craig

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.

Sure. But Hendry's got Murton and Soriano already in place as RH corner outfielders. He's not interested in another. He's stated repeatedly that he wants a *lefty* bat. It's possible eventually that he'll realize he's not getting what he wanted at the price he wanted, so he may go a different direction, and perhaps settle for a RH CF. But not another RH corner.

Kess, your rotation is omitting Rich Hill. He should replace your Guzman/Marshall slot. Rapada is a nice prospect. And I hope he looks so wicked and good that he's capable of being a big-leaguer right now. But he wasn't good in AAA, and his AAA pitching coach gave a different scouting report than you, stating that he was *not* ready. Said that his location and control and release-point consistency all needed improvement. (Remember, he hasn't been doing the sidearm thing for very long.) Your scouting report may be smarter or better informed than Alan Dunn's (who is now the coordinator of minor league pitching). But my guess is that the organization will listen to his evaluation, and intend Rapada to go to Iowa to work on his stuff. Certainly if Ohman gets hurt, or somebody makes a serious helpful trade offer for Ohman he could go, and perhaps Rapada could emerge as the replacement. But they aren't going to be trying to trade any of the lefties in order to make room for Rapada this winter.

1. If you carry 12 pitchers, as is normal, there are often innings for anybody who is getting anybody out. All three could pitch frequently, even if they are all lefties, if they are all pitching decently. Of the three, the one most likely to pitch bad is probably Cotts. If he's pitching badly, so that he pitches only occassionally in junk situations and "rots" on the bench, that wouldn't be a big problem. 2. Eyre has been used extensively as a full inning guy. Not sure why that needs to change. 3. Cotts is lefty and has been used extensively as a situational LOOGY type, but I believe his career splits are pretty neutral. It may be that he'd be fine for full inning work. Or long relief. 4. In Sunday Trib, Rothschild explicitly said that Cotts would get camp innings to prepare him for rotation. If through injury or Miller being rotten it turns out that intended four + Miller/Prior do not fill out the rotation, I believe that Marshall and Cotts are the next layer of rotation candidates. Ahead of Guzman (Iowa), Marmol (relief track) and Mateo. And even if he isn't actually in rotation, Cotts might well function in the 2004 Rusch role, lefty who can spot start, pick up long-relief innings, or pick up some short relief as situations demand. I'm interested in Cotts, but not really much more worried about him "rotting" in that role than any of us were worried about Rusch rotting in 2004 or 2005. 5. In the unlikely event that all 13 pitchers look healthy and good, Prior and Miller and Wood included, Miller and Cotts would probably sit as the bottom pair fighting over 12/13th spots. Miller can be released, his contract isn't large. If Cotts looks not-too-hot, I believe he may still have options left; he might perhaps get sent to Iowa. Or, if you want to keep Miller but can't farm Cotts, he'd be easy to trade. Young lefty, has had some success even if not consistently, some team will give you a prospect for him if you're just trying to clear your roster. I don't imagine his trade value will deviate too far from the Aardsma-level that it had zero games ago.

I wonder if Huff contract relates to Jones market. Perhaps some team thought they'd get Huff for little more per-year dollars than Jacque would cost, and at no cost in talent. Perhaps with Hoff off the board, that might firm up the interest in Jones. Or, perhaps the view is that Huff is a better player than Jacque. If so, the fact that it took Huff this look to get <$7/per (and he had to take it from a non-contender) might suggest that there is no market to not only pay inferior Jacque $5/year but also give up meaningful talent besides.

