craig

Usually this is true. Duh, that's why pitchers routinely sign contracts prior to free agency. Most pre-free-agent pitchers do find it in their best interest to sign deals that will be below market price in a year, because they understand that there is risk that they will get hurt; in which case the deal could end up well above market price in a year. So he wants $150/5, and next year he might well get that. But he may well decide that it is in his best interest to go for $125/5 now, just in case his arm goes bad.

Cubs are currently at $115.8 for 24 guys (short one outfielder) if I include: a) Trachsel's $0.1 buyout, b) Jones at $1.33, and c) full $12 of Fukudome deal. [Cots has no Fukudome details. His deal could perhaps be frontloaded by a signing bonus, or backloaded as was done with Marquis and Lilly. Backloading is somewhat more likely.] So it looks at worst like they are committed to paying out about $114-116. To use your quote, 'Depending on payroll (either $120M as reported by Mr. Miles or $125M as reported by Mr. Levine), the Cubs should have..." a fair bit of space. Fitting in Roberts does not appear to be a problem. "With extra pitchers like Marshall, Lahey and Pignatiello still in the running for a role, it seems apparent the Cubs will pull out all stops to move an arm or two (Marshall, Marquis and Cotts seem like the top 2 to go)...." Hoops In my view the Cubs have no budgetary need to move Marquis or any other salaried pitcher. They may move pitching, salaried or not, for baseball reasons. But I don't see any budget pressure for that. If anything, they seem to have so much budget leeway that they can likely afford to not only pick up Roberts (without including a salaried guy in return) as well as a salaried RH CF/OF (a Byrd-type salary would not blow the budget even if we did add Roberts). Were they to do both of those things plus acquire a bigger ticket like Burnett, then I think they'd need to move some salary or else exceed $130. My analysis again assumes that Cubs usually talk about expenditures in real time, rather than prorating signing bonus expenditures that were paid out before last season began.

After Fleita's talk and related stories at AA this week, and his comments in Down-on-the-Farm at the convention on Sunday, it's interesting to see how those impact opening day stuff. Here are some that I remember, surprises and not. Obviously all are default thoughts as of now, and injuries or unanticipated performance/shape in camp (good or bad) can change that. But anyway: 1. Castillo at AA, much Fleita buzz for his defense (Yavier Molina). That opens things up for Donaldson and Clevenger (and others) in A-ball. Donaldson and Clevenger could share Daytona, or Clevenger could be primary guy at Daytona and Donaldson start at Peoria (with changes later as performance permits). One layout would be to have Donaldson start at Peoria, possibly with Perez as partner if Perez looks strong in camp, and with Blake Lalli in the mix as a 2nd or 3rd catcher behind Clevenger at Daytona. Fleita mentioned Perez in DOF (Down-on-the-Farm), and Wilkin also mentioned Lalli in discussion of the catching depth, and in the context of the position-switch guys. I hadn't realized before that he was a convert to catching, I think from pitching previously. 2. Fleita was pretty explicit that Papelbon will start, not relieve, and will open at Daytona. I think many of us had thought he'd likely relieve. 3. 3B a lot of unknown. He talked about Lansford in AA, which would leave Daytona clear for Marques Smith and then Peoria between either Vitters or Jovan Rosa. Default appears to be Rosa for Peoria and Vitters for Boise. If Lansford is at AA, they also like Reynolds a lot; might mean he'd be rushed up to Iowa already. If you'd asked me a week ago, I'd have assumed Reynolds would start at AA, Lansford Daytona. In a sense this clears things up and gives a clear spot for each guy (unless Vitters demands Peoria, in which case Rosa gets squeezed.) 4. Fleita talked pretty favorably about Rhee's delivery and how balanced/advanced/consistent his delivery was. Camp may change that, but I got the impression that were today April 1, that Fleita was leaning/hoping that Rhee would open with Peoria. I also got the impression Fleita was leaning toward Acosta at Peoria, he talked in DOF about Acosta and Sandberg having a connection, Ryne and Oscar Acosta having been friends from Philly farm days. So if both Acosta and Rhee along with Huseby all opened at Peoria, that would be the core of a potentially very talented Peoria rotation. (Even if being so inexperienced they might not be that unusually effective next year.) 5. Fleita's stuff with Smokies made it pretty clear that Veal is intended to start, unless he really stinks in camp. But that Berg is for the pen. That surprised me. he talked pretty confidently that AA pen would include Ceda and Roquet as well as Berg. In DOF, he projected Casey Lambert to open with AA, rather a surprise. Suggested that his curveball is major-league caliber, that he's relieved all along, and seemed to have him as a fast-track LOOGY. 6. When Grant Johnson was mentioned, to Smokie crowd, he didn't expect Johnson to be there, more a non-preferred possibility of camp went bad. In DOF he discussed Johnson, and projected him for Iowa. That also surprised me. 7. Interestingly, he didn't mentioned Maestri in the AA pen discussion. He did discuss him very glowingly in DOF. I don't know what to make of that. AA would have seemed an obvious place to skip him up to. He just slipped his mind when talking to Smokie crowd? Or do they have some other unexpected thoughts in mind for him? Give him some rotation work at Daytona to work on his breaking ball and changes of speed? Flash him all the way up to Iowa? Start him only at Daytona, still in relief? Explore him for rotation at AA? Interesting and curious.

