track record for addressing its weaknesses, it SHOULD be perfectly reasonably for me to question the judgment of the front office. In particular, this organization has always employed people with a "great baseball pedigree". Forget that Theo Epstein (again, not that he is the best GM) wouldn't fall into that bucket. Hey, people who worked in mortgage securitizations, or with rating agencies and trading desks had a great "subprime pedigree". That doesn't mean that the people who noted the housing market was way out of whack, even though they didn’t work in it, had no basis for judgment. But with baseball, the information is far more transparent. It is totally reasonable for people to question the approach of an entrenched management regime. Hedge funds do it as activist shareholders. Lawyers do it with malpractice suits against physicians. As other posters have said, just because someone is in a position to make decisions, it doesn’t mean that their decisions shouldn't be questioned. Especially when we have access to a lot of the same information they do. It is a question of philosophy and judgment, not of information. On a somewhat unrelated note, has anyone seen stats for league-wide OPS for batters with a runner on base with 30+ steals the previous season? I haven't seen the numbers to refute/support whether speed on base disrupts a pitcher, and I am stubbornly holding on to the fact that it does until I see otherwise. (sorry to derail the thread) Very nice post. But, it will likely fall on deaf ears. I have attempted to explain to Wrigley23 several times that Soriano leading off does not hurt this team one bit. I have gone so far as to challenge that even if the Cubs got Roberts in a trade, that there is a very strong likelihood that Soriano still bats first and Roberts bats second. And I would be perfectly fine with that. A good lead off hitter scores runs. A good lead off hitter doesn't just hit singles and steal bases. He puts himself in a position to score runs, period. Soriano does that with the best of the best lead off hitters in the game. Where Soriano lacks in OBP skills, he makes up for it in SLG skills. If the Cubs had both Soriano and Roberts, they would have arguably the best 1/2 punch in the game today. I challenge Steve Stone to prove to me why Soriano isn't a lead off hitter. Go to ESPN, click on stats, click on all MLB hitters, click on the lead off hitter filter and look at the top lead off hitters in 2007. Soriano hangs with the best of them. Whether he's worth 130m+ is certainly arguable, but the production he provides in the lead off spot is worth its weight in gold. Especially when comparing him to a few of the past lead off hitters this team has had, like Juan Pierre and Corey Patterson.

AP says $15.5 mil. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-cardinals-molina&prov=ap&type=lgns What? More than Izturis? That's maddening!

Apparently, anything the Cubs organization believes=irrefutable, gospel truth. Who cares that DeRosa was productive, the Cubs said he's a "super-sub," therefore he is! Anything those people lucky enough to have a connection into baseball believe must be right! By the way, it was a good thing no one listened to that Bill Gates guy when he introduced that Windows garbage-he didn't even have a computer science degree! We really dodged a bullet there. The idea that simply because someone is in the business automatically means their smarter than anyone else regarding baseball is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. How can you argue with all those World Series rings......... Oh, wait!

I was actually going to point out that someone who is more up on things than me could probably clarify anything I might have gotten wrong, but you beat me to it. I knew there were some restrictions, but I wasn't sure what those restrictions were.

I'm game for Murton for Byrd straight up. We are giving up the better talent of the two, but Murton is a man with no position and Byrd helps Pie out in CF and doesn't hurt the bench. If Texas would rather give up Michael Young for Gallagher and Murton, I'd be game for that as well. Of course, I'd also have to approve a deal that sent Gallagher and Murton for Josh Hamilton.

All this talk about Bedard has me wondering what happened to the Cincinnati Reds and Dodgers talks with Bedard. Also, why have the Johan Santana talks completely died?

