craig

Scotti has suggested there is no problem, since the Cubs have mostly drafted pitchers, and the draft production of position guys simply follows the pitching emphasis. Some thoughts: *Cubs have only drafted 3 1st round players during the ten years since Hendry took over the draft. But all three were top-6 picks. I think it's reasonable to be hope for more than Nate Spears out of three top-6 picks. *Over that ten years, the Cubs have taken 16 position players in rounds 1-3. Thanks to compenation picks they've have a little more than 30 selections over rounds 1-3 during those ten years, but position players have absorbed almost half of the rounds 1-3 picks. Having taken almost half of the picks during rounds 1-3, and all three of the top-6 picks, I think it's fair to be disappointed in the position oucome. Why hasn't it been better? *I think luck has something to do with it. Corey didn't work out, he could have. Montanez was a weak draft. Things went wrong for Hill and Kelton. *I think the Cubs prioritize high-celing guys who are strong in non-hitting tools. They have focussed their high-round position picks on players with notable tools outside of the pure-hitting tool: speed (Corey, Hill, Mallory), power (Corey, Dopirak, Harvey, Mallory), perceived athletic ability (Corey, Kelton, Harvey, Mallory, Nic Jackson, Bobby Hill), throwing arms (Mallory, Kelton, Harvey, Montanez...). I believe that rather than compromise on ceiling and settle for some guys who look like hitters but have some tools limitations, they want the athletic toolbox guys and hope they'll be able to hit, thinking that if they turn out to have the hitting tool, that they have big-star potential. I believe they tend to think that hitting can be learned, and also that plate discipline and pitch recognition are learnable skills that can come with time and experience. As a result I think they tend to prefer more toolsy guys, relative to guys who may look stronger in terms of pure hitting and pitch recognition but are more limited in terms of throwing/running/power tools. For example, I don't think the Cubs would have burned a top-35 pick on a guy like Murton. The Cubs would have preferred somebody else, rather than spend such a high pick on a player they could already see wouldn't run well enough to steal bases or play CF; a player they could already see didn't have much of a throwing arm and certainly couldn't play RF; and a player they could see didn't have knockout power. So I think it's because the Cubs have placed such a high empashis on high ceilings and on having strong marks in non-hitting tools, they probably haven't been so successful in getting pure-hitting players. I personally believe that to a large degree hitters are born, not made, and that there are some inherent tools in the brain required to read and respond to big-league pitching, tools that go beyond the more easily scouted power and bat speed. So I think the Cubs have too strongly assumed that talented athletes will learn how to recognize pitches and learn how to hit and learn plate discipline if only given enough time and added experience. I also think that "tool" is hard to scout. When scouting a HS Corey or Kelton, how can you tell whether they'll ever learn to put the bat on the ball? How can you tell whether he'll center the ball and hit for excellent contact, or always have trouble swinging through pitches and striking out? How can you learn whether hitting the breaking ball is beyond their talents, or is well within their talents but they just haven't seen many yet? How can you tell whether with experience a guy will have a good eye and will be able to project shortly after a pitcher throws whether the ball will cross the plate in a hittable zone, or will slide a foot off the plate and be a pitch you should take? When Hendry drafted corey, I recall he made some comments that suggeested he thought Corey had a good command of the strike zone! It's not easy to scout, that's for sure. I don't actually believe it's a developmental problem. I think the development people do emphasize selectivity and all that. I just don't think the Cubs have drafted guys who had the inherent tools to be good contact hitters and good selective hitters. [/i]

