craig

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?

The stock of prospects rises and falls rapidly. Look who fast Dopirak shot up, and how quickly he fell off the table. Bobby Hill seemed golden for a while, then not. Kelton (although a lot of fans seemed to stick with him forever). Felix Sanchez. Obviously Corey. It isn't easy to tell which prospects are going to maintain a high level, or continue to improve to even higher level, and which will regress or stall. Should we trade Pie because there's a good chance that he'll never get any better? He may never be much more than he is now, a high-K anti-walk guy who might be a .270BA-.310OBP-14HR-8SB type player. If he doesn't maintain his excellence from last year, or improve in some ways beyond it, should we look back next year or three years from now and say, "Man, those stupid Cubs, why didn't they know to trade Pie after the 2005 season when his value was maxed?" Should we quick trade Cedeno while he's coming off a .300 season, before he possibly settles in as a low-power-low-walk .260 hitter who makes too many errors? I don't know. I'm just saying, it's awfully tough to know when a guy will keep improving, when he's basically going to plateau, and when he might regress. I think the general policy should be that barring some really big-time offer, that you hold onto the guys who might end up becoming impact players. Understanding that in most cases something will happen so that they don't reach that. Maybe they are due to stall or regress. Maybe they'll never get past whatever is currently limiting them (as proved true with Corey). But I think it's probably good policy to hold the guys you think have at least some kind of decent chance to end up being really good players. To me, that includes Cedeno and Murton and Pie. That includes Guzman and Marshall. That still includes Hill, although I admit I fear that last year was a career year and that his control regressed with cubs and thus far in camp. That includes Pawelek. Personally I don't see Harvey or Dopirak in that group, the contact/vision problem seems too extreme for there to be much realistic chance that they'll get past it. Or patterson, who K's too much to seem very likely to me. I think the comment on Hill/Marshall should be taken less as a slam on Hill then as what it was probably intended to be; a huge compliment to Marshall. I think to some degree the two stand as great contrast players. Many stats people get super fired up about K's, and Hill had them galore. Marshall has gotten his share too, I think, but hardly exceptional like Hill's consistently extraordinary K-rates. The eye-popping K-guy versus the normal K-guy. The control guy versus the wildman. Marshall has always thrown strikes; Hill never has, with the exception of his minor league 2005. We are always hoping that wildmen master control, and sometimes they do. But I suspect that for most wildmen, even when they do have control for a while, it's always a battle and they are always at risk of going wild again. The bombs-away guy versus the keep-it-in-the-park guy. Hill has always given up high HR's; but his K's and WHIP's looked awesome last year. Marshall has neveer given up many HR's, but his WHIPs haven't looked as eye-catching. The fly-ball versus the groundball guy. Hill is a relatively extreme flyball pitcher, Marshall the opposite. Probably which largely relates to the other factors (the HR's, the K's, the control issues...). What's perhaps a little surprising is that often the high-K wildman is the harder thrower; it seems Marshall's fastball is a little bit faster than Hill's. But the difference is more in terms of sink than speed. Seems to me that the Cubs have liked Marshall a lot for a while, but he's not pitched much due to injuries since he made an impact. For me as a prospect watcher, his original scouting was as an 83-88 mph guy; I knew he projected faster, but always wondered if he'd end up with a plus fastball or just a lefty finesse fastball like so many others. One of the positives on him seems to be that his fastball really does now seem to have grown into a big-league asset. Seems to me that an 88-92 mph sinker is pretty good pitch. Combined with control and a plus curveball, and you've got the keys to big-league success. There have also been some positives about his changeup too. Extraordinary stuff? No. But seems to me that the combination of several average-to-above-average pitches with above-average control sums to a above-average big league pitcher, since most guys are below average in something, be that their fastball or breaking ball or control.