This has already been answered, but there are a lot of players that get drafted by other teams and decide to stay in school or move on to college. Slot money is pretty important to these players. I would imagine the team that drafts them probably plays a smaller role, but could factor into the decision as well. Mark Prior was drafted by the Yankees (don't recall whether it was the previous year or fresh out of high school), but Prior elected to stay in school. What's weird about the June Amateur Draft is that anyone can be drafted, they don't necessarily have to declare themselves to be drafted. For an undersclassman to make themselves available in the draft in the NBA and NFL, they have to actually declare they are coming out. Tons of baseball players get drafted every year and refuse to sign a deal with the respective team that drafted them. In Prior's case, it worked out very well for him to stay in school. Not only did he finish up his degree, but he vaulted up to a consensus #1 pick after his final year. I believe Mark Teixiera was the consensus #1 pick that year before the college baseball season got under way. Anyway, Prior got a guaranteed major league contract with the Cubs, which is likely not something he would have gotten had he signed with the Yankees the year they drafted him. Granted, Minnesota elected to go with Joe Mauer with the overall #1 pick in 2001 ahead of Prior, but that had more to do with signability issues rather than who was the top talent in the draft. Bobby Hill was drafted twice by other teams before he was drafted by the Cubs. He was drafted in 1996 in the 5th round by the Anaheim Angels. I'm guessing that was after his senior year in high school. In 1999, he was drafted by the White Sox in the 2nd round. I believe a contract couldn't be worked out between WS and Hill and Hill was a senior in college, so Hill was drafted by the Cubs out of an independent league the following year, once again in the 2nd round. Teams make late round gambles on big names all the time. If you can afford to waste a late round pick, it's not a bad way to waste one. While I can't recite any good examples, depending on the financial situation or social situation of a particular player, there is always the possibility that a late round draft slot could land you a guy you never would expect to sign to a deal if they were drafted in a late round. I want to say Bobbie Brownlie was expected to be a top draft pick the year the Cubs drafted him. And I also want to say that he had Scott Boras as his agent. The Cubs took him with their first pick, but it wasn't a top pick and it was predicted that Brownlie wouldn't sign and if I recall correctly, it came down to the final days before they worked out an agreement that made him a Cub. It was a good call on Brownlie's part, because he was injury riddled, and based on his first minor league season with the Cubs, his stock could have fallen dramatically the next year in the draft, which I believe would have been his senior year in college.

I like the way you think.

Well, ya know........ If Hendry didn't quickly help Jacque Jones leave town, we might have been able to swing a deal with San Diego that helped them fill their hole in LF. Jacque Jones grew up in San Diego. So, imagine if you will, a deal that sent Jacque Jones, Ronny Cedeno and say Eric Patterson to San Diego for Khalil Greene. Jones' contract was right up San Diego's alley. It's also a place where Jones could likely get an extension. As it is, he's likely a 4th outfielder in Detroit, especially when Sheffield is DHing. Patterson could get a year in AAA to be ready to play CF when Edmunds breaks down. Cedeno slides into their hole at SS. But, ya know what? Hendry won't even be interested in Greene. He's not a top of the order hitter and he isn't a speedy lefty hitter. I'd guess Hendry is more enamored with Theriot than he would be with Greene. Greene would have a ball hitting balls out of the small parks in the NL Central. I say work a deal for Greene anyway. I'd take Soriano and DeRosa hitting 1/2 in the line up all day long knowing we have Greene towards the bottom of the order with Pie and Soto.

Jenkins signed a 2 year deal with Philadelphia. Thanks. Well, I can see why the Padres are hunting for an improvement in LF. Hairston is nice as a 4th OF, but really weakens the team dramatically if he's a starter.

I wonder why the Padres feel they still need to upgrade the corner outfield spot? Granted, their outfield looks very fragile with Geoff Jenkins, Jim Edmonds and Brian Giles, but Scott Hairston looked really good down the stretch for them last year, so I would think their biggest concern would be someone to protect in CF if Edmunds continues to look brittle. Chasing balls regularly in Coors Field can do that to an old CF. Wait a minute. I just looked and I don't see Geoff Jenkins on their roster. I could have sworn they signed him. Where did Jenkins end up?

I'm okay with the signing. Without trading Marshall and/or Gallagher, I don't think the Cubs had much depth in the rotation. Marshall seems to have stamina issues that may eventually work themselves out. Marshall is also a 3rd lefty in the rotation, and I sorta believe that Hendry would rather have a righty in that slot. Gallagher could probably use a little more seasoning in AAA, though he's my favorite to eventually lock down a rotation slot of the group we have. Hart could probably use more seasoning as well, though as a reliever his cutter is still deceptive enough to be a decent reliever. I would hope Dempster never really was an option for the rotation. He just walks too many guys to ever think he could keep Cubs close in ball games. Lieber adds depth. An injury allows Marshall to slide into one of the rotation slots and allow Gallagher to continue his development. Lieber also allows one of the other guys to be traded, and I'm sitting on the side of the fence that believes one of those guys will be traded, most likely Marshall. When Lieber can keep the ball down, he's pretty effective. Excellent outfield defense only helps him, and I don't think he really had that in Philadelphia. Let's just hope that when Lieber isn't keeping the ball down that the wind is blowing in and reducing the number of balls that leave the park. If it was more than 1 year, I'd get worked up. Because it's only 1 year and 3.5m, I have to say I don't mind it at all. Especially if it ends up allowing Hendry to feel better about giving up Marshall in a trade to upgrade somewhere else, preferably SS if they really don't feel Cedeno can adjust to the major leagues.

