craig

Thanks for BA list. Nice to see 5 Cubs in the top-82. Thanks also for that link to the old discussion. I was fairly decent, Gallagher likely but not certain. Colvin likely, perhaps as high as 75. Soto for sure. I didn't comment on Vitters; it's interesting that he's so high. Heh, the funny parts from that discussion were the biggest mistakes, by badnews (who scoffed at the idea of Colvin making it and ranted about how dumb we Cub fans were to overrate our prospects so much, Colvin should be about a #9 prospect on most lists...) and meph "Eric Patterson will most certainly be top 100 on BA. Don't be surprised if hes down around 50." O well, which of us don't make mistakes. Still, kind of funny. I even thought Samardz might still have a shot to sneak in somewhere in the 90's (I didn't think it likely, but it wouldn't have stunned me.)

Stats-wise, Roberts was 10th in OPS, 5th in OBP. http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=winshares&linesToDisplay=50&season_filter[0]=2007&league_filter[0]=All&pos_filter[0]=2B&Submit=Submit&orderBy=wsp&direction=DESC&page=1 In Hardball times win-shares, which attempts to include baserunning, defense, as well as the simple offensive stats, had Roberts as 2nd behind Utley in total win shares (which is a volume stat) and in win-shares-above-bench. In WSP, win-shares-percentage, Roberts scores 3rd behind Utley and Polanco for guys who played 2B regularly. I know the WinShares stuff was a Bill James thing. He's both a smart guy and has been doing saber stuff for a while now, so I assume it's not grossly flawed. But I'm not sure how it compares strengths/weaknesses-wise relative to Pecota or other metrics. Maybe it's got some flaws in it that overvalue Roberts? And obviously those numbers were for Roberts 2007, not Roberts future. Guys who scored below him last year may well outscore him next year or down the road, I understand that. Serious question: what's the spin on the relative merits/demerits of win-shares versus the WARPs, and what's a quick explanation of what WARP-2 and WARP-3 do that WARP-1 overlooks? Also: Prospectus gives Pecota cards and WARP values that are free; is there free source with WARP-2 and WARP-3? I'm sure the WARP-stuff has been discussed a dozen times, but I don't know where. Also, other than Win-Shares and WARP, what other metrics are there that include both defense and baserunning? (Unlike EqA and VORP, for example).

I like the idea of stealing 3rd. It's not something you do all the time. The volume of attempted 3B steals is limited. But I think Lou is right, there are times when it's easy. It's not a matter of forcing it; but when the defense is giving it to you (either by positioning of the 2B/SS and/or by total disregard by the pitcher), it makes sense to have the brains to recognize that and to capitalize. Getting to 3B with one out (or less), you can score on a groundball or a fly or a hit. And while 2B is "scoring position", I wonder what fraction of singles guys actually do score from 2B? I'm not sure it's as high as you think. Obviously you better have a very high success rate, much more so than stealing 2nd. But I think that's possible if you've got the brains to read the defense and to read the pitcher.

I know this is contrary to your premise. But there may be improvements needed in July that you don't know are necessary now. And there may be things we think our problems now that work out OK or even pretty good. We don't need 3B help now, or CF help now. But by July, if Pie and Fuld bust, or if Aram breaks his ankle, we might. And if Cedeno wins SS and is hitting .280 with a .750 OPS, maybe that won't end up being a hole after all, and we'll be glad we didn't sell the farm for somebody who's no better. There are so many questions now, it's hard to know what the needs will be. Will it be mostly 3B? CF? SS? Backup catcher? LH relief? Rotation? I know it's board policy that SS is the beyond-doubt black hole. The other thing that's hard to anticipate now is how trade values might change. If Veal is still a walkaholic wildman with an ERA around 5, and if Gallagher doesn't sustain any increase in velocity and is struggling along with a 4.35 ERA, their value might be considerably lower than today. Or, if Veal is rolling with a 2.65 ERA and 110K/40walks in 95 innings, and Gallagher is consistently working in the 92-96 with a more consistent breaking ball and a 2.15 ERA, their trade value might be through the roof.

