craig

Thus far, it seems all news is bad. Pawelek is too wildman to make full-season. Billek not good enough for A+ Fox not good enough to make AA. Blasko and Connolly aren't healthy enough/good enough for AA. If Blasko isn't ready 22 months after surgery, how likely that more time will ever get him to 100%? Shaver isn't good enough for AA. Burrows isn't good enough for AA. Fuld isn't good enough for AA. Jackson isn't good enough/healthy enough. Who knows how a season will really go. WTenn's staff of journeyman middle-late 20's pitchers may be better than some staffs with more prospects. But it seems that when the 2nd and 3rd best arms/pitching prospects are Randy Wells and Juan Mateo, this doesn't come close to many previous years in terms of exciting prospects.

bear, thanks for the roster. Is it your understanding that all of those are active roster, or might there be some Iowa DL also? I'm curious in part regarding Valdes, who was supposedly a big-league non-roster invitee, but never pitched an inning. I've been assuming he wasn't healthy, or something, but then here his name shows up on the Iowa roster. I'm interested in valdes because I'm wondering who'll be the 5th starter. Even assuming Brownlie is in rotation, it still seems like as long as Marshall is up, there are only 4 obvious starters: Brownlie (and even he is questionable), Guz, Hill, and Ryu. So, is #5 Valdes? O'Malley? May not matter; maybe they don't really need #5 very often early, and if Wood and/or Prior are coming along, Marshall may be back soon enough.

I agree with that. I've heard some very complimentary things about Micah the person and as an ambassador with kids and fans. Seems to be a guy whose personal qualities may rate much higher than the average major leaguer.

I'll take my crack: Iowa: Hill Guzman Ryu Brownlie ??? -Valdes didn't show up in any ex games, so i assume he's hurt or something's up with him. -I'll tentatively guess Pignatiello, but they may prefer him in relief prepping for a loogy role, which is likely his only avenue to an actual Cub career. AA: Marmol, Mateo, ??, ??, ?? To me, that's the toughest one. Marmol is really the only gimme. There are so many guys coming off of surgery, it's pretty tough to guess who looks good. And it's also tough because for the most part in A-ball, the better prospects start, with occassional exception. But by AA time, often they think guys have enough iinnings in, and start to groom guys more for their major-league role. Wells and Mateo may be good prospects, but both are likely eventually relief-track. So, do you start them in AA to get innings, or will they put them into relief right now? Blasko, Connolly, they were once interesting prospects. Are they healthy enough to be good prospects again? Healthy enough for rotation innings? If healthy, do you want them rotation or want them for relief, their more likely ultimate role if they are to become big-leaguers? And what to think of old fossils like David Cash or Rocky Cherry? Seems silly to waste rotation spots on guys like that, but who knows? And what about the lefties? Chris Shaver, JR Matthes, Fleita loves lefties, but of course most lefties are really Loogy-track in terms of prospects? Who can guess how their leftiness gets valued relative to harder-throwing righties, and when their leftiness gets them switched to relief to get used to that? Or, for that matter, what about Holzkom (sp?) and Burrows types? Do you start these arms-guys just to rack up some reps and get more chance to learn how to control a non-fastball? Or have them in relief because that's their ultimate role if they make majors? Totally guesswork, in my book. That said, I'll guess Marmol, Mateo, Connolly, Blasko, and Matthes. Daytona: Gallagher, Johnon, Holliman, Billek, and Phelps I'll guess Gallagher stays in A, given his youth, and given how many older arms are available for up there. I expect Holliman to skip straight up. I'm guessing Phelps for rotation, because they seem to like him a lot. But it may be that they'll keep him in relief, who knows. Same question of how they wish to develop somebody who's eventually slated for big-league relief, if he is to make it? I'd think Weber and Estrada would be around as options if Gallagher moves up, or Phelps is in relief, or they hold one of Holliman or Billek at Daytona. There could be other surprises, though. Often they like rehabbers at Daytona. So who knows, would be no shock if Carlos Vasques or Blasko actually showed up there. Note: I don't have link, but there was a not in Petrick's area newspaper this week suggesting that his rehab is going well, and he's expected to pitch in mid-May. Peoria: Pawelek, Veal, Berg, Blackford, ??? I think Pawelek, Veal, and Berg are the confident guessers. They are high-value prospects, so wherever they go, they'll start. Not so sure about Blackford, I guess. I'd think that Blackford, Mitch Atkins, Matt Avery, Yepez, Darrin Downs, possibly even Scott Taylor if he looks good enough could all be candidates to fill out that rotation. Or, also possible that one of the Billek/Holliday types would stick, or that Estrada would repeat or something like that. And for all I know there could be somebody unpredictable, Billy Paganetti (sp?) or Trey Taylor or somebody.

