craig

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.

Several notes: 1. Thanks hoops for keeping the payroll numbers up. 2. While those look good for correlating mlb postings, I don't think they necessarily mean a lot in terms of what the Cubs are willing to spend or how they account. Because you are prorating past signing bonuses. I don't think in past that's how the Cubs have decided what they can or can't spend. Whether or not you count money spent on signing bonuses last winter toward this year's payroll matters to the tune of $6 million. Without prorating in the costs of past signing bonuses, the existing roster projects to cost less than $113. 3. JC made reference to "A +$20M bullpen". That assumes Dempster in bullpen. Certainly it's possible that he'll wind up there. But I think it's also feasible to take Lou at face value, and consider a default scenario where Dempster does end up in rotation. Without Dempster, the pen is $15. That doesn't seem spendy at all to me. The pen makes up 7/25 of roster (over a quarter), more than half of the pitching staff, and people budgeted for pen are safe to cover at least 1/3 of the team innings. I don't see why $15 million for the crew that will cover 1/3 of the pitching innings is at all inordinate relative to a $115-type payroll, or a payroll that has around $50 or so spent on pitching. Seems quite reasonable. I think the pen may well be the strongest aspect of the team, and the best value per dollar.

Thanks for Guerrero notes, cal. Sounds very interesting. To be a regular rotation guy at 19 in Mexican League suggests that his manager likes something about him. I'd thought 220 pounds at only 6'0" sounded rather uncommon for a pitcher. I wonder if he might be a full-season guy right off the bat? His Mexican stats were blah, but his walks weren't high there. Would be cool to have a genuine prospect from Mexico, that would be a first for us. When I was a kid there were two really good short stocky Mexican pitchers. Obviously Valenzuela was great. But the Brewers also had a guy named Teddy Higuera who was fantastic for a while.

That's a different argument than I'd understood. (I thought that Muldowney or Blackford were driving this.) If you think Hernandez is unready for Daytona, but you think his development is best served by sending him there to get a taste and perhaps get toasted, then that's about what's best for Hernandez's development. Once you think the purpose is served, then advocate what best serves his development (in this hypothesis, it's sending him back down) when it's time, regardless of Blackford. If that means signing some 28-year-old Indy-Leaguer to replace him at Daytona, fine. The same concept could apply for anybody. You might likewise advocate sending Atkins or Samardzija or Veal to Iowa for a month to experience it, with the intent of getting them where they belong in May. My guess is that hernandez will be in Daytona, but not just to get a taste or to get humbled a bit. He was already quite competitive in Peoria, especially down the stretch if I recall correctly. If he's the prospect that cal and I hope he is, his improvement since last season could be enough to more than hold his own at Daytona. Hopefully enough improvement that he'll do better at Daytona than he did in Peoria. He was quite young at Peoria, so he's certainly at an age where many pitchers improve pretty significantly. He's also at an age where many pitchers get significantly stronger and faster from one year to the next. I admit I'll be disappointed if he isn't able to do pretty well at Daytona.

I hope Yohan Gonzalez can advance faster than that! I gotta agree there. I also think a guy like Alan Guerrero starts in the U.S. Remind me what we know about Alan Guerrero. I know he's the short chunky/stocky/portly Mexican kid (220/6'0"), who's list age will be 20 this upcoming season, and who apparently was interesting enough to be given 21 starts in Mexican League. ("The" Mexican League, like the top league? Or is that a lower league?) His numbers were generally blah (high HR rate, high flyball rate, ERA >5, relatively modest K's). Cal, have you come accross some scouting info on him, from Wilkin or ITI or some personal contact or Arizona Phil or something? Have we heard something good about his stuff? Or do you know nothing other than that we signed him, he has those stats, and he must have had an intersting enough arm for a Mexican League to entrust starts to him? http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Alan%20Guerrero&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=503601