Thanks for the list and thinking things through. Several thoughts, obviously from my perspective: 1. Pitching is set. There is no surplus or any need to be trading surplus, unless Novoa is so considered. We've got ten pitchers, then Wood and Prior as 11th and 12th, and Miller and Novoa as the 13th and 14th pitchers. That's a surplus only if each of three things happen: a) Miller looks like serious value, b) Miller, Prior, and Wood are all three simultaneously healthy this spring, and c) the other ten pitchers are all healty. The probability of all 13 pitchers being healthy and of Miller looking so good that he's a real value, that probability is too vanishingly small to make any trades based on that assumption. Hendry may be no genius, but he's not dumb enough to assume that all 13 of his pitchers are going to be healthy at the same time, especially when three of them are Prior, Miller, and wood. 2. We need one bench player. An outfielder fits best. But, Hendry has committed CF long-term to Pie, and hasn't been willing to pay very much for a place-holder. At present, the 25th man is Felix Pie. Until he fails or until a place-holder becomes available at a reasonable cost, Pie is the 25th man. Floyd still seems a likely sign, but to large degree he seems redundant to Jones. My guess is either you keep Jones and forget Floyd, or you trade Jones and replace him with Floyd. But roster-wise, I think between the two of them they occupy one roster spot. Of course I may be wrong. If the last spot goes to Floyd but they also have Jones, then the roster is full. If so, that would require a very unexpected solution to the CF puzzle.

This is a goofy discussion. A walk is never an out, and most batted balls are, so of course walks are advantageous. And as kc notes, hits are already double-counted in OPS (counting on both slugging and OBP side), whereas walks count just once (OBP side only). But I think people should be careful in suggesting that a hitter has no control over a ball once hit. Batters have a large range in production via their batted balls. So within the world of contact, there is a world of difference between one hitter and the next. *There is a wide range in how many of those batted balls go over the wall for HR's. And while a hitter can't control all his contact to go over the wall, certainly the ability to hit the ball over the wall with higher frequency is a function of the hitter, not of randomness. I suspect most of us will also agree that a HR is better than a walk! *For balls in play, you can crush one and still be out, and dink another and end up with a hit. So there is a degree of randomness, leading to the scatter in BABIP from year to year. But, there are substantial hitter-based patterns in BABIP. It's a common misconception to suggest that since basically all pitchers have a pretty tight range of BABIP-allowed, that when hitters put the ball in play, that they must all have about the same BABIP. That isn't actually correct. There is variation of course, but there are hitters who consistently trend 30-60 points higher, sometimes more, than what other hitters do. So, there is a large element of control that hitters have over what happens with their balls in play. *The same goes for slugging. There are players who will consistently slug much higher on their balls in play than other hitters. Again, there is a meaningful control by the hitter. *Data shows that there is a substantial difference in BABIP on balls-in-play with no strikes versus with 2-strikes. It makes sense that hitters are trying to defend against the K with 2 strikes, and end up swinging at a lot of bad balls that they hit with less authority. One other aspect on the walk/hit thing: there is a larger range on players batting-average-on-batted-balls (between good hitters and bad hitters) than there is in IsoD between patient, disciplined hitters and hackers. Vintage Bonds is a freak in both cases, of course; he had some fabulous averages on batted balls, while also having some extraordinary IsoD. I'm not saying that walks, pitch selection, and plate discipline aren't extremely desirable and valuable. But the OBP difference between the best and worst non-Bonds walkers in the league is not as large as the OBP difference between the best and worst non-Bonds hitters (in terms of overall OBP or in terms of OBP-on-batted balls). I know Hendry or Dusty made some dopey comment about this during the season. I can't remember the details, but the gist was the view that when you look at the top OBP guys, they are dominated by guys with strong batting averages. And that when you look at any offensive player, even the most walk-effective, walks makes only a modest fractional contribution to their OBP. With a high-level walker plate-discipline guy, even those normally get 3-4 hits per every walk. Duh, what a genius conclusion: walking is important, but hitting is too!