Matt Craig at catcher, that's a good move. Too bad it's so late. Versatility is important towards a utility career, obviously. Unfortunately it doesn't seem he was very good defensively at 3B, so being versatily (sp?) sub-average at multiple positions doesn't help all that much... It had become pretty evident that he wasn't going to be the super-slugger to make it as a 1B (and with Sing and Dopirak commanding time, Craig was facing the same 1B clutter that hurts Hoffpauir). He wasn't hitting enough to offset his defensive limitations at 3B. But it's pretty evident that if he could transform himself into a decent-fielding catcher (unlikely as that may be), he's got more than enough bat relative to that low-offense position. he's got a strong arm, he doesn't have great range afield. So it seems that C could really play best to his physical strengths and limitations. Obviously we've seen a lot of guys take a shot at catcher (McGehee, Brendan Harris, etc..), and realize quickly enough that it's an awfully tough position to play. But if Craig became the miracle who could handle it defensively, it wold be a great place for his bat.

With all due respect, the complaint that promotions are based on politics and signing bonus etc. is a routine criticism of almost all farm systems, normally by supporters of players who who don't really project to fit in as big-leaguers and get bypassed by those who long-range big-league potential is better. I agree, by the way, that Hoffpauir is an *excellent* defensive 1B. My understanding from other observers as well is that he is really good in the field there. At the same time, he's 26 years old, and while his batting average may have been 4th or whatever on Iowa last year, he hit only .268 last year with only 3 HR's and a low OBP in almost 400 AB; maybe he went 4-5 the night before getting sent down, but the bottom line is that he didn't show enough bat for a 25-year-old to stay on the map as more than a very long-shot big-league prospect. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. But having the 4th best average on a terrible-hitting minor-league team when that average is not supported by either HR's or OBP, when you're not young, and when you're playing 1B, that just isn't much for a fan of the major league team to get very excited about. I'm not sure I understand where the money thing fits in. Brandon Sing has been a mammoth producer, and has moved ahead of Hoffpauir on the major-league-prospect status. Sing was a 20th round draft choice, and was no more a money sign than Hoffpauir. Obviously he's not the fielder that Hoffpauir is, but Sing is definitely the better major-league prospect. Makes sense that they move Sing up, even if that comes at the expense of Hoffpauir. Maybe Dopirak? I expect that Dopirak will start ahead of Hoffpauir if both are at WTenn 1B. And I agree that for right now, there's a good chance that Hoffpauir might be a better player. Certainly way better defensively, and very likely to hit for better average. Is that unfair politics, biased by money and by Dopirak being a politics favorite? Maybe, if the goal is winning at WTenn or developing AA/AAA players. But the purpose is big-league guys. Dopirak is unlikely to become a good one, but he's young enough for it to still be a chance. I think most baseball people would think it best to start Dopirak, given his perceived potential. Most likely he'll never make enough contact to really capitalize on the power potential that he has, and he'll end up having no big-league impact. But there's a chance, and it makes sense to try to get him to what he might become if he works out his problems. In terms of opportunity, Hoffpauir has been a starter in each of his previous seasons, and has been promoted steadily, including skipping a level. I don't see how he's been deprived of fair chance. Had he hit .300 with 15 HR's and an .800+ OPS, I don't think he'd back at AA. But a .676 OPS as a 25-year-old 1B in the PCL, that's just not capitalizing on the opportunity afforded.