"(Vitters) strike-zone recogntion is uncanny" February Vineline Vineline obviously is a positive mag, and the authors get their views after soliciting comments from all of the Cub farm coaches. So I understand if your view is that if somebody in Cub management said it so it must be ludicrous and absolutely wrong because all Cub management are idiots. Or that since nobody in Cub management has a clue about pitch recognition, if a Cub source says anything about zone recognition, how would they know? But I can assure you not even Vineline ever approached saying something like this about Harvey or Corey or Pie. And IIRC, there really hasn't been a lot written about Vitters strike-zone recognition. For me, I recall only one or two scouting reports that had comments raising the hackaway red flag. This adds an additional relevant scouting comment.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that he'd probably hit the same amount of HR's in the 8 spot as he would anywhere else. Of course we'll never know, because he won't be able to be batting 2nd and 8th at the same time. But while I think "protection" isn't a meaningful reality earlier in the order, I think the anti-protection batting 8th has substance. It seems that when a pitcher knows an auto-out like Rich Hill or Ted Lilly is coming up next, they are even less likely to challenge a #8 hitter with mashable pitches. I would guess it might be a little harder to hit HR's batting 8th than batting 3rd. In their minor-league careers, the OPS advantage that Pie has and the trace career average advantage that he has is explained entirely by his HR's. If you removed both Fuld's and Pie's HR ab's from their stats, Fuld would have a much better batting average, a better slugging percentage, and an even larger OBP superiority. On AB's that don't result in HR's, Fuld has a better minor league career stats across the board. But Pie has hit HR's, which have gotten his OBP in the ballpark, have added hits to his batting average, and have added lots of bases to his slugging percentage. If Pie hits enough HR's (a dozen or more?), he's not going to lose his spot to Fuld. But if his HR's don't significantly boost his BA/OBP/slugging, maybe he will. It's not that rare for rookies to underperform HR-wise relative to in the minors. Hopefully Pie will be whacking some out. Of course, it's also possible that if he isn't swinging for them, he'll whiff less, walk more, and get more hits in play. Should be fun to watch.

Was interesting in Lou's radio interview today that he spent more time talking about fuld than Pie. But in the interview he also talked about Fukudome batting 3rd, and in that context I believe he made some comments about the #8 hitter, to the effect that the #8 hitter needs to have some OBP skill so that you aren't routinely opening innings with the auto-out pitcher. So Pie is in a pickle. he's not shown he's good enough to merit a spot higher in the lineup. But his crummy plate discipline makes him somewhat problematic for batting 8th. Pie's primary offensive advantage has been his HR power. Not sure how many HR's he'd hit batting 8th. Fuld's is that he's a disciplined hitter with OBP. So it may be that fuld is actually more what Lou might be looking for back there. Of course, if Pie could get some hits, could show some pitch selection, and could give some power besides hitting 8th, that would be awesome. My guess is that if Pie can sustain a decent OBP, it's a non-issue. But if his OBP is painful, that Lou may prefer Fuld with a more respectable OBP over Pie even if Pie has a little more power and OPS. For example, I'd guess Lou might prefer Fuld with a .325 OBP and a .670 OPS over Pie with a .295 OBP but a .700 OPS.

A note on Cintron: he's a switch hitter, and his splits are favorable: he's a career .347 OBP guy left-handed, with a career .305 batting average and .768 OPS hitting lefty. Theriot is a career .384 OBP vs lefties with an .846 OPS. I know Cintron isn't too hot defensively, worse than Theriot I assume. And I know neither would be likely to perform at those levels if you put them in a straight platoon. But if you did platoon a .347 OBP with a .384 OBP; might one reasonably get a .340+ OBP outcome? And if you platooned a .768 OPS with an .846 OPS, might one reasonably get a .750+ OPS? A .340-OBP .750-OPS SS, that wouldn't be that bad hitting 8th or even 2nd. And that would be worse than either of their career splits. Maybe this will be our lucky year where things like that will work out.

