craig

Not sure using the CF average as a reference is that helpful. It's not like there are a bunch of average CFers hanging around waiting for the Cubs to invite them in, at no trade cost and at no budget cost and with no long-term commitment. The Cubs have a shot to be awful in center. If they can end up being even close to average, I think that will be a big relief to me. I think Theriot learning to play some center has merit. He's supposed to be a utility guy. Whether it's Jones or Pie, both are LH. Jones has a record of LHP problems, and Pie will have enough trouble handling RHP much less lefties. RH alternatives in center are very desirable. Pagan provides one, but his OPS was sub-.600 versus LHP last year, too. If Theriot provides another candidate, I think it's worth at least considering.

I would disagree on this. I agree on putting him behind Gallagher, who has shown that he has a major league fastball (speed/movement/command factored), has a shot at some good breaking pitch(es), and has already had success in AA. But I think a $10 guarantee and Wilken saying that he ranked Sam as the #1 guy tells you something about how the Cub scouts rank Sam for talent. Very high. They may be wrong, of course. But since we're basically projecting Sam, Huseby, and Pawelek on scouting opinions rather than on demonstrated results (Huseby has hardly any, and Pawelek showed neither exceptional velocity or command this past summer), I don't see why the default wouldn't be to go with the guy Wilken seems to strongly prefer. I think the Cubs have invested quite a bit of scouting time on Sam. It's at least possible that their high opinion of his potential is reasonably informed. [/i]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070119cubsdeal,1,2250341.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines Maybe posted on other board. But if this thread is correct, the money in the deal is unbelievable. Claims he got a $10/5 guarantee, with Cubs having two more option years that could make it $16.5. That's some serious money. For right or wrong, I think the Cubs might like this cat more than we'd understand why based on the BA-published scouting reports.

I also think the value of average players is sometimes undervalued. A black hole can neutralize the advantage that a plus player provides. In Lee, Aram, Z, I believe Soriano, I believe Barrett (at least offensively), I hope Hill, the Cubs have a number of players with a chance to be significantly above-average relative to the league. If the rest of the team was average accross the board, you'd be in the playoffs pretty regularly. There can be value in a prospect even if he doesn't end up being more than an average player. Iimagine how much it would have helped had Corey and Mitre and Cruz proved to be at least average, even if not stars?

Players have deviant results in small sample sizes all the time. But hitters do make adjustments, and sometimes they matter. It's at least possible that a young hitter like Cedeno has done that, for the good? Who knows what that might be. Perhaps something to get back toward the comfort level and plate coverage that he had in 2005. Probably just a meaningless small-sample fluke, but it's at least possible that it bodes well for future. Cedeno showed enough good in 05 to think he had a chance to be good. He showed enough bad in 06 to think he might be worthless. (His defense, hustle, and game awareness also seemed often unsatisfactory.) Given the Izturis contract and situation, I would certainly like to see Cedeno get the year at Iowa and see if he can reestablish himself as a plausible, acceptable low-cost SS down the road. One other hopeful thought. Some adjustments take a while to pay off. Cedeno got himself out on a lot of bad balls in 2006, and walked little. His winter and playoff walk rate has been fine, nothing special but 10% or so. But that hasn't been continuous. Over his first 50 AB he had only one walk. So his next 100 AB involved a lot of walks to catch up, and he's sustained decent rate in playoffs. It's possible that he made a change, resulting in the somewhat abrupt increase in walks received, that it didn't pay off in terms of improved hitting right away, but that now he's reaping some benefits in his hitting? One can always hope.

No, I didn't say he doesn't have enough power to play left. I think it's entirely possible that he will. It's possible that he won't, but it's too soon to know either way. He would have Jones like numbers at the corner at best according to what you wrote, correct? No. I think having Jones-like numbers is quite possible for him. More probable than that he ends up with D Lee or Aram numbers. I posted a hypothetical using basically Jones-like numbers. To illustrate how that would be definite value combined with Kotsay-like CF defense, but would not be much above average in left. And yes, I think it's well below probable that he out-OPS's Jacque 06. But "at best " I think Colvin has at least a chance to be much better than Jacque. At best he could hit 35 HR's. At best he could walk 10% rather than 6.5%. At best he could K 15% rather than 22%. At best he could be a .900+ OPS who runs the bases much better than Jacque 06 and plays much better outfield than Jacque 06 (at best a much better arm). Most short-season prospects never reach their "at bests". It's certainly less than likely that either Pie or Colvin will ever consistently out-OPS the .833 OPS we got from Jacque 06. But both certainly have the "at best" potential to do so.

