craig

This is an adjusted list based on a previous Keith Law projection of the sandwich round order, given some signings. This assumes all of the remaining free agents who were offered arbitration sign with other clubs, which may not be true. Philly still hopes to resign Rowand, I have no idea what's up with Feliz or Trever Miller or Mike Cameron, for example. 31. Minnesota (for Torii Hunter, A) 32. Milwaukee (for Francisco Cordero, A) 33. NY Mets (for Tom Glavine, A) 34. Philadelphia (for Aaron Rowand, A) 35. Milwaukee (for Scott Linebrink, A) 36. Kansas City (for David Riske B) 37. San Francisco (for Pedro Feliz) 38. Houston (for Trever Miller) 39. Oakland (for Shannon Stewart/Mike Piazza) 40. St. Louis (for Troy Percival) 41. Atlanta (for Ron Mahay) 42. Chicago Cubs (for Jason Kendall) 43. San Diego (for Doug Brocail) 44. Arizona (for Livan Hernandez) 45. NY Yankees (for Luis Vizcaino) 46. Boston (for Eric Gagne) 47. Oakland (for Shannon Stewart/Mike Piazza) 48. San Diego (for Mike Cameron)

It says something about the market when Jose Guillen at $36/3 with drug stuff coming up besides doesn't even come close to the list.

If you can get Roberts with EPatt as the 3rd guy, that's awesome. I'd assumed the third guy would be Cedeno or some pitcher I value a lot more than EPatt.

Pretty certain that if Murton starts in right, managers will certainly use defensive replacement for Matt whether Pie is in center or not. If Ethier is enough superior to Murton to obviate that practice is encouraging.

thanks, ping. Sounds more adequate than Murton. But average arm and sub-average range sounds like below-average overall. That's too bad. I admit my perceptin has Murton's range as more than slightly below average, so I've tended to view him as a double liability, both the noodle-arm and the range issues. I'm probably slightly overreacting to recent Cub history. But I really would like to assemble a team where all of the starters could qualify as 9-inning players. Last year for a while we'd have Fontenot as a 7-inning 2B who you'd replace ASAP, and Floyd/Murton as 7-inning RFers. That strains the bench, and I think also contributes to a GM/manager building their bench with hitting sacrificed to defense, since late-inning defense is one of the primary responsibilities. If you then do have an injury so that the bench guy is starting, defense-over-offense bench guys hurt the lineup more severely than might be necessary if you hadn't chosen those players with late-inning defense in mind. I'd kind of like to have a bench where you could fit a number of bat-first guys, like Ward and Murton and what I'd hoped Floyd would be if Murton and Jones had hit well from the start. I admit I also kind of like the idea of having every-day players as well as 9-inning players. From that standpoint, Ethier looks fairly interesting. Murton career has a .138-point split, whereas Ethier's is only 0.067. So it would seem that Ethier is not like Pie or Jones, guys who really fall off the table versus LHP. He could play every day, or at last stay in against LHP fairly often without it being a big problem. But if you did platoon, Ethier at .836 career vs RHP with Murton at .901 career vs LHP, that could be a pretty solid combo. I like the idea of getting Fukudome. But if Ethier/Murton could be basically an .850-OPS platoon pair, I'd have to guess that Fukudome will OPS under rather than over .850.

Thanks for the note and the research, cal. Sounds interesting, and surprising. Hope we get him. It's been my impression that the Cubs haven't been quite as height-oriented as they used to be with Hendry/Stockstill in the lead. Wilkin really like Linecum, who's short. Oswaldo Martinez isn't tall. Ascenio is short. The other Chinese pitcher wasn't very tall. Russell is a tall one in the draft, and obviously Samardz. Acosta, not short, but 6'2" isn't exactly tall for a righty either. Lahey is tall, obviously. If you want to be active in Asia and Taiwan in particularly, probably will have more activity if you're willing to sign some guys who aren't all that tall. If this guy got a $400 or $800 offer, you'd think we'd have a good chance to get him. And if they're offering that much on a 5'9" guy, you'd also figure he must have some really jazzy stuff, since you wouldn't normally offer that on a guy so short.