Khalil Greene, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, David DeJesus, Chris Capuano, Dave Bush, Hunter Pence, Brian Roberts, jon lieber, aaron heilman, dan johnson, ian kinsler, j.j. putz, joe blanton. to name a few. ... badnews isn't talking about college guys who get picked late and work out, he's talking college guys who get picked in the first round without huge buzz. Matt Murton and Brian Roberts are two of current relevance and recent history. Joe Blanton was one like that. (Safe and boring, low upside; not like the more exciting higher upside Brownlie, Hagerty, Clanton, and Purdue guy that we took.) Mike Mussina was scouted that way; good control, but not fast enough or big enough or with any dynamic pick to merit top ten. Roger Clemens also, he was a mid-first-round guy. Barry Zito scouted as a good curveball lefty but didn't throw very hard; didn't seem very exciting at the time, more likely to be another token lefty curveballer at the back of your rotation than an ace, and more likely to end up as a LOOGY than a rotation guy at all. Ryan Braun as I recall didn't scout all that jazzy either, a good hitter but not necessarily exceptional power or anything else. Certainly the Khalil Greene reports were somewhat muted; when we took him as a junior, he was viewed as a non-SS, a 3B without the power to play 3rd. Oops! And even when taken 1st round, he profiled as a safe conservative selection, and there were still Q's about his SS ability! (The thing that is now his greatest strength, apart from perhaps the HR power.) The CF for Boston, Ellsbury, just a speed and defense guy, no power. The Cubs Josh Donaldson certainly seemed a somewhat limited excitement pick. The reports didn't suggest he was a huge slugging prospect or a Pudge Rodriguez defensive prospect. But couple of weeks of good hitting in the minors and suddenly many of us are quite abuzz with his potential ceiling (relative to the world of catchers). One other factor is that different observers have differing evals of guys. And on writeup can sound very different from another. One writeup on Russell, maybe BA's, talked him down as a soft-tosser mid-80's. Another one talked about touching 91-92 with projection for increased velocity. So sometimes one writeup gives me a totally bored blah feeling, but some other source can make exactly the same prospect seem reasonably promising.

Not sure what the laughs are about that. It's logical. Pie is the intended starter, but he splits very badly vs LHP. He needs somebody to platoon with him. Fuld is a lefty, and while his splits are less extreme than Pie's, he's still not a guy you want to put on the team in order to be used primarily vs LHP. Having two lefties platoon with each other, that would be a first in the history of the game, I think. Plus, Fuld has not shown success above AA/AFL even against RHP. Willits would be a much preferable platoon for Pie, given his splits vs LHP. Versus RHP, Pie obviously is the favorite. Willits could conceivably be in the competition with Fuld and Patterson as first option in the event that Pie were to play himself back to Iowa.

Willits is a plausible target. He doesn't have the power or the role with Anaheim to be real expensive. With Torii, Matthews, and Figgins around, it's not like they have a big role for him in CF. With zero power, it's not like they are going to be counting on him for a lot of LF or RF. He's a bench guy for them with no projected future to start, and with a glaring hole in his toolbox. So I assume that he is expendable. For somebody who might have a chance to play a larger role for them. Obviously we aren't going to trade Pie or Gallagher for a cat like that. But I could imagine him being available for one of our expendables. I could also see us having interest. Pie has been awful versus LHP, and last year vs ml pitchers in general. Willits could provide a nice platoon with Pie, and some anti-awful insurance in case Pie totally flops this year. One possibility, in the event that pie did hit pretty well this year vs RHP, would be to actually platoon Pie/Willits at #2 spot. Keep the speed at top (which Lou wants, regardless of board opinion), and park SS at #8.

Marquis is the poster-boy for the low-K groundballer who gives up plenty of HR's. A good match for 07 Sam. Low-K groundballers are supposed to offset the low K's by few HR's. But both Marquis and Sam gave up lots of them. Hopefully another year and the HR's will drop a lot for Samardz. And the K's increase significantly, even if perhaps not as far as we'd like.

OK, I'm home now, so I want to clarify those VineLine things. I didn't represent them with the best accuracy. VineLine guys surveyed all the Cub minor league managers and coaches, and ended up publishing short comments on 50 prospects. They're covering 10 guys per page, so it's normally four lines of print per player. Sometimes there is some scouting information about the player or about what some management person thinks about a player, but some is information somebody like you would already know. Samardz's, for example, reports that he caught passes for Notre Dame, had growing pains this season, and struggled especially at Daytona. "Seen as a thrower early, Samardzija grew into a pitcher by season's end." Well, maybe yes, maybe no. But that's the spin the Cubs are selling. However, Vineline also surveyed the coaches/staff about some tools. For the pitchers, there were 4: best command, (holliman, with Petrick and Atkins runnerups); best poise/makeup, besst athleticism, and bet mechanics. Surprisingly, Samardzija appeared in each of the latter three categories. Tops, followed by Petrick, for poise/makeup. Bombard commented that he went through struggles but kept competing and challenging hitters. Tops, followed by Scott Koerber, for "athleticism". best athlete in org bar none, said Fleita. At the end would call him a pitcher. At the start would have called him a thrower. Then, for best mechanics, Holliman was first followed by Samardz. (comments only about Holliman). That they talk up his competitiveness and athleticism is not that surprising. But that he'd be listed as 2nd in terms of mechanics, that's a big surprise.