Especially since the goal should not be averageness. .341 was the 17th best leadoff OBP in baseball last year. You had to beat .350 to be top 10. .... You should be disappointed in a .340 OBP out of leadoff. Just like you should be disappointed in a ...an 81-81 record. Yeah, it's kind of acceptable. And his SLG definitely means his overall production will be better than most. But a .340 OBP is definitely at the very bottom of what you'd want at leadoff, and .350-.360 should be what you get. Sure, I agree with all that. But, we know that Soriano is going to bat leadoff. It's seemed to me that with Soriano, the largest complaint about him has always been his OBP. If the worst thing about his game is still average, and other parts are well above average (power, OPS, baserunning, arm...), being average in one aspect but above average in others still gets you beyond 81-81. And, of course, Soriano did come in int he .350-.360 OBP zone last year, which is what you wanted to be in the upper eight. So it's not clear that even in his worst characteristic, that he won't still be an advantage player. Abe was interested in Theriot at leadoff. He might be OK there too. But, it's not like he projects to OBP any better than Soriano, and probably worse. (Given his career IsoD, he'd need to hit around .280 or better to make .340 OBP, and that's not that easy when you don't get (m)any hits via HR.) Obviously we'd like to be above average at every aspect of every player's game. But, we know that's not going to happen. If we're average or below at too many, it will neutralize those areas and players who are above average and settle you at .500 (or worse). But, I think we do have at least a chance to have some real assets, well above average. Soriano overall at leadoff (thanks to power), Aram, Lee, Murton/Floyd/Jones, Barrett, I think we have a good chance to be above average, perhaps significantly so, at C, 1B, 3B, LF, and RF. I think Z is likely to be well above average. Hill has at least a chance, and perhaps even Lilly or Prior might end up being above average. The bullpen has a chance to be above average. We'll see how many of those spots actually stay healthy and produce above average. But I'm pretty confident several of them will. The only spot where I'm pretty certain we'll get below-average production from is SS, and even there it's not clear that with defense considered that it will be much below average. (If Izturis posts a .670 OPS with a .315 OBP, and plays among the top 3rd of SS's defensively, the net position wouldn't be a serious drag.) Obviously we've got a lot of places with a chance to perform well below average. Marquis, Lilly, even Hill, certainly the Miller/Marshall spot, Dempster, SS, DeRosa, CF, and whatever positions that might get injured. We may have more liabilities than assets once guys actually play and the injuries actually play their part. But there's at least a chance that we'll get average or close from the worst spots, well above average at a bunch of spots, and there will be enough well-above-averages to make the composite team well above 81-81.

Career situational stats in lead-off...: Lead-Off (2052AB) .291/.340/.544/.884 ========== I don't have the 2006 numbers, but over the previous 5 years the NL OBP average was in the .328 range. .340 is not a low OBP. It's my view that leadoff should be especially good at OBP, obvious table-setting spot. I forgot how to retrieve the leadoff OBP average, but I know for sure that NL-average leadoff OBP is considerably lower than .340. A good way to not make outs is to hit a HR. But many teams put fast, low-HR guys at leadoff, while putting their best hitters (for OBP as well as for power) in the 3-5 spots. So, if Soriano plays at his career .340 OBP with .884 OPS at leadoff, he will be way above leadoff-norm for OPS, and somewhat above leadoff normal for OBP. Obviously OBP would not be his signature virtue; but he'd be better than league normal. (Personally, I'd put Theriot's over/under for OBP at .340 also.) Soriano had a good last year, and took some more walks. It's possible that he's recognizes some value in doing that, and may do a little better for walks and OBP than his career norm, too. If he was to end up putting up years of .355-.360 OBP at leadoff, that would be a strong asset relative to league normal for leadoff. I think there are some advantages in having Soriano lead off. I know there are multiple reasons why he'd seem better suited elsewhere, and other have (or will) make those points. But there are some positives about using Soriano #1: 1) A lot of guys with plate discipline problems recognize that at leadoff they need to try to get on base, and that a walk has virtue. A 3rd or 5th, the same guy might view his job as hitting for power, and might abandon any efforts at plate discipline. Whatever his OBP ends up being, it may be higher leading off than at any other spot. 2) HR's, even solo HR's, are an efficient way to score runs. Having a large excess of power relative to league-normal leadoff is a plus. 3) Teams look for some power at #3-6 spots. If Sori bats leadoff, you can get somebody else with some power batting 5th. Sori + #5 hitter will likely combine for more HR's than if you used Sori + #1 hitter, in years ahead, since in the latter case they might well content themselves with a no-power leadoff guy in the Pierre/Theriot mold. 4) There is a chance that Felix Pie will become a Cub and become an important component of the team over a number of years. The Cubs always want to have a leadoff man. If soriano isn't it, then there would be a natural tendency to want to have Pie fit that responsibility, one which he seems ill-suited to fit. With Alf leading off, then if/when Pie does arrive, you can bat him 2nd or 8th or 7th or 6th or whatever, for years if necessary, without having a constant struggle of needing him to bat leadoff, but then being dissatisfied when he's sometimes a dysfunctional leadoff hitter. 5) Soriano will hopefully be an offensive asset. He'll get more PA leading off than batting 5th. 6) I like to play with the lead. If Soriano leads off with a HR, that's a nice way to start a game. And, if he leads off with a double, there is less likelihood that some bunting manager, whether his name be Baylor or Baker or Piniella or the next manager(s) after Lou will bunt with Alf on 2nd than if you have some Murton or Theriot-type dude on 1st base. I know this is mostly a Murton board, and there is much reason to think he'd be very nice batting high in order. But I think the Cubs will likely use Murton as a middle-of-the-order guy, and bat him 5th. He's a good hitter with guys on base, a good situational hitter. He's got some power. And I think OBP is quite helpful at #5, since there will often be guys on base already and when he gets on as well, whether by hit or walk, it's conducive to big innings. It's also my hope down the road that if Pie does eventually develop into an effective offensive player, having Murton getting on base at #5 in front of Barrett and Pie will not exactly waste Murton's on-base situations.

