rawaction

It's a power hitter's swing. Most LH power hitters not named Barry Bonds have/had swings that look like that. Plus, it seems to me to be more of a long follow through. He was pretty short to the ball last AB. Some people have made the comparison, but he looks a lot like Adam Laroche in his stance and swing. Swing doesn't appear as long as Laroche's though.

Yeah, that was an error.

What the hell are you doing here?

Ah, give the kid a hit!

Yahoo spots doing a live look-in of the Cubs game.

Is there anywhere to watch online?

I guess I shoulda quoted my last 2 posts together. But the NBA isn't a big man's game anymore. Granted PJ3 isn't a tradition C or PF anyway. The game is now won on the wings, with elite scorers who can shoot the jumpshot and drive to the hoop to finish. The last few NBA finals have proven this with Lebron, Wade, Dirk, Durant, Westbrook, and Kobe starring for their finals teams, with big men who play supporting roles. So, it's tough for me to say the big guys will pan out. There's such a huge range of results for young big men in the recent NBA. Kwame Brown seems like more of the norm that not at this point.

That's really all there needs to be, when you look at his ability. Legit 2G size, good shooter with mid-range and deep game. Elite jumping ability, can handle, has great quickness, good rebounder for his size. I think he has some James Harden potential in the NBA, but also has the ability to come off of screens like Rip Hamilton (to use the easy comparison from UConn, very skinny). He's probably not going to be a 25ppg scorer, but I think he's a guy that can give you 16-18 right away at the 2-guard with a good PG to get him the ball off screens and on the break. Ultimately, I think he can be a low 20s scorer, who gives you 5 rebs and 5 assists every night. A very good player.

A lot of people are calling Damian Lillard the best G in the draft. Kinda reminds me of a poor man's Derrick Rose. And I agree, J. Lamb and Beal are probably going to be 2 of the 3 best players in this draft class. And I do really like Kidd-Gilchrist, be interested to see if he's more Scottie Pippen or Anthony Mason. And I hope Austin Rivers goes to the worst situation possible!

Sac flies count against OBP.

I'd say our 22 year olds are pretty decent, too. Rizzo, Vitters, Lake, Szczur, etc. If either Vitters or Lake could become something close to Headley, especially his road splits. I think we'd all be thrilled. We do have some guys that will be ready to help as soon as 2013, but not enough in terms of quality or quantity that they'll be able contend without some significant external additions. I completely get where Theo and Jed are coming from in not signing free agents to ridiculous contracts or giving up too much in trade, but that doesn't mean that they should just pass on every option that will require spending or trading prospects. This being said, I like Headley and while he would cost a package of 3 young players or prospects, he's not an elite talent and would not require mortgaging the future. As I recall, in the winter when we were in talks, or at least rumors of talks for him, 2 name that came up were James Russell and Darwin Barney. If he were to cost those 2 plus one top 10-15 prospect with us getting one of their top 25-30 back as well, would anyone object? Yes, The San Diego Padres.

That caveat is the problem, and my point in this thread. The reason everyone wants Headley is that he's in his prime (for now), a bargain for the production, and fills a huge hole on the roster. But the Padres see that also, so there's almost no chance that Headley's available for a reasonable price. You're going to have to give up Baez, most likely if you're the Cubs. They've had Rizzo. The Cubs don't have the pitching they desire to give up. And none of (probably even no 2 of) Jackson, Lake, Vitters, Szczur is good enough for the Padres to accept back as the headliner for Headley. So, it's extremely likely that no plausible trade for the Cubs makes the trade worth it. Maybe the Cubs trade Dempster and Garza and get 2 ML ready starters and a couple other big time arms as prospects, but if you trade any of them....you're back to having no pitching in the system again.

The biggest difference between the Padres and the Cubs is payroll upside. The Padres probably realize there's no way they're re-signing Headley to a long term deal without significantly hindering their ability to put pieces around him. As to why they deal him now and not in his FA year is because they can truly maximize his value now - he'd bring in much more at 28 with 2 years of team control left than he would at 30 with FA impending. From the Cubs' perspective, we can make use of his two years of team control and then have a very realistic chance of re-signing him to a long term deal (4-6 years?) prior to him hitting FA. Teams like the Padres dump guys like Headley just as they get good because they can't afford them. Teams like the Cubs should be able to acquire guys like Headley because we can afford to pay them and still put good to very good pieces around them. I understand we need assets in the system, but Headley is guaranteed very good asset for at least 2 years (at a reasonable rate) and very likely much longer than that (at an expensive rate). The guys we'd trade are anywhere from possible to likely decent assets (higher level guys) to guys who could be very good assets but there's a ton of risk involved (lower level guys). It's the same logic as dealing Starlin - sure, we could get multiple assets for trading him, but the hope would be that those guys would be what Starlin is (and they probably wouldn't). It's the same for Headley - we can only hope the guys we trade become Headley down the line (and they probably won't). Yes, and that payroll upside that the Cubs have enables them to NOT have to give up valuable prospects for players like Headley, and instead sign similar players, just having to give up money and not also prospects.