How does this work for a Carp guy to get signed by the Cubs? Would the Cubs have signed him as a free agent, or bought him from the Carp, or what? I'm thinking that if a prospect can just jump out and sign with an American team, what would be the motive for the Carp to invest in Dominican prospects, is the best ones aren't going to stick with your organization but will just go to the U.S.? So I wonder what the commitment is by player to organization, and what it was the enabled the Cubs to get him away from the Carp.

Cal, I'm not sure if he's been discussed, but one interesting and unusual signing was this Caridad guy who's on the invited-to-camp list. Weird deal, 22-year-old Dominican pitcher (tall) who was with Japanese org last year, and actually pitched a few innings I believe in a Japanese League. (Was it their top major league? Not sure). I hadn't given it much thought. What kind of Dominican signs at 22, and weird situation, so not likely to actually be significant. But Fleita talked about him briefly in the Down-on-the-Farm segment on Sunday. He said they saw him and liked him, and compared his Dominican-in-Japan deal with when Soriano did that. He said that he probably isn't really ready for big-league camp invite, but that was one of the terms of being willing to sign with us. He also said something to the effect that they had very little opportunity to scout him before signing him (I'm not sure where they saw him.) So apparently not a guy that they'd been able to track and watch repeatedly and get the cross-checkers over or all of that kind of stuff. But somebody apparently saw him, was impressed enough, and they thought he was interesting enough to go after and even give a non-roster invite rather than let him get away.

Fleita talked about Vitters yesterday. I inferred that the default is Boise, unless he really rocks in camp. Talked about how you don't need to rush him; about how with Reynold, Marquis Smith, Lansford, that 3B is deep and packed; that Southern Cal boy isn't used to 20 degrees in Beloit April. So I'm guessing Vitters will need to "Wow" them to make Peoria. And if he does, you can assume he's had a rocking camp.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2008/01/08_convention2.php This site and links to Day 3 and Day 1 provide a lot of the audio. Very useful resource. I especially enjoyed the Down-on-the-Farm audio.

