craig

I'm with the crowd, some celebrity manager, Ryno being first guess. Some celebrity ownership change, second guess. Heh, other joke prospect guesses, of zero probability but more prospect interesting: *Ryan Harvey announced his conversion to pitching! *Jeff Samardzija announces that he's going to go baseball fulltime and give up football.

I think that would give you an excellent chance at contending. Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez could be really good, and the 2-5-6-7 spots could all be at or above league norms for those spots. That rotation could be good, if Hill pitched close to his 2nd half level and if Jennings pitched like last year rather than the previous several. But, "chance" is the key word. If Jennings regressed, Hill is erratic, and at least one of Z-Soriano-Lee-Hill is disabled, and assuming Prior is useless, it wouldn't take a lot of bad breaks to turn that into a losing team again.

I don't understand your math. All reports have Schmidt ending up at 14 or 15M. So that could still leave 8-9M for the second acquired starter. And if we trade away someone we have that salary as well. I'm figuring Schmidt at $15. From what Bruce and other sources (including an agent who was quoted) have said, I don't get the feeling that Hendry thinks he can afford both $15 Schmidt AND one of the $8-11 Lilly/Padilla/Meche guys. If he had $25 to spend on additional pitching, without cutting anywhere, I think he'd have been able to go straight for both Schmidt and Lilly etc., without it being an either/or. (One big ticket, or two $10 guys...) I think it's an either/or. And I'm guessing that somehow or other, the net cost increase shoudln't go much past $20, if that. I assume Jennings would be around $7-8, but if you subtract $5 in Jones, then perhaps add a $2 CF to replace Jones, you'd be back at around the budget endpoint that signing two Lilly's will get you. I think early on, Hendry may have hoped Schmidt might come a little cheaper, and that Igawa or Marquis might come cheap enough so that Schmidt plus one of those guys might fit into his budget framework. With the way the prices have gone, though, maybe not. My math was kind of confusing because, in a sense, if you trade for Westbrook or Jennings, Schmidt plus one of those would sum to $23 or so in pitching. That's what I had when I kind of suggested $23 being on the high end. But, I expect you can only go there, as you suggested, if you're trimming significant salary elsewhere, be that Jones or Dempster or whatever. Which wouldn't necessarily happen if you're signing Lilly and Schmidt.

I'm not a big advocate of the 11-man pitching staff. Miller, Prior, Wood will all have guaranteed contracts. If they are really hurt, you can get them off the roster for rehab/DL. But often when you have these post-injury guys, they are on the staff but not giving you tons of innings. You know, maybe wood is on roster, but isn't allowed to be used in back-to-back days. Or, Miller is on roster but doesn't pitch well enough to win rotation spot. Maybe in relief he can't pitch back-to-back days, or maybe he's in the pen but so lousy that the manager doesn't actually want to use him, but his contract prevents Hendry from releasing him. Or, Prior sooner or later does come up for his usual try-to-make-comeback deal, but he's on 80-pitch count at first and he's only good for 3-4 innings. Or, Miller is the #5 starter, but he's so wild and has to nibble around so much with his curveball that he's basically a 5-inning pitcher. Or, Cubs do end up snagging Lilly, who has usually averaged less than 6 innings. Or, maybe Mateo or Marmol or Marshall end up getting the #5 spot; none except maybe Marshall have given indications that they'd be likely to rack up innings quickly and work deep. Point is: I think the rotation may work out great, but there are a variety of scenarios in which guys often shouldn't be going even 6 innings. (And, if they do they may be getting hit pretty hard and losing their stuff in that 6th inning...) If the pen averages 3.5 innings per game, that sums to almost 600 innings for the year. If they average 3 innings per game, that's still almost 500 innings for the year. If you have a 6-man pen, do you want all your relievers needing to eat 80-100 innings each? That's a lot of innings for some relievers. *Especially for a guy whose arm needs special care (Wood, and perhaps Miller). *And, especially for a guy who may be used primarily as situational loogy (Ohman, perhaps Cotts, even though I'm not sure his splits demand anysuch usage.) *Especially for a closer, who may be used almost only in one-inning stretches. (I don't expect the closers to score 80 saves this year...) So, if you've got only 6 relievers, and you need them to cover 480 innings (3 inniings per game), then if several of them don't take 80 innings, that's all the more that the workhorse guys (Howry, Eyre, Wuertz) might get stuck with. In which case they might well be fried by September. I think carrying a 7th reliever makes a lot of sense. That way somebody whose arm is tired can get a break. That way the manager isn't constantly tempted to extend Z to 125 pitches to get him through the 7th or maybe even the 8th, in order to protect the tired bullpen. That way you aren't tempted to try to squeeze another inning out of rehabbing Prior. Or Hill. Or a tiring-and-losing-his-effectiveness Lilly or Miller, etc.. And, if things go well, you might be roster squeezed to carry only an 11-man staff. What if it so happened that Miller was healthy enough to be on the roster? And, what if one of Wood or Prior was actually on the active roster, much less both? I know it's unlikely, but imagine a situation where Prior, Miller, and Wood were *all* active simultaneously. Wood and Miller could make the 11th and 12th pitchers on the staff and Wuertz the #13 man shipped to Iowa. [/i]