Was noted that Ethier is LH Murton. Is he really as lousy and Pierre-armed defensively in RF as Murton? I don't know much about Ethier's D. But it would be fun to have a 9-inning guy in RF, rather than somebody who you want to take out for a no-hit defensive replacement every time you're winning in the late innings, as with Murton. If Ethier is perfectly satisfactory defensively, I agree that he'd be a very nice fallback option. Young guy who, especially if partnered with Murton, could give you solid low .800's OPS for low pay, and leave the money for elsewhere. It's hopeful that next year, we might have some meaningful new costs. Like, if Wood pitches well his salary could jump. If Prior was to be back and look good 2nd half, he too could be a major expense to retain should we desire. And unpopular as board may consider it, it's even possible that Dempster will turn out to be an effective rotation guy and be an expense next year. I really don't have a sense for Ethier's value in the trade world, or exactly what LA will end up needing. Hill is too much, but if Marshall is too little, what about Marshall/Wuertz? Still too little for them? Way too much for us?

I know this is heresy to be positive or enthusiastic etc., but I very much like the idea of pursuing and getting Roberts, and potentially doing so for 2-3 guys who are nice prospects and might be very productive, but who have some questions marks at present and stand as peripheral players for us, ie are not guys we can't live without. Cedeno, Murton, and Marshall for Roberts? I'd go for that, because I think that Roberts is overall a very good player. I like Murton, but to my eye he's a poor fielder, and while Soriano has many faults, I think Soriano is better than Murton. With LF blocked and no NL DH, Murton doesn't fit. (I don't like his defense in right). I'm hopeful that Cedeno will turn into a pretty solid SS. But he makes a lot of errors, and sometimes looks lazy and dumb. Not sure he'd end up being the SS we want even if we keep him. Roberts seems pretty nice as a guy who fields pretty well, runs well, has a good OBP, etc.. I like the SB, I think it's exciting and can help you score runs. I'm well cognizant that it's value is limited by the CS, but Roberts has asset ratios. And I very much like the idea of having a DeRosa-caliber hitter available on the bench. Benches typically get >1000 AB's. If 400 of them are going to DeRosa rather than an Omar Infante/Neifi/Macias/Cedeno type hitter, that's a huge asset. I would imagine that if they were to acquire both Roberts and Fukudome, I'd guess Soriano would remain leadoff, and Lou would sequence them: Soriano-Roberts-Lee-Aram-Fukudome-Soto-Pie-Theriot. That would break up the righties (Lee and Aram only back-to-back), and keep the speed that Lou likes at the front of the order. Could be a good lineup. I'd be pretty enthused about that.

Not to be a hendry apologist, but just to play devil's advocate... Hendry did not call Fuld an "untouchable". It was Sullivan who used that phrase. What hendry said was that "We're not going to trade Pie, and we're not going to trade him. It's pretty simple." Was Florida calling up to offer Cabrera for Fuld, and Hendry said no? OK, then Hendry is dumb for saying he's not going to trade Fuld. But that's not how it goes. You guys all recognize what Fuld's limits are. So does Hendry and baseball GM's. That's why discussing Fuld trades is pointless. Shopping Fuld gets you nowhere in pursuing a quality major league player. If you want to trade Fuld or if somebody wants to trade for Fuld, you're talking about their Cotts or Fox or Pignatiello guys. Nobody's offering anything worth discussing; if you shop Fuld you won't get anything worth discussing. Every real GM knows that, including Hendry. So he makes a simple comment that it makes no sense to talk about trading Fuld so the media guy should quit asking about it. He's not going to trade him. Because he's untouchable and you wouldn't give him up for Santana? No. Because his trade value is insignificant and there are no more discussions about trades involving Fuld than there are about trades involving other insignificant guys like Matt Avery or Welington Castillo. You don't discuss trades for guys like that. He answered the question primarily in reference to Pie, that he's not going to trade Pie. Is Pie untouchable, and he wouldn't trade Pie for Roberts or Matt Cain? Think as you wish. I think his point is that given the real world, that pie isn't going to get traded this month and it's a waste of time for reporters to spin speculations to that effect. Why not? Because his trade value isn't high enough to get you a player that you can afford to pay and that upgrades you at a position of need. Pie isn't getting you Santana or Linecum or Roberts or Cabrera or Markakis or Pujols or H Ramirez. Is Hendry saying he wouldn't give Pie for guys like that, if in some fantasy asset players were available for Pie and Fuld? I don't think so. I think he's just saying that in the real world, Pie's value isn't high enough to get guys who we want to trade him for. The upgrade possibilities are RF, CF, 2B, SS, and rotation. Presumably they have budget to add one serious contract, and they'd like that for RF. Fukudome could fit. do that, you've filled your lineup, and Pie in center enables the budget to work with good potential besides. Should he be shopping Pie to try to trade for Randy Winn, or for Mark Teahen, or Nate McLouth? Pie's a good prospect, but he's not good enough to get us a quality upgrade at 2B, SS, CF, RF, or rotation. that being the case, Hendry realizes that a Pie trade isn't going to happen. So he can accurately say that Pie isn't going to get traded, and the reporters shouldn't waste time asking questions about it or making up unrealistic trade rumors that are dumb and bogus. What's the big problem?