I think it's been somewhat fashionable to minimize hart as a prospect, to exclude him from top-10, to bash LouHendry for including him as a candidate for rotation or for the staff, and to view as simplistic people who think he might be a good prospect, since a smart analyst is too smart to get deceived by an 11-inning sample. I'm not suggesting this is your mindset at all, PriorPower; if it was you wouldn't have asked if his potential says otherwise. I'm guessing yours is a sincere question of whether there is more than meets the eye with him and his career numbers. So I'm going to try to give some reasons why I think yes, it's not simplistic to view Hart as a meaningful prospect, and perhaps a legit rotation candidate for 2008. Ping has already touched on this, but I'm going to expand a bit. Again, I want to emphasize that he's not a "great" prospect or a Cy Young possibility or a sure thing or a certain-to-be-better-than-marquis guy. But I think he's a real prospect, with a reasonable chance of emerging as a solid useful big-league pitcher, even if not a front-of-rotation likely or a likely closer. So, here's my best case for him. 1. There *were* signs in his minor-league number that suggest he's got some promise. It wasn't just the 11 innings with the Cubs that were good. His previous 3 months at AA/AAA were also very good. I can't get the last-10-game split, but my recall is that his last 10 games at AA were really impressive and sub-3 ERA. If you took his numbers from mid-May on, you'd get a much more impressive stats line than using the full-season numbers. (His 3.99 on the season doesn't look that great. But he was really bad in April.) So there is a "something happened" sample much larger than 11 innings. 2. Background: In junior college. In his one year at Maryland he was an ACC all-star .... as a 1B. In Junior college, he was the 2003 Rawlings NJCAA Big Stick Award Winner. He also pitched along the way, but relative to his competition it appears he was more memorable as a bat than as a pitcher. I'm theorizing that perhaps he was a good enough hitter that his commitment to pitching wasn't 100%? And thus that he isn't quite as advanced in his development as a pitcher as you'd expect for his age, and might have more untapped potential than you'd expect? 3. Scouting the fastball: his fastball looked like it had major-league velocity, and major-league movement. That wasn't an 11-inning fluke, it was real. It's not like his fastball is overpowering. But his velocity is definitely not a liability. Not like he's an 86-mph guy who finessed his way. His arm looked fine. 4. Walk control: He's never walked much more than 3 guys per 9, and he was quite a bit better than that during his last 3 months at AA. So he's not a walkaholic wildman, we're not talking about veal or pre-05 Rich Hill. A good arm and can throw strikes, why wouldn't he be a prospect? 5. Scouting the breaking ball: He doesn't have a very good curve or slider. When the curve was his breaking pitch, and it wasn't very good, the combo of a bad curve and a good-but-not-extraordinary fastball combined to give ho-hum results. (Maryland 2004, Baltimore pros 2005-06, this April. But as ping noted, the Cubs got him going with a cutter. Hart and the Cub coaches have agreed that his "something happened" breakthrough in AA coincided with figuring out the cutter and that becoming a really useful pitch for him. Several things all coincided with the discovery of the effective cutter: ERA down, hits down, HR's down, K's up, GB/FB up. The cutter worked for him in AA and it worked for him in majors in September. By the eye test, it looked very good. Note: That doesn't mean it will look as good, or be consistent, in the future. Perhaps after a winter off, he won't be able to find the release point and his cutter will be inconsistent and not nearly as effective. Maybe if he's in the league the scouts will case him, hitters will just sit on fastball/cutter, and he won't be able to sustain. Maybe if he's pitching rotation instead of short relief, his fastball will be 88 instead of 92, and less effective. But at present I think there are valid reasons to think that he did improve once he learned the cutter; that he learned and used the cutter over an extended period of time, so it may be sustainable; and that with the cutter and fastball combination that he's got two usable big-league pitches that he can throw at the strike zone and get hitters to swing at. There is a famous Rickey quote how some pitchers are like a rose. It's all green, then 3 days later it's in blossom. When the time comes something that had shown nothing rather abruptly becomes something to see. Perhaps that's hyperbole and mockable scout talk. But I think there's at least a chance that Hart really has learned the cutter, and that the numbers on Hart-before-cutter have little predictive value for Hart-with-cutter.

