craig

Thanks for that thoughtful list. I think that's pretty fair. Of the guys ahead of Watson, Harben and Shaver obviously have rehab issues, not ready. Berg is a big-league prospect with a big-league arm. I hope he's still doing rotation. As a fan I prefer prospects dominating the innings, knowing which days I really want to check the box scores, and getting the more detailed scouting reports that attenders write about starters. But if for whatever reason the Cubs decide that it's better for Berg the prospect to get in a year of relief experience, I defer to their judgment on that. With you, I personally hope he starts, even though his big-league future, if any, is more likely in relief. The other three, Estrada, Reinhard, and Watson, are roster-fillers, not prospects. I don't think any have any meaningful likelihood of making the majors in rotation certainly, or in relief either (except for maybe Watson; always a shot to get a shot as a token lefty). It's probably discouraging that they don't have anybody more promising than Watson to fill that spot. As you say, hopefully by June somebody better will turn up. Papelbon or Maestri might do very well in Daytona. Or Harben or Shaver might be built up enough to handle that role.

I read that also, but thought they were possibly temporarily starting him in the hopes of seeing what he has as quickly as possible in order to decide whether to cut him or keep him for the bullpen. I can't imagine him starting over several of the other candidates during the regular season. I hope I'm right! Wrigley, who did you have in mind for the several other candidates for AA? Harben's arm may not be much (the observation was that he didn't look like he had much of anything earlier in camp). They may want to develop Berg as a reliever, under the assumption he may reach the majors as a reliever but just doesn't have the package to start. They may decide they'd rather develop their relievers in Daytona's rotation (Papelbon, Maestri) than in WTenn's. So who's left? Looks to me like roster fillers in spots 4,5 at AA; roster fillers for most of Iowa rotation; relievers or ??? for most of Daytona's rotation. We just don't have that much volume of pitchers for rotation, since so many of our interesting pitchers are really relievers, not starters. I suppose you could throw Santo or Reinhold or one of those roster-filler types in there.

cal, I'm also interested in Siegfried. There's really a lot of guys who, if they were selected for rotation, I'd immediately be interested and intrigued. Wouldn't that in itself suggest the org saw some potential, and maybe they've progressed or impressed or gotten faster or something? And a lot who, if they got selected for rotation and then pitched a copule of good games, I'd be enthused about. Lefties Hempy and Siegfried are both in that group, especially if they were selected and showed success at Daytona. If Caridad showed up in Daytona's rotation, and had some zippy box scores, we'd get prettyinterested pretty fast in him, too, I suspect. I was surprised that Phil still had Redmond and Hatley in Peoria's bunch. Probably the list with Peoria means very little. If you look at the Peoria vs Boise bunches, Kevin Kreier may be the only American-born guy without injury limitation in the boise list. So maybe the Boise pitchers just work together and have instructions in Spanish rather than English, and the guys with any talent and any experience who are American-born just stay with the Peoria group until cuts are made? Hatley, Redmond, Acosta, maybe they all get the cut then. If Cabrera were to make it, that would be pretty cool. If nothing else, that would suggest that they think his arm is sound. When he had arm trouble last year, I always figure there's at least a shot that a guy's career is shot or extremely delayed. If he's healthy, that's a big deal IMO. Really if any of Acosta, Cabrera, hatley, Rhee, or Redmond was to show up in Peoria's rotation, I'd be pretty interested. Any of those seems to have some arm strength such that they might justify as prospects if they can throw strikes. Those guys would be a lot more intriguing to me than wildman Pawelek or an experienced short lefty like Sasser.

