craig

I haven't gotten mine yet. If you are a veteran of VineLine prospect reports, how does the layout compare this year to previous years? They used to give top 10 with good thorough scouting reports, plus short notes on next ten. Last year they didn't want to offend any players by ranking them lower than others, so they just had these cheesy "best at skill X..." deals, which ended up giving the impression that Buck Coats and Micah Hoffpauir were the best prospects in the system! I hope they have some all-around prospect reports on some selected players, like in former years, even if they don't actually rank guys.

Do you really think that this is going to happen? I remember Hendry saying the same things about Dubois last year and look who Baker played. Hollandsworth was the veteran, Walker is the veteran. Hollandsworth was the incumbent, the more known commodity; Walker is the incumbent, the more known commodity. By all accounts Baker likes Walker well enough, no indication that he has any strong anti-Walker bias. Also, to be fair, Dubois hit .239 with a .289 OBP and whiffed more than a 3rd of his AB's, all while playing bad defense. I expect that if walker is K'ing 35% of his AB, hitting for low average, getting on base very little, and playing bad defense, to whatever degree there is a competition Walker won't win it with Dubois-type numbers. He'll probably need to be a pretty competent producer offensively if he wants to overcome his defensive deficiencies. If he hits like Dubois, he loses.

Hey, Chief's voice, you posted while I was rambling! I hadn't seen yours when I posted, so I like it that I thought Fuld and Phelps, and those are two of the guys you ID as well. I haven't heard a scouting report on Phelps, other than the BA report at draft. You mention him being "electric". Do you remember anything you could share? Electric fast? An electric slider? Average velocity but electric movement? I'm just curious in terms of how much stuff he has. Also, I know he didn't have much summer, and hadn't been starting in college, etc., so it made sense that he pitched limited innings in relief. Any idea whether his repertoire or personality make him an obvious reliever for always? Or whether perhaps with a fresh spring, that he might get relocated to rotation, where he'd get more work, perhaps more fame and more trade value (hard to ever expect huge trade value for a minor league relief pitcher...), or perhaps if he did great consideration as a big-league starter?

From the draft, I think Michael Phelps and Mark Holliman are two guys who might be surprisingly good. Holliman's 3rd round, so I guess that wouldn't be a huge surprise. But I don't recall the board being very enthused about him. Not exactly "under the radar", but I think Veal could easily leap into a high-value guy with success in full-A. Again, he's a 2nd rounder, so would hardly be "under the radar". But I think he's a guy who might jump higher/faster than almost anybody. Agree on Mota, having rise potential. If he was to show up at Peoria and hit .275, suddenly we'd think for a good-defense middle infielder with a projectible body to hit decently at age, might be real interesting. Sam Fuld might perhaps get more attention. He started so slow, didn't help. And being so old in low-A, natural to dismiss whatever success he did have due to his age. But if he suddenly pops up in AA and produces to the same degree, suddenly the OBP boys will be all over him, and his age won't look as bad. (24 in AA isn't as objectionable as 23 in low-A...). One other who I think has a chance to get significantly increased respect is Ryu. Last year he was coming back off an injury, and I'm not sure what his winter purposes were last year. I think he's gotten the limited respect appropriate for a guy perceived to throw mostly in the 80's. But given his youth, and being further removed from his arm troubles, I think there's a chance he might perhaps throw harder this coming season than most of the early reports from last year suggest. If he's getting guys out in AAA with a 3-pitch repertoire and has a good control/GB orientation, and if suddenly we're getting regular 90-94 mph reports instead of 86-91 reports, suddenly people might take him a lot more seriously? Probable, no. But possible.

From the draft, I think Michael Phelps and Mark Holliman are two guys who might be surprisingly good. Holliman's 3rd round, so I guess that wouldn't be a huge surprise. But I don't recall the board being very enthused about him. Not exactly "under the radar", but I think Veal could easily leap into a high-value guy with success in full-A. Again, he's a 2nd rounder, so would hardly be "under the radar". But I think he's a guy who might jump higher/faster than almost anybody. Agree on Mota, having rise potential. If he was to show up at Peoria and hit .275, suddenly we'd think for a good-defense middle infielder with a projectible body to hit decently at age, might be real interesting.