Only a couple of posts, including the original, included specific projections. My own expectations differ some: I think Lee, Pie, Murton, Z, Hill, and Miller are all somewhat overoptimistic, and Marquis, DeRosa and Izturis are a bit pessimistic. But it's interesting that goony's projection has the main players combining to OPS over .800 (the original poster's main group averaged out to .820). Goony's 6 pitchers average out to 4.02 ERA; the original poster's projected starters averaged out to 3.99. I don't think the "expected" numbers are way out of line. As I say, I'd adjust some of them, but these are reasonable projections. If those projections were realized, you'd have a >.500 team. Last year the *lgOPS was .798, the previous year it was .770. If the Cubs produce in the .800-.820 range, scoring won't make winning impossible. Last year, the league *lgERA was 4.67, the year before it was 4.27. If the Cub starters are coming in with a composite ERA around 3.99-4.01, that's going to be a substantially above-average staff. (How far will depend whether the league *lgERA is nearer 4.67 of last year or 4.27 of year before). Do those projected numbers suggest a dominant rotation or a dominant lineup? Perhaps not. But they certainly project an overall team that could finish significantly above .500. Obviously projecting numbers like that is, well, just for fun. For all we know Soriano will get hurt and be replaced by Pagan, and Z will get hurt and get replaced by Mateo. Perhaps injuries of some sort will have Cedeno getting 400 AB or whatever. I'm just saying that using reasonable, non-whacko projection numbers, the Cubs could have a chance to have a pretty good team and win more than 80 games, perhaps well over 80.

Thanks guys. So, I was wrong. 17 starts, 62 pinch hitting appearances. More starts than I figured. We'll see. I guess I still see Ward as primarily a pinch hitter, with an occassional situational spot start or injury-based need starts. If Murton is hitting .720-OPS vs RHP, I'd guess Ward could get some starts. If Murton has a bad ankle, or jams his thumb or whatever, Ward could get some starts. But I don't really get the sense that if Murton is healthy and producing vs RHP, that Ward is likely to take many if any starts from him. Jones or Floyd, different story. But I don't think Murton needs to worry much about Daryle Ward.

Last year, Ward got 130 AB in 98 games. I assume he had a few 2-AB games following double switch type deal. I don't know where to get the pinch-hitting stats. But basically, that looks to me like he was basically a straight pinch hitter. If he started 8 games and got 35 AB in those 8, that would leave 95 AB for the remaining 90 games. So, pinch hit about 90 games, a couple of times stay in on a double-switch and get a second AB. Either way, it looks like he started less than ten games. I don't think Ward is going to provide any threat to Murton's playing time. Unless murton is really dying versus RHP. Floyd or Jones, different story.