Cal, much thanks for the links, both the Knoxville report and AZ Phil's stuff. The Knoxville story obviously wasn't too up-to-date, because almost half of the guys discussed had already been sent to Daytona according to Phil's stuff. Much of the Knoxville info still seemed based on Fleita-gush back during the winter, in which he discussed a bunch of guys skipping up to AA. While it's possible the fact that they aren't (Ceda, Lansford, castillo, Maestri, Lambert....) because they've had disappointing camps, I think more likely it's just that Fleita guys is just always over-the-top hyperbole. Between the Knoxville article and Phil's stuff, there have been several things of interest, apart from the actual player assignments as they currently stand. 1. On Castillo: "He has by far the best arm we have from the big leagues down through the system," Bailey, a former minor league catcher, said. "In the game last week, he threw from his knees and the ball from his hand to second base never dropped more than two inches. The guy running was out by eight to 10 steps. "He has Pudge Rodriguez potential. His release time to second base is off the charts." That's coming from an ex-catcher, so hopefully those comments have some substance beyond typical hype. 2. Bailey on Caridad, "He has a great arm and a live fastball." 3. Not sure if Bailey said as much, or if the reporter was just assuming. But for AA, he had Samardz, Veal, Berg, and Atkins locked in as the first four starters, with no clue for #5. Maybe that's just false reasoning. But during the winter Fleita had talked about Berg to bullpen. I like the idea of Berg remaining in rotation and getting more work, he's still pretty young and his upside is pretty high. I still have an imagination that he might have the potential to kind of do a Kevin Hart-like emergence this year. 4. That colvin is still or again injured, bad elbow. Bailey suggested he might start to play the field this week, but we'll see. Cal or others, do you know Colvin's injury history? Is this elbow the same deal that knocked him out of the world games (or whatever they were actually called) this winter, and had him relatively inactive in camp? Or is this something different? At draft Colvin's arm wasn't buzzed a lot; but last summer the Cubs said it was really good. It would be unfortunate if Colvin would have lasting throwing problems, so that instead of a CF/RF candidate we'd be looking at another guy whose arm would end up in the class of Juan Pierre, Jacque Jones, and Matt Murton, such that he'd be limited to left field. 5. Az Phi had a number of interesting comments following his article, in response to questions. Included was discussion about Daytona and Peoria rotations. Not sure how much is "inside scoop" versus the same kind of educated guessing that you or I might make. But he said that Daytona has 3 sure rotation guys to start: Russell (obvious now, although during winter I'd expected but not been sure that he'd skip; nice to read Phil claiming he's been looking really good), Papelbon, and Maestri. I don't think anybody has suggested that Papelbon is viewed as a long-term rotation guy; this would appear to be strictly for developmental reasons, more innings. Maestri, though, is news. I'm very interested in him, since he's shown some perfect elements: allegedly fast fastball (although that may be Fleita-gush exaggeration), excellent slider (arguably the best in the system), excellent control, and outstanding K/W/WHIP. Would be interesting to see him translate the success he had in relief last year to rotation. Probably it's again a reliever getting innings for development reasons; force him to work on his offspeed, and force him to work on the change or cutter or something so that he has something to use against lefties. (My understanding is that he had a lot more trouble versus lefties, and as a reliever he'll see a lot of those if he makes the majors.) There has been other talk that Ceda was also going to be given rotation innings for development reasons, so it's conceivable that Daytona could show a rotation in which 3 of it's starters are really relief prospects in Ceda, Papelbon, and Maestri. Phil suggested that Arik Hempy might be a lead candidate for a rotatation spot there, too. That's kind of interesting. After his surgery, he didn't throw very hard, or all that well, last year, and was obviously a late draft pick. But I thought there was some speculation that he was a big guy who had thrown pretty hard pre-injury. If a year later he's got more velocity back, maybe he's got a shot to emerge into a legit prospect? Phil suggested that Muldowney and Blackford aren't in the rotation mix at present because of their injury rehab status, but that perhaps later on they might move in. I admit I don't really understand the Blackford stuff; he's always seemed really sub-average to me. If other guys need to get out of the way to make a spot for him, either he has more talent than his performance or anything I've read before has ever suggested. Or else he's just nothing much, and it might reflect how limited are the other guys currently in the mix who might get displaced by him if/when he's 100%. 6. For Peoria, Phil speculated that the three rotation locks were Hernandez, Huseby, and Zach Ashwood. Ashwood is somewhat interesting; 6'4" lefty, had some projection left when drafted, and by some accounts threw in the low 90's pre-draft. Pitched pretty well for Boise, and I think his composite numbers mask that he struggled some early but then was quite good down the stretch. (In his last two starts, he had 14K to 1 walk). Would be interesting if he's got some potential. Phil suggested that "the 4th and 5th will probably be either Alburquerque, R. Acosta, Cabrera, Pawelek, or Rhee. If R. Acosta, Cabrera, or Rhee don't make the Peoria rotation, then they would probably go to EXST and start there, moving to Boise (as rotation starters) in June, with a promotion to Peoria possible at any time." I wonder if hatley might also be in that mix; otherwise why would he even be with the Peoria group? Seems premature to just have him in relief this early in his development. If Boise ends up with Acosta, Rhee, Cabrera, and Hatley, plus maybe Redmond or Antigua or a draftee, they could have a pretty jazzy rotation.