I also found the Mota stuff interesting. To have been skipped up to Boise so young so fast was unexpected last year. To again be advanced up to full-season, again interesting. Not the normal handling for a roster-fill guy. Mota is also not your ordinary 5'9" Latin SS. I think he lists at 6'0" or 6'1", so who knows whether when he's 26 instead of 18 whether he might possibly have some decent power. I imagine he's basically a guy they like defensively, and who knows what might happen with his hitting in due time. If he learns to hit ala Cedeno, maybe he'll end up being a very significant middle-infield prospect. If his hitting never exceeds the Augie Ojeda/Carlos Rojas level. Sometimes physical maturation works both ways, of course. Guy grows and grows into more power. But often as he grows into more power his range and flexibility for playing shortstop can diminish. At any rate, if Mota can be at least fairly decent as a hitter this summer, he'll remain a guy to keep an eye on.

To me that seems like a demotion. Certainly going from manager to hitting coach at the major league level would be a demotion; I would think it would be in the minors as well. I would also think that being hitting coach for a specific team would be considered a demotion from being the organization-wide hitting coordinator (which Zisk was a few years ago); however, I don't know if it really is viewed that way (just because it seems to me like it would be doesn't necessarily mean that it actually is). I believe this is Zisk's wish. I believe he became manager at one point because somebody left, and they needed somebody to fill. I don't believe he wanted to be or to remain manager, and prefers to focus on hitting coach. I also think he prefers being the Daytona hitting coach over the organizational hitting coordinator. His family lives around Daytona, and he isn't angling to promote up. The FSL is one of the least-travel leagues around, and I believe Zisk likes that. My guess is that he has served as hitting coordinator and as manager as a favor, when special circumstances needed somebody. But that he doesn't want to manage, or move up to AA and AAA or hitting coordinator.

Craig, According to the Cubs convention reports (see other thread) from Fleita, they plan on putting Spears in Daytona and Patterson at Jackson. Seems to be a waste regarding Spears, his progression says he's ready for AA. Yeah, I saw that link this morning, very helpful. Actually, I wasn't quite clear on that report. Was the Al Yellon reporter saying that Fleita said Spears would go Daytona? Or was the reporter deducing that if Eric gets WTenn, then Spears would go Daytona? Wasn't entirely clear on that. When I scanned through some of the responses to that article, one of the respondants who'd been at the session said Fleita had also talked some about Spears perhaps playing some 3B. Bottom line would seem to be that Eric opens as the primary AA 2B, and given his age and the talents (much faster, more power) that he has that Spears will never have, that makes sense. Spears will play the first month of the year at age 20; he's still really young. if he returns to Daytona, that's no big deal, he's got time if he's actually going to become a major leaguer. But it's also possible they could share some time at 2b, Spears could play some 3B, Spears could perhaps play a little SS, one or the other could DH a little for rest... Someone asked earlier on this thread who will play 2B for Cubs in 2007? That's perhaps even harder to answer than the question of who will play 2B this year. Most likely it will not be somebody from the current farm system. Spears is almost certainly too young. The odds that Eric, who was still in low-A in July 2005, would have advanced enough to be the April starter in the NL in April 2007 is very unlikely. Murton and Cedeno, they never K'd much. Contact guys like Murton, Cedeno, Spears, Fuld, McGehee, are often more able to survive promotions than high-K hitters like Dopirak, Harvey, and Eric. Eric has an opportunity, for sure. But he's going to have to show a lot of improvement this year to get any consideration to start next year.

Craig and Fontenot are viewed as roster fill guys. Craig is a DH who can play a little 3rd and 1st, Fontenot is perhaps Walker-like in his 2B defense, and his lack of utility flexibility. He's got zero of the 5 traditional tools, the only thing he's got is the abilty to walk (although he K's a lot). Cubs like McGehee as a potential bench guy. He's the kind of hard-working contact-hitter/hustle/high-IQ/good-defense/fundamentals guy they like. Spears and EPatt are the problem pair, unless Spears plays SS which I doubt. Both have a shot to emerge as starting 2B, but both are far more likely to live in the majors as utility guys. As such, I think both would benefit from some action at some other positions. Maybe Spears some SS and 3B? Eric could use some 2B work and maybe some CF? My guess is they put both at AA, and let the manager decide who seems better at 2B. The "competition brings out the best" view. An alternative is to put one at Daytona, but which? Eric is older and has more tools, Spears is younger but hgas already handled high-A pretty well. Cubs could do it either way if they wanted, but my guess is they'll just let them work it out at WTenn.