To make such a proclamation is a bit premature, I would think....If I were to state to you that DeRosa were considerably worse with the bat than Walker, and considerably worse with the glove than Neifi, would that be enough to say he'd be "worse by far?".... Rob, Walker posted a .742 OPS for the Cubs in his 318 Cub AB last year. I'm not crazy, I don't expect DeRosa will match the .800+ OPS he had last year, or the .860+ OPS he carried in August (or so I read somewhere). But I think it's being excessively negative to project that DeRosa this year is likely to do "considerably worse" than Walker's .742 from last year. I think .742 is a fair over-under for DeRosa's offense. My guess is that if he deviates substantially from that, it's more likely to be on high side rather than the low side. .742 would be nothing to get excited about. But relative to the composite 2B output we got last year pre-Theriot, between Walker/Hairston/Neifi/Cedeno, I'd think elevating from terrible to .742-mediocre would represent a substantial upgrade. Likewise at SS. Cedeno was .610-OPS last year, with .271 OBP. I'm not an Izturis backer, and I'm not suggesting he's the guy we should have at SS or that his contract is a good value or anything like that. But to be objective, it's hard to project that Izturis is going to OPS below .610, or OBP below .271. Izturis has been horrific in each of the last two years; but in neither was he worse than .610, or or below .295 OBP. again, I'm not arguing that DeRosa or Izturis are good choices. Just that it's going to be almost impossible, even for guys of such low caliber as DeRosa and Izturis, to be as nonproductive as our SS/2B positions were last year. The 2007 Cubs are almost certain to get somewhat better OFFENSE from 2B and SS than was produced in 2006. Ditto at 1B. 3B, hopefully as much or more (Aram had his lowest OPS in 3 seasons...). Hopefully as much or more in left. (Murton had some tough times early, so much so that Hairston was taking some LF AB when Murton was slumping so badly vs RHP). The Cubs had a composite .782 OPS in left. Either Murton alone or Murton in combo with Floyd or Jones is likely to at least equal and very probably exceed what we got from left last year. Center could be a supremely pathetic blach hole, if it's Pie and Pagan. But, Pierre was .718 OPS last year. Pie could be awful, but really, .718 is such a low reference point that it won't be easy to lose all that much ground there. Right, Jones was .833, Soriano career is .835. We should at least match, and if Soriano is going to deviate from his career, I'd think he's more likely to go over than under. So, it seems to me that at 6 of the 8 positions, we're likely to at least match and perhaps exceed the 2006 OPS. At 1st by a bundle. Hopefully by strong amounts in right, at 2nd, in left, and at SS. Center, who knows, maybe once it all shakes out Jones will still be standing in right (in which case, expect some dip), but Soriano being a monster jump over Pie in cneter. Catcher, both Barrett and Blanco are unlikely to match their 2006, so I expect a drop there. Still, I look for an improved offense in 2007. Improved enough? Maybe not. But improved at a lot of positions.

My recollection is like yours, that as a starter he tended to struggle with his control more in his first inning, and then sometimes settle down later on. He certainly did look dominant during that 2005 stretch. It's possible that when you pitch only once every 5th day, perhaps it's harder to find your control than when it's every other day. May also be harder when you're trying to establish your curve and change, when starting, then if you come out and it's primarily fastball attacking, which might be more the case in relief. But I agree, the ability to throw strikes in his first inning will be an importnat question for Kerry as a reliever.