I agree with meph that this will be a huge year for Samardz, and we'll know tons more afterwards. It's possible to excuse things the first year. But if he's still K'ing nobody, allowing way too many HR's, and struggling in general after another year, the football excuse will run thin and he'll be on track for bust-hood. Or maybe he'll have much better command, both slider and change will be a lot better, and he'll have the same arm slot working for everything, resulting in much better deception, more K's, and fewer HR's. Maybe he'll look like a very legit rotation prospect. Most likely it will be something in between, not a great year, but not a horrible year either. Some progress, enough to keep the optimists hoping; but not enough to cynics off his case. Either way, we'll have a much better idea about him after the season. I do agree that he's such a weird case that setting expectations, especially age-based ones, is tough. I also think that if he does end up reasonably successful, it's possible he may do so with a somewhat unusual profile. Of the big three stats, K's, HR's, and walks, I think there's a chance that he may be somewhat effective in spite of low K's by being an anti-HR and anti-walk guy. But, we'll see. I completely disagree with the "nobody really thinks of him as a prospect... he's more of a pet project of Hendry and Wilken" line. I think he's very much a prospect. Like most meaningful prospects, he's a prospect with a good chance to fail. But he's got a not insignificant chance to be a meaningful player for the Cubs.

[delete

I don't have it with me, but I bought a copy of the February Vineline, which every February is dedicated to prospect stuff. They survey all the Cub farm coaches and managers. I was surprised that among the pitchers, not only did Samardz score among the two highest for competitiveness/toughness/work ethic kind of stuff. But he was listed as one of the two (I think) who had the best deliveries. That was totally contrary to what I expected. The following comment is multi-hand, but my friend is friends with a Baltimore scout. that scout has been very high on Samardzija, but said that to date his fastball and slider have different deliveries so that there is no deception, that hitters can tell which pitch is coming. It was his view that if Samardz could adjust so that both were thrown indistinguishably with the same arm slot and arm speed, that he'd become effective. But that until that happens, not so much.

Mark me in the group who thinks that even were the Cubs to acquire Robert, that he would bat 2nd and Soriano 1st. That would be good. 1. Lou likes speed, and that would give your two fast base-stealers at the top. 2. Roberts is a good batsman, and lefty, so could be a natural hit-and-run guy at #2, also, on the rare occassion that Soriano is on 1st base. 3. Roberts is a good OBP guy, which batting directly in front of Lee and Aram would be ideal. 4. Roberts is lefty, a LouHendry priority. That breaks up the righties. 5. Non-HR baserunners are most likely to score when OBP guys are bunched rather than spread apart. Roberts-Lee-Aram-Fuku-Soto (or DeRosa when he's in there) would be sequencing the five best OBP guys at 2-6. Pie, Theriot, pitcher, and Soriano would bunch the poorer OBP guys. 6. If you didn't bat Sori 1st, where would you? Or, more to the point, where would Lou? Lou isn't going to bat Alf or lee 2nd. And he's not going to bunch lefties Roberts/Fuku 1st/2nd, even though they might be good OBP guys. Sori obviously doesn't belong at 3rd or 4th. If you put him 5th, that's doing the 3 RH power guys back-to-back-to-back, exactly contrary to what Lou wants. So if you take Alf out of leadoff, he'd drop to 6th. I'm fine with that. But I doubt they want to put the most expensive guy at #6. And if Alf and Roberts weren't 1-2, and they didn't want to put the two lefties Roberts-Fukudome 1st-2nd, then who fits into the two spot? If Sori was moved down, that would presumably leave Theriot 2nd. I don't think that will be how it goes. Sorry for stupid post, since we don't have Roberts anyway and presumably are unlikely to acquire him.