Ah. Depending on how much he'd take, I'd go for that. I prefer him in the rotation over Dempster. I'd be interested in Lieber as a non-roster player, and perhaps if we trade away a couple of our other staff candidates. But barring a trade, I'm not sure I'd be interested in giving him a guaranteed contract that locked him onto the staff regardless of performance. Barring a trade, we've got 10 roster locks at present: Dempster and Marquis (unknown roles), Z, Hill, Lilly, (3 certain starters), Wood, Howry, Marmol, Wuertz, Eyre (5 certain relievers.) Ten roster locks leaves two open pitching spots. Current 8 candidates: Marshall, Hart, Gallagher (rotation candidates), Cotts, Pignatiello (lefty relief options), Lahey, Ascanio, and Petrick (righty relief options). (Am I missing somebody else?) Unless the staff gets thinned via trade, I'd be hesitant to sign Lieber and reduce the number of open spots to only one. I think there's a good chance that at least two of those 8 candidates will be more preferable on the staff than Lieber. Also, Lieber has made only two relief appearances since the Cubs acquired him in 1998. Not sure how interested he'd be or how well suited he'd be for a relief role, in the event that two out of Marshall/Gallagher/Hart/Marquis/Dempster outpitch him for a rotation spot. I have the same kind of concern with any of these lightning in a bottle suggestions (Colon, etc..) I don't want to guarantee any of them a spot on the roster, in case they aren't any good and some of our own guys step up nicely.

There are 6 Type B's left, but the worst the Cubs can drop is 3 spots. The guys who'd drop us: 1. Pedro Feliz, Giants 2. Trever Miller, Astros 3. If either Shannon Steward or Mike Piazza of the A's get signed. (If both get signed by other teams, Oakland would get only one, not both, ahead of our Kendall pick). If some of these don't get signed by teams other than their original team, we won't slip as far as 42. Regardless, picking 42 or as high as 39 for jason Kendall, that's really unexpectedly nice.

That's the lineup I'd expect. Keeps Fuku from getting inordinate spotlight. Separates righties. Keeps the top speed guys on top, as Lou likes. Keeps a lot of power 3-6. Doesn't mess with Soriano, Lee, or Ramirez.

Thanks for the correction, Wrigley. That's very interesting. I'd thought he'd used two with New York, and his 3rd last year when we farmed him in spring. As AzPhil notes, it's evident that this was apparently simply a baseball trade. No 40-man pressure, no out-of-options pressure. Interesting. AZ Phil's notes about Torres as a potential interchangeable and perhaps preferable Pagan replacement is interesting. He's older and has less power than Pagan. Like Pagan, he's a switch. I don't know how to get minor-league career splits. But for this season, he hit LHP better than RHP. That's perhaps a preferable profile to Pagan's, who as badnews notes has more power hitting right-handed but, but who carries a very very low OBP versus RHP. Anyway, thanks again for correcting my false assumption that Pagan was out of options. In a sense that makes the trade more interesting and the players returned more interesting. If pagan had option left, then there was no pressure to trade him, so the deal was talent based rather than just better-than-nothing based. So probably the Cub scouts see something in Myers that makes them think he has a chance, even if not a great one, to turn into something.

