Rob

Colvin high, EPatt low, Pawelek low.... other than that, fairly good list. Though I'd swap Gallagher and Samardzija just because Gallagher will be able to contribute sooner (I had him as a darkhorse candidate to be fifth starter before we threw 21 mil down the well).

Maybe it's not best for Soriano or the team's defense, but it would almost certainly be best for the team. Even if Soriano is a subpar defensive CF, his value is maximized with his offense coming from that position. He's hardly guaranteed to be an above-average right fielder... offensively or defensively. At least this way we'd be sure to be getting at least one positive from him. Then maybe we can find a platoon partner for Jones in right and be set.

Give it to him. Side note: Just once, I'd like to see an extremely front-loaded contract. The team is already set to contend, but they're way under budget... so they offer a good pitcher 4 years, 50 mil.... and pay it out 25, 15, 5, 5. So right as their young guys get expensive, the money gets freed up to deal with them. But I guess that's just a pipedream.

I thought it was worth repeating. Besides 29 GMs can't be wrong. I think Wilson is a good player, but let's not overrate him. There is a reason why he was still available in January. Maybe it was a personally choice, maybe it professional, nonetheless, I don't think his value is as high as some may think. I'm pretty sure 29 GMs can be wrong. 29 GM's didn't grab Manny off irrevocable waivers for fear of taking on his contract... a contract that helped get Boston a WS ring... and a contract that looks downright sane right now.

#1 (not counting Guzman). Higher ceiling than Veal. Pawelek too? I think he has a higher ceiling than Pawelek (and I'm probably not as down on Mark as others). I could see arguments for Jeff being ranked below Veal and Gallagher, even Pawelek. I'm as high on our pitching prospects as anybody on this board, and this is the way I see it. Veal Samardzija Pawelek Gallagher That's for ceiling... overall (including value for being able to produce soon and likelyhood of reaching ceiling) ranking would go like this: Veal Gallagher Samardzija Pawelek

Unless they want Izturis back to man SS for this season, in which case we could give them pretty much anybody else and still come out around even.

source?

1 year, five million, trot nixon and craig wilson... For a one year committment, and 130-some million dollars less... we could have had about the same production in RF, if not moreso.

No, but I can guess it was Erstad or Finley.

"We are pleased to announce that we have traded Donald Veal for Neifi Perez, and signed him to a 6 year, 36 million dollar contract to be our starting SS."

I don't believe it's reasonable to believe that a player will improve upon his past season minor league numbers in his first season of professional baseball. Pie's OPS by month: .862, .676, .630, .771, .930, 1.389 Well, if he goes .676 .630 in 2 consecutive months and the Cubs are losing ground, will Lou "let him play through it"? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving young guys their shot, but I don't think the timing is right this year. Juan Pierre's OPS by month: .622, .557, .733, .876, .770, .735 I can't speak directly for Sweet Lou, but the Cubs organization sure doesn't seem to take up issue with speedy left-handed CF's taking their time to start producing. are you talking about pie? if so, the guy is only 21 and was in aaa last year. how is that in any way "taking his time to start producing"? Read what I was quoting. I was responding to a hypothetical situation, not the real one.

If memory serves, I seem to recall him saying he tried steroids very briefly and couldn't discern a real benefit from them.

Lilly signed before Zito. Does that make Lilly more highly thought of around baseball than Zito? Of course not... such an assertation would be ridiculous. The order in which people sign has very little correllation with how good of a player they are. I think part of the board's infatuation with Craig Wilson was that he was undervalued for his performance. This signing certainly does nothing to disprove that.

I'm so glad we sank over 100 mil into Soriano, when 2 mil for Craig Wilson + Jacque would have given us about the same production in a nifty platoon.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I was timid about Barrett in 2004 as well, but now I'm worried about the fact he's a catcher on the wrong side of 30. His production is just about about as likely to drop off a cliff as it is to stay at his current established level. I suppose I do expect more from Ramirez now, but I can't fathom how people expect a huge line from DLee this coming season. Yes, 2005 was amazing, but he's coming off a serious injury and even if he weren't, we would still most likely be dealing with regression to the mean. I can't really expect more out of him now than I did back in 2004. Though I suppose you are right about Gonzalez being better than Izturis. As for Sosa versus Soriano... Interestingly enough, they're both coming off seasons with a .911 OPS. The difference is that the two seasons prior to that, Sosa had put up OPS marks of 1.174 and .993... whereas Soriano had put up .808 and .821. With both players now on the wrong side of 30, I'd be hard pressed to expect more from Soriano than I did of Sosa.