Excellent point. My guess is that Hendry has some basic budgetary limits on what he can do for pitching. I think around $20-23 might be kind of the range we're talking. You can fit Lilly and Meche, or Lilly and Batista combined at under $20. You can maybe fit Schmidt and Marquis (maybe) at not much over $20. Of the Lilly/Padilla/Meche/Jennings/Westbrook dudes, none will go over $10, although jennings or Westbrook certainly could a year out (if Jennings posted another 127-type year, for sure...). I think Jennings and Lilly or Jennings and Meche might well end up outperforming Schmidt plus Kyle Lohse, or Schmidt plus Marquis, or Schmidt plus Rodrigo Lopez from Baltimore. In terms of realistic trade targets, Rodrigo Lopez is one name i've seen. I don't like him at all, woeful 5.90 ERA this past season, and some ugly peripherals. But, he's won 14-15 games for bad Baltimore teams in 3 of last 5 years, and thrown 170-209 innings in four of last 5. His salary and trade value is low enough that you could certainly access a dude like that for Jones. (Unlike Westbrook or Jennings or Blanton, etc., none of whom Jones alone would get even close to getting...), One of the other threads has talked about Jones to Pittsburgh for one of their inexpensive back-end starters. Hendry has often liked Aaron Heilman. I don't see Jones making any sense there, though, having just gotten Alou and Shawn Green. Beats me. But, I think that when you look at how much awful-potential some of the potentia back end starters are, it helps to explain why Hendry may not want to spend way too much on Schmidt. You may lose more with your second bad pickup than you'd gain with Schmidt, relative to the middle-rotation guys.

Actually, stats disagree with you. ERA+adjusts for parks Jennings since hes been in the league full time 02:108 03:93 04:92 05:94 06:127 I like Jennings. I think he has good stuff, as a qualitative observer. (My worthless scouting report.) His 127, which is really high, suggests that he has high potential. His sub-100's the previous 3 years suggests that he has not pitched to his potential. Using those, I'd say 03-05 he's been a #4 starter. 02 he was a #2 or #3+ starter. 06 he was a #1-2 starter. (I think league ERA's are actually lower for relievers, so I assume the average rotation starter would be around 99 or 98, a shade under 100?) My view is that he has the capacity to pitch at a much higher level than as a good #3, even though he doesn't have an established record of having done so past. But, the future is not always the same as the past. Further, I believe his 2005 is somewhat interesting. I recall him beating the Cubs maybe in June or so, entering the game with a horrific ERA, perhaps leading the league in walks. When he dominated the Cubs and they took hardly any walks, it fit in with the "Cubs are hackers, here's a wildman and they don't take any walks" stuff, which is why I remember it. Anyway, my point is that given how badly he started, my guess is that his second half 2005 was quite good, considerably better than 94 and very likely better than 100. So, it may be that he's sustained above-average production for the last year-and-a-half. Which may be as good a predictor for future as what was happening 1.5-4 years ago.