Those orioles dudes are funny. They seem to think that Roberts should command multiple no-risk all-star likely guys. Pie might not be a star? Don't even want him. Cedeno might be good, but not certain? Don't want that. Patterson might be good, but not guaranteed? Junk. Murton? They think Orioles are so crawling with .800+ OPS outfielder prospects that Murton is superfluous. It's like they think Roberts ought to either get about as much as Bedard, or else keep him. That's certainly Andy's right. If he doesn't want to trade Roberts, fine. Lets not go nuts bidding ridiculous for a guy who they'll only trade for ridiculous offer. I still think Gallagher-Cedeno-Patterson or Gallagher-Murton-Patterson caliber offer is fine. A plus pitching prospect, a solid position prospect, and a question-mark position prospect. The notion that Gallagher-Murton-Cedeno isn't good enough for their mighty Orioles seems kind of silly. I think the MacP stuff, whatever. He says nothing is imminent. That's similar to what he said with Seattle; eventually, they raised their offer. So his waiting paid off. Smart work by MacP. After the deal, he commented about how Seattle was really slow to give the last prospect. It certainly makes sense for him to hold out again, as long as he thinks that by doing so might result in Hendry bumping an offer. But I'm not sure it makes sense for them to hold Roberts back and not make a deal at all, if hendry holds firm. That might not be smart for Orioles. Or perhaps Hendry has withdrawn Cedeno from the pool, and things have gotten even less attractive for Andy.

GTAG, it's one thing to have been clocked at 96, once. It's another to consistently be throwing mid-90's. Seems to me that expecting Gallagher to be throwing his fastball at 95 with location 8 times an inning is beyond what we should expect. If he's 89-93 most of the time, hits 94 once an inning maybe, and hits 96 once every third start, that's still not an overwhelming fastball velocity. If we keep him, he'd open camp as the #8 starter. He could advance from that as need, performance, and failure by those ahead of him demand. But I'd think that if we keep him, he'd project to open at Iowa and see what happens from there. IIRC he didn't eat a lot of innings last year. In the minors they have very limited pitch counts in April; then he had a bad shoulder and missed a start or more; then was building back; got called up and sat; send back down to build back again, etc.. And in many of his starts he was really a long-count guy. Not a guy who'd get many 8-pitch innings. I like him very much as a prospect. But I'd certainly prefer to see him open at Iowa and see whether he's raised his game. I like his future, though. He seems to be committed to trying to be as good as he can become, as his weight-loss stuff reflects. While he's more advanced than his age would suggest, my take is that he's been trying different things with his breaking balls over much of his career. Slider, curve big, curve small, cutter, change, he's tried them all, and I'm not sure through last year had ever really settled in on which of those to use, or which combination. Seems also the Cubs have gone back and forth; for a while, it was curveball, don't do slider. Later slider got added back in, but two years ago i recall him saying he had trouble throwing them both well at the same time. I thought this fall there was talk of going primarily with slider rather than curve. Not sure about all of that. But I think he's smart enough, and has enough control, that I don't think he's hit his ceiling yet. And I believe that a guy with a 90-95 fastball that he can locate well, and some variety of breaking balls that at times can be pretty good, and is smart, I think a guy like that can be very good. With Marquis, Lieber, and Dempster all being on short leashes, there will certainly be rotation openings over the next couple of years. So if he stays healthy and works out, we could be very thankful if we end up keeping him. But it's also possible, of course, that he'll never be much better than he is now, and with some arm wear that soon enough he'll be less than that. Time will tell.

