craig

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.

kc, you've probably touched on this before. But my reading isn't thorough on these boards, normally. I'm not sure I follow you on this, and would be curious to see what you're thinking. I don't see any RH reliever surplus. Wuertz and Howry are value guys. Can't trade either one, because to go with only one good RH reliever is too few. Wood and Dempster are wildcards,might be useful but can't count on that. And Novoa is DL-insurance to park at Iowa. Neither Dempster nor Novoa has enough trade value to make it worth discussing. LH relievers, obviously we've got three where only two are needed. So, if there's an excess, that's the place. Hendry won't trade Eyre, even if you or I might consider doing exactly that. So, if there's an "excess", IMO, it's basically that you could afford to trade one of Ohman or Cotts. We know that Cotts has Aardsma-type trade value, meaningful but not great. Ohman, of course, has a lot more. Do you see us having more "excess" than I do? Could change later, for sure. Wood, Dempster, perhaps even Miller or Marmol might look like they can fill important roles in relief. But for now, the only "excess" I see is having two guys for the 2nd lefty spot.

I just raised the question because contractually and in terms of age, Ohman and Gonzalez are similar, and first glance at their K/BB/H/WHIP/IP looked much alike. Ohman has pitched more over the past two years, but as TT noted, he had more appearances, so he does profile as a situational lefty whereas Gonzalez seems to be a full-inning, one-inning-per-appearance late reliever. Ohman is a guy who I think has significant trade value, due to K-rate and contract. Whatever theo might like or some of us posters might be willing to offer, I guarantee that Hendry would *not* be willing to give either Eyre or Howry for $16/3 Crisp. I just thought Ohman might be somebody that Hendry might realistically be willing to trade, and who has enough value that Boston might at least think about it before answering, even if the ultimate answer might be "No".

Who knows if it's true, but interesting. Will Ohman looks an awful lot like Mike Gonzalez. Age, experience, WHIP, K/BB/H/IP, they look an awful lot alike. Ohman more healthy recently. Gonzalez obviously has better ERA's because Ohman is a HR-guy, Gonzalez not. Given the Cub situation and in the event that Boston was willing, would you trade Ohman straight up for Crisp and his $16/3 salary?

I know Giles is a huge board favorite. And I'd be really enthused to get him. That said, he was a .728-OPS last year. If he doesn't project to OPS a lot better than that, he's not that hot a value. There are obvious reasons why we could project him to do lots better. Because he had the previous three seasons. So, assuming last year was an anti-career year fluke, and he'd return to his 2003-2005 level, he'd be a good bet. It's surprising that teams haven't made that assumption and chased him hard. INcluding Atlanta itself. But, there are other reasons to wonder whether 2006 might not be a good predictor. His K-rate was in line with what it's always been, nothing flukey there. His BABIP was like .307, nothing low there and only a couple hits short of his .322 career BABIIP. So, it's not like 06 was real BABIP-flukey, or flukey bad luck. His IsoD was right around his career norm. So why did his numbers drop so much? pretty much all because his power was way reduced. Compared to 2003, when he had only one more AB, he had ten fewer HR's. Add ten HR's and both average and OBP jump almost 20 points, slugging jumps over 70 points, and OBP jumps almost 100 points. So, to large degree, I think the question is, was Giles loss of power a fluke? If so, last year was a fluke. If not, if that loss of power is real for some reason, then last year may not be a fluke. And Giles may basically project as Mark DeRosa. The obvious stats/age conclusion would be that Giles power drop was an anomolous fluke, non-sustainable, and he'll be back to normal next year. That the Braves and the league seem so uninterested in Giles is surprising, and suggests that they may have a perception other than the obvious fluke perception. Given the widespread Giles/steroids rumors, I wonder whether Atlanta and many GM's see Giles's 2006 power as what you get from a drug-free Giles?