I agree that's a good possibility. Oops I remembered that most of the time but forgot for Grant Johnson! One note is I don't think they run pens in the minors the same as they do the majors, so the classification of "long reliever" vs "short reliever" is as meaningful. Much of the time they have relievers going for two innings. The average innings relative to relief appearances is considerably higher than in the majors. And even the "short" relievers often go two innings. I'm not sure, but even in AA the closer sometimes goes two innings. That's a good principle. My preference is also that he stay in rotation. I just think that given his high pitch counts, how wild he is, and how fly-ball/HR-oriented he is, that it's really, really unlikely that he'll ever be a good starter, and if he is it's likely far distant. Probably he'll pitch relief if he helps the Cubs. I still think pitching 115 rotation innings (given how little he lasts, he's not likely to be one of the 140-inning starters) is probably more experience for him than pitching 75 relief innings, so I think rotation is probably best for him, even assuming he does end in relief. But it's possible that Cubs will want him ready a little sooner, and will prefer that he have some relief experience so that if he does improve this year he won't be unfamiliar with relieving. As I noted, I also think there's a fair chance that he'll be much more effective in relief. He doesn't have control of any single pitch at present; maybe with time he'll develop reasonable command of two of them. It's less probable that he'll go from command of zero to command of 3-4. Pitching every other day might make it easier to stay locked in mechanism-wise, and to forget the wild disasters when they do happen. And for a guy who lives on the fastball, and perhaps a somewhat deceptive fastball, that may be easier to sustain top velocity and deception for two innings than through 100 pitches and 2-3 times through the order. As to the rule of 2, that's a good principle. At the same time, veal's limitations have actually been pretty much the same for both years. The extremely high pitch counts, the inconsistent control and mechanics, and the extreme fly-ball profile, that's been true both years. Probably he got a bit worse in terms of breaking ball, I assume. But I think it may be more a matter of simply not getting any better, while the competition has. That's partly why my view is that he hasn't shown any trajectory of improvement on his problem areas. Many prospects have problems, but then are able to make adjustments to rectify them. Veal seems to have exactly the same problems in August 07 that he had in April 06. But, it's also true that nobody progresses on any linear trajectory. Often the improvements are abrupt; plateau for a while, then improve, etc.. And, as long as we have Rich Hill to remember, there is the reminder that wildmen can improve rather abruptly and unexpectedly. Yeah, it's really tough to predict what will or should happen in A-ball rotations. I'd be surprised if Hernandez moves up and then gets sent down, unless he's stinking. One of my principles is that there aren't that many prospects who are going to become significant big-leaguers. In terms of farm, always prioritize the feature prospects and work the lesser guys around them. Application: if Hernandez is best served at Peoria, keep him there, even if that keeps some longer shot in relief (if Hempy or Ashwood gets knocked out of rotation, so be it), and even if that necessitates some total roster filler in daytona's rotation. Do what's best for Hernandez, because if he develops the way Fleita thinks he might, you could have a legit big-league starter. Conversely, if Hernandez is best served at Daytona, put him at Daytona. Don't mess with his assignment because of dudes like Blackford or Pina, or Muldowney either. Fun to think about, though. It's always more fun to think about pitchers. Pitchers can improve dramatically. A winter of conditioning combined with a mechanics tinker and suddenly a guy who was nobody has a serious arm and a chance to be really good. Some Rich Hill wildman suddenly makes an adjustment and all of a sudden he's seriously good. Some guy whose shoulder was interfering shows up healthy and suddenly pitches much better. Hitters rarely improve abruptly. But who knows if/when some pitcher might surprise us and be good.

I think you are right on point. We've got four relievers entering contract years in Wood, Dempster, Howry, and Eyre. There is no spot in which it's easier to rank A or B than relief pitcher. (Well, catcher is easier, see Kendall and Barrett, but otherwise relief is the way to go.) All of those have a shot to rank, including Eyre. And as we've seen with Linebrink etc., there is always market for capable relievers. A SS can be blocked on most teams; never so with a reliever. And as you say, if there is any role that the organization has a stock of farm talent that's perhaps ready to step in, it's relief pitching. Petrick, Roquet, Hart, Gallagher, Samardz, Veal, who knows a year from now perhaps even Ceda or Maestri or Ruhlman or Grant Johnson might look about ready. Still, not sure how many of those will go. One of the reasons relievers get market is that they aren't budget-busters. When you're talking a $120+ payroll, it's not like $3 or $4 on a Howry or Eyre is exactly a budget killer. So not clear that Hendry is really going to let any pitcher that's reasonably effective walk. Maybe so, but we'll see. An A would be really cool, to get two picks out. In the big fiasco draft, we got two each for Todd VanPoppel and David Weathers, decent relievers but not irreplaceable. Something like that could happen. Unfortunately Dempster's switch to rotation could complicate things. If he busts, it might not help his market or his Elias score. But if he makes it as a 4.5 ERA rotation guy, I'm not sure how Elias grades a guy who has spent the last two years relieving and starting. Certainly his Elias would score better if he was slotted in as a 6th inning reliever from the start. Could be interesting.