Raisin, has Guzman still only pitched just the once, last weekend? Did he start that game, or pitch in relief? Of all the winter leaguers, he's the one I'm most interested in. This may be a hassle, but would you mind including his stats in the regular updates, even on days he doesn't pitch? Heh, I've just scrolled through the whole page trying to find out if he's made his second appearance or not. If his line was listed down next to Cedeno and Blanco and Walker and those dudes, I could just look at the most recent posting... (heh, I'm lazy, so no point in you doing extra work because I'm too lazy to do my own...)

Pie has a lot of assets, his speed and arm being among them. I think a good projection for what Pie could become, if his power grows as is not uncommon, is Jacque Jones offensively. A Jacque Jones who played high-level CF would make a lot of money. But some of these Sosa, Vlad type analogies, I think those are unrealistically and unfairly high.

No. According to ESPN, it's Dec. 7. But as your quote showed, they changed some of the implications of whether or not it's offered. As your quote shows, the failure to offer arb no longer precludes a team from signing the guy as a FA. That's good for everybody. It just means that the player can't accept arb and force the team to accept an outside arbitrator's one-year salary. In past it was often tough; team and player want to stay in the mix, team doesn't want to get stuck with arb salary, but player still wants to explore the market. Now, team and player can stay engaged and get back together via free agency, after they both know what the market considers to be a fair price. If you do offer arb, it still offers the player the choice to use an outside arbitrator to arbitrate salary offers. (A route which is almost never taken.) As before, refusal to offer arb vetoes any team eligibility to receive compensation draft picks. (If the team isn't willing to pay the guy a supposedly fair, impartially arbitrated salary, why should they get compensation back for losing a guy they didn't really want anyway?) As before, offering arb is required to get draft comp for guys signed after the arb deadline. (Anybody signed before the dealine, comp applies.). However, unlike before the draft comp has changed. Before, a B like Pierre would cost the signing team a pick. Now, the team that loses a B still gets a pick, but it doesn't cost the signing team anything. That's advantageous because now B's can get signed on their merits, without having teams wait till after the arb day to find out if they can get the dude without losing a pick. This also accelerates the free agent season. If it isn't going to cost you a pick, why not get to work and sign DeRosa or Matthews or Pierre in November? In past it made sense to wait till after December 7, but by removing that stall motive, the whole FA process is likely to get rolling faster. Which I think we've already seen this year. I think that too is advantageous. Players can perhaps resolve their futures faster, and have more time to buy new houses or move families or whatever. Agents can get more of their work done earlier and not get it all jammed back into the Christmas season. GM's can get everything going faster, allowing more time to process decisions that depend on whether or not you actually get Soriano or DeRosa or pierre, etc.. And perhaps get their rosters established earlier so they have more time left for working on contract extensions (Barrett and Z this year, Lee last year, Aram year before that, Wood year before that.)

There could be an easy solution to the problem that's good for everybody. Boston: After $51 on bid, they don't want to go more than $30/5 on contract, if that. They hold the line at $30/5, $6/year. Net: $81/5, that's plenty of money spent for them. Mats: He and Boras would like to get at least $10/year. Obviously they'd like $16/year, or whatever. But they can compromise some. But, $6/year is too much and they won't go there. No deal unless..... Seibu: They'd like to clear the $51. But they'd rather clear $31 than to end up with zero. No deal is bad for them, unless..... Solution: Boras tells Seibu to kick back $20 to Mats. Bottom line: *Seibu: $51 - $20 = $31 to the good. That's enough to make it worth their while, and some. *Mats: $30/5 from Boras, plus $20 from Seibu. $50/5 combined, less than what he'd like or get on free market, but better than going back and still good enough for a guy without real bargaining leverage. *Boston: $51 for bid + $30/5 = $81/5. That's pretty stiff money, but for a young ace, that's a reasonable price to pay. You can adjust the numbers some, to make the balance work out better. But I think a deal where a good chunk of the $51 bid kicks back to Mats is the solution for everybody. No way Boston should pay $10/year on top of the $51 bid. If Boston is willing to put in $70 and more in combined bid+contract, no way that Mats should end up with only $20-30 of it and Seibu with $51. Seibu's $51 cut is obviously way to big. By Seibu cutting a chunk of that and giving it to Mats, they insure that they still get a big chunk (way better than nothing), and they insure that Mats is able to go to Boston. Win-Win-Win.

Negron was one of the guys derostered for cherry and Rapada.