I'm not a scout, but I also think Crisp looks interesting. Unlike most young players, he has a multi-year contract. ttp://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/boston-red-sox.html Boston apparently signed him to a multiyear extension early last season. 3 years/$15.5M (2007-09), plus $8M 2010 club option signed extension 4/06 $1M signing bonus 07:$3.5M, 08:$4.75M, 09:$5.75M, 10:$8M club option ($0.5M buyout) Is that a deal that Boston would lilke to get out from under? Or a deal they think is good value in the inflating market? Is that a deal Hendry would not like to absorb, too large for a guy he would hope to replace with Pie in the near future? Or in this market, would $5-6/year on a 4th outfielder who can switch hit and play all three OF positions and might do some pie-platoon at first be perfectly good value? And might also be very tradable if he has a decent year this year? I guess I'm wondering whether the contract works against Hendry interest. And whether the contract makes Boston more eager to move him for little cost, or whether they think it's good value and have no contractual or other reason to wish to move him, unless they get real value in return.

I haven't followed this whole thread. But it seems to me that Boras is working on Seibu as much or more than Boston. I can't find the quotes, but IIRC Boras has made two public quotes to that effect within the last week. One was something about how Seibu could make a gift or something to Mats. The other was to the effect that there were three parties involved and all three needed to be satisfied. I'm sure he's trying to squirrel more cash out of Boston. But, maybe Boston holds at $40/5, which would make their outlay $55+40/5, around $18 per year. That's a pretty serious bid on their part. And, Boras doesn't want Mats to come home with "only" $40/5. Why should he? If Boston is willing to lay out $91/5, that reflects what Mats's market value is. Why settle for only $40 when a team thinks you're worth $91? Maybe he's got no choice, and $40/5 is lots better than whatever he'd get in Japan. So, maybe he'll have to take whatever he gets. But, maybe not? If deal goes down, Seibu hauls in $51. Well, that's a killing for them. But, if deal doesn't go down, Seibu hauls in...... $0.00. That is not a killing. $21 isn't as good as $51, that's for sure.... but it's still $21 better than $0.00. Why not give Matz a "gift" of $30. $30 from Seibu plus $40/5 from Boston and Mats is getting $70/5. Maybe not what Boston values him at, if they were willing to spend $91/5, but given the circumstances it works out pretty well for Boras. *Boston pays $91/5. Stiff, but you know, pitching costs. *Boras/Mats get $70/5. Not near his market value of $91/5, but close enough to make it worthwhile. *Seibu gets $51-$30 - $21 to keep. Not nearly as sweet at $51, but, well, close enough. At least, a lot closer than $0.00. I think Boras is working on Seibu as much or more than he is on Boston. Is that contrary to the principle of how these posting things are supposed to work? Well, perhaps so. But, Boras is a clever dude. I assume he's come up with some sort of mechanism by which Seibu will be able to transmit some large chunks of money to Mats within the constraints of whatever laws apply, whether those be US, Japanese, or mlb laws. Maybe he's just bluffing Seibu, maybe they won't flinch, and maybe he'll settle for $40/5 or whatever Boston's current offer is. We'll maybe never know, other than whether he signs or not. If he does, we'll never know if or how much value Seibu "gifted" back to him to make this work out.

So who on the bullpen do we DFA? Dempster? Ohman? Wood? Wuertz? Eyre? Novoa? Howry? Cotts? None of those guys have any options remaining. Both Novoa and Wuertz have an option year left. Obviously Novoa is the first to go. That leaves you with 13 guys for the 12 roster spots. The probability that all 13 are healthy, so healthy that neither Wood nor Miller nor Wood nor anybody else needs to get sent out for more rehab nor on DL, is vanishingly small. So, while there are plenty of other reasons to object to Marquis, this is not one of them, IMO. Miller is the first to go. He's got a peanuts contract, and didn't have much arm last year. If he's looking so lousy that you can't trade him, then it will be no problem to release him or send him back to Mesa to build up see if more rehab can build up some arm strength. Ohman or Cotts are next on the block. You got Cotts for Aardsma, a fringe guy. So it's not like Cotts is some superstud. You trade him for some prospect or next year's version of Bynum or whatever. If he's looking really impressive in spring, maybe you can get somebody pretty interesting. Ohman has considerable trade value, given his K/BB/inning profile, his age, his stuff, and his contract. If you need to move somebody, some teams will be thrilled to give some very significant prospect(s) for Ohman. You've certainly got an expendable (Miller), a limited value (Cotts), and some movables (Cotts, Ohman). Another option might be Dempster. If somebody scouts him in camp and he's throwing really good, and they have a need (like when we got Alf), maybe you'd move him. It's not going to be a problem. And, the frequency with which teams have all 13 of their top 13 pitcheers all healthy at the same time is, well, very tiny teensy small insignificant. Especially when three of them come to camp as Prior, Wood, and Miller with the known problems that Prior has. This kind of fuss reminds me of last winter. After Howry and Eyre were signed, there were similar fusses. Z-Prior-Wood-Rusch-Williams-Maddux-Miller, that was six roster locks plus guaranteed Miller, and some posters were Williams advocates. Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Wuertz, Ohman, Williamson, that was 6 relievers. How horrible, it seemed the roster was all locked up with 12 guys plus guaranteed Miller, before you even got to Wellemeyer, Hill, Novoa, or Guzman. How horrible to block it all up from those young talents, how dumb for the Cubs to block the hot prospects. I sure hope things don't "unblock" as quickly this year as happened last year. But sheesh, this is not at all an overstuffed pitching staff when there is considerable reason to expect at least Prior to still be in his strengthening program, and little reason to expect miller to be any more thrilling a prospect next year than he was this past year.