You don't think it might be possible to notice in spring training whether the guy's knee is seriously compromising his defensive range? Or whether or not his knee is compromising his already limited ability to turn the double play? I think you are logical in suggesting that until his offense slips below the .800+ OPS level it would be silly to assume it will. But I think it's entirely reasonable to look at his knee and defense in spring training and see whether what was a weakness to start with is now even worse. And if it's bad enough, I don't see the illogic in considering a change. Other thing, there are in betweens between all Hairston and all Walker. Walker had a good year versus LHP last year, but his career is pretty weak. If walker's the main guy, do you start him versus LHP, or platoon? If Walker's defense is looking worse than ever, you might also consider starting him when Wood/Prior/Rusch (non-GB guys) start, but resting him when GBers Z/madddux/Williams pitch? Or, maybe his knee is good for two days in a row but you don't want to start him three days straight? Another variable is the team offense/lineup as a whole; if the lineup is scoring consistently, Walker's bat may seem less essential than if Aram is hurt and Neifi is starting at 3B, for example.... There are plenty of mix-and-match ways to go. I don't see the illogic in trying to consider everything. It's not like it matters for the roster, both will be on it barring trade anyway. If Walker's knee is fine and he doesn't get traded, I'd be surprised if he wasn't the primary starter early on.

Thanks much for link. A number of interesting tidbits: *Brownlie claiming the shoulder is healthy and stronger. We'll see. And we'll see what that does for his pitching, if anything. (My shoulder is healthy too, but that doesn't mean I can throw 90 mph...) He may have a healthy shoulder but still carry only 87 mph fastball into the 6th innings. Sure would be cool if he got back into the 88-92 range, though. Also possible that with a healthier shoulder, perhaps his curve might sharpen up, also. *Note about Jody Davis saying Yusuf Carter has the tools to stick at catcher. His chance of hitting enough to reach the majors are a ton better as a catcher than a corner outfielder, that's a given... *Muskat's again speculation of Pawelek Peoria (to be expected), Holliman at Daytona (certainly understandable, although not necessarily obvious), and Veal at Daytona (not to be expected, although since she's posted this before it's less surprising than the first time she wrote that...) *Details that minor league camp opened last Tuesday, and that Fleita claims everybody is looking fit and great. Fleita hypes everthing and everybody, so doubtful that is means a thing. But certainly there have been plenty of other springs where pitchers showed up and were *not* allowed to participate normally (Justin Jones, Petrick, Sisco, Ryu, Marshall last year, and many surgery rehabs who thought they might be ready in spring but then were not ready for much participation...) *Fleita supposedly being excited about top 6 drafts (I'm sure that's also true every year...)... but then Muskat including Kyle Reynolds (not a board favorite) but not including 3rd round Billek. Very possibly just an error by Muskat (or perhaps Fleita). But Fleita may like Reynolds more than we realize.