Last year the Cubs had significant infield injuries at 2B (Walker), SS (Nomar), and 3B (Aram). If all the starting infielders miss as many starts this year as they did last year, Neifi is going to get plenty more than 25 starts. But the original poster said that if the starting infielders were healthy, he didn't expect Neifi to get more than 25 starts. The "if healthy" clause will almost certainly not be met, so we'll never know. But I don't think that's a crazy view; in the unlikely event that the other infielders are healthy, I'm not sure I'd expect more than 25-30 starts for Neifi either.

Yes. Thanks for the details. Nice to see williams with a 1-2-3 inning. And Barrett with a HR. And Hairston getting on base. Williams is in the rotation, so getting him straightened out is big.

May be that they want to get a good assessment of where Marshall and Ryu stand in terms of actual roster decisions and rotation decisions, so they want to get a look at them against some major-league players, not the Casey Mcgehee/Dylan Johnston type minor-leaguers that Ryu has normally been facing in the late innings. Hill has gotten a couple of starts, Guzman as well, Marshall is now getting his second, and ryu his first. If the decision has already been made who's starting and who isn't, then sharing out starts seems silly. But if they really are screening, then it makes sense that if Ryu is still in the picture, that they give him a start and reevaluate after that; maybe he'll get pounded and make it clear that he doesn't belong in the picture, who knows. Or, perhaps Marshall is the current favorite, and they want to treat him that way, until/unless he proves otherwise?

We'll see in terms of actual scoring. It may be fine. But in terms of power, there is good reason to envision it being unusually weak. Or having an unusual number of low-power hitters in the lineup. Aram and Lee are the only true power hitters in the lineup. If those guys don't produce 75+ HR's, the HR-output could be pretty low. Pierre, very low on the HR-power scale. Cedeno/Neifi: low on the HR-power scale. Hairston (if he's chosen as the primary 2B): low on the HR-power scale. That leaves Murton, Jones, and Barrett. Barrett may be the best-hitting catcher in the league. But it's entirely possible that none of those three guys will hit 20 HR's this year. (Jones facing unfamiliar pitchers; lacking the benefit of the HomerDome, and probably having some spring HR's taken away by the spring Wrigley weather; supposedly realizing that his average has been so bad because he's been overswinging for HR's the last couple years, so fair chance that he'll cut back on his power swing...) I think it's entirely likely that the Cubs will drop off significantly in team HR's, and after years being near the top-of-the-league in HR's, that they'll likely drop into the middle of the pack. perhaps worse. And certainly they'll be super dependent on Aram/Lee; if one of those guys gets hurt, this will really be thin in the HR-department. Around half of the runs in the NL score on HR's in most of the last ten years. So a serious dip in HR-output, that's not a trivial thing. That said, they may be weaker in HR's but a lot stronger in terms of doubles and baserunning and perhaps OBP, etc.., and may come out similar or improved in OPS, and perhaps more efficient in terms of actually scoring runs, and perhaps doing so in game situations. It will be interesting to see how the season plays. I think it's entirely possible that the offense will end up looking like an asset, one of the stronger ones in the league, and finish in the top 5 or so. I think it's also entirely possible that the offense will be a liability, below average. Certainly the dependance on Aram and Lee is acute; if one of those guys goes down, the offense really looks different.

Yeah, I found it interesting that Guzman and Hill both pitched ahead of Marshall last rotation, but this time will pitch behind him, in relief. I assume Dusty stays at the home game, and sends coaches to the other game. On Pie playing right, I expect he'll play a lot of RF for Iowa, especially if Pagan goes down to Iowa. (Which I'd kinda prefer...) Hendry's best-case layout for the Cubs has Pierre being a productive player. If he's a huge bust and stinks, they'll need somebody else. But if he's at least decent, I don't think there's much doubt but that Hendry would like to keep him. And I don't think there's much question but that the Cubs hope Pie deveops enough punch as a hitter to be able to play corner. So I think it would make good sense for Pagan to play a lot of center, and be ready as trade bait to a CF-needing team, or be ready to function as a utility outfielder who can be the #2 CFer down the road. And if becoming a starter for Pie means playing RF, he should practice there. It may not require as much speed as does center, but technically it's more difficult to get good reads on fly balls from right than from center. So he'll benefit from some practice there. IMO.