No, I didn't say he doesn't have enough power to play left. I think it's entirely possible that he will. It's possible that he won't, but it's too soon to know either way. I'm kind of thinking that if he doesn't hit enough HR's, it likely won't be for lack of strength, but rather because he just doesn't hit the ball on the nose often enough.

Some Colvin thoughts: 1) he was 20 years old, away from home for the first time, rich for the first time, and stronger than when younger. Playing every day for the first time, doing baseball from January till September for the first time. Things could change. 2) On power: some have posted that he lacks LF power, somebody made Grace analogy, etc.. That may be true. But Colvin hit 11 HR's in 200-some AB for Boise, at age 20. Qualitative scouting reports suggest that he's got good bat speed (which is good for power), and that he's got a lot of room to get bigger and stronger. Lots of strong guys never hit a lot of HR's, and plenty of guys who aren't all that super strong hit quite a few. Hitting the ball solid is more important than being a physical hulk. Also, Wilken is a different personality than Fleita/Hendry, not nearly the gusher. So when he says that Colvin isn't really a power guy, that may mean nothing more than that he doesn't profile as a super hulk like Dopirak or Ryan Howard or Jim Thome, or have the distance mongo power of Ryan Harvey. But it doesn't necessarily mean thathe doesn't have the chance to perhaps hit 20-35 HR's a year. Who knows? I think it's very important that he does develop as a dude with at least reasonable HR output. 3) The HR's are big deal. If you K 20% of your AB, you can still hit .280 if you're getting a HR every 20 AB. But if you're K'ing 20% of your AB but you average 50 AB/HR, then hitting for a useful average becomes very difficult. 4) The two offensive profile things that seem established at this point is that he doesn't walk much, and he does K pretty much. We'll see how that goes. Some guys improve some in both areas, and in Tyler's case neither were so far off in his first season that modest incremental improvement might make these satisfactory. I also think there is justification for hope in these areas because he was quite streaky. (I know, that goes with hitting, but his seemed more so than usual.) Sometimes when guys improve, they learn to better sustain the good times and better minimize the pits. But my qualitative recall is that Colvin was very, very hot for a while, but that there were periods where he racked up tons of K's in modest time periods. 5) On bunting and "middle of order". Well duh, if he ends up being Barry Bonds, you won't want him bunting much. But we have no idea what he'll become, really. Yes, if his pitch selection improves, his power builds, and he's able to lock into the good colvin, he's got a chance to be a quality middle-of-order hitter. But it's also well possible that he'll never be a #2 or #7 hitter, or a utility player, or whatever. If he makes it at all, we can't assume that he won't be in a position where doing an occassional bunt might not be expected. (By bunt-loving big-league managers, even if you assume every manager who ever calls for a bunt is an idiot.) 6) CF vs LF. My expectation is LF. But I hope he plays mostly CF this season. Suppose, for example, that he ends up as a guy who K's 20%, 1HR/20AB, BABIP's at .300, and averages a below-average but not Neifi-esque 7 walks/100 AB. That would probably get you a guy with a .275 batting average, a .330-type OBP, and an OPS around .800. For a LF that's not bad, but not special. But for a CF, that would be very strong. If it turns out he could play a Mark Kotsay-caliber CF, that could be a high-value player. I doubt that. But I'd like to see.

We do? How do we know this. Well, I guess I was wrong, or may be wrong. Depends on how accurate or not BA may be. But BA has now published that Sam and the Cubs did indeed agree to this $7.25 contract. The following is the opening paragraph from an article dated Jan 11. ======= By Jim Callis January 11, 2007 CHICAGO--In an effort to steer righthander Jeff Samardzija away from the NFL, the Cubs gave their 2006 fifth-round pick a draft-record $7.25 million bonus. He'll be paid in full if he stays with baseball through 2010. ======== Given the mixed opinions on BA's reliability, I suppose it's possible that they, too, have gotten it wrong. But it now appears fairly widely reported.