Baker has talked frequently about concerns with Walker's knee. I hadn't expect that; his injury was early last year, and he played the majority of the season with that. I assumed it couldn't have been too bad or he wouldn't have been playing then, and that given an offseason of rest it should be a non-issue. But that appears to not be the case. I know it's the norm on this board to figure that whatever the Cubs are doing, it must be idiotic. But it seems to me that there are several reasons for the Cubs to remain unsettled re 2B: *Is walker's knee and leg going to be good? It's hard enough for him to play a good defensive 2B on a good leg. On a bad one, even harder. *Walker has had a couple of really good offensive seasons with the Cubs, and I expect him to hit well again. But at the same time, I think there is reason to be careful in assuming too much. He's been an .800+ OPS with the Cubs. But the previous two seasons, he was a .760/.780-OPS type guy (despite playing in great hitter's parks.) If Walker was to revert to a .775-OPS guy (or worse, which can sometimes happen to hitters who aren't healthy), suddenly his offense might not be stellar enough to justif his defense/baserunning. To guarantee Walker the faithful time, regardless of his health and actual performance, could be a mistake. *With WrigleyinEngland, I'm interested in Hairston. I was very disappointed with the season he had last year, in almost every way (defense, brains, batting, base-stealing...). But I still think he has a chance to be a good option as a regular 2B. He supposedly wasn't that healthy last year, and the NL pitchers were new. I think there's a chance that being healthier and more familiar, that he might perhaps hit .280+ this year, in the .350-.380 OBP range that he showed the previous two seasons and during the first half last year, and be in the .740+ OPS range. I expect his defense to be a lot better than Walker, perhaps very good. If Hairston could hit .280+ and post a .740+ OPS, which I think is possible if not probable, I think he might be overall a better value at 2B than Walker if Walker isn't hitting in the .800+ OPS range. I also think Hairston would have advantages in that he splits pretty evenly, you wouldn't really have much reason to platoon or do situational pinch-hitting. And he has the potential to field very well, so there'd be no need to consider making late-inning defensive switches or that sort of thing. I think there is defensive advantage in keeping the same middle-infield combo, and not having Cedeno need to process how Hairston likes the ball on Tuesday versus how Walker likes it on Wednesday and Thursday and how Neifi likes it in the 8th/9th innings of the Wednesday/Thursday games. I also think that defense can be underrated. Suppose the primary 2B has about 500 AB's. If walker's limited range is costing you 10 hits over his season (relative to a rangier Hairston), and if Walker's turning-DP skills cost you 10 DP's (relative to Hairston), that's costing you 20 outs and allowing an extra 20 baserunners. In other words, comparable to 40 points in OBP! And at least 60-80 points in OPS. I'm not sure how great the effective defensive difference is, but I'm not sure that 10 balls and 10 DP's is exaggerating? I don't know how to get the fancier defensive stats. I know range factor is not well respected, but that's the easy one to access. And over their careers Hairston's 2B range factor is 4.97 to Walker's 4.37. That's a huge difference, and Walker who's now aging and may have a bad knee is as likely to get worse as to get better. I like Walker's bat. All I'm saying is that the Cubs aren't necessarily total idiots to consider the possibilty that Hairston might be a better regular. He might not hit enough to justify either. But if at this stage in his career he's able to settle in as a .280+ hitter, you might have a guy who could be a competent fixture for a number of years. A superstud, no. But I'd be pretty happy with a guy who might play plus defense, be a plus baserunner, hit .270-.300 ever year with a plus .350+ OBP, bat 2nd, and not have to ask each day or each winter who's going to play 2B tomorrow or in the 8th inning, or who's going to play 2B next season.

Would be nice to see Hill put up a "Wow" start where he looks really impressive. Obviously Rusch never looks that good, and Williams hasn't, and Wuertz and Williamson have had some bad outings this week. (Williamson had a shutout inning yesterday, but 4 of 6 batters reached...) Would be nice if Hill could have a sharp game and get me enthused about a pitcher.

Derwood, lots of good prospects appear in SS. As Tim noted: a) the majority of college players drafted in the 2006 draft will play there. Almost every college player drafted in the first 20 rounds will pitch in SS. A first or second rounder might jump straight to full season, but most begin in SS. A few years ago Hagerty was a 1st round college draft; he pitched at Boise. Sean Marshall is currently a high prospect for the Cubs; he pitched at Boise. Most of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round college picks have spendt their draft summer at Boise. b) Most teenage prospects spend their second American summer at Boise. Ryan Harvey was the 6th pick in the draft; his second year was at Boise. Brian Dopirak was a 2nd-round pick, second year at Boise. Juan Cruz spent his second American summer at Boise. 4th round Nolasco spent his second summer at Boise, 4th round Petrick, 2nd round Sisco, etc. Last summer the Cubs 4th and 5th rounders were HS guys; both will likely play at Boise. Limitation: Many 1st rounders do *not* play at that level. Many college type first rounders don't actually sign in time to play at all their draft summers, and if/when they do they often go straight to full-season. And many HS 1st rounders begin in rookie ball (like Pawelek last year, Montanez a few years back, Garland and Wood back in the late 90's...) but then skip straight to full-season for their first full season.

I believe he pitched two innings, gave up one single, one walk, hit one batter, had one other reach on a catcher's interference, and had one strikeout. He loaded the bases in the second with one out, then K'd the next guy on a good curve and got the 3rd out to bail out. And I believe the walk was on a fairly long AB, not just a ball 1-2-3-4 type AB. Dusty has talked about wanting Guzman to face some adversity, some bases-loaded situations, and show that he could withstand. Did that fine today. Nobody reported any details on his mph.

Was that still Koronka, or somebody else?