Ceda's weight and size has been much mentioned. A recurring question has been whether he has a weight problem, which could harm his career. (Weight problems tend to increase, not decrease, after age 21!) What was your impression? Is he huge.... as in having a huge frame, a dominant build, and is reasonably fit? Is his weight appropriate for his frame? In other words, "huge" as in very desirably huge? Or is he "huge" as in huger than he should be, as in fat, as in undesirably huge?

Pie was never platooned in the minors, though. Nor do I think he was platooned early in his winter-league stints. So if his farm and winter stints so large and somewhat consistent splits, it may be harder to blame them on sample size or opportunity. I don't know how Pie's career will play out. He got a couple of hits versus LHP the other day, and my impression was that while he was bad versus LHP this winter league, he was actually even worse versus RHP. So maybe he's going to be fine or no worse versus lefties than versus righties. I don't know. But there are numerous LH hitters who don't hit LHP well, even when afforded extended opportunities. It's hardly "old school" ignorance to recognize that not-uncommon reality. Will Pie be one of them? I don't know. But it's certainly possible. And even if we knew right now that Pie was going to spend his career as an .850-OPS guy versus RHP but a .680-guy versus LHP, a guy who should rightfully play his career in a platoon if used right, I don't think that being "only" a platoon guy should mean we should trade him right now. A good lefty platoon player is very valuable.

No, that's not the only thing that let it not go on for long. They didn't like doing it. As raw and Colt have shown, the Cubs did go through a significant hunk of last year with only one IF sub. I fully agree with you; they didn't like doing it. But they did do it. I suspect going with Cedeno as the only infielder might be less problematic this year than going with Fontenot as the only guy last year. Cedeno might be somewhat less repulsive, since he's a talented defender (even if sometimes dumb and error-prone.) They may be in a position where they do something they don't like. Probably a choice between lesser evils. a) Cedeno as only infield sub. b) Sending Murton to the minors, again. c) Trading Murton for whatever double- or single-A prospect they can get for him. Maybe they can deal Murton for some prospect they really like, and they'll like it a lot. But unless they love the value they can get for murton in trade, I expect they'll need to either settle for having just Cedeno as infielder, for a disappointing Murton trade, or for Murton in minors (which I don't think they'll feel all that good about either.) Which of those is the lesser of the three evils?

I don't see how that is possible. The only way that happens is if they go with 1 backup middle infielder, and I don't see anyway they pull that off. .... With the normal 5-man bench, if one is a catcher and you burn one on a 1B-man (Ward), that leaves you 3 guys to cover infield and outfield. Either it's one outfielder (Johnson covering all three spots, supplemented by Ward or Cedeno), and two infielders (Cedeno and Cintron). Or it's one infielder (Cedeno) and two outfielders (Murton and Johnson). Personally I don't see why going with Cedeno only wouldn't be just fine.

Those are challenges for anybody. But usually guys are differentiated as premium CFers or iffy based on their speed and range (and arm), not based on their ability to deal with the bricks. Since Johnson profiles as a gritty gung-ho guy, he maybe doesn't have the fear of bricks that somebody like Soriano has, for example. (Maybe he'll be injured after two games, but that's a different story.) Back when we had no CFer and Roosevelt Brown even was discussed, I recall Andy MacP saying that Wrigley has such a small OF, it's less of a problem to have a somewhat slow CFer there than if you're playing in Coors or big-CF parks. So it may be that the inferior speed/range a dude can have relative to the great ones is less of a liability in Wrigley than elsewhere.

Prospectus is just a formula. As truffle just mentioned, age and last year factor in, so both contribute to a projection that he'll do less than his career average. I'm not sure what time Johnson spent on the DL, if any. Doesn't the prospectus formula have some DL factor included, which is also a depresser? Point being, prospectus doesn't spent years and years studying Reed Johnson. It comes up with a formula based on a lot of past guys. But a few scouts can spend some focused time on Johnson. Is he healthy, or not? If he was hurt last year and is healthy now, that could explain why they'd be OK that he stunk last year and expect that he'll be better this year. Prospectus formula can't do that. On Davannon, I don't imagine that he's close to Johnson defensively in CF. Johnson is not that hot I don't think, but I beliee Davannon is considerably worse. Also, for subs, I think fielding percentage in a sense does factor in. If a guy knows what he's doing, but is short a little bit on range, that's more acceptable than if he's a butcher on par with Jake Fox at catcher. It's possible that while Johnson might not be Pie-caliber, that he wouldn't be a big problem to put him out there, especially in Wrigley which has limited space. But Davannon might be so poor that Lou just wouldn't ever use him out there.