Preferred options would be a 2-year deal or a pre-arranged non-tender 1-year for less than the $2.8. But that's true for anybody who might trade for him. So why is their interest by other teams? I don't imagine teams are talking trade just so that they can nontender him. If a team wants to trade anything worthwhile for him, they must either: a) think $2.8 for this year is not too much, rehab and impending free agency notwithstanding; b) he'll sign a 2-year or a non-tender cheaper 1 year for them, even though he won't for hendry; or c) they're unafraid of Prior's impending free agency, even though Hendry perhaps is. I understand the notion that Prior at $2.8 on a rehab walk year is a bad contract. But GM's don't normally line up to try to trade for a bad contract. Yet rumors suggest that a number of GM's do want to take on Prior's situation, and may be willing to trade for that opportunity/obligation. (Although I have no idea how much any GM is actually willing to trade.) That team are asking about him suggests that the market does *not* view $2.8/1 to be a bad contract. So I'm puzzled. Q's: If the many other GM's think $2.8/1 is desirable why wouldn't Hendry? How much value are other GM's willing to trade, and if it's even semi-substantial, why? Is there a common market knowledge that Prior wants to leave the Cubs or dislikes Hendry or something? (If so, that might explain why impending free agency would be scarier to Hendry than to some other GM). Or is the reports of discussions mostly baloney and mostly initiated by hendry trying to drum up interest? (Ala trying to shop Corey Patterson two years ago, before giving him for nothing. Or trying to shop Jacque Jones last winter, only to get no strong offers. Or Todd Walker the winter before, again to know strong offers?) I guess I just don't understand why the Cubs would consider Prior's contract to be so bad that they'd seriously consider non-tendering him, while other teams are considering it so desirable that they're trying to trade real talent in order to take it on.

We've heard that a number of teams are interested and Prior's name has come up with a number of teams. Do you have any sense for how much they could get for him? For example, if he could net the caliber of B+ prospect they got for Ohman/Infante, would that be surprisingly good return? Or would you expect more? There was a San Diego rumor, for example, with three B prospect names included. I have no idea what Prior's market is worth at this point. Would the Cubs be lucky to get one B or B+ prospect? Or is there enough interest that they might harvest a couple of pretty interesting prospects? Any feeling? Or is the interest really misleading, and nobody's really offering any more than one Pignatiello or Jake Fox type C prospect? Seems to me they'd probably like to resolve things either way, preferably before the 12th. But if the rumored interest is at all accurate, it would seem that there must be teams who think he's worth the tender price even if the Cubs don't. So I don't see why the 12th needs to really be a deadline. Tender him, and you can still trade him later even if you still can never reach a mutually satisfactory contract.