This is totally unrelated, but is a Q for Tim or somebody who knows. I got an email telling me that I got a private message from NSBB on my NSBB account, but unfortunately I am too poor to actually pay for NSBB premium privileges. (Sorry, Tim.) How is it that I have some private account without being a premium paying customer? I've gotten these on occassion before. And wondered if I was missing out on some really interesting messages or questions or information. Is there any way to access such messages without paying? Or if not, to close the account so that nobody thinks they are actually commincating with me but I can't actually read it? (I'm just imagining somebody sending me a message asking me to correct something I said wrong, or to apologize for something I said wrong, and then I look like a creep because I never even respond or something...)

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/K/Mike-Kinkade.shtml Kinkade's a career .350-OBP guy in the majors (400+ AB). In his >3500 minor league AB's, he's a career .389-OBP guy (career .325 batting average). He's got quite a spectacular minor league hitting/BA/OBP career. Not much for power or defense. He'll be a useful contributor to Iowa's offense. And if the Cubs need him for some reason, he won't be an auto-out.

I think this is the case. I don't think Fontenot is in the picture at all from the Cubs view. I don't think they like his defense enough to want him anywhere. McGehee is ahead of him at 3rd, Moore is passing him at 3rd, Theriot is ahead of him at 2nd, Cedeno is probably ahead of him (for defensive reasons) at 2nd. And hopefully Patterson will move past him at 2nd as well. To be honest, I'll be rather surprised if Fontenot is still with the organization this year. I can't remember, maybe he could do 2B in AA, I don't think Daytona had much for 2B. McGehee could have an interesting situation as a utility man in AAA. You'd think Moore would be 1st choice at 3rd, Patterson first choice at 2nd. Not sure where McGehee will play. Other variation is that all three of McGehee, Moore, and Eric Patterson might all be bouncing around. Moore could possibly try some LF, maybe even RF, or perhaps even some 2B? Patterson could certainly try some CF, maybe some LF, and if he got some action at 3B that would help him. Not sure if McGehee could play a little 2B or 1B or C. With the possible exception of Patterson, none of those three guys is likely to come up as a full-time starter. They'll each need to crack the league, if they ever do, as bench players. Being comfortable at more than one position increases your chances of that a lot.

I think BA is what BA is, for better or for worse. And that is a reflection of what scouts and scouting directors tell them. Absolutely they don't watch and scout guys that much themselves, so their opinions are not based on their own limited observations. They are simply passing along what they are told by other scouting people in the busiiness. That's useful, to a degree. And if there are certain players who seem underappreciated or overappreciated, that probably reflects the biases or underappreciation or overappreciation of the scouting community, for better or for worse. I agree that they tend to stick with former favorites for a long time, often too long. To some degree that may again reflect sources, perhaps to some it's just BA. Hendry kept giving the love to David Kelton long after there was no actual progress; BA kept putting Kelton top-10 even though he wasn't showing anything. Was BA the dopes? Or was BA just reflecting that in this particular case, Hendry and Fleita were dopes, were unable to adjust their opinions, and kept feeding BA dopey confidence about Kelton? Is it BA that's doped out on Mark Rogers; or is it maybe some of their scouting sources who continue to believe? Or both? The Cubs gushed up Dopirak, but he's produced only in A-. You'd think BA should drop him big-time. But, even after his horrific Daytona, Hendry still put him on the roster, and Fleita still gushed him up as if the Daytona debacle was meeaningless. So, BA's overappreciation for Dopirak may be a somewhat true reflection of their source's overappreciation for Dopirak. Several other thoughts: 1) They cover a lot of guys. So the depth with which they can know each of them is limited. No surprise that they aren't too in-the-know about many of the hundreds of prospects they cover in their book. 2) I think their info is often way old. Especially the further down a guy is in a team's ranking. I recall them still talking about Pinto as a slender projectible when he'd already chunked out extensively. 3) I think for guys drafted high, they start with interst and they tend to stick with those favorites way too long. (Ala Kelton and Dopirak and Brownlie.) Again, not sure how much of that is just BA versus sources. But I think the lower a guy was drafted or the lower he is on their list, the less reliable and the less thorough their info and sources are. They may talk to a whole bunch of scouts about Pie or Guzman or Veal, or perhaps this year about Gallagher. I don't think they'll be quizzing nearly so many about, say, Matt Avery, or Rocky Cherry, or Clay Rapada. The lower you stand on their list, the more likely that the info will be incorrect or that their relative valuation will be incorrect.