I think much of the success is spring training, though. It's a lot easier to do the small-ball advance-the-baserunners sort of thing when you're facing mostly fastballs. Some of the better pitchers aren't throwing their full dose of breaking balls, and those they do throw aren't as effective as they'll be later. And in spring, you're mostly facing minor-league pitchers and mediocre pitchers. A little more difficult when you're hitting against Oswalt, Clemens, and Lidge. To date, though, it certainly looks like the Cubs could be a much more fundamentally sound team, a faster team, and a more patient team at the plate. And the early returns suggest that the cub farmhands compare pretty favorably, both the pitchers (Marshall, Hill, Ryu...) and the hitters (Sing, Dopirak, Pie, McGehee, Theriot...).

I think the Cubs have been reasonable on Prior. It's been almost a year since he had his problems last spring, and Rothschild said that he had special issues that would in future require special precautions. That future is now, this spring. Is Prior 100% and 100% like everybody else? He says no. He says that after the past two springs and all the doctor exams, that they know what gives, and he called it Ulnar Splint Stress Reaction or something like that. Is a guy with "USSR" 100% and 100% like other big-league pitchers? I would guess not. Does a guy with "USSR" have a chance to be an effective big-league pitcher? Absolutely. Does a guy with USSR have a chance to be as great as was once expected for Prior, back when he had a big-time fastball, was considered to be one of the best control artists in the game, and was considered to be the perfect physical specimen with the strong legs and the perfect mechanics, etc? Well, he might have a chance. But perhaps the odds don't look nearly as good as they used to. Is this USSR stuff a fraud? Possible, I suppose, although I don't see the logic in making it up if Prior hasn't been told that and doesn't believe it. Is this USSR stuff just a small factor, and his shoulder is ready to fall off is a larger issue? Well, decide for yourself. I don't see much problem with how the Cubs have done things, other than that Prior started into his regimen so late. If his special USSR requires such a special, unique, and gradual buildup, I don't see why he didn't start easing into things a little earlier. But as Tim said, we fuss if the Cubs are careless with their irreplacable pitching assets. But then if they do take special precautions and care, then we fuss because they aren't doing the same thing everybody else does. We fuss if they suggest a date that isn't exactly realized. But then we fuss if they don't set a firm date. Seems to me that the "day at a time" is reasonable, if each next step depends on the response to the previous one. In Prior's case, they have set "dates". They've said all along they thought he'd be ready for opening rotation. And they said earlier on that they expected him to be ready by the second week of exhibition games, now that's maybe been moved back a week. Seems to me that Prior's spin in all of his interviews has been very confident, much more so than seemed true in either of the last two seasons. I don't get the feeling that he's had any big problems thus far. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much that proves. Roth said last year that Prior's curveball delivery places a lot of stress on his arm, and that was primarily the source of his problem. But while Roth and Prior have been talking favorably about how fine his arm has felt, in the stories this morning it was said that he has been throwing almost exclusively fastballs. That he only just starting spinning a few curveballs in recent session, IIRC. We'll see how it holds up once he's throwing his normal dose of curveballs. If it's a curveball-induced pain, not sure what it proves to be feeling fine when he hasn't been throwing any/many.

For those who watched, I know some of this has been maybe in the thread, but could you review what some of the pitchers looked like fastball wise? I'll guess, correct if possible. *Hill: 89'ish fastball, maybe one 94 mph wildman no control pitch. *Marshall: several 91-92 type fastballs? *Ryu? A couple of 89-90'ish, maybe one 92? Or a couple in the 90-92 range? *Eyre: what was he like? *Wuertz? *Howry?

Is it middle of the 6th? Who's pitching the 6th for the Cubs, and who pitched the 5th?

Murton went 0-4 in three token games with the big team. He was just a minor leaguer then, neither on 40-man nor a non-roster invitee.

In recent VineLine, they polled all of the Cub minor league people. Sing was first choice as having most power. So while Dopirak's first virtue is big power, it seems the Cubs think Sing has even more, or at least no less. All reports suggest that Sing runs better, throws better, and fields 1B better. Unlike Dopirak, Sing can play some mediocre outfield. Seems like Sing comes out equal or ahead on all of the tools. But Dopirak is still regarded as or more highly by some. I guess because he's younger, or because there's something about his stroke that looks better. somebody asked about Sing at 3rd. That's where he played originally in the minors. But he's not that agile defensively, and made errors over there. So just as the Athletics did with a young Mark McGwire, the Cubs moved Sing off of 3B to a less demanding position. I think it's nice if Sing is worthy, that he be available at Iowa. Somebody is going to get injured. It would be nice if you could bring up a competent guy who's also a prospect if/when a need arises.