Thanks again, deuce. Do you recall if Fleita talked at all about unfamiliar Latin players, or whether he thinks they might have some significant Latin guys we haven't heard about yet? Do you know if he made any comments about Ryu or Marshall? And do you recall if anybody talked enthusiastically about any prospects that might not be as familiar as the Pie/Cedeno/Dopirak/Guzman types? Somebody we might not know about as a prize prospect, but Fleita thinks is pretty good or has a chance to emerge soon? (Last year none of us thought Murton was super special. Two years ago who'd have guessed Cedeno was going to be hitting .300, and even last year who'd have guessed he'd be figuring to be a starter? Just wondering if Fleita gave any indications of guys they are excited about or think may be ready for some kind of a Murton/Cedeno/Hill-like breakthrough....)

Thanks much, deuce. Anybody else who was there or had gotten reports from elsewhere, would be great to get more info. Was the new draft boss Wilken there, and did he sound smart or have anything interesting to say? Of those comments, probably the most interesting to me are: *Pie up to 200 *Plan for Sing to work in outfield. (With Jacque Jones as a LH RF, there's a chance that an opportunity for a power-hitting platoon partner might arise in the next year or two, if Sing advanced well...) *Positive Guzman stuff *Weird idea that EPatt isn't a K-king, which is contrary to his 2005 season. (K'ing over 100 times in the shortened minor-league season, 22% K-rate against mostly low-A pitching, that's liability, not asset).

I don't have any info. But I was hoping that somebody may have been able to go, or to find links to somebody(s) who did and might share some info from that. Thanks in advance.

If anybody has come accross any information from the "Down on the Farm" session from Sunday, I'd love to hear whatever info. And I'd love to have that linked or posted in the minor leagues topic. Thanks in advance.

It's also possible that even Guzman might start at AA. Even if he doesn't, a rotation of Marshall and Marmol isn't a bad start. If Gallagher was to skip all that far, that would be pretty interesting nucleus. If Wells or Mateo were there and produced, they could also be interesting. Chris Shaver had a 1.18 WHIP and 2.22 ERA in 6 starts at Daytona; it's possible that with another year of instruction that he might be suprisingly interesting, too. Maybe Connolly. Maybe the pitcher they got in the Corey trade will skip up. Maybe they'll eventually get somebody for Todd Walker who will fit at that level. And then there's also Lee Gwaltney as roster-fill possibility. I don't think there's any chance he'd start at WTenn, but I've still got a long-shot wish that Blasko might turn up fully recovered after 20 months of recovery, and regain some interest. Obviously he'd open at Daytona, if anywhere.

.280's.

Tim, one of the things I found interesting about the NRI was that there were ZERO pitchers. Every offseason it seems there is speculation about how the next Iowa rotation might be talented and exciting and filled with prospects. Pretty much every year there end up being some roster-fill veterans, often with some big-league experience. Jimmy Anderson, Jaret Wright, etc.. But normally several of these fringe ex-major leaguers and some other AAAA journeymen are invited as NRI's. This year, zero (at least, zero at this point, and in other years they'd normally have some of the others already signed). So that suggests they may figure they have enough system bodies to populate at least the rotation. As you note, it seems like there are plenty. Hill, Ryu, Guzman maybe (maybe AA, of course...), Koronka (rotation or relief), and one of the Valdes/Pigs/Brownlie types. Perhaps Marshall or Marmol might even open there, or join soon enough if they start fast at AA (Marshall especially). Also possible that either Patterson or Walker will bring somebody to join that mix. Soto and Reyes at catcher; Restovich, Pie, Greenberg, Coats in OF; Sing somewhere betwee OF and 1B; Sing, Hoffpauir, and Craig at 1B; McGehee at 3rd; Theriot and Ojeda and maybe somebody of the Lewis/Fontenot type in infield. They've pretty much got enough guys to populate that team. Might not be very good. WTenn's offense wasn't that hot once Murton and Pie were gone, and if Pie doesn't do well it might not be especially good in AAA rather than AA. And while Brownlie, Pigs, Valdes, Ryu have all been appreciated prospects at one point or another, history suggests that pitchers typically add at least a run and often two to their ERA's after going from WTenn to Iowa. So that might end up being a sub-.500 rotation, for all we know. But it might be pretty good, too. Hill, Guzman, Marshall, Ryu, Koronka, and Marmol could be a very solid rotation.