Two other notes: 1) We'll see about this Floyd stuff. Seems the Cubs have supposedly been "close" to signing Floyd for about 6 weeks. I wouldn't assume this is any different. 2) If you did sign Floyd, what in the world would you do with Jones? I know: trade him. (Actually, I know all of you guys would play him in center, or play Soriano in center and Jones in right. So I should have said, "what in the world would Hendry do with Jones", given that Hendry does *not* want either Jones or Soriano in center.) To trade Jones this late, what would you trade him for? The roster is almost all completed. The pitching staff is already complete; you aren't going to trade Jones for a relief pitcher (why?), and the kind of starter you could get for Jones would be worse than about 9 other candidates, if all of our candidates are semi-healthy. You aren't going to trade Jones for an infielder. Infield is set, plus Theriot as utility guy, and to some degree Cedeno as a reserve at Iowa in case of injury. To trade Jones for some 6th infielder utility Macias type, that doesn't really equate. If you have Floyd and Murton for left, and Soriano for left, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to trade Jones for a corner outfielder, either. Why? the notion of trading a corner outfielder for a corner outfielder, that doesn't equate either. Really the only thing you'd want to trade him for is a CF. Well, maybe that could still happen. Shoot, Jones for Church might not be that far from an equal value exchange. But, finding a fair-value CF-for-Jones trade is pretty tough to come up with, and if there was one, a guy Hendry likes who's CF surplus on a team that likes Jones and would make the deal, that obviously hasn't happened or Jones would have been traded for that CF weeks ago. Maybe yet a CF deal will work out. But otherwise, it looks to me like if you're going to trade Jones, it's going to end up being just a Jones-for-prospect trade. That might be interesting, but it may not be much fun, and seems contrary to Hendry's priority on building the 2007 team. Trading Jones for futures doesn't seem like the original plan, that's for sure. Plus, the 40-man is pretty snug. Well, not prohibitively. If you sign Floyd but trade Jones, you'd still have at least Coats to drop is you added one roster prospect, and Dopirak as well in the unlikely event you added two. But, it looks to me like jones for the best prospect(s) you can get is basically all we're likely to get back.

I think adding Floyd is interesting and appeealing on two levels. 1) Floyd has often been a very good hitter, especially against RHP. Murton has been really good against LHP. You've got a real shot that the Combo will be an .850+ OPS in LF. There's a chance that each of your four corners could produce in the .850-.950 range. Add in Barrett, who's well above catcher average offensively, and you've got the components of a really good offense, even if CF/SS/2B aren't much. 2) Many of you are mostly prioritized about Murton. I think that adding Floyd in a sense is good for Murton. Almost certain fact: Cubs have no interest in Jones in center. And, IMO, for good reason. I live in Minnesota and remember when he was both a rising prospect and a young player with the Twins. Everybody in the Twins org thought he was a defensive liability in CF then, that he was really a corner outfielder. During the many years since he did play center, he's gotten a lot stronger (HR-wise), but in the process he's gotten a lot bigger and slower. He was viewed as a bad defensive CF then; now that he's lost a lot of speed, now that he hasn't played the position in years, and now that he has no arm, he's was less likely to be able to play the bad-but-not-quite-horrific CF that he could play when he was young. How does Jones no-CF relate to Floyd helping Murton? Right now, Murton stands in a LF time-share with Jones. Jones is an established player, and he's healthy and a reasonable defensive LF (other than the throwing). If Murton shares left with Jones, I expect that Jones is going to be written in every day vs RHP, he'll probable do fine at that (his 3-4-year OPS vs RHP is .800+), and Murton will likely be limited to a pretty strict platoon. But if Floyd is added, then it's pretty clear that Jones will *not* be playing left. He'll be traded, almost for certain. And if not, they'll need to compromise and decide to stick Soriano in center after all. It's not going to be Jones, I can guarantee you that. So, if Murton is sharing left with Floyd or Jones, which would give him more chance to play and which would give him less? to me, it seems certain that Murton would have more chance to get AB's with Floyd. Floyd is often injured. Floyd is often rotten defensively. Floyd had a bat year last year, and may well perform worse than Murton even if he isn't hurt. Floyd's contract and the understanding upon signing him is that he'd be a situational player, not guaranteed full-time action. Jones, when he signed he was prett much guaranteed that he'd be a primary starter. To take that away, that's not going to happen. So, I think Floyd pickup could be good for both Cubs and for Murton.