Great work, wrigley. And cal a month before, of course. Wrigley, I like your format very much. Here are just a couple comments. That is one potentially very impressive bullpen. Plus I think there is at least an outside shot that they'll arrange a trade in order to keep Lahey ar Iowa. I expect that Hart will start, if at Iowa. Lou has said Hart will open spring training given rotation schedule. So if he doesn't make the Cubs, they'll likely keep him in rotation. Otherwise Gallagher is the only big-league-ready rotation guy on your Iowa roster. (And that only if he hasn't been traded...) I also think Marshall may also be there. If all three of Gallagher, Hart, and Marshall were all in Iowa's rotation, that wold provide a nice pool of big-league ready candidates. Obviously many of the names that make Iowa look promising won't be there. One or more will likely be traded. One or more may be injured. One or perhaps several will be on the big club, pending performance and injuries. Grant J is a RHP. And didn't Tuero give up on baseball or something? As you note, what gives with Veal will be a big Q. With you I hope and somewhat think it's more likely than not that he'll start. I'm not a Veal guy (I may have been rare in not including him in my top-10, I think he's way too wild and has shown too little improvement trajectory to think his chances of ever not being way too wild is limited to rank top 10). I'm very confident that if he does make it as an effective major leaguer, it will be in relief. So the cubs may be wise to line him up for that ASAP. Plus sometimes relievers pitching every other day instead of every 5th, and doing so while focussing on two pitches instead of 3-4, pitch more consistently and aren't as wild. So I'm not dogmatic that getting him over to relief is a mistake. But I would like to see the greater innings in rotation, and I still have the unrealistic fantasy that contrary to what I expect in my head, that somehow he will be able to put things together and become a value starter, even though I think I know better. Regardless, the texture of that rotation will substantially hinge on Veal in or out. Harben is a great Q. I think that would be really ideal if he's healthy enough and good enough to merit that. Given that the Cubs bothered to 40-man him, they must have seen him throwing pretty well in Mesa. So that's a great guess that he might be ready to roll. I hope that happens and that he's effective. The guy I don't see starting is Reinhart. He seems to be roster fill to me. I'd expect Berg to be back in there. Llewellyn may be hyperbole, but he's commented that Berg has the 2nd best sinker in baseball behind only AZ's Webb. Granted, it's the only pitch he's got, and he doesn't control it. But he's young, and was a late starter, so I expect the Cubs will stick with him for another year of rotation, rather than a Reinhart. Berg showed some progress during the past season, so I expect the Cubs will hope to see continued progress. So I think they'll hope that enough to commit a rotation spot to him, given the lack of compelling alternatives. For pen, I'd expect one or both of Maestri and/or Ceda to have a good crack. If not, that could be a rather weak pen. But I'm actually rather interested in Johnson, he was doing pretty well prior to his DL. And Avery may not be very jazzy but he's been effective. A pen of Johnson, Maestri and/or Ceda, and Avery could be pretty solid. Could be a really weak staff. Hernandez and his ability to improve is crucial. If he does, it might not matter what gives with the rest of the staff. Russell is the second major question. Will he make Daytona? And if so, does he have the stuff to emerge as a prospect, or just a guy? Muldowney, maybe if he was healthy. Others, fillers or longshots. If Siegfried makes it and starts, he could be a real interest (or a wild scrub.) Always lots of Q's for Peoria. But there is a chance that the pitching could be quite interesting. Huseby, Acosta. Possibly Russell or Siegried. Possibly Chen. Hempy is not beyond possible. Ashwood has a chance to be pretty interesting. Maybe Pawelek might emerge. Who knows who else miht emerge. Could be some good ones.