You are correct. All references to Neifi as a projected starter, or to Walker as the 3rd string 2B, have come from Kiley. Neither Bruce Miles nor Paul Sullivan have ever made either of those claims. And obviously Bruce has specifically said the Cubs signed him with a reserve role in mind. (Of course, when they signed him they probably assumed Walker would be long traded and that Furcal would likely be acquired before now... So even if they did see Neifi as a reserve when signed, given subsequent disappointments perhaps they have changed their view by now, who knows.). I don't really believe Kiley knows much on this, though. If the Cubs were going to start Neifi and Cedeno, why wouldn't they keep Neifi at SS, where he's played most of his games and has done so very well, and of course has tenure? And move Cedeno to 2nd, where he might be excellent and where his erratic throwing arm might not result in as many throwing errors? Seems to me that if Dusty is going to count on a veteran to start, out of deference to the veteran he'd keep the veteran at the veteran's preferred position. Summary: if Neifi was projected to start, he'd start at SS. That Kiley is suggesting Neifi will start at 2B probably means Kiley doesn't really know what is likely to happen.

Yes, Coats is done at SS. Pretty much any catcher in AA or above, and many from A, get invited to spring training. So many pitchers throwing, you need a lot of catchers to handle them. Does not reflect anything serious about Anderson or Fox. Although it may be interesting that Ritchie was not invited while Fox and Anderson were. Probably doesn't reflect anything encouraging about Ritchie's status or future. When you look at it, basically every pitcher or player in AA or AAA who's ever done anything or who is less than 28 years old gets invited. Pretty much all of the wTenn bunch are there, other than Bacon and Craig? Reyes, Sing, Theriot, Coats, Greenberg, Pie, Sing, Murton, that's eight of the guys who were starters early in the year. And of their pitchers, Nolasco and Pinto would have been had they not been traded, and even after losing them Valdez, Pigs, Marshall, Ryu, Marmol, Aardsma, and Wells are all in camp. That Craig and Bacon didn't get invited probably reflects what roster-fill they are viewed to be. Perhaps they'll add a number of other outside AAAA guys. But most winters they've had in a larger number of outside people. To have only Anderson, Grissom, Augie, and Restovich, that's probably a record low. Probably speaks to what a solid team WTenn had, and they probably want to reward those guys. Perhaps the most surprising invite to me was Randy wells. He put up good numbers this year, but his usage and history don't suggest he's viewed as anything serious. His numbers were pretty good, though; 2.83 ERA, 110/29 K/W in 108 innings is very good, only 5 HR/108 innings is solid, .642 OPS-allowed is good. INterestingly enough his BABIP-allowed was probably unluckily high. (.321 if I figure the total number of at-bats being the number of hits plus 3 times the number of innings. But since a number of outs always result on the bases, via caught stealing, pickoffs, thrown out taking an extra base, and retired via double play, his BABIP-allowed was probably nearer .350.) Wells is built well enough (6'4", 210) and young enough (played the season at age 22 before turning 23 during last week or so) and inexperienced enough (has only been pitching for two years) so that he may not have reached his ceiling yet? Haven't gotten any especially positive comments on his stuff, though. And how he managed to allow only 5 HR's in 108 innings while having a GB/FB ratio of only 0.98 is somewhat questionable, may have gotten kind of lucky.

UK, you note that Corey had flaws after AA that remain today, and that they were wrong to promote him when he had flaws. Some guys have non-correctible flaws. Most every prospect has some flaws, whether correctible or not. Is a team "rushing" a guy every time they promote a player with flaws? Obviously not, else hardly anybody would ever leave A-ball. Prior had flaws (slow delivery, poor at holding runners), but they promoted him anyway. Z had lots of flaws (wildness, obviously, and emotional composure), but they promoted him anyway and he was slowly able to improve, regardless of level. When is it "rushing" to promote a guy with a flaw, and when is it perfectly appropriate to promote a guy despite flaws and figure he'll need to continue to work on them at the next level just like he'd need to at the current level? Corey has achieved varying levels of success despite his difficulty in reading pitches, which is his limiting flaw IMO. Would you have kept him at AA indefinitely? Perhaps to this very day, since he hasn't corrected it yet? (And has had not less but more motivation, if it were in fact a correctible problem...)

Who knows what's really going on. But my impression is that Hendry offered Prior for Tejada/Bedard long ago, but Baltimore demanded more. Rumor had it that Hendry upped it to Prior/Hill for Tejada/Bedard, but Baltimore said no. Would seem reasonable that Baltimore wants either wants Pie in addition to Prior/Hill, or in place of Hill but still in addition to Prior. Tejada/Bedard for Prior/Pie? No thanks. Some will pile on Hendry for even considering any Prior deal, others will pile on for not being willing to trade Prior/Pie for Tejada/Bedard. But I for one have zero interest in packaging Prior and Pie for Tejada and Bedard.

