craig

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.

I think Taguchi might fit, depending on what else happens. Taguchi is a career .289 hitter with a .337 OBP and a .735 OPS vs LHP. Hardly exciting. But based on Felix's splits versus lefties with Cubs, in VWL, and in minors, I think Pie could be **a lot** worse versus lefties than So's norm. I'd prefer somebody better. And I'm not sure how we'd fit him onto the roster as it's currently constructed. Only way he'd fit is if we trade some of the current guys (like Murton, and perhaps also Cedeno), or if it becomes obvious that Cedeno **can't** play CF and Kosuke **won't** play CF and we can't find or afford a RH CFer better than Taguchi. Might also be a nonroster invitee candidate.

Of the tradeable parts, I think Murton and Marshall are the two players who both could have meaningful trade value but are really redundant. Murton has been a good major-league hitter, but his defensive limitations really restrict him to LF/DH, maybe a little RF. Sori and Fuku, he's completely redundant to us. But to some team with a hole in left, or an AL team with some DH/LF openings, he could be viewed as a very meaningful pickup. Imagine if we'd picked up somebody like that for left the year we went with Hollandsworth instead? We'd have been super fired up to get a fairly high-ceiling hitter like Murton. Marshall is young, lefty, and posted a 3.92. I can imagine a lot of years when Cubs were always fishing for some token lefty where I'd have been extremely enthused to pickup a low-salaried has-been-effective young lefty like Marshall. But as a 3rd lefty curveballer behind Lilly and Hill, both of whom are under long-term club control, Marshall really does stack as reasonable quality but completely surplus to us. If I was going to trade two youngish value guys, those are the two I'd think would have the best combo of meaningful-value-that-we-wouldn't-miss. Dempster is on an expiring contract, and Marquis is "only" two years left, and is on shaky ground. So that's one or two RH rotation spots that could open in the next year and two. So if we could keep both Gallagher and Hart as candidates, I'd like that. Maybe one or both will never make it. But if they do continue to emerge as quality rotation candidates, it's not like the Cubs might not be able to put them to very good use within the next couple of years.

Agree. I suspect that if Lou could choose, he'd rather deal Marshall than either Gallagher or hart. I get the impression that Hendry feels like he has enough surplus of Murton/Cedeno/Marshall-or-Hart-or-gallagher-Wuertz-and/or-Marquis to make at least one more significant trade. That's why we get the Roberts rumors, or Burnett, or Joe Nathan, or whomever. Could be hard-pressed to be able to squeeze two significant pickups from what Hendry is probably using as his trading chips. I also think that it isn't really essential that he makes any additional trades. We could go into the season with the roster as is, and could either be pretty happy with how it would work out. Or else might be very happy that we didn't trade away our young options, in the event that some of Lou's intended starters get hurt or stink, and some of our youngsters who may currently be viewed as trade chips emerge as invaluable players.

Agree. I suspect that if Lou could choose, he'd rather deal Marshall than either Gallagher or hart. I get the impression that Hendry feels like he has enough surplus of Murton/Cedeno/Marshall-or-Hart-or-gallagher-Wuertz-and/or-Marquis to make at least one more significant trade. That's why we get the Roberts rumors, or Burnett, or Joe Nathan, or whomever. Could be hard-pressed to be able to squeeze two significant pickups from what Hendry is probably using as his trading chips.