I think those are all excellent points, goony. That the injury-risk as a pitcher might be comparable to as an NFL dude. That when his first baseball contract expires, he might be pre-arb, whereas if he signed a 2nd NFL contract, it would be for some money. And that he's already established that he's an NFL-caliber player and will be in the NFL. He may never become a big-league caliber pitcher, either for health reasons or simple performance/control/stuff reasons. I think it will be even harder than you suggested for the Cubs to get him if the decision is based on dollars. I think anywhere in the 1st round NFL would be a better bet. Not unless he'd slip to middle or later 2ns would I expect the NFL money to be definitely inferior. And I'd kinda think that the rush and the excitement and the immediate-big-show for NFL would likely give that the tiebreaker edge unless baseball money (or something else about baseball) is clearly preferable. Back in the Quincy Carter days, I recall thinking about this. Which would be more fun, playing outfield where you'll average maybe 3 catchable balls per game, and where you bat 4 times a game and usually fail in 3 of those; vs QB, where you're active and central in every pplay on offense. Clearly the QB. Perhaps for Sam, it might be different. If you're a star you'll get some balls, but in an average game a 2nd or 3rd receiver might only get a couple of balls thrown your way all game. Whereas a pitcher, when he's pitching he's the center of everything. Neither a WR nor an outfielder have the ability to control a game and be central to everything the way a QB or a pitcher can.

We know Sam didn't actually signed this alleged (but unconfirmed) $7 contract. But we also know that the Cubs could offer him guaranteed money if he was willing to commit fulltime to baseball. The $7 offer was probably exaggerated even if there was something to it. But, let's suppose that the Cubs were willing to offer, say, $5/4 or $7/5 of guaranteed money to Sam. How low in the NFL draft would he need to go for a $5/4 contract (guaranteed) be economically competitive? I'm not sure, but here is a link to the Green Bay Packers rookie contracts from the 2006 draft. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=479350 *AJ Hawk, the 5th pick overall, got $15 guaranteed and a $36/6 deal overall. *College 47th and Jennings 52nd got $3.3/4 and $2.9/4 deals, with $1.7 and $1.5 guaranteed. *3rd rounders got <$1 guaranteed, and <$2.5/4 overall. If Cubs were to guarantee $5/4, that would appear superior to what a mid-2nd round pick would get. The total money is largere, and the guaranteed money would be more than double. How much higher than 47th would he need to go for an NFL contract to exceed a $5/4 Cub guarantee? Two other NFL Q's: Can you pay your picks whatever you like, or are there slot restrictions? In other words, might he slip to mid/late 2nd because of Cub issues, but then have the team that drafts him sign him to late-first round contract anyway? Or will we know on draft day what his contract will look like, more or less? Second, how high does he project to go? I've checked one or two NFL mock drafts, and they still have him in the 20's. Are those unrealistic? Obviously the other question relates to what he'd rather do. The NFL is the most popular game in America. So money comparable, might going NFL be more jazzy than pitching baseballs? Or, being in the NFL for sure seems more fun than pitchingfor Peoria and Daytona and Iowa. Might not the Cubs need to clearly win $$-wise to offset the natural appeal of being immediately in the big NFL show? I suppose the flip side is the health and longevity factor. Average NFL career is 3 years or so? So the probability of getting even a 2nd NFL contract is iffy? (Although higher for sure for a high pick like Sam will be...) Whereas if he makes it in major leagues, he could easily have a 10-year career and make tons. Then I suppose the other factor could be locale. If being local in Chicago is a draw, maybe that would break a tie with getting drafted by New Orleans or Cleveland or something.

