Rob

Rotation is chock full right now... I'll go ahead and say Gallagher doesn't make the team out of spring training, seeing as how keeping him on the bench would be such a huge disservice to him and Cubs fans.

Much maligned though Cesar Izturis is (and rightfully so) take a look at his IsoD since he broke into the big leagues. 2001 - 0.010 2002 - 0.021 2003 - 0.031 2004 - 0.042 2005 - 0.045 2006 - 0.050 He's shown steady (if not spectacular) improvement in that regard, and he'll be working with a great hitting coach (two, if you want to count Lou) in his age 27 season. I don't like Izturis much either... but all the markers of a potential breakout season are there. Granted, his breakout would be a league-average offensive shortstop... but it's still something to be cautiously optimistic about.

Good, because signing Finley to even be on this team would be a mistake. I don't know... with Darren Baker gone who is going to sit on the manager's lap at press conferences?

Argh matey! Look for de torrent sites, yar!

Some of us don't have the ability to grow a good goatee or soul patch. :cry: That's a shame. *strokes his beard* yea, *strokes patchy stubble* Indeed. *strokes fantastic goatee.*

Fact: If you remove all the b's from the following sentence, "Jason Marquis beats children," it becomes "Jason Marquis eats children."

Of course we wont. The pitcher wont be batting 3rd.

This is either an omen, or Kerry is just getting his injuries out of the way early this season so he can be a monster the rest of the way. I haven't decided which way I'm leaning yet.

Actually, he probably is. PECOTA is projecting about a half run of ERA in Ryu's favor. CHONE predicts nearly an earned run Ryu's favor and ZiPS favors Ryu as well, although Dan sees them being pretty close. I keep forgetting to use ZiPS and CHONE when I make points about pitching. PECOTA may as well be the definitive source on projections for hitters... but its pitching lags behind (due to the very unpredictable nature of pitching itself). I will go out on a limb and say that all three will be wrong and Marquis will be about a run better than Ryu. Of course you will. You have no professional experience with projecting performances, nor do you have professional credibility that needs sustaining in order to ensure the money keeps coming in (at least not in this area). Not only that, but now Ryu has switched to the AL East. No offense intended of course, but I think I'll continue trusting the people that get paid to make these projections. After everything is said and done, I suspect Ryu's ERA will be slightly better after adjusting for league context.

Actually, he probably is. PECOTA is projecting about a half run of ERA in Ryu's favor. CHONE predicts nearly an earned run Ryu's favor and ZiPS favors Ryu as well, although Dan sees them being pretty close. I keep forgetting to use ZiPS and CHONE when I make points about pitching. PECOTA may as well be the definitive source on projections for hitters... but its pitching lags behind (due to the very unpredictable nature of pitching itself).

Actually, he probably is. PECOTA is projecting about a half run of ERA in Ryu's favor.

JRK is a major league ready starter? He's going to get destroyed in the AL East if they start him. 139.1 IP 3.23 ERA 114 K, 51 BB in the PCL. That ERA is good for sixth in the league. While I agree his ERA will look nasty facing Boston and New York, there's no doubt in my mind that Ryu is major league ready... his cup'o'coffee notwithstanding.

I'd certainly be willing to go Santana, Aybar, and McPherson.

I see Hendry's plan is finally coming together. If he trades enough major-league ready, back-of-the-rotation starters away for next to nothing... well, we might actually need Marquis.

And will likely help a team lose. The 2003 Florida Marlins might have something to say about that. Would you agree with me that Andy Fox (70 G, 120 PA, 21 H, 12 R, 8 RBI, 0 HR, 1 SB, 2 CS for a batting line of .194/.269/.259) was probably detrimental to the chances of the Marlins winning it all in 2003? If you can't agree to that, of course, you should lose any degree of credibility you have. If you can agree to it, however, you are admitting that it is quite possible for teams to win despite the contributions of some people. In that case, isn't it theoretically possible that the Marlins won despite Pierre, not because of him? Saying, "The 2003 Florida Marlins might have something to say about that," while we are talking about individual performance means very little... if anything at all. Hell, I could pull that line out when discussing Andy Fox. Basically, all it means is... nothing. I hardly mean to pick on you, but a pet peeve of mine is empty rhetoric. I simply mean to point out that isolating his individual performance is a much better measure of making arguments. That all being said, Juan Pierre was worth nearly 5 wins over a quadruple A replacement CF (WARP1 of 4.8). For as much money as he was making then, I find it extremely unlikely that he actively hindered the chances of the 2003 Marlins winning it all... though I'm not quite sure how much he may have helped. And he was certainly less valuable than the CPatt/Lofton combo we had that year.