I think there's a huge difference between Miller being healthy, throwing 95 mph with movement and Miller being healthy in that his arm doesn't hurt, but throwing mostly 85-87. The healthy and 94-95mph Miller, I want that dude on the team. The 86-88mph Miller, very different value, regardless of whether his arm hurts or not. The 95mph Miller, he's on the team, one way or another. The 86mph Miller, he's not bumping Hill. Listen, I won't be surprised if Prior or Miller come to camp and say their arms feel fine. But if they are throwing 83, you ship them to Mesa on rehab and have them build up their strength and velocity. The chance that Miller and Prior will both come to camp so healthy and throwing so well that you can't even consider popping them on rehab, that is so remote that it's really not worth worrying about.

Heh, I have the highest respect for Tim, and I've seen a lot of dopey trade proposals. But this is one of the worst I've seen. Or, maybe one of the worst I've seen from somebody smart. The Cubs are committed to assuming that Prior won't pitch. (For good reason). Miller is just a flier on a dispposable peanuts contract (you spend $21 on a flyer like Marquis; what does that make a $1.5 Miller investment?) The Cubs are dead set that Soriano will not play CF. (Piniella has flatly stated that he'd be in corner from the day he had press about Soriano signing till this week at meetings.) So, the Cubs are going to trade Hill because he's blocked by a $1.5 flier vet and a Prior that the Cubs completely expect to be disabled, in order to push Soriano into a position they don't consider him suited to play. Pure genius! Sorry tim, I know you were just having fun. But wow, that one is way, way, way, way, way out there.

I think the number of pitchers on the roster is now ideal, given the Miller/Wood/Prior situation. You've got 13 guys. Sure, that's an excess problem...... in the impossible event that not only do Prior, Wood, and Miller all show up healthy, but the other 10 indended guys all stay healthy. In the almost impossible event that all 13 guys do show up healthy, well, then you can worry about who's out. That's so unlikely it's not even worth fussing about. Certainly there is no need to be trading anybody on account of surplus, that's for sure. Miller is $1.5. That's your disposable contract. Guzman, Marshall, Marmol, and Mateo provide some rotation depth. None are guys you should assume are ready, although any of them might be. And, if any of them look superb in spring, Prior will be on the DL and Miller you can cut, or send to more rehab because his arm isn't still as strong as it was, or move to the pen in place of Wood or whomever else is hurt. Novoa, Marmol, and Miller provide some bullpen depth, for Wood or whomever else is disabled there. To me it seems like a pretty good balance. There's a wide open spot, so if Guzman looks like Cy Young, it's not like he's blocked. If Prior shows up and surprises, it's not like there isn't a place to put him. The only way you've got a surplus/opportunity problem is if both Prior and Guzman look like Cy Young. Well, how big of a "problem" is that likely to be? Ideally some of the Guzman/Marshall/Mateo/Marmol crowd will get a lot of Iowa time, like Hill did last year, and will dominate. So that perhaps when they do get a shot, like Hill his second round they'll really be ready, which Guzman and Ryu most certainly were not this past year. If those guys pitch well at AAA, they will be very valuable properties. Right now, they aren't really. It's not like any of them has both the polish and the stuff to be the main bait for getting Westbrook or Jennings or Vernon Wells or Brad Penny or whomever. They all look interesting but not that big-league ready. A good year at Iowa could change that a lot. Marquis could be a disaster. But I also think he has some Jacque potential. A year ago everybody was fuzzed that Jacque was getting too much too long. Where would Pie be able to squeeze in with both Pierre and Jacque blocking things? And how could you possible move jacque's contract? It took only a couple months for Jacque's value/contract to be quite movable, and now if we move him just as a salary dump, most of the posters who ripped his signing in the first place will now rip Hendry for not getting more value for him. I'm just thinking that Marquis has a shot to pitch decently enough so thatnext year he might look as appealing an average pitcher as Padilla, Meche, and Lilly. Or, at least at $14/2 rather than $40/4 he might look as attractive. So, if Prior fills #5, Guzman looks like Cy Young but he's blocked by Marquis, I imagine that if Marquis does decent you'll have a chance to move him and his salary next winter, to clear a space for Guzman (or Marshall, or marmol, or whomever...) and clear a little payroll to spend on Prior or shortstop or CF or whatever.