Atkins has a clear opportunity to start at Tenn, given how shallow their rotation is. Samardzija and Veal are the two obvious profile prospects. Cubs liked Adam Harben enough to roster him. Interestingly enough, in VineLine they suggested his ceiling could be as high as a #2 starter if everything comes back post-surgery. So I expect he'll start. (Although he'll have to prove his arm can hold up to rotation grind, which is no sure thing.) After that, Atkins has clear shot at #4 starter. I'd have liked Berg back for rotation, but Fleita has said otherwise. So #5 should be some roster filler or some dude like Santo or Reinhart. Possibly even Papelbon, although Fleita seemed to think he'd start at Daytona. I wasn't surprised he didn't make top-30. On my list, I think the only one of BA's top-30 that I had him ahead of was Fox, and maybe Barney. At present, not enough stuff to be more than a finesse pitcher, but not enough command for that. Plus I am concerned about his arm, he had some shoulder problems last year, IIRC. But, he's like a lot of guys; if he could improve, he's got a chance. As wrigley noted, he's young enough and big enough that if he shows up healthy, maybe he'll be consistently low 90's touching 95-96, hardly unprecedented. Or perhaps his offspeed stuff will sharpen up. He could be something like a Hart. Perhaps in relief he'll through a bit harder. Or he'll get taught a cutter and it will really make a difference. He's got a shot. But I'm not surprised he's behind guys like Russell and Acosta and Ascanio on the list.

According to an Orioles scout, Hendry originally offered a pick-3 pool of upper-level prospects, excluding Pie and Colvin. The original pool were all 40-man people. Obviously MacP hasn't liked the pool enough to make a deal thus far. Both sides have veto power. MacP can say no unless Pie or Colvin gets added or unless Hendry expands it to pick-4. Hendry can say no if they demand Pie or Colvin. As bruce noted, the Cubs logically can reason that O's will lose 90+ with or without Roberts, very likely next year as well as this year. So the Cubs might logically figure that MacP will want to trade as best he can. If at some point Andy figures he's not going to bluff more value out, he may go ahead an make it. Andy may figure that LouHendry really want Roberts, and often talk about being "aggressive". So he may well figure that if he stonewalls for a while, that he'll get more. That Hendry will eventually compromise, either by upgrading one of the 3 (Colvin-or-Pie instead of whomever), or else by adding a fourth prospect (of negotiable value). Partly it may be a matter of reading the other guy. By many accounts Angelos and MacP may not be that motivated to trade Roberts. Maybe they'll only do it with a ridiculous offer-you-can't-refuse. If so, their trade-motivation is low, and it will be hard for us to get a deal that I'll like. By other view, Orioles are in pure rebuild mode, and Roberts contract will be up before they contend. By that view, their trade-motivation is high, and if you wait them out they should eventually settle for a less-than-ridiculous offer. The flip for us. Lou says he likes the lineup and likes DeRosa; maybe our trade-motivation is modest and we won't make a deal that isn't fair. Others say our trade-motivation is huge, that LouHendry are nuts about Roberts, they want to do something, they want to be "aggressive" (= overpay at least a little). From that view, if Andy waits us out he should eventually get Hendry to settle for an enriched offer.

Interesting view. Not sure I see the logic in that view. I do certainly agree that Crisp would not be comparable to Roberts as a top-of-the-order guy. And I agree that you don't want a dude like that blocking Pie or Colvin. Maybe I don't know the market right. But I'd think there could be merit in picking up Crisp as a 4th outfielder; given his contract, I don't think he'd cost that much in trade value. As a switch, no reason he couldn't be the platoon partner for pie. (Other than that he isn't a very good offensive player). As a switch who can field the spot, he'd provide some insurance should pie and farm alternatives (Fuld, patterson) bust. So I don't see why he couldn't be a 4th/5th outfielder candidate, the same type of role envisioned for Byrd or whomever. Unless the following were why: 1) his dollar price is too high 2) his trade price is too high 3) he isn't good enough offensively for 4th outfielder/platoon CF. Given he's not very good offensively, maybe #3 applies.

Wise idea, but after Patterson, if Pie fails, I think they almost have to make a trade for someone who is more likely to hit -- Fuld is the all-glove, no-hit defensive CF. So I think Colvin is blocked, either by Pie or by failure of young CFs..... No. It's well possible that all three of Pie, Fuld, and Eric Patterson will stink so badly with the bat that hendry will need to trade for a replacement this year. But that's not certain. Perhaps Fuld or Patterson, or the RH outfielder to be acquired later that Hendry has repeatedly talked about pursuing, could step in for Pie and do an adequate job. But even given the premise that you need to trade for a replacement, it's not likely you trade for a blocker. Most mid-year pickups are more limited short-range plugs (Lofton in 03, Gaetti in 1998) who won't block a good prospect after the year is over. Not likely that you pick up somebody whose quality, age, and guaranteed contract locks the job up for years.