Velocity is way down, control is way down, and the breaking stuff seems very inconsistent. I agree it could be mechanics, but there is a good chance that his arm isn't what it was. That's often injury. And sometimes the physical maturation that can give many pitchers more velocity and many hitters more power can tighten the arm and cost other pitchers arm speed and velocity. Who knows. But I'm somewhat skeptical that it's totally mechanics. If you've got the arm to throw 94, I'd expect that even if your mechanics were messed up that sometimes just by mistake you'd gun some 94's. If you're averaging 87 but throwing 10% in the 92-95 range, that sounds like inconsistent mechanics that can't consistently do it right. But it seems somewhat unlikely that scouts should see you three games straight without hitting 91, and attribute it all to bad mechanics and suggest your a mechanics adjustment from 94. I also think it's easily plausible that he could be in relief again. There are lots of lefty relievers who throw in the upper 80's. If there isn't some reason to think that he's turned some switch, why wouldn't they keep him in relief?

I'm not a Blanton fan. Park factored, less above average this year than he was below average last year. Still, in a world where Lilly and Silva get what they get, a league average pitcher is pretty valuable. And given the Q's associated with Dempster/Marquis/Marshall/Hart (assuming Gallagher is going in Roberts deal), having a reliable league-average 4th starter who might even be a big above average, that could help. The one appeal is that he doesn't walk people, so Lou might enjoy that. Would seem to be kind of in the Marquis camp, basically a fastball pitcher with no K-pitch but not too many walks. I have no idea how to gage his market. Would A's have any interest in Pie, and how close would Pie get you for a Blanton? Pie doesn't seem like an Oakland type guy. Although his minor-league numbers and age progression might look pretty juicy. Would Pie be way too little? How about Pie and Marshall? Too much or too little? I really have a hard time guessing. But Im inclined to think that any pitcher who's halfway respectable is grossly overpriced in trade. On the other hand, I'm not averse to dealing Pie. Might work out well. Colvin might be as good as Pie by next year anyway, or perhaps better, so that losing him would cost nothing long-term. The Figgins stuff, I also have no idea what his market would be like. My guess is they don't really like his 3B defense. Don't know if he'd cost a ton, or would be available for some package that wouldn't hurt us too badly. Not likely

Had somebody offered an all-star SS for Gallagher? I hadn't been aware of that. I'd have preferred that, too. I fully agree that Soriano in an RBI spot creates problems. Which is why I'm 95% certain that, barring some other move, that Soriano will still lead off. Soriano and Roberts will bat 1st-2nd. Lou likes the speed at the top, and they will provide that abundantly. Pie and Theriot at 7/8 will also provide good speed. Roberts 2nd is a good bat-handler, so I expect Lou will attempt some hit-and-runs on the rare occassions when Soriano is on 1st base. Roberts 2nd will be a good OBP man immediately in front of our best hitters. And Roberts second will help to break up some of the RH hitters. Soriano and Lee will be separated by lefty roberts. Aram and Soto will be separated by left Fuku. Soto and Theriot/Cedeno/DeRosa will be separated by lefty Pie. So I think the lineup could lay out pretty well. Except for when Soriano isn't doing anything. And accept for the possibility that Pie-Cedeno could be automatic outs at 7 and 8. I think the efficiency of the lineup could rest heavily on Pie and SS. If Pie could hit .270, hit 12 HR's, and sustain a .310 OBP and not be a total auto-out but make some contribution, that would help a ton. And if SS can give you something, that too will help. I'm not talking .800 OPS. But if Cedeno was playing and hitting .275 with a .330 OBP and a .720 OPS, that would be a big help. Or if Theriot can hit .285 and sustain a .340 OBP while batting 8th, that would help to keep innings going, set up the top of the order, drive in some runs, etc.. I think our 3-6 could have pretty good OBP. And there could be a lot of RBI opportunities for the 7th and 8th hitters. If they fail them all, it will hurt. Last spring, it seemed things would always set up so that Izturis ended up in the RBI situation, and it seemed (probably selective memory) that he'd always make the 3rd out or hit into a DP if there was only one out or make some weak non-RBI contact if there wasn't a guy on first to enable the DP. But if we could get professional hitting from 7 and 8, it will make a big difference.

It's a long season. What's expected in December and what's reality in June or August are often rather different. Izturis was much more entrenched last December. Hardly anybody but the most rabid optomist was projecting Marmol to be the top reliever. And who imagined that Geo Soto would be the starting catcher, and an asset bat? things change, and the fact that Theriot is the projected starter doesn't mean that will stay. Ditto with Marquis and dempster. The deal isn't done yet, so we'll see if the names are correct. But I think it's telling that Cedeno is not involved. Orioles have a major hole at SS. You'd think they'd prefer Cedeno over EPatt or Murton, if they scouted him favorably. I think there's a good chance that Cedeno isn't involved not because O's didn't want him, but because the Cubs didn't include him in the pool of players from which Baltimore was alowed to choose. If that hypothesis is correct, it's pertinent. Why wouldn't the Cubs have included him? At least two obvious possibilities. One is that they like Cedeno a lot, and think he's got a chance to become the SS. Another is that perhaps they don't like DeRosa at SS, in which case dealing Cedeno would leave them without a Theriot alternative or a SS backup.