Thanks for notes. I'd forgotten about Vasquez, at one point I was very high on him. Will be very interesting to see how many of these rehab pitchers are actually ready to pitch in full-season leagues when the season games begins. And of those who can, which have any of the stuff that originally made them interesting? Question for those who know better: what kind of timeline would you think Petrick would be on? Any sign of him in camp? Is he advanced enough to be participating in some of the workouts, I wonder? For some reason I think I recall hearing some reference to May. But my general experience is that if Fleita doesn't have a guy ready in April, the happy May talk usually ends up being no more than a few August innings in Mesa.

Pagan has had a good spring, a very surprising and excellent spring in all regards, both his base-stealng speed, his pure hitting ability, and his power. On a team that has shown very, very little HR power this spring, isn't Pagan with 3 HR like the power giant of the team? As a guy who can run and play a good CF and some corner, and can theoretically hit besides, he'd be a nice reserve outfielder. Thing is, it's just spring training. Once the season begins he'd park on the bench, Pierre will play everyday early, and Mabry and the veterans will pinch-hit and probably play LF/RF ahead of Pagan. I really don't see him doing much of anything until/unless an outfielder gets injured. If you carry him, and he produces when he does get opportunity, he may get increased chances and establish himself as a useful dude. But I can easily envision a scene where he has this grand spring, then doesn't play, and by May 15 he's 2-for-8, and whatever groove he established this spring is forgotten history, he's just a guy who's never been much of a hitter who isn't hitting well as a never-used guy, and he'd be in no position to help the 06 Cubs or establish himself as worthwhile for 06 Cubs, for 07 Cubs, or for trade value. Personally, I'm much prefer that Pagan goes down to Iowa. If he really has miraculously transformed into a major-league caliber hitter with some surprisingly decent power, he'll rock in the PCL and prove it down there. If he's hitting .320 with some power and speed, then you know you've got something. Maybe he plays himself into a sure-roster spot for 2007. Maybe he gets called up later when somebody gets hurt so that he'll get a chance to help, and he'll be locked in such that he actually does help. Maybe he'll establish himself as a genuine value, enough so that he has some July trade value. It just seems to me that if indeed he's actually a good player, he'll need more than 30 spring training AB to prove it. And his minor league track record doesn't show enough success for any GM to trade for him, for any Cub manager to use him, or for any fans to assume he's got the package. If he's worthless, then going to Iowa won't hurt the team and he'll be able to confirm as much. If he's got a chance to be pretty good, going to Iowa will give him a chance to confirm that, to prove it to everybody, and to go from there. But after he goes three weeks with 4 pinch-hitting appearances and no hits, I think whatever good he's done this spring will be pretty much forgotten. Send him to Iowa.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/transactions No surprise. According to the USAToday spring training stats, Mateo ended up pitching in only two exhibition games, and didn't even compelte two full innings. However, he was perfect in his brief attempts, retiring all five batters that he faced. Hopefully Mateo is an interesting prospect with a good arm, but just came to camp too late and too out of shape to give himself a chance to get a spot. I hope he pitches well for the Cubs.

Heh, any way to skip the pictures without being a paying member?

Makes sense that they should be stretching out Marshall... as well as the other guys. Ryu got stretched out to 3 innings today. Hill hasn't racked up tons of innings, but given how many pitches per inning he's been throwing, his pitch count is probably sufficiently stretched. Hopefully they get Marshall stretched out a bit. And Guzman's done multi-inning stuff with millions of pitches per inning too, so he'd seem to be stretched out a bit also. I don't think it's a matter of deciding who and then stretching out that guy. I think it's more a matter of stretching out all four, and make the choice based on how they are all looking, which could change enormously between now and decision time. Guys like Hill and Guzman haven't looked very sharp in terms of control this spring, but two back-to-back good games and the early stuff can be forgotten pretty fast. That Marshall and Ryu weren't expected to be factors also doesn't matter that much. I want somebody who'll be able to control his stuff now, even if he isn't necessarily the best long-term prospect. It's possible that Ryu and Marshall are ahead of Hill and Guzman in terms of present control.

Pujols played SS in JC, and naturally didn't scout very well there. Didn't have the arm, the speed, or the quickness. Like a lot of guys, he was a prospect with no clear defensive position ahead of him, and basically scored badly on three of the five scouting tools (speed, defense, throwing arm). Still does, more or less. But if you can hit like Pujols, the hitting tool trumps all.....