There have been good rumors that the Cubs originally offered a pool of guys they could pick, all of whom were 40-man guys. But that Baltimore has pushed to have some non-roster guys added to the pool. Perhaps for the reasons you state. Suppose: original: Gallagher/Marshall/Hart/Wuertz (they could choose any one but not two) + Patterson, Cedeno, Murton, and Fuld (they could choose any two). I could well imagine that Baltimore has lobbied unsuccessfully to add Pie. But I could also imagine that they have lobbied to add some non-roster names to the pool. (Veal and Colvin are the two names that I could imagine them wanting added, although I'm not sure Hendry would be good to add either one). It could well be that considering their 40-man situation, they'd prefer to get 2 roster and 1 non-roster guy rather than 3 roster people. It's also possible this could be a significant hangup. It may simply be that Hendry likes Colvin and Veal too much to add them to the pool; but the dropoff after them is so severe that Baltimore isn't interested in any of our other non-roster guys. (Ceda is highly-ranked but he's very distant; Samardz has no-trade; Vitters, Donaldson, Thomas can't be traded yet; Hernandez, Rhee, Castillo, Huseby may end up good but won't help anybody for years.)

If it ended up Colvin and Veal for Roberts, I would support that. With Gallagher besides, I'd probably prefer not. But I disagree with some of the substance of your post. Agree: I agree that colvin's value could easily go down. If he has a poor year, and shows no progress on the problems that are currently sometimes excused on basis of inexperience or youth, his stock could drop. Disagree: I disagree that it would be difficult for colvin's stock to rise. IMO there are four common questions/concerns about Colvin. 1. Is he really a CF, or not? 2. A common view seems to be that he's not a power guy. 3. A common concern is his K's, problems with breaking stuff, and problems with LHP. 4. The monster concern is the complete absence of walks last year, leading to all kinds of negative concerns for his future. 5. A fifth is that he hasn't done much at high level. I think he has a chance to dispel or moderate some of those concerns. 1. If he can establish that he really is a legit high-level CF, that boosts his value a lot for people who are currently unconvinced. 2. He hit 16 HR's at age 21 in his first full season, in two pitcher's leagues. If he shows up more muscled this season, hits a few long ones, and boosts his HR output some more, that might alleviate concerns over whether he's "just a gap hitter" and persuade more observers that he's got serious HR potential. 3. Often guys are able to cut back on their K's somewhat and look better versus breaking stuff their second year. K'ing >20%, what kind of a "contact hitter" is he really? But if he was to drop his K's from 101 to 81, scouts who like his stroke in the first place might be more unreserved in touting him as a pure contact hitter. 4. His walk-output was horrible, and the 101K/15walk ratio rightfully scares a lot of people. As I said, if he replicates that, most will be even more skeptical than they are now, and his value will drop. But if he were to boost his walks to, say, 35, and post an 80K/35walk output, skeptics could see real progress. This Adam Jones cat, he walked only 36 times last year, and 28 the year before; that doesn't seem to be stopping him from being viewed as a premium-value prospect. So I think that if Colvin could move in the right direction, from incredibly awful to merely poor in the walk/plate-discipline department, I think that could increase his value by a lot. The other thing i disagree on is that he's "blocked". When you're behind guys with Sori/Aram/Lee/Fukudome contracts, then you are blocked. If 2B is your only real position and we acquire Roberts, then you are blocked. But I don't think being behind Felix Pie who had a .271 OBP in 177 AB last year with no power constitutes a "block". Pie might end up being quite good, a keeper. Great. But Pie has a ways to go before he's established himself as a locked-in-for-years guy. Both Pie and colvin have some serious questions about their hitting. (Many of them are somewhat similar. Too little plate discipline, too many K's, will they hit many HR's?) I think there is good logic in keeping both and hoping that between the two of them, one of them works out to be solid. It's possible that both will excel, in which case you can keep one (Pie, probably) and trade the other. Great. It's possible that both will have such lousy plate discipline and pitch recognition that both will bust, and we'll wish we'd traded them both while they still had real value. But it's also possible that one will be good and the other bust, and it's hard to know now which will be the good one. I'd like to just keep them both just to make sure that if one of them does prove to be good, that we keep the right one.