Did anybody else there, cause I don't know? Wish Bruce was on to give the real story. That sounds like a recycle of the same rumor supposedly coming from Kaplan on Wednesday or Tuesday. Which Bruce subsequently pooh-poohed.

Correct. Sandwich picks are given to teams, but they are nto taken away from anybody. They are just extra picks added to entitled teams, those being teams losing A and B free agents (assuming the free agents are comp eligible. If the team declines to offer arb, of course no comp picks happen). So we give up our 2nd round pick for Soriano. Washington gets that 2nd round pick, plus they get a sandwich pick. But the sandwich is *not* from us. The Cubs get a sandwich pick for Pierre. And they will keep that no matter what. Their first round pick and their sandwich pick are both protected, even if they sign Schmidt and Floyd and Lugo in addition to Soriano.

The previous deal, it was a one-year extension before opt-out. This deal, we're getting 4 good years at good price. You have to make some concessions, and this seems a reasonable one. Aram will be 32. He may be in decline, from complacency or injuries or getting too fat or something. But he's a really special hitting talent, with his ability to swing so hard and hit with so much power, while being such a pure contact hitter and K'ing so rarely. Not certain, but there's a good chance that he will remain one of the best hitters in baseball at that time. And will earn another big contract. He may get better, too. Lots of guys do after age 28. A new manager, new hitting coach might help him. Being in what might be a stronger lineup might help him too. (RBI situations bring out more concentration; having stronger hitters behind might make a guy more willing to be selective and take more walks if the guys behind you are good enough to drive you in fairly often.) Being on good teams can also help, because it's easier to concentrate and stay focused in a pennant race than when the team is in 27th place.

Wolf could be interesting. Counsell, kind of depends on Theriot. I'd like for Theriot to be a guy who can play SS. Not sure if that's true or not. But his career as a utility dude would make a lot more sense if he could be the spunky low-power decent-OBP 2B/SS guy. Then your second infielder could be more of a bat, more of a 3B/1B hitter without SS responsibilities. But, if the view is that Theriot can't play adequate SS, then you're stuck. I think Cedeno should be out of the picture for this spring. He needs to go to Iowa and show he can hit and catch and hustle and concentrate. I don't think it makes any sense to keep him as a bench guy. So, if Cedeno is in Iowa hopefully developing, and if Theriot can't play SS, then you need a reserve SS. Counsell can play SS. Bynum can't. No-brainer, then, if the premise is that Theriot can't either. Counsell can also catch the ball at 2b. Bynum can't, or at least didn't seem able to last year. Counsell is also a better OBP guy. Less power, but Bynum went through periods where he seemed an auto-out. My problem with Counsell is that it's another no-bat bench guy, were you to sign him. Blanco can't hit. Counsell has no punch. Theriot for whatever he offers, punch is not included. Pagan is a weak, no-power hitter. If you can only carry 5 bench players, now you're looking at just one player with any pinch-hitting power. I'd prefer two. I'd like: *Pagan, CF/speed light-hitting OF reserve *Theriot, no-power middle infield reserve *Blanco, defense-oriented no-punch catcher reserve *Corner outfield bench with a bat and some power (Floyd could fit this profile) *Corner infield bench with a bat and some power

O'Malley is not on the roster at this point either.

Thanks. So, past history indicates that it is strictly record of the drafting team. The inclusion of sandwich guys for Class B guys is totally new. It might be that all A's and B's are sandwiched together, in which case we could get pick #31. However, I asked a friend about this and he thought he'd heard that the sandwich picks for A's will go first before the B's. So, if we get the first B but follow the sandwich A's, that should probably be where, low 40's or so?

Maybe the notion that he doesn't have a position is playing a part. Perhaps he'll be thrown in a trade to an AL team. Don't see how one can judge that based on an injury-plagued year. This is trade low, I wouldn't trade Dopirak right now at all. ..... His .663-OPS year at WTenn was injury-impacted. I don't think his .670-OPS year at Daytona was injury-plagued, though.