Bruce, a couple Q's if you're still around or feel like answering. 1. With Ohman gone, do you sense they want to get a LH reliever outside? Big priority? Or do you think they are A-OK to go with status quo? Marshall maybe serving as 2nd lefty/long-reliever role, Cotts and Pigs and presumably some minor-league contract pickups for competition? 2. Ohman seemed to be a guy they moved because they wanted to. Do you sense that there are any other guys like that, time to turn the page guys? Is Cedeno like that, a guy whose talents or personality or whatever they just don't think is a fit, or do you sense that they're comfortable with him and OK with him as a bench guy? 3. From your view, is their anything they are targetting now other than contingency planning and perhaps what to do about Prior? Seems that if they were to get Fukudome, they might not really need to do anything else. They'd have their starters, they'd have 5 bench players (Ward, Blanco, Cedeno, Murton, and Pagan), other than lefty relief maybe a pretty sit-tight pitching staff. My hypothesis is that basically most of the current discussions are shot-in-the-dark explorations ("what would it take to get Roberts?" "OK, that's more than we're willing to give now, but we'll keep that in mind, thanks") and contingency stuff: If we don't get Fukudome, what would it cost for Swisher or you-name-it-alternatives? If we need to trade some of Murton/Cedeno/Pie/Wuertz/Marshall/Dempster/Marquis to fill RF if Fukudome fails, what contingencies are there to replace Murton or Cedeno or Wuertz or Pie etc.? Mostly just contingency planning. Agree or disagree?

this is a joke, obviously. But just as they didn't see Jones as a candidate because they feel certain they'll end up with somebody they perceive as better (whether Fukudome or somebody else), likewise Lou has made it pretty clear that if Fukudome isn't the guy that they will acquire somebody via trade, rather than free agency. Lou made it pretty clear that they don't think that Green or Jenkins or Bradley or any of the FA's are good enough. Again, whatever the cost, they think they are going to come up with somebody better than Jones or guys like that.

Thanks, Bruce. I think that's pretty significant, if true. As is we've got Ward, Blanco, Cedeno, and Murton as bench guys. Maybe Pagan. In a sense you could cover all the positions, if you're satisfied with the quality of Cedeno as first reserve if 2B, SS, or 3B needs a break. If you're satisfied with Blanco if C needs a break. And if you're satisfied with Ward and/or Murton if 1B, LF, or RF need a break. Pagan I suppose would be the only option in center, unless you sign Fukudome and decide to move him to center when Pie needs a break. (Like everytime a LHP starts.) That could be a pretty flexible and fairly decent bench.... if Cedeno hits, and Murton hits, and Pagan can be adequate as Pie's platoon versus LHP. Those are a lot of ifs. But I imagine Murton is a guy they might want or be willing to trade. Ward and Murton are kind of attractive as bench guys, pretty good bats, lefty and righty. But both are also somewhat unattractive as bench guys, in that neither plays any position well defensively. Having one no-defense-good-bat bench guy is one thing. Not sure if Lou wants to live with two guys like that.

I don't agree with this thinking. The Cubs were not going to go into next year with Jones as their primary RF regardless of what happens with Fukudome. If they don't get him, they'll pay whatever price it takes to get somebody they perceive to be more attractive than Jones (even if that perception is wrong, or differs from yours.) It isn't Fukudome or Jones or somebody they perceive to be weaker than Jones. It's Fukudome or somebody they perceive to be better than Jones regardless. In which case moving jones and clearing some salary doesn't strike me as so dumb.

Defensively yes, offensively no. Kotsay has averaged 12 HR's a year. Some scouts who like Colvin think that if things go right for him, he could be a 30-HR guy. Colvin hit 16 HR in <500 AB in two pitcher-friendly minor leagues this year at age 21, and has a projectible frame that could add some muscle and additional power. He could be a good HR hitter if things go well for him. Big if, obviously.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3137870 List of guys offered arb, for later reference.