Thanks for info, peoria. By the way, I don't recall Sean in the box-scores this week. Did he get his work in via some other forum, or what? Cuevas-Novas was a very tall Dominican drafted out of a JC or something in the mid-30's rounds. Supposedly threw pretty hard, and BA liked his stuff. But he's not that young, probably 22 or 23?

No. An organization like the cubs has like 30 scouts. Spring training is an ideal time for scouting, because you can get to see a lot of players. You see more practice than during season game, in addition to the exhibition games. In exhibition games you get to see more pitchers than you would during a regular season game. And by this point, the minor league camp is rolling, so you can spend hours scouting prospects. Often I think the practice stuff (including minor league camp) is done in the morning, well before the exhibition games. So you can scout prospects and practices all morning and still get an exhibition game in the afternoon. If you've got 30 scouts, you can have a scout in every camp all spring. That the Cubs have scout(s) in Oriole camp and vice versa doesn't prove much. I don't know that the cubs are spending multiple scouts to watch Roberts play. He's pretty much a known commodity. For Baltimore to send scouts to watch our prospects, that's different, since they are talking volume, and those prospects aren't well established. It's not like Cubs are trying to decide if they want Roberts or Millar. But the Orioles might be wanting to decide if they want Cedeno or Patterson, or whatever. I wonder if the Cubs don't have people in Orioles camp to scout other guys than Roberts. Maybe they want more than we're willing to give for Roberts. Maybe we won't offer what they want for Roberts. So, no deal straight. But maybe if we scout their system and find some prospects that we like, we give them the prospects they like and want from us, we get Roberts, but they level the deal by adding some A-ball prospect that we like or something.

Fox has a strong enough arm to play 3rd. I think it's questionable whether he'd ever approach mediocre/average defensively even if he spent years playing nothing but 3rd. But if he wanted to go to extended spring training and work with the 3B guys to try to learn the position, I think that would be an interesting experiment.

Pedroia had a 1.000+ OPS last May, after 55 poor April AB, although even in April he still had an OBP over .300. And Pedroia was sitting almost half the games prior to his May breakout. So it's not like they stuck with him aas an every-day starter for as many AB's. His playing time seemed to already be on the bubble, but then he started to produce. If pie can keep his OBP over .300 this April, and then OPS over 1.000 in May, I don't think he'll need to worry about his playing time at all. Pie and Pedroia are hardly unique in starting poorly. But sooner or later you need to produce. If Pie produces, nobody will worry about any of this. It's only if he's sub-.300 OBP for week after week, month after month, that it will become a problem. If that's true through April, fine, stick with it. If it still that way as June is rolling in, I absolutely do not expect that. But if it is, then we've got some problems and tough decisions.

Yea, that's a bunch of b.s. A handful of sporadic ABs punctuated by weeks of sitting on the bench between them. He got 177 AB's total. shttp://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?statsId=7704&year=2007 Those were split over mostly two windows. If you look at the game log, he got called up and started at least 10 of his first 12 games in April (4 or more AB), and only once in those first 12 games didn't play. With a .250 OBP he got benched, and returned to Iowa. He got recalled again in June, and started almost every one of his first 20 20 games, routinely getting 4 or 5 AB. (The record shows two games with 2 AB and two games with 3 AB.) 79 AB in 20 games, that's full time opportunity. After a while, having gone hitless in five of his last 8 games, and with a .275 OBP and a .227 average, he lost his full-time job. Some sporadic bench play, back to Iowa. When he got recalled in August, he was again given a shot as the regular starter but this time a much shorter window, 4 straight starts. AFter going hitless in two of the last three, Lou bagged the idea it was sporadic defensive replacement usage with only a couple of starts the rest of the way. Basically 10 start, 20 start, an 4 start windows in April, June, and August. Each in concentrated packages, and each following full-time work at Iowa. So it's not like his opportunities involved using him when he was cold off the bench, other than the few scattered AB's during the last 6 weeks. The June window was really the best opportunity. If he'd have done well in April, that would have been great. But by June, they'd abandoned the Soriano-in-center experiment, it was Pie's to take and hold. Are 10 and 20 start windows too short? To adequately judge a guy long-term, obviously not. But that's long enough where a guy who's hitting at Iowa could keep hitting and go from there. I understand that a 20-start window is short; pressured; and even the best of hitters go through 20-game periods where they struggle. I expect it will be longer this spring. But I don't know how many outfielders are allowed to go as the regular starter with OBP in the .275-range. I think Pie will make it a lot easier on everybody if he can keep his OBP on the right side of .300 early on. Then he won't need to worry about how quickly Lou will pull the plug.