I think Cedeno has always tended to make a lot of errors. Many talented young prospect SS's do, but reduce that with time. He hasn't been able to reduce them as sharply as do many SS's. Seems to me he has several sources of errors. 1st, his arm is strong but not always super accurate. I think he's aways going to make some throwing errors. Some guys are just more accurate. With a 1B like Lee, that could cover for him a bit. 2nd, he simply misses grounders sometimes. I've always thought that might decrease with maturity. But I'm not sure to date that he's shown the consistent intense concentration that it takes to catch balls as well as consistently as possible. 3rd, I think he's sometimes not so smart, and sometimes tries to make plays that aren't there. It's one thing to make a bad throw on a grounder where an ordinary balanced throw is possible and could get the guy out by a step or more. It's another to throw away some off-balance throw while trying to make a great play, when even if you make the great play and throw the ball on the button the runner will still beat it out by two steps. So I think that a trying-to-make-a-crazy-play-that-isn't-there error here, one wild throw on a routine play there, and one missed groundball next week, and suddenly you're at the top of the VWL in SS errors and near the bottom in fielding percentage. Again, those may get better with age and time, it's possible. They may also be protected a bit by a long good 1B like Lee. And I think that perhaps concentration might be a bit better in the majors if he isn't playing all the time. If you start every day in VWL or in Iowa, 7 days a week, even if you made an error on Monday and thursday, maybe it's easier for the concentration and focus to waiver a bit. But if you're playing 2-3 times a week, and if you know that your playing time may depend on performance, perhaps it's easier to keep your head in the game for 9 innings when you do play? Not sure how Cedeno's overall defense, errors included, really compares to Theriot's. Cedeno seems to have more range and a somewhat stronger arm. So my guess might be that over the same time period where he's making two more errors than Theriot, that he might also be converting three groundballs into outs that Theriot can't. So that Cedeno might be a shade preferable overall, defensively, despite the errors.

2007 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2007.shtml 2006 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2006.shtml 2005 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2005.shtml 2004 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2004.shtml I think it's helpful to look at season stats sometimes to realize how many AB's are absorbed every year by guys who were not intended to be starters. If this year is like every recent years, there will be tons of AB's that could be taken by deRosa (if he's having a good year) rather than other subs. Of course, it's not clear at how many positions DeRo really would be the primary backup. 2B and 3B, obviously. 1B, possible but maybe Ward. RF probable, but maybe Murton. LF possible, but probably Murton. SS possible, but not certain. Still, if the premise is that DeRosa is really a good, valuable lineup guy and that he's safe to have a really good offensive season, it's pretty unlikely that acquiring Roberts would make it impossible for DeRosa to get a lot of AB's, if he's so good that they prefer him to subs like Ward and Murton. I also understand that there may be fewer bench AB when the starters are established expensive producers (Lee, Roberts, Aram, Alf, Fuku), compared to when you're starting the year with Hollandsworth in left or Hairston at 2nd or Jacque-and-Floyd in right. But the point remains that whether it's 300 AB or 500 AB's that DeRosa would be taking instead of Bynum or Macias or Hairston or Cedeno or Neifi or Tom Goodwin or Jason Dubois or Angel Pagan type subs, it will probably be a meaningful upgrade. (Assuming Derosa has a good year. And if he doesn't, then Roberts versus DeRosa at 2nd would be more than a marginal upgrade.)

One other thought: I may be a bit oversensitive to the necessity of having multiple rotation options. Maybe six is enough? And by May and later somebody else will have emerged as viable? (For context, when Marshall had shoulder problems and couldn't open camp, I sure didn't expect him to be pitching competently in May. And I never dreamed that by September hart would look viable.)

Well said, Tim. I'd be very nervous with Dempster/marquis as 4+5, hart as alternative #6, and #7 coming from Holliman/Samardz/Veal/Harben. I'd be much more content with those alternatives if Burnett was #4. And I'd be much more content with Dempster/Marquis as 4/5 if we kept at least two of the Hart/Marshall/Gallagher trio as insurance. Hendry is in a much better position than me to process some of this. He's talked plenty with Andy, and knows what Andy wants. And he's talked with Toronto and Oakland about what Burnett or Blanton would cost. Is it plausible that some kind of Marquis/Murton/DeRosa package could get Burnett? Hendry knows if that is ludicrously inadequate, or whether Burnett is available for less.

With due respect, I think the trade value of Scott Moore is so small that it's insignificant. (Obvious, given that Moore alone wasn't able to get even one month of Trachsel) Having Moore available now would have had no significant bearing on the current trade discussions. Moore doesn't have the kind of value wherein adding him to a package persuades a GM who won't trade Roberts to say yes. Or where a GM who doesn't like your offer for Burnett will suddenly say yes.