I'd really like to pick up a solid starter. Burnett or Haren or Blanton, somebody like that I'd love to get. Wouldn't need to be an ace possible, as Burnett and Haren or Greinke could be. A solid safe #3 type guy would be invaluable. But rotation guys are really expensive. I think we're underestimating how stiff the cost would be. I don't think Gallagher/Murton or the alleged Roberts package gets you what you want in terms of rotation pitchers. I do imagine that Burnett's injury history; gossiped problems getting along with teammates and management; and the fact that he can declare free agency after the season might make him much more available that some of the other names. I'm not too keen on lightning-in-a-bottle rehab Clement/Colon/Garcia/Igawa types. If they are such long shots that a non-guaranteed minor-league deal with 2nd year option will do, ala Dempster/Williamson, or ala what Prior wouldn't do, that would be OK. But I don't want to give a guaranteed contract or commit significant guaranteed money (>$2) to guys like this. I don't want some bad-armed rehab guy wasting a roster spot or wasting starts apart from merit. And if any of these guys get guaranteed deals of any magnitude, they'll tend to get roster spots even if guys like Marshall or Hart or Petrick could pitch more effectively. Depth is nice, if you can stash the extras at Iowa and if you can actually use the best guys on merit for the cubs. But if guaranteed contract means that some guys stay on Cubs based on contract rather than merit, that's bad. Several other thoughts: 1. I suspect that were they to trade for a salaried pitcher, they'd really like to be able to include Marquis in the package. Easier said than done, I'm sure. 2. Hoops, in your original list, you omitted Hart. Including Samardz and Guzman without hart is misleading. Lou has already stated that marshall, Hart, and Gallagher are all scheduled to be worked as starters in camp, or at least in the front part of camp. 3. Personally I think that Gallagher, Marshall, and Hart provides a reasonable trio of backup options for Dempster/Marquis. Marshall has shown that when healthy he's OK, if limited. Hart's minor-league numbers over the last three months were very competitive. And Gallagher has a shot to be big-league competitive also. Not sure you can necessarily have your 8th man be more qualified than Gallagher or Marshall. My concern is that they may be 5 guys who will all interchangeably go 5.25 ERA. But, we'll see. But I think management may prefer to get a more proven starter, but is quite willing, perhaps justifiably, to go with the kids if they need to. 4. My take is that Hendry/Lou are more interested in Dempster than either the board is or than they are interested in Marquis. For example, if you could get the same player in return for a package of prospects and either Dempster or Marquis, I think Lou/Hendry would definitely elect to keep Dempster and trade Marquis rather than vice versa. 5. Insurance will be needed. Right now we have 3 insurance guys in Marshall, hart, and Gallagher. I think that Hendry feels this is a source of value for trades, and that any significant trade would include at least one of these three. Survive with two insurance guys instead of three, that's OK. But I would have a hard time trading two of those three guys away in trades for position players (2B/SS/CF?). I'd think you'd like to have depth through at least 7. Obviously it would be OK if we gave one for Roberts and then another for some other rotation pitcher; that could still leave the surviving young guy and Marquis as your 6/7 guys. But I don't really want to shorten the rotation options so that we've got only one of Marshall/hart/Gallagher left, and our 7th rotation guy is Holliman or Les Walrond or Jeff Samardzija. (Unless management likes Holliman a lot better than I do.)

One nice thing about the current cubs is that they have no dead contracts. Between the rising payroll and the erasure of dead contracts, Hendry is in a relatively unique situation of having all of his payroll available and invested in players who at least until new injuries arise, should be able to play. For the last 15 years, it's seemed we've pretty much always had some significant dead contracts. Prior the last couple of years. Wood for several years of big money. Sammy's money when we traded him to Baltimore, and for that matter during his last half season for us. Glendon Rusch. Todd Hundley. Jeff Blauser. Mel Rojas. Back in the 90's I can recall being burdened with years of Jose Guzman dead contract, and Mike Morgan. I certainly don't object the kind of dead contracts in the <$2 range such as were invested in Kerry Wood last year, or Dempster's first year, or Wade Miller or Scott Williamson. $1-1.75, that's peanuts. But when you're up at $3 for Prior, that's a little more meaningful. It's kind of refreshing not to have any major commitments to guys who we know aren't going to be ready to play in April.

Thanks, cal. I hadn't realized he had previous part-time experience. That Pac scouts do both amateur and pro ball makes good sense, and indeed isn't surprising. Maybe my expectations were colored by Lee, who never got us close to any Japanese players, and who averaged less than 1 signing per year. I had actually expected that Paul Weaver would be the lead Japanese scout. He is an experienced, respected, fairly well-renowned scout, and he had been the Asian scout or supervisor or something for somebody for several years. So I had expected that he was going to be the experienced guy who'd do Japanese players and whose opinion Hendry would listen to, more so than Wilson who I incorrectly assumed was a newbie. Perhaps the magic here is that they've got both. If one of them likes a guy, perhaps Wilson can do the more volume scouting of a Japanese player they like, because he's always over there. But perhaps Weaver can sort of function as a cross-checker. If both of them see a guy with comparable enthusiasm, maybe that gives more confidence. And then if Hughes also goes over and does sort of the super-scout cross-checking deal, if they all three come back thumbs up, Hendry probably has more confidence than if it was just Weaver or just Wilson. I also recall Wilson commenting that he was establishing a network of part-time scouts. That makes a lot of sense. I've got to think that travel and hotels in Japan and Korea is extremely expensive. If Wilson is getting keyed in on who the really worth-watching guys are, he can be much more efficient. So if he's got a guy or two in Taiwan, somebody in Australia, one or two in Korea, one or two in China, that can help.