This is a serious question: I don't remember my rules well enough. There are rules regarding the trading of free agents, but the details matter. Do any of you know the particulars? Is it that you can't trade a FA before June? Can't during his first year? Can at any time, but if so he can then demand another trade after year is done? What are the limitations, if any, on being able to trade Marquis, perhaps as soon as this summer? If Prior looked good (or at least good enough to hold a rotation spot, even if not as good as Prior prime), and Guzman was making a compellling case, and the other four starters were all healthy, could you open a spot by trading Marquis, perhaps as soon as June or July? By accounts, there were other shoppers interested in Marquis. The concept that he might be tradable is not inconceivable. *It would be inconceivable, of course, if he's pitching at te 6.03-type level (or worse). *But if he's moving along at a 4.3 ERA, for example, might his $21/3 contract look very acceptable to a team with pitching problems? OK, it's almost certainly inconceivable. If he's pitching badly enough that Hendry would shop him, nobody will want him. And if he's pitching well enough so that Hendry could trade him, Hendry probably won't consider that. Probably the only scenario is if the rotation is stuffed, Marquis is pitching decently, Guzman is pitching really well but is still blocked, but despite all those good things the team is still out of the picture. Not too likely.

This is sad, but true. Thanks for signing Marquis, Jim. I honestly don't understand the logic from eithe rof you guys. Are you guys 100% convinced that Prior is healthy or something? That doesn't make any sense. Or that Wade Miller is is certain to be healthy and good? Or that Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and best-of-Prior-Miller will never miss any significant number of starts? Seems pretty illogical to me. If Guzman is ready to be so good that his presence in the Cub rotation would put the NL on need-to-worry-alert, what would be necessary to preclude him from getting a significant opportunity this year? a) Prior or Miller block him. Certainly if Prior is pitching healthy enough, the decision won't be based on competition. Even if Guzman is throwing better than Prior, Prior will be given the spot. But how likely is it that Prior will be locking down a rotation spot for 33 starts? That's the only way Guzman can be blocked out even if he's pitching really well. That seems so unlikely, I'm not sure it's logical to be so bitter about such an unlikely situation. b) Miller: If a spot is between Miller and Guzman, obviously Miller gets the tiebreaker. But if Guzman is looking so good that it's criminal to keep him in Iowa for a while, how likely is it that Miller will be so good that he blocks him? That seems super unlikely too, given Miller's questionable arm recently, his junk stuff recently, and his disposably cheap contract. If Guzman can't beat out Miller, I expect that will say more about Guzman (negative) than Miller being great. And if Guzman is throwing great, but Miller is still so great that he continues to block Guzman, well woo hoo. c) What if Guzman is pitching great, but one of Miller/Prior are so healthy/great that they block him out of that rotation spot. Would even so unlikely a scenario block a Guzman-pitching-great from getting in? Only if the not only the Prior/Miller great but the Z-Hill-Lilly-Marquis foursome **all** stay healthy. Possible, I suppose. Probable, not hardly. Pitching is tough on pitchers. Z is obviously overdue for the DL. So is Hill. Lilly and Marquis, they are pitchers, so DL can visit them too. Even in the fantasy world where Prior comes to camp with his arm in Cy Young healthy form, so that even a pitching-great-Guzman gets bumped to #6, good #6 starters usually get to pitch.... a lot. I'm no marquis advocate, don't get me wrong. I just think that it's illogical to act as if Guzman opportunity is closed when he's got a clear shot at #6, and the only thing between #6 and the rotation is perfect health of #1-5. When one of those is Mark Prior.

I don't agree with either of these views. I don't think they are in the least jammed up with pitching. Veal is the only notably high-ceiling pitcher they've got, and the low minors especially is thin on pitching. If there's a guy they think is the best guy available, and he's a pitcher, I think they'll take him. If anything, I'd guess they'd prefer a pitcher to a hitter. On the other hand, I think it's entirely reasonable that they'll take whatever they think is BPA. If that's a pitcher, or a hitter, a college guy or a HS guy. I don't think any "win now" urgency is going to bias what Wilken drafts. He's drafted HS plenty often, and if there is a HS guy he likes better than Brackman or whomever, I expect he'll draft HS again. I do agree that if he has the equivalent of a full spring training, that Sam would go to Peoria. And that Brackman, given how raw he is currently, would almost certainly open in short-season ball. My guess is that Brackman's status could be fairly fluid this spring. As great as some of his stuff may scout, it's also true that he had an ERA of 6.35 last spring (small sample) with a WHIP of 2.0. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Andrew-Brackman.shtml College hitters didn't have trouble getting hits off of him last spring. The scouting projection, of course, is that those results don't raise concerns, it was a small sample, he may have switched late from basketball to baseball and not been in pitching shape, and his mechanics were unrefined. So the assumption is that if he's all baseball this spring, that focus and a better sample size should tell a truer story about what he can do. Most likely, after scouts see what they see this spring, and the results, nobody will give a hoot about 28 innings last spring. But, there's also a chance that he could slip fast. Scouts are scouts, for sure. But I've gotta assume results can influence scouting projections to some degree. If he comes back with a 4+ ERA next spring, I wouldn't be surprised to see scouts start to mention not just the gush-gush positive projections, but also to begin mentioning some concerns. All I'm saying is that Brackman may well have the stuff to be a good top-3 pick and to blossom into a great major-league pitcher. But I think his lack of demonstrated success might make him a guy who, if he doesn't demonstrate some actual on-field success this season, might slip much lower than #3.