Agreed. But, I would imagine Hendry is not overly fond of the idea of having 3 lefties in the rotation, either. Unless of course all 3 lefties were lights out lefties.

I might do a Dempster/Veal type of trade for Nathan considering their taking Dempster would provide salary relief and I might consider adding a low prospect, but I'm sort of in agreement that the Cubs don't "need" a closer. I doubt if the Twins would be all that enamored with that sort of return, but Nathan is a 1 year rental. Let someone else overpay for Nathan.

His cutter (and I did see all 11 innings that Hart pitched in MLB) is at the very least good enough to make him a very serviceable major league reliever. Whether his other pitches are good enough to entertain the thought of being a good starter is still very much up in the air. He relied almost completely on the deception of his cutter in those 11 innings. Once the scouting report is out on him, he's going to need more than an excellent cutter for extended innings. That's my view.

Seems odd they would cut Spearman. SS is an awful shallow position throughout the organization and Spearman at least provided roster filler, though not really a prospect. Is it possible Spearman elected to just move on to a new career and the transaction lists Spearman as just being "released" because that's the way transactions are usually announced?

Yes, Hendry's strategy has typically been to go with what you got, and then wait to upgrade at the deadline. I hate the strategy. It eliminates any chance of running away with the division early, and having a truly great season. The Cubs are far too willing to try and tread water for 3 months instead of trying to be the best you can by April 1, and then working for improvements later. There isn't a realistic deal out there that will eliminate your chances of also improving in July. However, if you wait until July 31 you no longer have the chance to field the best team possible for the first 100 games. I agree with that, for the most part. However, a trade of Cedeno, Marshall and Gallagher for Roberts is not the type of upgrade that I would consider to be an overall improvement of the team. If you are going to upgrade, upgrade SS, CF and/or SP. Upgrade the positions of real need of upgrading.

The Cubs need to see if Soto, Pie and Cedeno are worthy of major league jobs. Cedeno has certainly been given a few opportunities, but he's matured now to the point he's either a major league SS or you move on to someone else. And I think he deserves an opportunity to prove whether he's matured enough to be the answer to the hole at SS. These are cheap, internal options that if proven to be good enough production, could allow the team to upgrade elsewhere in the line up at the trade deadline. With those 3 guys, the Cubs really do have more changes to their 2008 line up from their 2007 line up besides Fukudome. Those 3 guys added in with Fukudome makes half their line up "new". Soriano started the season in CF last year, not Pie. Izturis started at SS. Barrett started at C. Soto, Pie and Cedeno combined for just a hair over 300 at bats last year.

You probably will lose him. However, other good players will be available at the deadline. They always are. And they will cost a small fortune then, also. But, you can see at the deadline what your true needs are and giving up a small fortune would make a little more sense than upgrading a position that doesn't REALLY need an upgrade and ignoring positions that do.

Maybe it's just becoming harder for two teams to make an agreement on what would be a fair trade. Santana still hasn't been moved from Minnesota. Bedard hasn't been moved, etc... I think the team could start the season with what they have and look to beef up at the deadline if it's obvious that Cedeno and Pie are not the answers to the problems at SS and CF.

I'm not impressed with Burleigh Grimes, or Red Ruffing for that matter. Add Waite Hoyt to the list. Wow on Jesse Haines. What in the world were these people thinking letting guys like this into the HOF?

to be fair, he was found not guilty. Don't let that silly little fact get in the way of rationality. OJ was innocent too. no, OJ was found not guilty. =D>

It's interesting that you brought up Jacque Jones, because that's exactly what I thought of. Rolen doesn't want to be in St. Louis, so STL trades him out of the country and to a crappy team for a very respectable return. The Cubs trade Jacque Jones (who doesn't want to be in Chicago) to a team that's lined up to win a World Series as soon as this year for very little return.