Dempster's slider is really, really good, and his fastball isn't exactly slow. He's no Lidge or wagner, but his stuff compares favorably to the majority of closers. It's all a question of control with him. Obviusly he won't do so well as last year. But I think there's a good chance that he'll be pretty decent and perform at or above league average for a closer.

Jake, thanks for notes on Boehringer's health history with Pittsburgh. To me, how effective a pitcher is is totally dependent on the health of his arm. Dempster had a bad arm for some time pre-surgery; post-surgery his arm is better and of course so is he. When Boehringer's arm was healthy, he was a competent reliever. Is it healthy now? Who knows, and not likely, he didn't have any corrective surgery and he's 36, so not probable. But for $0.050, I don't see any problem with adding him. If his arm is healthy, he may be a useful alternative for a situation that looks thinner after Wellemeyer or Williamson are traded.

From the SunTimes: "I live now like 'What's today going to give me?' I can't say I'm going to be on the team at the end of spring. I have been pretty consistent, though, coming in at the live batting practices with my fastball, changeup, curve and cutter. Now I have the confidence to throw the changeup down and away and the fastball in.'' Time will tell, but here we see Hill self-perceiving as a 4-pitch guy! Given how good his curve is or can be, if the other three are servicable, he could excel. We'll see when the games play, of course. As for the 2-pitch charicature, I think the difference between the 2-pitch view and the 4-pitch he's currently claiming is not the addition of two pitches. I think he had three all along, with the cutter being functionally a significantly different pitch from the fastball. Maybe on TV neither we (nor many announcers) recognize the difference. But I believe that Hill was working with curve, fastball, and cutter for most of last season, at least he was during his minor league games. And depending on the quality of the fastball, I think he could accomplish a lot even without adding the change. But if he change can work in addition to the cutter, and if he mixes in a few true 4-seam fastballs now and then as change-of-pace, to keep hitters off the inside edge, to get the up-the-ladder strikeouts, and to keep the radar police satisfied, I think he could be very effective.

Time will tell, but I'd guess the 2004 draft will largely depend on Johnson, Patterson, and Gallagher. Those would seem to be the three with still a shot to become starting players. I'd think Shaver and Layden have a shot to become fringe lefties, and Reed perhaps to make it as a fringe catcher. Atkins, still too early to know. I probably wouldn't see the odds at better than 50/50 that the 2004 draft provides even one average starter, though. 2005 draft, early results are very favorable, to answer your original question, Quaker. All the early feedback on Pawelek and Veal is extremely favorable, Phelps looks like a possible steal, and Billek, Holliman, Johnston, and Taylor all look interesting at this point. Yes, it's early. But nobody has come up with a bad arm, and none of the pitchers have shown oh-my-goodness-I-never-guessed-he'd-be-so-wild kind of thing. Dylan Johnston's horrible K-problem in Mesa is the only guy who looked bad in early results, but Cubs were pretty positive about him after fall instrux. Of course, the good early feeling from the 2005 draft should be kind of expected. It was a very pitching heavy draft (Johnston was the only high-round player taken; not surprisingly he's the only guy who looked overmatched). Unless pitchers show up with bad arms (as often happens, see Clanton and Brownlie...), I usually trust their arms and they usually start out pretty fast (See Blasko, Hagerty, Jones, Petrick...). Usually it takes longer to evaluate a pitcher-rich draft, simply because it takes time to find out how many will get weeded out by injury. Also, 2005 draft looks good because we had all of our picks plus one extra 3rd rounder for Clement. In the three surrounding years, we've always been short. (Johnson, no 1st rounder.) Harvey draft, no 2nd rounder. Upcoming draft, no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rounder. Given that the Cubs are normally drafting short-handed, it's tougheer for them to keep up with other organizatons that have full drafts or have extra picks. But until some of the 2005 pitchers start requiring surgery, I'm very, very optimisitc about the 2005 draft.