I'm guessing the $800k bonus figure is bogus but looking around the net, Cheng has been getting noticed by American agents since at least March. He is only 5'9 but he throws in the low 90s and struck out 14 in 7 no-hit innings in a Taiwanese HS tourney recently. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Navinda/cheng.jpg Cal, this doesn't relate to Cheng except on the tangent that Steve Wilson is our Asian guy. I'm getting the impression that Wilson is a significant scout. Time will judge whether he's a good one or not. I'd wondered how much action he'd get. I assumed he was a brand new scout, in a generally expensive and somewhat competitive market. I'm now wondering whether he isn't quite a sharp, persuasive, articulate guy that Cub people respect. Within a single year, he's already gotten two dollar amateurs signed in Rhee from Korea and Chen from Taiwan. How many scouts are funded to sign two guys as expensive as that in a give year? Certainly very few stateside scouts. Now we get this report that he's also been trusted/authorized to make a serious offer to Cheng. So, I'm thinking he's being given a lot of budget to spend; they must trust his judgement pretty well. Then, what do I read regarding Fukudome but that Wilson is the guy Hendry mentioned most for having watched Fuku a lot and having recommended him strongly (in addition to Hughes and Weaver). I hadn't realized Wilson was involved at all in Japan or in the Japanese professional leagues, I'd thought he might be only amateur stuff. So now we see him active in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, at both pro and amateur level, and his input getting valued by Hendry right up there next to Hughes and Weaver. Sounds like he might be one of the most important scouts we've got in the organization. If they respect his input on $48-million Fuku, perhaps they're also going to respect his input on $0.4-0.8 guys like Chen and Cheng and rhee. Hopefully we're going to remain very active and effective in Asia from this point out. that would be really neat.

The problem with saying what trades we should make is always that we don't know what the other team would demand. if Padres demand Hill for Greene, should we do it? Definitely not. If they demand Pie, Gallagher, and Murton, should we do it? I'd think not, but I suppose you could discuss it. Gallagher, Wuertz, and Cedeno, would they take that? Pie, Gallagher, and Wuertz? It seems to me that the board has had kind of a lot of discussions about Greene that have tended to assume he's available at not too bad a price. I don't see where that came from. Greene is a star-fielding SS with exceptional SS power, and he's young. Despite his low OBP, the overall package is above average for a starting SS, and above-average starting SS's cost a mint. I don't imagine the kind of packages that seem realistic for Roberts would come close to getting Greene. I know there was some rumor that at one point Greene's name came up and Pie was mentioned and the Cubs said Pie wasn't available. That doesn't mean they offered Greene for Pie straight, though, or would do so now. Perhaps Pie was one of three names along with marmol and Soto, and when they got to Pie Hendry said forget it. Who knows. But I think it's highly questionable that Greene is currently available for Pie and/or expendable parts.

So where is this rumor coming from? Levine said that we're interested in getting a pitcher? And somebody else said we asked about Burnett? Sounds like Cub-side stuff. I heard we'd like Burnett, and asked about trading Marquis for him. there's probably dozens of pitchers we'd like to trade Marquis for. But where is the rumor that Toronto would have any interest in it? One note: assuming Burnett did well on his $12/1 contract and then declared FA and got a mongo contract, the losing team could get two high draft picks in return. So from Toronto's end, to trade might require that they'd prefer prospects in trade to prospect of two good draft prospects later. From Cub end, you might justify including some prospects if you know that you'll get a couple good prospects back even if you do lose the guy. It's one of the advantages of going after *good* players instead of marginal guys.

thanks for reminding that, nolan. Doesn't Burnett have a history of being a headache personality? The stated rumor obviously seems too good to be true. But there could be three reasons why perhaps there is something to it: a) maybe they think his arm isn't right b) maybe after the hassle, they are just sick of him, and more willing to move him than you'd expect based on statistics alone c) this is his walk year. He's got an opt-out following 08, according to Cots. If there are bitter feelings, they may well figure that he'll walk if he has a good year, and only if he stinks or is hurt will he keep the $12-per in subsequent years. If anything to it, that could be a huge steal for us. Lou might handle a challenging personality pretty well. And rothschild also, I think. Plus, a lot of personality issues don't seem as problematic when a team is winning, which could happen for us this year, especially if Burnett is effective. Probably too good to be true. But it could be a really nifty pickup. Cubs could also be in a kind of good position to take a gamble, pending who might be lost in the process of this and/or other deals. If you got a guy who was good for 20 games but needed a replacement for 10, Marshall and Hart might do a good job filling in even if Gallagher was moved in the hypothetical Roberts rumors.