Hendry has a LH complement, at present. His name is Jones. He and Murton might combine to make a pretty dynamic offensive LF. The only Pin quote about the lineup, he mentioned Jones, batting 5th. He mentioned Izturis possibly 2nd or 8th, but didn't mention Murton, at all. He said things might change. But until/unless Hendry makes them change, Murton is the Jones complement. And that Jones/Murton platoon would work pretty well at the #5 spot. Pie/Pagan seems to the current guys PinHendry is look at for CF, barring a transaction to be named later. Pin has never seen Pie, so I'm sure he's just going by whatever Hendry has told him. (Baker was also pretty gung-ho on Hill, Choi, Kelton, and Cruz, when all he knew about them was via Hendry-gush. Only after he saw them himself did things change.) If Pie/Pagan are CF, there's a good chance that they'll deserve/need to bat 8th. That will maybe force Pin to consider Izturis for 2nd Hendry obviously likes Izzy. Right or wrong, I assume he's hoping he'll get the best-of-Izturis. Which was: all-star, gold-glove, .288 batting averaege, and .040-.050 IsoD (each of last three years for that IsoD). If Izzy bats .280, and IsoD's at >0.040, you've got a .320+ OBP. If you combined that with a gold-glove SS, that wouldn't look so bat batting 2nd. It would look better batting 8th, but if Pie/Pagan are struggling, I can understand why a manager might prefer to keep the pressure reduced and hide them 8th. I'm not advocating, or defending. I'm just trying to understand.

I don't think this really means anything significant. Certainly not that they are one of the toolsiest org (they are not.) Averages involve everybody, real prospects and roster fillers. The average age for most orgs is heavily influenced by a small population of high-age roster-fillers at AAA and AA. New Orleans has a 33-year-old reliever where we've got 23-year-old Pigs. They might have ten guys in A-ball that are a year younger than ours, but the average is the same. What I'm suggesting is that a lot of teams have a bunch of late-20's/early-30's roster fill non-prospects in AAA and AA, who are so much older than average that they have a huge impact on the organization average. The Cubs this year had relatively few old roster-filler guys in the high minors. Pie, real young-per-league, real toolsy, and real good for average. But, Coats, McGehee, and Pignatiello were also very young for AAA. Doesn't mean they are "toolsy", or that they are very significant prospects.

If they sign Floyd, or had they signed Lofton, Coats would be next in line. I imagine his fate depends on what shakes out with the outfield. Do they trade Jones? If so, do they get a 25-man outfielder back? Do they get other 40-man roster prospect(s) in return? Do they add a roster-caliber CF? (As opposed to erstad or Finley who you'd sign to non-roster contracts and add only after somebody goes 60-day DL in camp...) If they do add a roster-calibe CF, does that happen via trade? And if so, how many (if any) 40-man roster prosects are lost in the exchange? Hard to guess how many new names will be added to the 40 before it all shakes out, and how many existing names will be traded out in the process.

What if Hendry fails to pick up a decent CF? Options: 1) Pie/Pagan get it, and stink bigtime. 2) Pie/Pagan get it, and do surprisingly well. 3) Pie/Pagan look unfit. Piniella never wanted it, but he puts one of Soriano or Jones in center. And they do really bad defensively. Horrible defensive outfield. But really good offensive outfield. 4) Scenario 4, but it turns out whichever of Jones or Soriano do respectably well defensively. You get a really good offensive outfield, and a sub-average but not prohibitively awful defensive outfield. Scenarios 2 and 4 could both end up happily-ever-after. Scenarios 1 and 3, not so much.

Interesting. Hirsch is really interesting. I'm surprrised you guys like Buchholz that much. His 5.89 ERA for Houston this year doesn't look that great. He's spend part of this year, as well as 05 and 04 in triple A, and didn't have an ERA below 4.81 in any of those seasons. And this year was his first AAA season where he nudged up over 7 K's/9. Is he really that good? I don't recall Round Rock's reputation, is that a monster homer-dome place? For some reason I'm think back in it's AA days, RoundRock was the one place in the Texas League where pitchers had a fair chance. Is that no longer true? Is he really that jazzy of a prospect? Hirsch, he's very interesting obviously. I'm just wondering whether Buckholz is just a guy, like tossing in Mateo, or whether he's a real value in his own right.