Roster is pretty full, and the cast of prospects this year is really weak. That Cherry was rostered probably is good news in terms of how they view his health. That Campusano was not rostered is not good news in terms of how they view his health. That Fox was not rostered is as expected, but probably also is not good news in terms of how they view his defense. I'm assuming that they haven't and won't deroster anybody for a while still, since Soriano hasn't actually signed yet, and who knows if FA's like Aram, Wood, or DeRosa have actually signed. If Hendry doesn't get around to siging them formally for a while, perhaps that gives him a little extra time to see whether some of the projected roster fullness might be alleviated via a quantity-for-more-quality trade.

I didn't know how to find finesse rules like this, but I did go back to the 2002 draft. Here is the sequence, with has the sandwich team, the team's 2001 wins and post-season success, and the player being compensated for. Dodgers 86 Park Cubs 88 Weathers Indians 91 Juan Gonzalez (lost 1st round playoffs) Braves 88 Karsay (lost 2nd round playoffs) A's 102 Giambi (lost 2nd round playoffs) Cubs (Rondell White) A's Isrinhausen Cub's Van Poppel A's Damon Giambi was clearly more highly rated than Weathers. So the sequence was not based simply on player rating. It appears that for playoff teams, the farther you got the later you drafted. So post-season survival trumps regular-season record. (That's why the INdians, who lost in first round, drafted ahead of the Braves, even though Cleveland had a better regular-season record.) If you didn't make the playoffs, the sequence most likely is based on record rather than player ranking. (The Dodgers had a worse record than Cubs.) I may be misreading this. Or, perhaps the rules have changed. But, it looks to me like the first pick would go to the non-playoff team with the worst record. Regardless of how good the lost FA being compensated for is. If so, unless I'm overlooking some A/B FA from Tampa, Pittsburgh, or KC, the Cubs are the beneficiaries. This could put the Cubs as the first pick of the sandwich round. The prospect of going 4th and 31st, that's pretty appealing. Way to go Pierre! Again, given how long the sandwich round is likely to be, the positioning within that round is pretty important, especially in what projects as a premium draft. Cubs could get somebody very talented at 31.

With Pierre signing and Soriano signed, the Cubs pick up a sandwich and lose their 2nd round pick. Unless I'm mistaken, the only other A player I've heard associated with the Cubs is Jason Schmidt? Or are their other names that are semi-possible? With all A's and B's generating sandwich picks this time, and with their no longer being any draft-pick disincentive from signing B's, I expect that more B's will sign pre-arb day, and that the sandwich round could be very large. The sandwichs may not be done that much sooner than the 2nd round in some years? I'm guessing there could easily be 30 or more; in past there have rarely been more than 15. Question: what determines the sequence of sandwich picks? I don't remember the details, since the last time it mattered was the disastrous Hagerty/Blasko/Clanton year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm seeming to recall that a) the sequence is based on W-L record of the sandwich-pick teams, rather than by quality of the players compensated for. b) no sandwich pickers get their second sandwich pick until all sandwich pickers get their first. In other words, even though Pierre might not seem a great guy for which to be compensated, I think the Cubs might get one of the first sandwich selections. Will KC or Pittsburgh or Tampa have any comp FA's? I'm not sure they have anybody who's even a B who will get signed. If so, then the Cubs might actually be going 1st in the sandwich round. 31st pick could be really nice. Especially if the pick they lose for Soriano is only in the 60's or 70's, and when other teams getting sandwich picks are going in the 40's and 50's. kc, do you know how it schedules? Am I correct about this?