Regarding original post, I agree with cubswin, Hendry may have the pitching to be in very good shape as a summer trader. And budget space. I don't see the position players having a lot of trade bait. He's not going to trade Jones right after signing him, or Pierre right after working so hard to get a leadoff. If he's going to trade position players, the bait is basically surplus 2B's and youngsters, be that Murton, Cedeno, Pie, or some other minor leaguer. I don't see any great likelihood of anything big involving our young players. But the pitching stock, that's definitely an area that could be depth and strength. And as you say, not everything needs to break right for that to become true. Still, it sure would be nice to not need to make a significant trade. Not to have a rotation with somebody as bad as Don Wengert (following Geremis Gonzalez injury) in 1998. Not to have Patterson destroy his knee in 2003 so that a CF was totally urgent. Not to have Alex Gonzalez get hurt and be so awful, as was a 2004 problem. Not to have such an emergency that you desperately need to acquire an Alf, as in 2002. Not to have such a 3B disaster as was Bellhorn/Lenny/Hernandez in 2003 so that Aram was needed. Not to have LF and CF be such a total void as was true last year with Hollandsworth and Dubois and Corey. Not to have a rotation disaster like Estes in 2003. HOpefully the good guys will stay healthy enough so that you don't need to replace them. The young guys will produce enough so that they don't go Bobby Hill. And the more questionable guys will be satisfactory enough support players that they don't go bellhorn/Corey/Hollandsworth/Gonzo on us. I'd sure love to see the team hold up well enough so that we win big this year. And still have all three of Guzman, Williams, and Hill, plus hopefully a good-news Miller, as post-Maddux options to fill the 2007 rotation behind Wood-Z-Prior. And still have control of Marshall and Marmol besides. Pitching can go from depth to thin pretty quickly. I'd love to have Hill, Guzman, and Novoa all pitching like big-leaguers at Iowa this year, but all having the luxury of staying there because the big-leaguers are healthy and pitching like big-leaguers too.

I agree with your view. When it comes to young pitchers, I think the Cubs have a strong record in terms of scouting for pitching talent and teaching/developing their pitchers as pitchers. (Scouting and managing for health, different story...) If they think Veal is ready for Daytona, I'd trust their judgment on it. If hitters are rushed, I think that's a problem; they are responders to pitching. But pitchers are the initiators, and the plate is the same distance and size in any league. Most pitchers develop at their own pace. I think the league makes a developmental difference primarily if it causes them to *not* practice the pitches that need work. That can be too easy a league (I can win with my fastball; why throw my mediocre curve which doesn't do as well?) or too hard a league (they pound my inconsistent curve and chanegup; I can be much more competitive in this league if I throw more fastballs...). Depends on the guy. But if a guy is improving his mechanics, is gaining more consistency on his fastball location and on his breaking ball and changeup, those mechanics and control improvements can really take place in any league. Veal isn't the only pitcher in the system. Veal, Holliman, Billek, Grant Johnson, Gallagher, Pawelek, Justin Berg, Phelps, Todd Blackford, Atkins, Chris Shaver, Matt Weber, Jesse Estrada, Scott Taylor, old Taylor, Avery, Downs, Yepez, there are 18 names who might pitch rotation at one of the A clubs, and I'm probably missing some others. You'd like to get the ten best guys starting. Perhaps a couple will be held back (Scott Taylor, maybe Pawelek?), or jumped on up (Gallagher? Shaver?) Perhaps a couple will show up with bad arms this spring (normally at least one or more out of 18 guys will have arm problem...). Perhaps a number will be well placed in relief (Phelps? Downs? Shaver? Blackford?) Perhaps others just aren't that good and it's no problem to bump them to relief (Downs? Avery? Shaver? Old Taylor? Weber? Estrada? Yepez?...) My point is that clearly the decisions on where to place Veal, Holliman, Billek, and Phelps impacts other guys. By pushing a couple of them up to Daytona may open opportunities for some kids who are pretty interesting prosepcts in their own right.