I was the under the impression that "affording" Zambrano isn't the problem, but rather worries about injuries (ala the last two long contracts we gave to pitchers). Santana is consistently the best pitcher in baseball. And he's 27. Why wouldn't one worry about an injury to Santana, but at the same time worry about an injury to Zambrano? I don't get it. In the last 3 years, Santana has averaged over 230 innings. The most innings Zambrano has thrown in a season is 223. The next highest is 214. Granted, Zambrano gets left in too long in many games, but there is no way to no whether Santana or Zambrano can or can't handle the extra abuse they each have been put through. Not all pitchers have the same threshold. Santana ranked 70th last season in pitcher abuse points, only throwing more than 110 pitches in 2 outings all season and another 16 between 101 and 110. Zambrano ranked 2nd, with six starts over 122 pitches, 13 between 110 and 122, and another 13 starts between 101 pitches and 110. Put more succinctly, Santana threw 100 pitches or less in 16 of his starts. Zambrano only did it in one.

I'm pretty sure they could make him a PTBNL, though they might have closed that loophole in the latest CBA.

But... but... the intangibles!

It really depends on who you talk to. Wilken had Samardzija as the #1 overall talent in the draft. Some people don't see him as more than a good setup man down the road. At this point, I'd venture to say that he can't rank with Veal or Hill until people see how he adjusts to playing baseball full-time.

Horrible is a pretty strong word. I typically try to reserve it for the people who perform below replacement level. Tomas Perez has been horrible the last two seasons. Cesar Izturis was horrible for us last season. Juan Pierre is pretty damn bad...a situation only exacerbated by the role he was cast in... but he doesn't quite fall under my umbrella of "horrible."

It'd take more than that, as I'm sure the Angels would probably offer Ervin Santana and Brandon Wood. Hill, Veal, Gallagher, and Pie might get the conversation started.

He is overrated I dont think he sucks. I know he isnt ideal, but I mean honestly Pierre and Soriano would be spectacular. Thats why I wanted Lofton in the offseason. Nobody and Pierre could add up to spectacular. Not even ARod and Pierre, or Pujols and Pierre. He's really not that bad, seriously! I know he doesnt put up like spectacular numbers, but hes a pretty decent leadoff hitter how can you make a statement like that. Those are the two best players in baseball. The thing is, he hasn't been a pretty decent leadoff hitter since 2004. Besides, as someone else mentioned, leadoff isn't a position. Your best bet is to try to maximize production out of each position on the field without handicapping yourself too much defensively and build the lineup from there. The one issue with that method is that you have players like Soriano who request to bat leadoff and not giving them that spot might cause them to sign elsewhere. But I'd rather have that then try to sign someone just for the sake of batting leadoff. Yes, it would be great if the Cubs had a leadoff hitter that could get on base 40% of the time and steal 50+ bases without getting caught often, but those players are rare. On top of that, you have to hope he plays a position where you have a need. Ok I agree with what you said. I understand he has been bad, but he doesn't suck even with the last two bad years. Does Pierre actively hurt you compared to using a classic quadruple A CF? Probably not. However, the cost of acquiring Pierre was certainly far too high. He was worth Mitre alone, but the second we threw in Nolasco and Pinto, it was a doomed transaction, even without taking into account his monetary cost. Then we batted him at the top of the order, where his inability to get on base or hit for any power at all was amplified... especially on a team where we couldn't afford to hide his meager bat. To think, we could have had Beltran after 2004... We would have had a legitimate superstar player and Nolasco and Pinto to boot. That's a big part of the disdain for Pierre. His actual contribution to the team was mediocre at best... and we payed too much for it after missing out on a prize free agent. Pierre is symptom of the problem that is Jim Hendry.

Bernie's arm makes Pierre's look like a Howitzer.

Marmol didn't qualify as a prospect but Mateo did? He must have just barely not qualified. Cutoff is 50 IP, IIRC. Mateo had 45.7. Marmol had 77.0.

I wish Troy O' Leary was just our AAA roster filler rather than our 4th OF. And does that seem crazy to anyone else, that in a bench guy teams wouldn't want OBP as one of their primary skills? Not really. With the emphasis being placed on larger and larger pitching staffs, the era of the "specialized" bench player seems to have died. Teams are now looking for more flexibility and a broader range of "skill" out of the guys on the bench than they are looking for people that do one or two things well. In other words, Bobby Hill can only really play second, and Hendry probably sees carrying him as handicapping Lou's ability to effectively use the pieces on his roster... rather than valuing him for the one thing he is good at.