I think he is much less likely to swing at junk, relative to Pie. He's just so weak that pitchers have no fear about throwing him strikes. And since he's pretty good at contacting the strikes (even if he's so weak that the resulting contact is often weak and outable), it often takes fewer pitches to resolve his AB's than for guys who swing and miss a lot (like Pie). Hard to have a high P/PA ratio when pitchers have pitchers come right at you with strikes (given no fear), and when you often hit strikes when you swing (because you can make contact). Not sure that makes you a hacker or undisciplined. My point is that Theriot will likely be the same hitter with the same limitations whether he's batting 8th, 7th, or 2nd. He's likely to be a lightweight with a low P/PA even if he never swings at a non-strike. But I think for a hacker like Pie, pitchers may have an even easier time getting him to swing at non-strikes if he's batting 8th.

Heh, given only 30 teams in the majors, not more than 15 SS can be above-average starting SS's. None of those 15 average-or-better guys are readily available or come cheap. "Average" is expensive and valuable, in terms of starting SS's as it is with starting pitchers. I think "grows on trees" normally implies that you can find such easily and inexpensively. That does not seem to apply to the average starting SS. Questionable measure, but I used 2007 SS winshares to bracket the "average" SS: Greene (12), Renteria (14), Drew (16), Tejada (17), Furcal (18). The budget and/or talent cost of acquiring any of those players would not be trivial. Guys with Furcal's or Tejada's or Drew's talent do not "grow on trees" and are non-trivial to acquire. Theriot will almost certainly never be as good as average. Cedeno might, but he hasn't come close to that yet, and may never. I hope we can upgrade, and I hope Cedeno is able to do that at no cost in talent or budget. But I don't have a problem in letting the season play itself out, and seeing who plays out as the least awful among Theriot, Cedeno, and DeRosa, in the event that we do acquire Roberts without including Cedeno in the process. If Cedeno emerges as average or close to average, that would be wonderful.

I don't see all the horror. Theriot is mediocre, both defensively and offensively. But average or above-average SS's don't grow on trees or come for nothing. If we're below average at SS, we won't be the first winning team with that. We can win a lot of games with Theriot as a .326-OBP guy; if the salaried guys produce. Some have said that since Lou has tabbed Theriot as starter, that he'll block Cedeno even if Cedeno is better. Others have argued that Theriot had a hot July, without which his numbers are really poor. But I think a good thing is that, if we keep Cedeno, that we can't have it both ways bad. If Cedeno is blocked for long, it will mean Theriot is sustaining an OK OBP and isn't being an auto-out as was true in September and June. If he is doing really bad, with an OBP well below this year's .326, then he's not going to be much of a block to Cedeno, if in fact Cedeno is able to show anything. So either Theriot is much stinkier than he was this year, or he'll block Cedeno. But he can't both really stink and block Cedeno at the same time.

Baltimore could be a good spot for Prior. Not excessive pressure or expectation. Suppose it's August. The Cubs and Padres have contending teams vying for playoff stuff, thanks in part to decent rotations. Baltimore is 20 games behind Boston, and has a rotten rotation. Prior has rehabbed some minor-league starts, and is throwing 87-90, with an erratic curve and control, a 4.75 minor-league ERA, and hasn't gone beyond 70 pitches or 5 innings in any rehab starts. Do Cubs or Padres want to waste a roster spot or waste any real games on a rehabbing Prior? Orioles might, thinking that they can resign him and have him pay off in their rebuilding plan. But Cubs and Padres might be rightfully too occupied with entering and succeeding in the playoffs to waste big-league rehab starts on Prior. On the batting order, I'd have Soto 6, Pie 7, and Theriot 8. Theriot is a contact/discipline guy, so hitting 8th shouldn't kill him. As noted, hacker Pie might see nothing but junk and swing at it anyway if he's hitting 8th.