I have no problem with the Cub handling of Pie thus far. He had a good opportunity to win the job last year but didn't. 1. Contrary to the complaint that he's not being given a chance or being written off prematurely, he got his 177 AB (quite a few for a rookie, actually), and doesn't seem to have lost any status in the organization. 2. They didn't give up on him. Instead they traded away the only competition on the roster (Jones), and have basically given Pie the job this spring. If the only "competition" being little sammy Fuld is too scary, then Pie's got a problem! 3. They have probably had chances to trade pie, but by accounts they seem to have highly valued him and protected him and marked him as off-limits, at least for normal players. (Might have been different if Twins were offering Santana....) 4. They could have pursued one of the FA CFers this winter: Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Rowand. But other than limited interest in Rowand for RF, they completely passed on the CF pool. Because they were committed to giving Pie an opportunity. 5. By Hendry's own account early in offseason, he wanted a RH-hitting CFer for reserve. There has been no suggestion that he looked for a LH starting CFer. Only for a RH bench/possible-platoon CFer. What's wrong with that? Pie has consistently been a very weak hitter vs LHP in the minors. What would be so horrible about letting him have the 500 AB versus RHP where he's most likely to succeed, and possibly protect him a bit vs LHP until/unless he's performing well against them? Seems to me that they have done everything possible to set things up to give Pie the position. He fumbled it last season after they gave it to him. But now they've given it back to him anyway. It hardly seems that they have been hard on him. 6. Some are complaining that they should just "let him alone". I'm no expert. I know it's the board premise that anything done by Cub management is wrong, destructive, or idiotic. Not to be heretic or get banned from the board, but I think it's at least theoretically possible that some coaching might help him. Shorten the swing some? Use the other field some? Take more pitches? Those inputs by Lou make good sense to me; do they sound so horrible? A smart poster on other board said that Pie's swing looks more compact this spring; if that a terrible thing if Lou made suggestions to that effect? I don't see why that would be so bad.

Hoffpauir has played some LF/RF, and observers have said he looks reasonably comfortable out there. I suspect that defensively he's preferable in the corners to Ward. Perhaps also preferable to Murton, for RF at least. Hoffpauir had a good year in 2004 AA. But he really struggled in 05 at AAA, and kind of lost his chance. Since then he's improved each year. (One of the reasons that a guy is "old" or "dinosaur" at 28 is that the assumption is a guy doesn't improve much beyond 25. But in Micah's case, he has.) His value, if any, is as a utility 1B/corner OF guy. He's obviously not going to be an intended starter. He doesn't have any meaningful trade value, other than what he might inspire during this spring training. He has not been protected on the 40-man roster, so anybody else could have picked him up, via Rule 5 or 6-year free agency. That he's still with us reflects his market value. But, that doesn't mean he might not end up being a competent, producing bench player. someday. That someday will depend on some opportunity. For now, that would require injury to Lee or Ward, or perhaps one of the corner outfielders. Given Ward's health history, it's not beyond possible that he would go DL at some point.

Followup post: "By the way, I was told that even though he has made great strides since last year, he is extremely raw. "At this point, he just doesn't know how to pitch". When I asked what this meant, he said that he is still pitching to the strike zone rather than to a specific spot."