We'll see. But that's very interesting and encouraging news about the velocity. If his slider isn't that sharp, it's not that sharp. But it's a lot easier to find a way with a 94 mph fastball than when you slider is soft and you're throwing 88.

Thanks for the nice projections and the good analysis. I'd prefer to see Marmol stay in rotation, myself, just for the innings, and because he's got the best stuff of that bunch. If his control took another step forward, he'd have a lot more value in trade as a big-stuff can-pop-into-rotation-now guy than as a stup reliever. Probably his control will never be rotation-caliber, but I know I thought that about Zambrano at one point also. I'd be pretty surprised if Wells was in rotation. He's not going to start in the majors, so if he's viewed as a prospect, join the bullpen, randy. My guess is some Walrond-type vet is in Iowa rotation. Or O'Malley or somebody. I definitely think Gallagher should start at AA, barring an incredible camp. As Tim noted, his control was pretty rough at AA. And with Marquis and Lilly signed, Hill established now, Prior and Miller, Cotts, and Marshall/Guzman/Mateo/Marmol all ahead of him, there is no urgency with him. Let him do his AA thing, and hopefully sustain the velocity gains he made last year while reducing the walks. I'm interested in shaver. The account was that his chips was a minor thing, shouldn't keep him out till December much less May. He has some nice movement, but not so much velocity. If he showed up with a clean elbow and an extra 3 mph, he might suddenly be for serious. AAA and AA both look like pretty interesting rotations, potentially very strong combinations of both potential but also performance. As Tim noted, Iowa could have a very strong pen. Novoa, Marmol, Cherry, Wells (RH) and Rapada, Campusano, Pigs (LH) could be very good. A-ball scene looks pretty unclear. Not enough good prospects to fill two A-rotations, and of course you never know who catches somebody's eye in spring, or who wasn't 100% last year, or whatever. Would like to see Renshaw and Muldowney in there, and effective. Would like to see Avery pitch rotation, although that isn't likely, they rarely move a guy who has any success in relief back into rotation barring forcing circumstances. Would like to get Downs and Billek off the map. Whether Taylor stays or promotes could be interesting. Would like to see somebody improve in some substantial way.

I agree. But we shouldn't go to the opposite extreme and consider it impossible that he *might* contribute. Is it probable that Prior will be a contributor to a winning team this year? Absolutely not. But neither is it impossible. If improbable things never happened, the Cardinals wouldn't have a 13th round draft pick annually among the MVP candidates, or rehabbed Chris Carpenter annually among the Cy candidates. We shouldn't count on or expect anything from Prior. But we should at least keep in mind that it's at least possible that he might pitch productively again. It's only two seasons ago that he made 27 starts and had a 3.67 ERA. Even last year, counting his minor league innings, he actually pitched over 60 innings. Obviously his results were lousy, since his velocity was still rebuilding over most of those innings and he never got his control. Absolutely it isn't likely that he'll be fine and dandy this year. But, neither is it implausible that he might be relatively healthy enough to pitch a lot better than your average #5 starter.