badnews, I forgot to mention one factor. If a team gets multiple A or B picks, then the 2nd's (or thirds) come after the other teams have received one. Badly phrased. In current case, both Houston and Oakland are potentiall entitled to 2 B picks, if their arbed B's all sign elsewhere. Each would get their first B pick before Kendall, based on team record. Both Kendall would precede their 2nd B picks, which will come at the back of the B group. By the way, here is a post that is relevant and I believe accurate. The good news is that Kendall will come no later than 43, and could well come as high as 41 or 40. 43 is worst case, and if guys like Barrett, Feliz, or Mahay resign, Kendall-pick could move even higher. As you say, it's really awesome that we're getting that good a pick for Kendall. Basically it comes down to Blevins for a 40-ish pick and a few months of Kendall's service which helped us make the playoffs. Blevins may end up better than the sandwich. But I can't complain much about that at all. "Reb66 - Dec 2, 2007 9:56 pm (#2270 of 2275) This is Keith Law's projection of the sandwich round order. >The sandwich round's order, assuming all of the remaining free agents who were offered arbitration sign with other clubs, would be the following:>> 31. Minnesota (for Torii Hunter) 32. Milwaukee (for Francisco Cordero) 33. NY Mets (for Tom Glavine) 34. Philadelphia (for Aaron Rowand) 35. San Diego (for Michael Barrett) 36. Milwaukee (for Scott Linebrink) 37. Kansas City (for David Riske) 38. San Francisco (for Pedro Feliz) 39. Houston (for Mark Loretta/Trever Miller) 40. Oakland (for Shannon Stewart/Mike Piazza) 41. St. Louis (for Troy Percival) 42. Atlanta (for Ron Mahay) 43. Chicago Cubs (for Jason Kendall) 44. San Diego (for Doug Brocail) 45. Arizona (for Livan Hernandez) 46. NY Yankees (for Luis Vizcaino) 47. Boston (for Eric Gagne) 48. Houston (for Mark Loretta/Trever Miller) 49. Oakland (for Shannon Stewart/Mike Piazza) 50. San Diego (for Mike Cameron) "

Not sure how expensive he'll be. But the word suggests he wants "only" 3 years, not the 5 or 6 that a normal American FA would want. 2nd, he's a FA, so while he'll cost a lot of money, he'll cost only money. Lou has (rightfully) said that FA doesn't offer other satisfactory alternatives, so that if not Fukudome, they'll trade. To get a good RF by trade will cost serious *talent*, as well as money. So in a sense, Fukudome may well be less expensive, given that losing talent in trade is a real cost.

Does anybody have an official link listing all of who were and weren't offered arbitration? That will be helpful in evaluating which picks go ahead of kendall and which behind. The only two keys that were not arbed that I've seen were Milton Bradley and A Jones, both of whom would have yielded picks ahead of Kendall.

Uh, are you sure that's not right? Because what you wrote doesn't look right from what I'm seeing. ...I don't understand how Percival gets a pick ahead of Kendall. I've seen it written a number of times that the picks are handed out according to rating. ..... Yes, I'm sure. What you've seen written a number of times isn't right. The way it works is that the sandwich is subdivided between A's and B's. The A's come first. Within the A's, it's based on the record of the team who lost the guys, not on the relative score of the player. Same for the B's. Just as the Cardinals will draft in the 1st round ahead of us, because their record was worse, so also they will draft ahead of us in the B-section of the sandwich round. Even though Kendall outscored Percival, that doesn't matter. Both were B's, and the Cards draft ahead of us in the B round just as they do in every other. I don't have a link to this rule, so of course you are free to doubt it until you see it confirmed by a more official source. I'm not sure where to get a detailed presentation. But as evidence, think about the Juan Pierre pick we got last draft. We got the very first B-pick in that draft. (The Donaldson sandwich pick came immediately after the A picks.) It was because we had the worse record of the B-picking teams, not because Pierre was the highest scoring B. (You can find the Elias scores from last year to confirm this.) And last year was already operating under the most recent union contract, so the Pierre precedent is relevant to the current rules.