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071218&content_id=2330491&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc Lists all the managers and coaches. More significant is the note towards the bottom that they're adding a second Dominican League team. Last year was the first time they ever had a winning DSL team, and they had so many interesting pitchers that it was perhaps hard to get them all enough starts. I'd like to imagine that adding a 2nd team is a good thing. Heh heh, ideally reflecting that they're signing so much talent that one team isn't enough. A different possible spin is that they won't need to decide who to keep and drop as quickly. At present, mostly a guy plays one year, then goes to states, gets dropped, or perhaps comes back somewhat as roster fill. Perhaps with a second team, they can keep more guys for a second year, just in case every once in a while you get somebody who emerges later rather than sooner.

"Do we need more moves?" I would say no. We could certainly get better, of course. I hope we can. I'd love a good starting pitcher, a good CFer, a good SS, a good LH reliever, and an improved bench. I like the possibility of adding Roberts, because I think he'd upgrade 2B somewhat and upgrade the bench a lot by moving DeRosa there. But at the same time, I don't think we really *need* more moves. We could go with what we've got, and we'd have a pretty nice roster. I'd judge our roster as being the best in the central. Given the parity in the NL playoff contenders last year, I'd think we'd have almost as good a chance as anybody going with what we've got. The two teams that I think have improved significantly (or will) have been Dodgers and DBacks. And Dogers, DBacks, and Rockies all have young talent that could improve a lot internally, Brewers also. So while we've got as good a chance as anybody, there are probably 5-10 other teams that have as good a chance as we do (apart from the easier road to playoffs via central.) But we've got a team that could be very good. Pie, Cedeno, Dempster, Gallagher, Hart, Ascanio, Marshall, Petrick, I think we've got a group of question marks a number of whom might work out well. No guarantees, that's for sure. But what if Pie did show up and hit .270 with 15 HR's and a .745 OPS? What if Dempster did show up and go 13-9 with a 4.35 ERA? What if Gallagher, Hart, or Marshall (or all three) did come to camp and impress from the start, bump Marquis to the bullpen, and whichever of them got the job post a 4.15 ERA? We could be very good. For sure we've got a number of question marks. If many of them turn out favorably, we could be very good. Certainly if most of them turn out badly, we could be not very good at all. But to some degree, it might work well to sit tight and let things work themselves out. Right now I don't know which pitchers will or won't be effective. If we trade now, we might trade the good ones, keep the duds, and regret it. If we make no moves, come July and for some years later we might be very glad that we kept Cedeno, Gallagher, and Marshall. I think it's also possible that with we could let things shake out, hope that at least some of the Q's answer themselves satisfactorily, but then use some of the Murton/Cedeno/Gallagher/Marquis/Dempster/Hart/Marshall/Ascanio/Petrick/Roquet/Veal type tradables to address the spots that do prove to be problems later. Maybe Dempster will be fine and better than Blanton, but Pie will be awful. It may not be the worst thing if we end up retaining our trade chips. I'm not saying I wouldn't enthusiastically support certain trades. But I will be pretty hopeful even if we don't. We won't be the only team with question marks. And we've got some guys who might answer them favorably.

nilo, I think most of your projections, nearer .800 than .900, seem more likely to me. brinoch, one of the other factors in terms of total HR volume is that majors play more games. He was playing 140 game seasons in Japan. If you hit a HR every ten games , an extra 20 games could be worth an extra couple of HR's.

Cal, had Atlanta already had their top 10's by the time we made the trade, and if so did the guy we got for Ohman/Infante make their top 10? Not sure BA liked him as much as Hendry and Wilkin and the Cubs. But I'd think he'd need to rank up there in that 10-12 range too, at least on Hendry's list.