With all respect, I'm not sure I see why Loretta is obviously preferable. 1. He turns 36 this season, and is getting old. 2. I don't believe his defense is very good. I don't have all the defensive metrics, but his range factor (I know, it isn't great, but it's the easy one to find) has been below-average for the last couple years. By almost half-a-player-per-game his last year in NL. I don't think Loretta offers any defensive advantage relative to DeRosa. 3. Loretta has OPS'd at .706 and .707 the last two years. Given his age, I'd guess that his recent output is probably a better predictor of future than what he was 3+ years ago. DeRosa had an .813 OPS last year. He's not likely to repeat that, but neither is he likely to fall was below his career norm and fall down to Loretta's .707 level. I don't think Loretta offers any offensive advantage relative to DeRosa. Loretta appears to be the inferior player offensively and probably defensively. Which may be why he's gotten so little market. And why Boston didn't even consider bringing him back, despite his modest price.

Interesting data, thanks for the synopsis and for the links. One thing that struck me was how bad the back-end performance is, even for the top-half teams. It's common to focus on the front-end. But it's maybe easier to really separate yourself (for the good) at the back end. Easier to have a #5 pitcher who's +1.5 relative to league than to have a #2 who's +1.5 relative to league. League #5 is 6.3, so a 4.8 ERA #5 isn't that implausible, but would give you a +1.5. For your #2 to be +1.5, you'd need to have a sub-3 ERA, which isn't that realistic. Likewise it's easier to be half a run or more better than average #4 than to be half a run or more better than an average #1 or #2. I hope that Prior or Hill shows up and outperforms the average #2 even for the top-half teams. But if the rotation is going to end up significantly above average, I think it's more likely that we'll separate above the norm at the 4/5 spots than the 1/2 spots. It's also a team game, of course. 25% of the NL teams go to the playoffs, but you don't necessarily need a top-quarter rotation. If your offense and relief are above average. Barring a Prior breakout, or Hill or Guzman doing better than I expect, I don't expect an extraordinary rotation. Nor do I expect an amazing offense, or an incredible bullpen. But I think all three aspects have a chance to be somewhat above average.

Cedeno is having a poor winter, and there has been long-standing rips about his lack of plate discpline, etc.. But he's got 15 walks in 143 AB this winter, nothing wrong with that. And IIRC, that's something of an adjustment, since early on he had hardly any. He had only 1 walk during his first 50 AB. So over the last 93 or less, he's taken 14 walks. If walking is the ultimate in offense and the portent of all good things to a hitter, perhaps Cedeno is undergoing a change of heart. Of course, if walking is the ultimate in offense and the portent of all good things for a hitter, that has yet to manifest itself over those 93 AB, since his hitting and slugging hasn't been all that super over those 93 AB. His OBP, slugging, and OPS has changed hardly at all since he converted from 1walk/50 AB to 14walk/93 AB. Still, small steps in the right direction can sometimes pay off later. Or, it could be meaningless and reflect no change in approach or pitch recognition or plate strategy.

Sure I saw his AFL numbers. They were great. But, it's a 15 inning sample size, against mostly AA-level prospects. Great enough to rank ahead of Holdzkom as 40th man, but different from ranking in the top 40. As Tim notes, the Cubs have plenty of record of protecting pitchers who they don't want to put on the immediate 25-man roster. Last year they had Ryu and Marshall. Carlos Vasquez, the dude they included in the Cotts deal, was rostered right out of A- ball. John Webb, Matt Bruback, John Koronka, Felix Sanchez, they roster pitchers all the time who have little chance of making the April roster. Shoot, this very winter they rostered Rocky Cherry. I don't think they are looking to trade Mike Wuertz in order to make room for Rocky Cherry. They roster guys for a wide variety of reasons, depending on the guy. Certainly because they think the guy has a chance to be valuable, whether sooner or later. But not normally with the expectation that he's on the roster right away. I can't remember hardly anybody who got rostered and then placed immediately on the intended April roster the following spring. (Pie is a candidate.) Rapada and Cherry are guys who, if things go well for them, might be ready soon, maybe immediately. It's nice to have guys like that on option at Iowa, can call them up whenever a problem with your intended 25-man roster guys comes up. And those are also guys who might be close enough so that some other team will draft them if unprotected. If they pitch to their best in camp, and the right injuries happen or if Rapada got picked by a real lefty-short team, maybe they'd stick. So you protect them. Wthout going out of your way to clear a spot for them on the 25-man.