The odds of getting top players after the first round isn't real high. The sample size of big winners is small for everybody, and the picture is heavily influenced by a couple of big names, Pujols for Cards, Oswalt for Astros, Dontrelle for Cubs, etc.. Going back to 1987 enlarges the sample size, but at the same time the people who were scouting and coaching for the Cubs in 87-95 isn't very relavant to what's happened since Hendry took over and what will happen in future. If a couple of people from Justin Jones, Ricky Nolasco, Sisco, Sean Marshall crowd work out as good major leaguers (which is entirely possible, barring injuries), the Cub production could look pretty favorable. My point being, there is some luck to this. So you should keep trying? Also, obviously even though not many pan out, many still end up being key parts for trades. Bobby Hill was key guy for getting Aram. Brendan Harris and Justin Jones were key components in getting Murton and Nomar.

I think WHIP is awfully useful as a metric. But Cubbierich touches on it's greatest limitation: factoring in HR-allowed. I think looking at HR-rate for any pitcher is important. Sometimes focusing on WHIP, K-rate, and GB-rate but forgetting to check the HR-rate can cause mistakes. (I used to think the board always overrated Dotel, whose HR-rates were lousy but whose WHIP and K-rates were great). Maddux is a guy whose actual quality isn't nearly as good as you'd expect based on WHIP and GB rate. Because his HR rate is awful. He's also a great picture of how HR-rate doesn't necessarily correlate GB-rate. There are many pitchers like Maddux who have nice GB-rates but who still get HR'd often. The HR issue is especially crucial for the Cubs, since many of their pitchers are vulnerable. (I suppose that's true for most teams, but...). Maddux is vulnerable. Prior is very HR vulnerable, and is unlikely to actually be as good as his WHIP/K-rates might make you expect. Matt Clement was a strong GB-guy, but he too often lost on the HR. Wood loses a lot of his losses on HR's. Dempster was great last year becuase he was uncharacteristically anti-HR. Hard to guess whether that will hold. If he reverts to his HR-factory profile from rotation days, he'll blow his share of saves this year.

We'll see. But Cedeno has always been error-prone. He may hold his own defensively, but I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't make his share of errors. Almost certainly more than Neifi would make. If he's not offering anything over Neifi with his bat, all he'll have over Neifi is youth/potential. If it comes down simply to which is the better defensive player, I honestly think Neifi will be better. Don't get me wrong, I'm not lobbying for Neifi to start. All I'm saying is that if Cedeno wants to *deserve* to play, I think he's going to need to hit. If he's drifting along with only a .605 OPS, I expect he'll error his way to the bench.

No it wasn't one of my earlier points. I never said Walker = OBP. I said that the reason it seems like some people love Walker so much is because of the fear of the alternative. And that alternative is some sort of combination of Hairston and Neifi, which is certain to get on base less frequently than Walker, or a combination of Walker and Hairston. Management stresses catching the ball, but they don't say a thing about the big problem, a lack of guys who take walks and give you good at bats. Walker is no superstar, or great patient hitter. But he gives you good at bats and gets on base at a decent clip. Hairston is a suitable fallback option. But Hairston is not a suitable candidate for a starting job because he's been around for a while and has never shown any ability to stay healthy and produce like a starter over the course of a season. Fair enough. Consider three different scenarios for 1-2-3 at 2B: *Walker-Hairston-Neifi *Hairston-Walker-Neifi *Hairston-Graffanino-Neifi I view those as being relatively interchangeable as regards OBP. I agree with you that a 4th scenario is not: *Hairston-Neifi-Theriot. That one would be worse for OBP. Considering those four: *OBP: 1 = 2 = 3 > 4 *Slugging: 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 *Defense: 4 > 3 = 2 > 1 Configuration 4 is worst for both OBP and slugging. Configuration 1 is best for slugging. I'd prefer 1 or 2. 3 might work OK. I suspect we're basically in agreement that configuration 4 is the one we don't want.