I agree. But in terms of the "clutchness" thing, if there are 10% of players who would fail for mental reasons, it would be interesting to know in advance. And in terms of the theory, it would be interesting to ascertain whether in fact there is some pool (perhaps small) of players who do underperform in clutch. This gets exactly to the point. If there is no such thing as anti-clutchness, then a guy who can post 3.3 ERA in the 7th ought to be able to post 3.3 ERA in the 9th. A guy may be nothing more than a 3.6 ERA guy in the 8th, but then he ought to be able to perform comparable in the 9th, if in fact there is no anti-clutchness involved. If a team considers pitching 3.2-ball in the 7th to be good, but considers the same guy pitching the same 3.2-ball in the 9th to be a failure, that could happen I imagine. Then the team is stupid. Obviously they shouldn't expect any more. But if no anti-clutchness exists, neither should the pitcher perform any worse. This argument is that Hawkins is anti-clutch, and that clutchness (or it's lack) does exist. Why does he need any different peripherals or any different offspeed stuff in the 9th than in the 8th or 7th, if clutchness does not exist? The suggestion is that he's more relaxed in 7th/8th and thus has a better breaking ball is arguing that he's anti-clutch and being unrelaxed in the 9th compromises his effectiveness. He didn't need to be magically clutch, or overachieve; if he'd simply been able to pitch at the same level, with the same kind of K rate and GB/FB rates that were good enough to give him 2.13/1.86 ERA's in setup, if he'd simply pitched that same way in closing he'd have been fine. I'm not concluding that Hawkins was anti-clutch, by the way. It's possible that his demise was simply coincidental. His arm was sore, or his mechanics changed, or whatever.

James may believe there might be some clutch hitting thing that no Saber guy has been able to come up with a way to measure, relative to the noise of data scatter. Clearly the majority of perceived "clutch" hitters it's a results of data noise. It still seems to me that if I were a saber guy, I'd think it might be easier to come up with some way to measure somebody who's anti-clutch. Hard to find guys who persistently overachieve in clutch, if any such exist. But it seems much more qualitatively plausible to me that there are other guys who underchieve in the clutch. I'm just wondering whether any study to that effect has ever been done? It's a lot easier to perform below one's capabilities than beyond one's capabilities! With MPrior, I think this seems consistent with some closer guys, including Hawkins. Certainly it's well possible that Hawkins non-success as closer was coincidental, random, noise, etc.. But the long-standing view that any pitcher can do as well in the 9th as he does in any other situation, I'm just not convinced yet that it's true. Some guys can, I'm sure that's true. But others, I find it very plausible that guys who are used to pitching 7th inning and do it decently, that if suddenly switched into 9th inning duties, knowing their team is on the line, their reputation is on the line, their future career and future earnings and future fame and glory is on the line, it seems entirely plausible to imagine that for some guys, they might not perform interchangeably. I have no saber evidence that the hypothesis that some guys tend to underperform under special pressure is true. Obviously tons of baseball players believe it. They may all be idiots. But how many times haven't we heard pitchers talk about needing to just relax and throw their game? And how many times haven't we seen rookie pitchers *not* pitching relaxed, and pitching with much poorer control than they did in the minors? I never expect a debut pitcher to have the same kind of control that I think he had in Iowa, or that I think he might have once he settles in. Maybe those pitchers are all idiots who think they need to "relax" and that they pitch worse when they don't. But maybe they aren't, and saber guys just haven't taken the time to study or figured a way to study the performance of nervous pitchers versus relaxed one? And how many times haven't we heard hitters talking about being in a team slump, that everybody is pressing, that too many guys are trying to win it all by themselves (swinging for HR, swinging at pitches outside of the strike zone?) Maybe these idiot athletes are cracked, and are totally mistaken that they perhaps produce worse when they are pressing or swinging too hard or too aggressively at bad balls. But it doesn't seem impossible that perhaps they are right? I think saber guys when they've looked have always tried to look for "clutch" guys, overachievers. I think identifying underachievers, anti-clutch guys, might be a lot more possible because it seems so much more possible to underperform than to overperform. [/i]