Tim, I agree. None of the rumors have been very clear about what's been the holdup. When there is mutual interest in a trade but it's not happening, there is always one side or the other who wants it changed. The O's sources earlier were claiming Gallagher-Murton-Patterson. That looked fair and Cub-sensible to me, since patterson has no value to us and Murton is blocked. I'd guess Orioles wanted more. I'd guess that when they asked to switch in Marshall or Cedeno, we didn't like it, felt it imbalanced on their side. So we ask them to add in Payton to balance. Then they think that's imbalanced on our side, so they ask for Murton, we say no way. Maybe we counter with Fox or Fuld, or maybe they back off on Murton and they ask for Fuld, and it's harder for Hendry to say no way. Seems to me that if the two sides mutually want to trade, it's a matter of balancing and leveling. It's not that difficult to add or subtract little increments of value to eventually settle on a level balance. Maybe Fuld is a leveler. Maybe we need to improve our leveling piece to Roquet, or add in a Welington Castillo or Atkins or Josh Lansford. Maybe it's unbalanced in their favor and they'll need to add some prospect they have that we like. If the centerpieces of a trade are in place, the key is having both sides view the balance similarly. If both sides agree that it's imbalanced in their favor and they need to add a prospect to level it, it can work. But if Andy thinks a given layout is imbalanced in our favor, and he wants a significant added value from us, while we think the same layout is imbalanced in their favor and want extra value added from them, then things freeze.

Other VWL SS's also play on VWL fields. Cedeno had a high error volume and high error-rate relative to his league. If all the SS's made errors at Ronny's rate, it would be easier to blame the fields. That Ronny is on top (or at least was several weeks ago when I last checked in detail) suggests otherwise.

40-man was not a factor with Pagan. Was at 39, now down to 38. If/when any Roberts-scale trade occurs, it would further reduce. So the trade was presumably made simply because LouHendry didn't project no-options Pagan to make the team and wanted to get a little something for him now rather than waive him for nothing later.

Pagan's OBP vs LHP was .269 last year and .280 over this two years. Not very appealing as your guy to share CF with Pie, who also can't touch lefties. badnews, you like Pagan better than options. I hope/assume there is some option better, even though I don't see that option on the team yet. You clearly have a higher scouting love for Pagan than I do, and apparently than Hendry. The key to this, which I'm not sure has been mentioned, was that Pagan is out of options. Hendry got something for him now, little as it may have been. But in March Pagan would have likely needed to be waived, in which case you get nothing. And would waste spring training atbats that Pie and perhaps Fuld and Colvin might better use. Not sure if 40-man factored. Before dropping him, were we at 40 or 39? Not sure. Any Roberts/Blanton type trade would further reduce 40-man population. Don't know, maybe there is some pickup that Hendry wants to make that would count toward 40, so somebody was going to need to be cleared. While Pagan was a bad Pie counterpart, I don't see who is better on the existing roster. Fuld is lefty and doesn't hit lefties very well. Cedeno has played little center, and Levine suggests he may not even remain on the roster. Very likely Hendry is going to add some other OF. Without knowing who or at what cost, hard to evaluate.

Hinske for Chiasson. Chiasson pitched extremely well the season after the trade, had very very good stuff, and looked to become a very good relief pitcher. But as happens with pitchers, he ended up hurting his arm and never recovered. Like lots of deals or draft selections, that would have probably looked like a very smart deal had Chiasson stayed healthy. But when you get pitchers, it goes with the territory that a lot of them are going to get cooked by arm problems. That was not a dumb trade by the Cubs, unless you consider any pursuit of pitching to be dumb.