As I've stated. But neither is it a case that Walker = OBP, which was one of your earlier points. (When you stated that OBP was the glaring weakness on the team. I noted that since Hairston and Walker were comparable in terms of OBP, you shouldn't choose Walker based on OBP.) If you wanted to make a bet, I would bet an "I told you so" that Hairston will have a higher OBP this season, even though I realize I'd have about a 50% chance of losing. Walker is the better hitter... for power, and also for average. Hairston is a better IsoD guy. I expect that if Hairston can come within 20-25 points of Walker for average, he'll match him for OBP. If he comes within 10 points or less, he'll beat him for OBP. Last year was the first in 7 years that Walker has hit .300, so I don't really expect him to repeat that. And I expect Hairston's average to rise a bit, with better wheels and more familiarity with NL pitchers. So I kinda figure that since they were only 19 points apart in OBP, that Walker will probably drop ten or more BA points, Hairston will likely gain ten or more BA points. That would put their OBP's equal. If Hairston rises a little higher, and/or Walker drops a bit more, I could easily see Hairston's OBP end a shade higher. Am I suggesting that Hairston should start based on OBP? Absolutely not. Well, relative to Neifi yes! But not relative to Walker. OBP = comparable. BA = Walker edge. Power = Walker huge edge. Defense/speed = Hairston edge. It's *NOT* about OBP, except when Neifi enters the equation. It's about power versus defense/speed. Again, I strongly agree with you that dumping Walker and going with Hairston/Neifi is *very* risky, because Hairston is health/performance risky. I agree that it's preferable to keep both Hairston and Walker. If the premise is that Walker is such a duck that you can't afford to carry him on the bench, he'll pout or rust too much, whereas Hairston could handle it, I appreciate the logic that Walker starting with Hairston in reserve makes good logic. I'm not sure I accept the notion that you couldn't start Hairston and use walker as an insurance policy. I think Walker could deal with it. But I admit I may be giving him too much credit, and it may be beyond his personality to accept a support role and to thrive in it.

Reynolds started fast at Boise, but got worse towards the end. Low-walk, high-K guy, so however "clean" his swing may be, he may be one of these Kelton/Corey types who may swing nicely but don't actually hit the ball often enough. He was injured last year in college. That may have contributed to him playing 1B rather than a more challenging defensive spot. Whatever, he's obviously a long shot. Not too many 6th rounders who end up being very serious prospects, so assuming Reynolds is a dud, that will be no surprise.

Do you think that Neifi is in the mix to be the regular 2B? I haven't seen any indication of that, I think that's just paranoia. Hairston is absolutely not "a lock" to provide better OBP than Walker. But he's more likely. They are similar enough that either could come out higher, and given even odds, I'd put my bet on Hairston rather than Walker. Point being, you don't choose Walker over Hairston because of OBP. You choose either one over Neifi based on OBP, but between Walker/Hairston OBP is almost a non-factor. The real factors are Walker's power versus Hairston's defense/speed; OBP isn't a factor. I fully agree that if they opt to make Hairston a lead regular, it's a big question what they do for insurance. He's an injury risk. He's a performance risk (if he's hitting .255, trouble...). I definitely won't feel safe if the best alternative for Hairston is Neifi, so I'd like to keep Walker. Walker talks sweet that if he doesn't start, he'll root for whoever does. But I think if they do decide Hairston is the preferred regular, they'll have to decide whether Walker fits in a support role. Can he hold his hitting stroke if he's not getting 20 AB/week? Can he keep his mouth out of trouble, or will he be whining and stirring up continuous trouble? Can you afford to put him on the field to play any position other than 2B? Perhaps this is where some of these Graffanino type rumors come in. If you a) decide Hairston is better option, b) want more than Neifi as insurance, but c) don't think Walker will work if he isn't starting all the time, then maybe you go after Graffanino as more Hairston insurance. (And insurance at 3B, where neither Neifi nor Mabry may be quite what I'd want if Aram goes down...). Maybe you figure Graff is a better fit for the Cub bench than Walker; but at the same time that you can get Graff for less than you can get for Walker, so that you figure going from Walker to Graff is a plus, but you end up feeling like you are actually making a profit in the course of the two trades?