My point was that heading into 2004, we had every right to think we would have a very productive offense. Things rarely work out just like they're supposed to, though. It'd be foolish to assume they will, or that the odds we get a ton of career years from people is more likely than getting injury-plagued half-seasons from important players. So comparing positions, based on the preseason expectations, we would have ended up with this. Pos 2004 vs 2007 C Barrett = Barrett 1b Lee = Lee 2b Walker >>> DeRosa SS Gonzalez = Izturis 3b Aram = Aram RF Sosa >>> Soriano CF CPatt >>> Jones LF Alou >>> Murton You can make the argument again that 2004 didn't turn out well... but that's kinda my point. We had a much better group then and didn't get near the production we were looking for. Do you really think this ragtag bunch of misfits is more likely to give us that production than the 2004 group was?

I don't believe it's reasonable to believe that a player will improve upon his past season minor league numbers in his first season of professional baseball. Pie's OPS by month: .862, .676, .630, .771, .930, 1.389 Well, if he goes .676 .630 in 2 consecutive months and the Cubs are losing ground, will Lou "let him play through it"? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving young guys their shot, but I don't think the timing is right this year. Juan Pierre's OPS by month: .622, .557, .733, .876, .770, .735 I can't speak directly for Sweet Lou, but the Cubs organization sure doesn't seem to take up issue with speedy left-handed CF's taking their time to start producing.

Really? CPatt Walker Sosa Alou Ramirez Lee Barrett Gonzalez CPatt had put up a darn good half season in 2003, Walker was Walker in 2003, Sosa was still a damn good ballplayer, Alou was coming back to life, Ramirez was talented as all get-up, Lee was Lee, Barrett was a question mark, and Gonzalez was coming off a 20 HR season. Going in to 2004 was much more exciting for our offense than going in to 2007.

This is disturbing to me. Bringing Pie to the majors in this situation is bound to put a lot of pressure on him. For a club that's declared itself in "win now" mode, this is a confusing decision. Goony is right. We DO need offense out of CF since we'll get nothing out of the SS position and DeRosa is no guarantee to repeat last year's numbers. Furthermore, Barrett probably will sit in about 1/3 of Cub games, as most starting catchers do. When he's out, we have a no-hit backup in Blanco. There are days when we'd play 3 guys with OBP around .300 or worse. That's a sure loser, and that's assuming we're completely healthy, which we won't be because no one ever is. Our pitching is improved, but it's not the kind of rotation that will win a lot of 2-1, 3-2, type games outside of Z and maybe Hill. Further, one has to question how long Lou will stick with Pie if, in fact, he does put up a line something like .250/.300/.400. If he's juggled between AAA and MLB and not given consistent at bats, it could hamper his development as a player. Young players need to play and get consistent AB's. Counting on Pie to be the 2007 CF is a bad decision from a put the best team on the field to win today standpoint, and a worse decision from a player development win tommorrow standpoint. Was Hendry even paying attention during the 4+ seasons of Corey Patterson? PECOTA sees a .280/.342/.480 line from Pie with plus defense next season. Given the other current options out there, I don't see how you can say this is a bad decision from the "win today" view.

Any evidence of this? Fiddling around with the Lineup Anlyzer seemed to indicate otherwise. That's assuming universal health. If the lineup has nothing but .300 EqA's, the production would be easier to replace if somebody went down to injury.

Or Ohman. Why would we want to trade the less expensive, more effective one? Especially when considering the fact that Eyre's market value is well above his actual value, trading Ohman instead of Eyre would most likely be foolhardy.

Brewers look significantly better, and the it's hard to bet against the defending WS champs. Astros look like they've fallen off the face of the earth though, which I'm loving.

While it's just a minor league contract and an invite to ST, this move is indicative of the failure of the front office to recognize what constitutes a good ballplayer.

I knew somebody would respond like that, and I had no idea how I was going to respond. Still don't.

For amphetamines. http://www.nbcsports.com/mlb/816866/detail.html?dest=rss| I love that he tried to blame it on Mark Sweeney.