Not sure what costlier proposals you've heard, I probably missed them. But the worst one I've seen has been Gallagher, Murton, Patterson, and Fox. That could work out great for O's, were it to happen. To me that looks like Gallagher for Roberts, with three misfits who we won't miss thrown in. I view EPatt as a guy who'se played a handful of games in CF and doesn't have a big arm; I think it's presumptuous to think he's going to be a high-grade CFer. And I think there have been so many negative reports on his 2B defense that my premise is that he's not going to be a quality regular 2B for us. And I'm not assuming the Cubs are dumb or wrong to see it that way. So if he's not viable for 2B, then he has negligible value to me. So I see: 1) Patterson as a DH/OF. Since we don't have DH I wouldn't see trading him as any meaningful loss. 2) Fox is a DH/1B, a hacker whose offense is unlikely to ever be enough to be a regular DH or 1B. And since we don't have DH and Lee is pretty good and entrenched long-term, I don't see giving up Fox as any meaningful loss whatsoever. 3) Murton is LF/DH. We don't have DH, and Soriano is both better and locked in forever. So while I think Murton is likely to become a solid big-league hitter, perhaps a sustainable .800+ OPS guy, he simply isn't going to be as valuable to us as a PH/backup LF as he might be to many other teams, especially AL teams with DH possibilities. So if those three are 3/4 or 2/3 of a trade, I don't see that as being that costly. We won't miss Fox or EPatt, and missing Murton as a PH/backup-LF won't hurt that badly. So to me a package like that looks like Gallagher and 3 won't-be-missed misfits. To me it would pretty much hinge on Gallagher and Roberts, from the Cub view. Those players might well serve some useful function for Baltimore. But for me, it would basically be Roberts for Gallagher, the only other sacrifice being giving up the trade value that Murton has. (Even though he has limited performance value to us with Soriano blocking him, I think he has meaningful value to other teams, particularly AL teams, so I'm not eager to give his trade value away for nothing.) If Gallagher does great, Gallagher for Roberts will be regrettable. If Roberts performs as an asset regular 2B for a while, and Gallagher does not perform as an asset rotation pitcher, then I'd have to say a deal like that would be good for the Cubs. It might be even more advantageous for the Orioles. But I just don't see the cubs future built on Jake Fox at 1B, Eric Patterson in CF, and matt murton as a pinch hitter.

Nolasco had a 5+ ERA this year, Mitre 4.65, in a pitcher's park. Pinto was actually the best of the three, and with his 1.31 WHIP and 7 HR/48 innings he wasn't all that hot either. Pierre was turned into Donaldson. Unclear how he'll turn out, but he's got a chance to be better than any of Nolasco, Mitre, or Pinto. At present, I don't think I'd trade him for any of those three. And if I had those three back, not sure I'd have any but Pinto very safe to make our roster. I'm not trying to argue that Pierre was a good trade. But I think it may have a reputation for being legendarily bad, and the legend may be much darker than the reality. Especially considering Donaldson. On reputed Roberts deal, none such has happened. I haven't heard much about 4 prospects being involved. But if adding in Jake Fox is the extra piece that gets you a guy you want, I don't object to adding in Fox. I could care less. Who cares if you add in an AAA DH/1B who can't field and isn't a good enough offensive player to help an NL team with Lee and Ward at 1B already anyway. There is a general trade principle: more often than not, the team that gets the best player ends up being the happiest. If you make the trade and Gallagher ends up better than Roberts, it's likely to go down as a regrettable deal. But if it happens, I doubt we'll be crying over Jake Fox or Eric patterson. I guess I don't see much point in stressing a lot over the possible loss of DH/LFer/1B types like Patterson, Fox, and Murton, given that Lee and Soriano have 1B and LF kind of tied down. Patterson, obviously it's a scouting decision. The majority view isn't always right, of course, so perhaps the majority view that patterson can't play big-league 2B will be proved invalid. But more often than not the majority view is correct. So my guess is that if most scouts don't think Patterson can play 2nd, it's more likely that they are right than that Eric is going to go on to a long and successful career as a big-league 2b.

I strongly doubt that the Cubs are much interested in Cabrera. Even more so that we'd be even faintly interested in sacrificing Colvin to get him. That's not us, I don't think.