He definitely used one in 2004 for Detroit and one in 2005 with the Cubs. But he did not use one in 2006. He appeared in only four games for Iowa, and he was never optioned there. You may recall that he had some valley fever or something in spring training, so he hardly pitched at all. Thus he opened at Iowa not on option, but on a rehab assignment. And after his 4-game rehab, he was called back up. Even if he had been optioned, I believe it still wouldn't count as an option year. I believe there is some minimum number of days that you need to stay down for it to count, can't remember if it's 15 or 30. He wasn't on the Iowa roster long enough for it to burn up one of his options years. Wuertz of course spent all of 2005 with the cubs. I am very certain about this, that Novoa has another year remaining. I'm also positive that Guzman does, too.

I see the staff much as you do, Tim. The way I'm looking at it is that Hill and Wuertz are locks, even though both have option year left. That gives 13 guys who are either locks-despite-options (Hill, Wuertz) or have guaranteed contracts. (I'm not including Rusch). Three of those 13 are health problems (Prior, Wood, and Miller.) Novoa, Marshall, Guzman, and Mateo provide a reasonable pool of options if more than one of the 13 safe-spot guys are hurt.

Tim, I believe both Novoa and Wuertz have a remaining option year. So I've got Novoa in Iowa, barring injury need.

I agree. Given that we have two open rotation spots, both of those players could be good $$/talent guys. It's not like signing Marquis would block out Guzman. If both look good, then both could pitch. That is, unless some dude named Prior is healthy. Which would be more good news. If the worst problem we have is that Prior is so healthy that he's locking a spot, and Z and Lilly and Hill are all healthy and locking down spots, and Guzman is so healthy and pitching so great that we want him to have a spot, but Marquis is pitching at least adequately enough to hold off going-great-Guzman, then I believe 2007 might be a very fun season. It depends on the money, IMO. If Marquis was to be signed, and at stiff price, a guy with a big contract keeps his job no matter what. But, if you signed him to a 1-year deal at $4-5, I'd think that if Guzman is looking really great and if Marquis is looking lousy, I don't think that a $4 1-year contract would necessarily insulate Marquis from being replaced by some stud prospect.

That makes sense as an offer by the Cubs. $5 guaranteed for one year, or $12/2 if he vests. In this current market, I can well see that as making sense to the Cubs. On the table. Whether that makes sense for Marquis, not so sure. Given the money this month, I'd think he might well get a better offer than that. Certainly if I were him, I'd not take that deal unless the 2nd year came with a player opt-out. If he can have a decent year and return to his 2004-2005 numbers (*ERA+ above average, win 15 games, 200 innings...), he could get Lilly/Meche/Eaton kind of offers next winter. He'll probably want an opt-out. Still, if he only cost $4-5, that's not that much for a Cub team with a $125-type payroll. If he pitched solid, that would be great. If the offense scores runs, and the bullpen is excellent, he can throw 4.20 ERA and win 14 games. But, at $4, if he stinks and two of Prior/Miller/Guzman/Marmol/Marshall are looking really good, $4 is not that large a commitment, relative to a $125 payroll. I'm not sure a $4 commitment would be so large that it would interfere with Piniella making a decision based on merit rather than on contract. If Marshall or Guzman was looking really good, I'm not sure that $4 Marquis would block them, unless he's pitching at least half-way decent.