Notes: 1. I don't have them, but I think numbers throughout the league differ in "clutch" situations, or late-situations, etc., from normal. Pitchers work more carefully, nibble mroe, walk more (OBP rises), but allow fewer hits. It's common to consider rotation pitchers superior to relievers, but year after year relievers allow lower batting averages but higher WHIPs. For the hitter, the situation is *not* the same as normal, because pitchers don't pitch the same as normal. 2. My understanding is that in baseball, studies indicate little evidence for such thing as a super-clutch hitter, guys who can significantly or consistently **outperform** their norm in clutch situations. Notable stuff is typically a result of small sample size, and tends to flatten out. (As suggested by reggie Jackson in WS versus playoffs...) 3. However, it's my understanding that many players are able to perform about as well in "clutch" situations as they do under normal circmstances. That's my idea of a clutch guy. He doesn't choke when the pressure is on. Doesn't overthrow, doesn't overswing, doesn't expand his strike zone, etc.. 4. My hypothesis is that while few if any players can consistently "overachieve", that there may be some who "underachieve" in the clutch. Guys who are "anti-clutch". When the pressure is really on, the pitcher starts to overthrow, or his delivery starts to erode a little. When the pressure is really on, a hitter maybe swings too hard, or begins to expands his strike zone. Vance, I think there have been saber stuff on supposedly "clutch" performers. Have there been saber studies on "anti-clutch" performers? If my hypothesis was true, then a "clutch" guy is simply somebody who performs as well as normal in crisis, whereas an "anti-clutch" guy is somebody who doesn't. The other thing is, if a guy is responding to stress or pressure or crisis or whatever, what constitutes a pressure situation for one guy might be quite different for somebody else.

I don't know exactly what evidence it provides. Yes, that he's not a highly valued player, for whatever reason. The simplest reason would seem to me that Walker is viewed a poor defensive 2B, and nobody wants to acquire a poor-fielding 2B to be a starter. Or pay much for the privilege. (No different from Hendry's view). The view around here is that Walker's hitting is so good that it more than makes up for whatever defense he lacks. Most GM's don't seem to agree. If Walker doesn't start, then $2.5 for a non-starter is no longer bargain money. And he's problematic as a bench guy, since 2B is the only position he plays and he doesn't even play that well. Maybe a little bit of 1B. But he's got no multi-position flexibility. It's evident that he isn't valued very highly around GM-dom. But I don't know that indicates any problem with his attitude. Just with his defense.

I like the concept of acquiring Craig Wilson, and I think it makes some sense. As we've all noticed, Jones has extreme splits. If you limited Jones to facing RHP and RHP only, Jones would look a lot more promising. I think the prospect of a Jones/Wilson platoon could end up with a remarkable number of K's, and obviously with poor defense on Wilson days. But offensively that kind of platoon could be pretty productive, and likely get the best out of both players. Hoops' source may have it right that all of baseball hates walker because of attitude stuff. But I think it's also reasonable to attribute his situation to baseball factors only. He's not a good fielder, we've all seen that. Nor a good baserunner or situational fundamentals type guy. What he's good at doing is what he does in the batter's box, if his skills in the box were like his skills outside the box, he'd be in AA, not the majors. Offering Walker for Wilson does not suggest a dump-Walker-at-all-costs approach. Nor does considering Walker for Orlando Hudson, or Walker for Aaron Heilman, or Walker for Adam Kennedy, or Walker for Milton Bradley, or Walker for Affeld or MacDougal type rumors. All of those kind of rumored names involve guys with significant value, not "dump at any cost" discussions. Wilson's salary, combined with his incredible K-rate and poor defense, might make Pittsburgh relatively open to dealing him. He'd almost certainly frustrate Cub fans; runner on 3rd, one out, and Wilson K's again! But I think he'd be a lot less frustrating than Jones facing LHP, and his OBP/slugging/OPS are all pretty solid. He's got a remarkable batting profile. Unlike most Cubs, he crowds the plate, so that he can use his pull power on almost any fastball strike, even those on the outside half. But because he crowds the plate, he gets beaned all the time. He got beaned 30 times in 2004, and has gotten hit 81 times in less than 1600 AB's! Hhis career Iso-D is almost .100, which is amazing, and of course he does walk a lot. A cat like Corey has a career Iso-D of 0.039. Wilson's got 0.032 in beanballs alone, and another 0.064 in walks, really amazing. I'd be happy if Walker stays. I think his bat could help the offense so much. But I think Walker for Wilson could also help the team, certainly more so than a Walker-functioning-as-3rd-string. And I certainly think that a bad-fielding 2B does a lot more damage than a low-range RF. I admt it would also be kind of a relief to have Walker's situation resolved one way or another. And finally, while their are good reasons to appreciate walker, I think replacing his defense and fundamentals dumbness would be of some value.