I think this point applies to Walker versus Neifi. I'm not sure that I see it applying to Walker versus Hairston. Hairston does project to "catch the ball" better than Walker. But if the glaring weakness is guys who get on base, Hairston projects very comparably to Walker. Perhaps a bit better. The OBP issue really stems from the low walks (the batting average has been fine). Hairston walks as much or more than Walker and I think projects to get on base as or more often. Over past three years, Hairston's OBP is about .356, Walker's about .342. So it's not as if starting Hairston fairly often would be compromising the OBP. What it would be compromising is the slugging, where Walker is much stronger. The likely superiority in OPS that Walker will have is based on his greater power. Whatever glaring weaknesses the Cubs may have had, power was clearly not one of them. On the other hand, I'm not sure that defense was really a glaring weakness either, at a team level. It was respectable. And while power may not have been last year, this year could be a different story, with Pierre and Murton and Jones not being a real powerful outfield. I don't think Neifi is really a factor in this. I think in choosing between Hairston and walker, OBP is kind of a wash, or if anything slightly on the Hairston side. I think it's balancing Walker's power edge (which is huge) versus Hairston's defense/baserunning edge (the magnitude and value of which is obviously central to the decision.) If the view is that Walker's power (which is beyond debate) is more important than Hairston's defense (which is debatable; is Walker's D really that bad? Is Hairston's D really that good? etc.. If Hairston's is better, is really enough better to be worth sacrificing 40 points in slugging? 60 points in slugging? 80 points in slugging? 100 points in slugging? etc..) Both players are missing something from being fully rounded complete perfect players. Walker is short on defense and speed. Hairston is short on power. Goony, you have clearly balanced those factors and concluded that the power definitively outweighs the defense/speed factor. Some of us are not really convinced. Dusty and Hendry seem to be sorting through the same issues. They don't seem to see the power as so definitively outweighing the defense as you do, and maybe they're idiots not to. To some degree they seem to be giving a lot of weight to the defense ("catch the ball"). We'll see. I do think some posters undervalue defense, which is harder to quantify. Perhaps some overvalue defense, and imagine it makes more difference than it actually does. Beats me. oldfan made a comment suggesting that Walker is perhaps an example of a player who is not complete enough; excellent offensive player, but the defensive/baserunning are limits. Perhaps Hendry sees Hairston as a more rounded player, who can run well, field well, and perhaps also contribute well offensively (as an OBP guy). But Hairston is also less than "complete" in that he has no power. They may feel that for a #2 hitter, getting on base and running well is complete enough offensively, and that they don't really need the power at #2. One other "glaring weakness" comment. Sometimes it's maybe wise to focus on fixing a glaring weakness. From that view, if OBP was the GW, so long as Neifi doesn't start we'll be OK. But sometimes I think it's important to build on strength, and to amplify a glaring strength that sets you apart and above the pack. Having Walker and his power might help to set the Cubs apart as a premium power team. If Cedeno produces decently at SS, and Walker goes .820 at 2B, they could have an exception C/infield offensively and in terms of power. That could really be the bright spot on the team. Could be a great thing. And if murton and Jones pitch in, this could be a very strong slugging team. Alternatively, the defense could be perhaps the most outstanding part of the team. Lee-Hairston-Cedeno-Aram might be the best defensive infield in baseball, and defense might become a trademark for the team. Murton-Pierre-Jones might be the fastest outfield in baseball. Defensive range might really become a 2006 Cub trademark. If defensive range was the Cubs trademark, I can also imagine that being a little bit nice for the pitchers. Yes, they've got K-guys. But when you've got Alou, Sosa, Nomar, Aram, and Walker behind you, you'll probably want to K guys as often as you can. Some very non-rangy defenders in the last two years. I could imagine (I'm in dreamland, I admit) Prior and Wood and Z throwing some not-so-perfect strikes, hitters rip them pretty hard, and voila! Cedeno goes in the hole and makes the play, Hairston zips way to his left and makes the play, Murton and Jones run hard and turn hard drives into outs, just as out as if Prior had taken 9 pitches to nibble around and K the guy. Suddenly it maybe gets into Prior's and Wood's heads, "hey, I don't need to be that perfect, I can go after the hitters, let them hit the ball more often, but my defense usually catches them anyway, why not?" and suddenly they are rolling up 14-pitch innings instead of 18-pitch innings, and making it into the 7th and 8th innings with little pitch count problem?