Who stated that, and where? It isn't true. Four Type A's have already switched teams (Glavine, Cordero, Hunter, and Linebrink), and will give picks ahead of Kendall. Percival will give a B pick ahead of Kendall, brocail a B behind. So if every other free agent resigns with their own team or gets non-arbed tomorrow, Kendall's pick would be #36, I think. But there are still at least 6 Type A guys left, and around 20 Type B's left. So Kendall's pick can easily be bumped well lower than #41. Obviously some of those Type B's will be from teams who had better records than us, so those picks will come after Kendall's. And obviously some/most of the FA's will not generate comp picks, either because they resign with original team or because original team does not offer arb. So given how weak and small the FA class is this winter, I think kendall may well get us a pick in the mid-40's. But 35-41, that's not right. Arb-offer day is tomorrow, Dec 1. So if we go to the work, we'll have a much better grasp of how many comp-eligible FA's will still be out there after the weekend.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070526/ai_n19179908 Nice find. Needs to be kept in context, though. Lou would like a LH bat that can hit LH pitching. But having a lefty bat to keep the lefty pitcher from getting grooved is obviously not an overarching priority for Lou. If so, he wouldn't have been taking the lefty bats that he did have (Jones, Floyd, Fontenot) out of the lineup versus LHP. It's also clearly not *the* driving factor in Lou's quest for lefty swingers this offseason either. For example, it's clear that the interest in matsui was impacted by his swinging lefty. But not because he'd swing lefty vs LHP and disrupt them, since he bats righty versus lefty pitchers. This is a preference for Lou, not a decision maker. If he thought Jones could hit LHP as well as Craig Monroe, he'd have preferred to keep Jones in the lineup. But even in the final week he was replacing Jones with Monroe because the disrupt-the-pitcher preference was outweighed by the Jones-can't-hit-lefties factor. In the case of the lefty outfielder that they want, I'm sure they'd really like a guy who could be an every-day guy and didn't need to be removed every time a lefty pitched. But for the lefty infielder they want, I think somebody who can hold his own versus RHP while batting lefty will be hard enough to find, getting one who can hit lefties while swinging left-handed, those are rare and more expensive than Hendry is likely to afford.

Sure. I don't think he's going to get a Santana contract off of two good starts. But I certainly expect that two good September starts would be all it would take to get a $40+ contract. And perhaps with plenty of incentives built in for big stuff. Lilly deal as base, with kickers for all-star or top-5-Cy or 200 innings, etc.. If Prior is working his way successfully through the minors, and that culminates in a couple of 6IP-5H-2ER-1BB-6K outings with 90+ velocity in September, don't you think there would be at least one team who'd rather pay him $10+/year than Lilly or Carlos Silva or Gil Meche? $10+ is now the rate for a #3-4 starter, so getting $40/4 isn't a big contract, obviously. To get a $90/5 guaranteed, he'll need more than two good starts, I agree. One other angle. Starts and innings are starts and innings. But post-op guys can give starts and innings that are of a much different quality than in their prime. It's well possible that Prior will come back, healthy enough to pitch. But will perform at a level more in the Marquis or even Jerome Williams level rather than vintage prior. Not sure how many $15 or $17 contracts for 2009 that hendry will want to offer Prior based on starts, if all he needs to do is give 30 Marquis-esque starts. I'm not arguing a Prior-advantageous deal can't be constructed. I'm sure it can. But it may not be easy, and it may require that the Cubs guarantee a substantial block of cash that might be more good money thrown down the drain in the event that prior does *not* come back healthy and effective. It might be easiest to just do the one-year, and wing it from there. Hendry has never lost a player that he's wanted to keep before. Prior is not the ordinary baseball personality or player, so he may well be the first.

As all of you guys have suggested, the key is to have enough incentives aind options and stuff to make a deal preferable to Prior than taking an arb-influenced Cub-controlled one-year. I just think that prior might want a lot to give up FA. All it will take is one or two end-of-year games in which Prior looks healthy and has some stuff to get teams super interested. It may be pretty difficult to get him to give up even an unconditional option for free agency. He doesn't need 20 starts or 10 starts or many of the incentive targets. One or two promising starts is all it will take to give him major earning power. Lefty, if indeed the new contract has dropped the 80% to 60%, that makes the non-tender possibility even more unlikely.