My friend on a different board is friends with a Baltimore scout who scouts the Cubs and has for years. He's spent extensive time at the cub camp each of the past several springs, so the fact that he's been at the Cub camp for over a week and has some more days left is nothing special and doesn't prove anything regarding Roberts trade. But my friend passed on the following comment re Samardz: "I have been told that Samardzija has hit 99 several times this spring. His fastball has a late break downwards that should bring him a lot of groundballs, but the break probably isn't sharp enough to gather a lot of strikeouts. .... Look for him to work mostly on improving his slider this year." Nothing new or surprising here, I know. The report on hitting some 99's is encouraging. There was talk about upper 90's late in junior year, even though that hadn't been normal earlier in college. Last spring there was upper-90's velocity (including on TV broadcast). But once the minor league season rolled, it was only low-90's. So I have wondered a bit whether the big velocity was something of a myth, or whether he'd already worn down his arm and we'd never see serious speed again, or what. But if he's again hitting 99's, that would suggest his arm is uncompromised and he still does have plus-plus velocity. meph has comped Marquis, with merit; but if Marquis ever did approach 99, it was long before his Cub days. So in that scouting regard Samardz may be at a different level. The comment about the fastball movement has good explanatory power for the puzzle with Samardz. The puzzle to me has always been: why do some scouts like him so much, when he doesn't have any K-stuff that makes anybody miss bats? That his late-sinking fastball is good enough to impress scouts but not good enough to miss bats really seems to explain that puzzle nicely. (That, and touching 99). We'll see how things go with the slider and the change this year. I can understand why scouts would be pretty keen on a guy who can touch 99 and has good sinking break on his fastball. But for most big-league pitchers, most K's come on breaking stuff, or high fastballs, not on low fastballs. If his slider and change get better (or he really does incorporate a splitter that works), at least some K's should follow. But if he never gets any K's, that will probably reflect that his slider/change aren't progressing much. The fast sinking GB fastball remains the key piece. And still gives some basis for the hope that he'll become a GB factory who can justify low K's with low HR's. Last year he did give up his share of HR's. Will be interesting to see how that goes this year, too. Where do the HR's come from, and will they always? If he always gives up HR's and never gets K's, the future is blah. Are the HR's the result of hanging sliders and no-deception changeups? If both of those pitches get better, will the HR's sink to an excellent asset, while the K's improve somewhat towards mediocre? Are the HR's the result of fastballs that don't locate; when he gets them up the movement vanishes and it's fast batting practice? Don't know. For some guys, HR's always stick with them, it's a function of their stuff. Others, it's really a matter of their command, and if/when the command gets better, the HR's can drop off sharply. Hopefully Samardz is in that latter class.

Great to see Wuertz ready to make an appearance, and to have a good one. He's been an integral part of the bullpen. Hopefully his arm will be in shape and he'll be able to do his thing this year.

He's mostly played 1B in his career, and is viewed as a *very* good defensive 1B. But he has played some OF and my understanding is that while inexperienced, that he looks pretty natural out there. Not sure about his RF arm. But I think he could sell as a 1B/corner OF utility guy.

Seems to me that Andy and Hendry have denied that things are "heating up" or stuff like that. That doesn't mean that status-quo doesn't exist, and that status-quo will lead to a deal in due time. 1. Andy commented some time back about having waited, why not spend some time scouting spring training to see if anybody has changed and to get further scouting info? That makes sense to me. Why not wait to see who's healthy, if anybody shows signs of improvement, etc.. I don't believe a guy like Veal was even a non-roster invite, so if they want to look at cats like Veal or Huseby or guys like that, they may need to wait even longer. Not sure how look the minor leaguers have actually been in camp or throwing. 2. I don't know the date, but at some time during March teams can park injured guys onto the 60-day DL. That day has not yet arrived, and will not for a while I don't think. Orioles have a full 40-man roster, and if they add roster guys that will bump some off. But if they wait until the 60-day DL is usable, they might be able to avoid 40-man problems by parking some of their guys (like the pitcher they got for Tejada) onto the 60-day DL. For all we know, hendry has provided a pool of candidates. And Andy has said, "We aren't ready to make a deal with that pool right now. We'd like X, Y, and Z added to the pool. Call me back if you want to sweeten the pool. Or I'll call you back if I decide to say yes given the pool you've offered. In the meantime, we'll look around, maybe scout some of your guys. If we do end up deciding to go for it, it won't be until we've looked everybody over this spring to make sure they're healthy and to reconsider our scouting evaluations. And if we do end up deciding to go for it, it probably won't be until the 60-day DL thing opens up some 40-man spots. Anyway, I'll call you back if I decide we want to go for it; you call me back if you want to improve the pool. Until one of us is ready to move one way or the other, no need to talk."

They can also make it work by having Orioles pick up some/much of the salary.

Why is that?

On Soto: he had a lucky year. He figured things out. (But not to the degree that he'll sustain that kind of production again). And no, I don't think it's the result of PEDs. I'm not sure of any of the steroid or HGH reports have highlighted guys getting much smaller rather than bigger, which is what happened to Soto. I don't expect him to hit to the 07 level this year, or perhaps ever again. But his numbers at both Iowa and with Cubs were so spectacular, he's got a lot of room to slump and still be pretty good, for a catcher.