If that's the case then then I'm going to start wondering if Theo is doing what he feels is best for the organization or if he just wants to do a video game rebuild and is going to whether it's the smart thing to do or not. At least with Pujols you had the concerns over being an albatross later on because he's old, but with Headley there's no valid excuse other than we don't want to try to win for a long time. He's really good, he's right in the middle of his prime, he's relatively cheap (for his production), we have a gaping hole at third, and he has multiple years of team control even after this year. He plays really good defense, has a very good approach - he's Theo's type of player in a nutshell. If they ask for something we can't give, I fully understand that (or something system-crippling). But to pass on him because we don't plan to compete until he's a FA is a self-fulfilling prophecy - we won't contend for an extended period of time because we won't add great players when they're available. That's the thing though. If Headley is really good, in the middle of his prime, and relatively cheap....then why do the Padres want to trade him? The likely answer would be the same as the reason the Cubs would trade Garza. It's because they only have 1 major asset to a contending team and would prefer it if they could get 2 or 3 good players (eventually) for 1 good player. As good as Headley is, the Cubs are in the same boat as the Padres. They need as many long-term solutions as possible. Sure that sucks in the short term, but it also doesn't make much sense to trade them 2-3 long-term solutions for 1 solution in Headley. The Cubs are not Headley away from competing.

I don't understand why you think this. He's a really, really good third baseman with 3 years of team control left and is only 28. We currently have nothing in terms of above average third base production anywhere near the majors, and I'm a Vitters fan. We're hoping Stewart might be average to slightly above average, hoping the same for Vitters and then we have nothing else until Lake (if that's where he ultimately ends up). I think Headley's pretty much the perfect target for us to go hard after in a trade. I disagree. First, Headley has 2 years of control after this one. Yes, he's a really good player. So you're ready to trade away two of our top 100 type prospects to get him? At least, maybe even more. we're building from the ground up. I seriously doubt we take away from the prospects right now, for a major leaguer, to be honest. Maybe if it's a 25 year old or something. Not doubting Headley is an excellent player, am doubting he fits with what we're doing. I'll be very surprised if Vitters isn't given the job next year. Be ready to be surprised then, I don't think Vitters is opening 2013 in the MLB. As for Headley, I don't think anything is happening there regarding the Cubs. They'd clearly want at least 1 elite prospect if they are dealing someone they can clearly afford and can use in their lineup. I don't see the Cubs trading any of their elite prospects, and what few they have are in the low levels of the minors or haven't even played professional baseball yet.

Lake had hits in his 1st 2 ABs.

Too bad he didn't get a single, pulled for a pinch runner and a standing ovation with curtain call.

The strikeout rates of the starters in the Cubs minor league system is atrocious. Man, they need some arms badly!

Disagree. It's going to take a lot from Amaya's bat to put him ahead of Hernandez since Hernandez is a capable defensive shortstop prospect. His bat is looking pretty good right now, though. 15-40, with 5 XBHs, 1 BB every 10 AB, respectable K-rate so far. Even had that double in Iowa earlier this year. I know everyone in Boise has a long way to go, but I'm really excited about Amaya (along with Hernandez and obviously Candelario).

All 3 true outcomes today, with a HBP throw in there

Baez, moved up to 5th in the lineup today, struck out with 2 men on in the 1st. His 5th K in his last 3 games.

Word is that today may be Anthony Rizzo's last game for the Iowa Cubs. There are rumors everywhere that he will come to Chicago tomorrow and be called up to play on Tuesday, because they don't want him to debut vs. a LHP, Santana tomorrow. Edit: guess it is mentioned in the Cubs Discussion thread.

Don't think a .489 BABIP is sustainable? On his NON-strikeout plate appearances, Jackson is 24 for 45, for a line of .533/.611/1.022. For the year that line is .418/.507/.794. Those season numbers are pretty consistent over his career also. So, basically....good things happen when he puts the ball in play due to his speed, power, and line drive hitting ability. I'm not sure if he can change as a player, but Austin Jackson has had a pretty nice turnaround in Detroit. But Austin has never struck out at the rate Brett is striking out right now.

Yet he still somehow has a swinging K

To be fair, he has walked 3 times in his last 10 games. All his XBHs in June have come in the last 10 also. Not anything stellar, but he had 1 BB and 3 XBHs in his previous 17 games. I'm not too concerned about where he plays defensively right now. He still has plenty of time. Plus, if he has to play 3B in the majors, he is getting reps there. If he plays 2B or OF in the majors, the transition is much easier. The key is getting his bat ready. If it's good enough the glove can wait.