I'm enthused about the Soriano signing. Although it's less exotic with Hendry and Piniella talking RF rather than center. Still, an extra 40 HR's at leadoff is an extra 40 HR's, and HR's are an efficient way to score. I haven't read the 140 pages on this, maybe only a dozen or so. But it seems the board is mostly negative about the move, and n large part based on money and length. I wonder whether the deal isn't as bad as it appears? I'm guessing there are some options or contingencies involved in the 7th and 8th years. For example, if it's $96/6 with two $20 option years, each with $2 buyout options, that could be agentized as $136/8, but really is more like $96/6. Would that seem high and long? Sure. But that's the way it goes when you want the most coveted FA, even if it's a weak year. I think Soriano is a valuable player. The Cubs lacked HR power last year. Soriano will upgrade in OF, Lee could upgrade 1B, and DeRosa could upgrade the 2B HR output. Soriano's OBP was quite a bit higher than Pierre's this year, and relatively high relative to leadoff men. If (big if) he can sustain that kind of OBP, I think he'll be pretty interesting. If it ends up that the deal is basically $96/6 plus options, I'll consider that a pretty good deal relative to the market. And be pretty pleased that Hendry did it fast. The fast action simplifies his landscape. he knows what to focus on now. And, it jazzes up the public perception. Ten days ago, Schmidt for example might look at Cubs and say "Hmm, 27th place team, not my first choice." Now, if you talk to Schmidt about the Cubs, his impression is probably very different and he might be much more excited about signing here. Fast action also gives Hendry time to focus on his other situations. Do we have a shot at schmidt, or not? Are they in on Igawa, or not? What kind of interest can he find for Jacque? He's had plenty of different ways to fill out his roster. Having gotten ARam back, locking up Soriano, and going with DeRosa (like it or not), he can focus back on who he'll get for CF, wat he can trade Jacque and prospects for, and who will fill the two rotation spots. Still plenty of ways to go. But I suspect lots easier knowing what's up with Aram, Soriano, and DeRosa.

Rapada and Cherry.

mg, I don't follow where you are coming from. Yesterday, I noted that: 1. Rapada and Pigs weren't in the plans for this year. Thus it would be a problem to trade Ohman or Eyre. 2. By adding Cotts, it opened the option to trade Ohman, who has value and might help us get something useful. I thought this was an advantage of the Cotts pickup. Then, you wrote and implied that was dopey because Rapada was obviously ready and Pigs might be soon. So, I responded that Rapada and Pigs are very unlikely to be ready, and that the Cubs certainly don't assume that they are. Prior to adding Cotts, a trade of Ohman would have been a problem and would not have been considered very seriously, since doing so would make Rapada the 2nd lefty and Hendry wouldn't like that. So, I think you and I are in the same place now. Having acquired Cotts, we have three big-league lefties. Hendry can trade one of them, no problem. When we had two, Hendry couldn't trade one of them, it would have been a problem. But I think Rapada is a non-factor in this. He would not have been considered satisfactory as the 2nd lefty. As the 4th lefty, hanging out at Iowa, or in the event of a trade if he becomes the 3rd lefty, again hanging out at Iowa, that's just fine. Hopefully he'll do really well at Iowa. If Ohman does get traded, Rapada will then be an injury away from getting called up. Hopefully he'll rock at Iowa, and when his window of opportunity does open, whenever that might be, he'll be ready.

why not? rapada is obviously ready and even if pignatello starts off the year in iowa, whose to say he wont get a call to the bigs sometime in 07? they also have campusano as a lefty bullpen guy. Why not? Big market teams that are trying to contend don't often plan their team around AA prospects who don't have exceptional arms and who haven't proven themselves in AAA yet. The Cubs are no different, and they most certainly are *not* counting on these guys as being big-league ready. "Rapada is obviously ready..." Obvious to who? His AAA coach said he has potential, but suggested that his location was far from optimal or what it might be future. Perhaps that pitching coach (and now the coordinator of their minor league pitching) can't see the obious, and perhaps having watched him pitch for amonth or two has clouded the obvious. Rapada's WHIP in AAA was 1.8. That's not all that obviously good. It's pretty shaky, in fact. Seems to me the Cubs are not acting any differently from what every org does: for prospects with unexceptional stuff, a guy often needs to produce in AAA for a while before his window of opportunity opens. Might it happen? Sure. But trading Ohman and writing Rapada into the big-league roster, that seems undesirable at this point. Pigs? He pitched all of 6 innings in AAA this year, with a WHIP of 1.4. The year before that, he pitched 47 innings in AAA, with a 5.51 ERA and a WHIP over 1.5. Is there a shot that these guys will be ready, perhaps sometimes this season, perhaps even right from the start? Possible. But assuming as much when they haven't done anything at AAA yet, most teams don't assume that, and I don't blame the Cubs for taking that approach. I do like Rapada quite a bit, and I think his sidearm stuff is unusual enough that it will probably be tough on big-league hitters too... if he can control it. But I think it makes sense to ask him to show he can locate it consistently in AAA for a while before the big shot.