Absolutely not, that's obvious. Many of the Japanese hitters have lost lots of their HR output after coming over (Kaz, Johjima, Iwamura). If Fukudome has a HR drop comparable to theirs, it's hard to envision him posting the kind of exaggerated superstar numbers (>.400 OBP, >.900 OPS) that BP projects. Whether he slips from 30's to 20 HR or to 7 HR (Iwamura), that will matter a lot. If his Japanese park was less HR-friendly than those of the other Japanese guys, and given that Wrigley is more HR-friendly than Seattle or Tampa or Mets, I'm hoping that Fuku's HR's will not drop quite as sharply. To drop by 10 would be better than dropping by 20+. nilo, I know it's possible and precedented to OBP at .400 without 20 HR's. Mark Grace did it 3 times. But it's very difficult, and few of those who do it K as frequently as Fuku did in Japan. It's possible that Fuku will be one of the few who does, but IMO not very likely. A lot more likely to happen or get close if he gets 20 HR's.

Thanks for note about Fuku's home park dimensions. That's encouraging. 16-foot walls, that's pretty high. And the impression I've gotten is that he's a gap hitter. So perhaps he'll get some HR's into the shallow Wrigley alleys that would not have cleared in Japan. I'm cautious on the Prospectus projection for him. Projecting any hitter is hard, but even more so a switch like this. I'm a believer that HR's are a huge factor in batting average and OBP (every HR is a hit) and in slugging (every HR contributes 4 total bases). The difference between hitting 30, 25, 20, 15, or 10 HR's, large differences in hitting stats even if all other aspects of hitting are the same. I'd think it will be awfully hard to have a .401 OBP and .905 OPS if he doesn't hit 20 HR's. There's lots more to offense than HR's, but they are an extremely efficient way to score runs and to build positive statistics. Whether Fuku hits 25 or 15 will significantly impact how all his hitting numbers, OBP included, play out.

A sharp poster at BleacherBums made an interesting point. Baltimore picked up 4 40-man guys for Tejada. If they are going to trade both Bedard and Roberts, each for multiple prospects, they may experience some severe 40-man roster crunch. If they took 3 40-man guys from Cubs for Roberts, and 3 or more for Bedard, that could be like adding 10 or more 40-man prospects to replace three guys out. It may be that their farm is so lousy that they could accomodate that. But they might have reason to prefer a prospect or two who wouldn't be 40-man necessary yet. Perhaps they'd like a guy like Veal more than we might expect on that basis. Or perhaps if they scout Pie and Colvin as comparable, maybe Colvin's non-40 status would be a mark, even if only a modest one, in his favor.

Yeah, could well be. Pagan's got a .280 OBP vs RHP in his short career, though, and it was .269 this year. Not sure that a Pagan who was just .269-OBP vs LHP is better option than Taguchi who was just .350-vs-LHP. But, hopefully Pagan will be getting better, and obviously Taguchi's at an age where he could go downhill fast. Plus, of course, the guy might face some RHP too, even if not necessarily very often.

Marshall/Hart/Gallagher all have lots of options ahead, I think at least two years left for each of them. (Not sure on Marshall). We have no 40-man pressure. (I think that's what kicked Ryu?). So unless Hendry can trade them for big-league help now or for some younger prospect who he's **really** jazzed about, I think all three stay. No numbers crunch at all. Depending on injuries or competition, one or two might make the team. But even if they don't, no problem to send all three to Iowa and be available. For summer trade, for injury replacement, for Marquis or Dempster collapse, for a lefty utility pitcher (Marshall), for relief help, whatever. No problem keeping them all. And it's not like we're crawling with superior pitching prospects who are passing them. Right now I'm not sure which of the three would be the best bet if we wanted to put one in the rotation. But by next May or July if/when a need arises, if they are all working at Iowa, it may be quite clear which is the best bet. Is Marshall's shoulder sound? Can he really sustain success with his stuff? Gallagher is young and has improved continuously; will he continue to improve, and will he have settled into exactly which breaking ball(s) he's really going to win with, and will they be sharper and more consistent? Was hart just a short-term fluke? Or will his cutter be better than ever, his change a little better, and he'll show that his september and last months in AA/AAA were no fluke? right now I'm not sure which of those three I'd like to sink or swim with in the rotation. But I'm pretty hopeful that whichever one emerges as the best, that he's got a chance to be pretty good. By next July, we might be much more confident about all of them but especially the best of the three, whichever guy that might be.