It's a mystery how all the rotation guys will shake out. Will Williams be as competent as he was last year? Will he be in better shape and be even more competent? Will Wood come back? Will Guzman be good? Will Miller offer anything, and if so how soon? Will Rusch be OK, or rotten? Will Hill look good, or like wildman? Questions, questions, questions. My guess is that Hendry holds his cards until more of those questons have positive answers. Or until their is more urgency to make a trade. If he thinks Jones is fine, and Murton is fine, and cedeno is fine, and Walker/Neifi/Hairston is acceptable, no rush to make a deal. And even if you want to, why bother unless there's actually somebody available who looks a lot better than what you've got? Six weeks from now things may look a lot clearer. Does Guzman look great, like "Wow!" great? Or does he look like just a guy who's got a pretty decent arm but who doens't have consistent control yet, and who's an injury risk? Does Wood look 100% and ready to rock, first week or if not by April 15 or so? Or does Wood look like he'll take a while. Does Miller look fine, on pace to be May10 ready? Or look like he's no-way a factor before mid-June at the earliest? Does Williams look fat and lazy? Or sleek and commmitted? Is Williams throwing 87 with an occassional 90-91 topped in? Or is Williams consistently humming it up at 90-92 with an occassional 93-94 for good measure? Is Hill looking healthy, confident, consistently throwing fastball at 89-93 and popping an occasional 94, making guys shake their heads with his curve, and making a few look silly with a surprise changeup? Is he making you go "Wow!"? Or is he just lookiing like an 86-89 fastball who throws a few nice curves but basically looks like another wildman? Who knows? But I think Hendry will want the early feedback on a bunch of these to look favorable before making any trades.

It's very rare for a low-walks guy to ever become a high-walks guy. Sammy Sosa is the classice exception. Guerrero is actually another; he has a reputation as a low-walk hacker, but he's been above average in walks for the last five years at least. Has taken 60-84 walks in four of last five years. Obviously pitcher fear factor is part of it, but... It's not clear how bad Pie's walk problem is or will be. His career IsoP is 0.059, that's not that bad. His career walk rate is >8%, which would be right around or a shade above big-league average. This past season was his first year in which his IsoP has dropped below 60. That, of course, is the norm for the vast majority of hitters. 90+% of major leaguers had higher walk rates in the minors than they have in the majors, and the norm is for the walk rate to drop with each level of promotion. Pitchers get better, and have better control, and walk rates drop. Pitchers get better breaking stuff and are better able to throw knockout pitches that strike you out, and hitters are more reluctant to let themselves get into a two-strike count where they can get whiffed. So they perhaps tend to swing more early and often, ala Dopirak and Corey and Harvey. Ithink the concern with Pie is that he's getting and will continue to get worse in this regard. He's now tring to mold himself as a homerun hitter/slugger. And as poor as his walk-rate was in AA, it was much worse in the Dominican. Vance (I think) noted that Pie had "all the tools". We'll see. I believe that pitch recognition and the eye/brains to read pitches enough to have good plate discipline is primarily an inborn tool, and isn't a teachable approach which is just a matter of choice. That just may be a tool that Pie does not have and never will. The fact that he strikes out so much, combined with the walk concerns, does not bode well in this regard. He may need to get by as best he can with that as a limitation.

Theriot is way ahead of Fontenot. Theriot is a good fielder, and can play a good SS, 2B, and 3B. That makes him an infield candidate, with utility profile. He's also a good contact hitter, and contact guys who don't whiff much are less likely to be ovewhelmed by the superior pitching in the majors. (Normally high-K guys have more difficulty with promotions and have their production drop more significantly than do low-K hitters.) Fontenot is a good walker. But he's not a good fielder, sort of a Todd Walker type, sub-par at 2B, bad at 3rd, don't-even-think-about-it at SS. Not a good profile for a utility infielder. Not a base-stealer, not a power hitter, although he K's a lot like a would-be power-hitter. Not a very high-average hitter (probably because he K's so often). I don't think the Cubs see Fontenot as having any future with them in the majors.

Thanks for the recap of the comments. The notion that perhaps Murton and Cedeno wouldn't be used at #2 this year could be a good thing. There has been considerable angst that Neifi would start ahead of Cedeno. With the comments Hendry has now made repeatedly, and that Baker made on several occassions at convention and caravan, that seems to be a non-concern. Cedeno is the man, and he'll probably need to take a Bobby-Hill type nosedive to lose it. Now there is angst that Neifi will start at 2nd. Let's assume two options. 1) Cedeno or Murton bat 2nd. 2b bats low in order. If you figure it's bottom of order, Neifi's hitting may not seem so unacceptable. A reasonable chance that they'll consider him to play a lot. 2) Cedeno or Murton not to be used batting 2nd this early. And lets assume Barrett won't, either. So who does that leave? Whoever is playing 2B. When deciding who to play at 2B, if he's got to bat 2nd, who do you choose? Neifi's bad offense/bad OBP doesn't help his chances of being the choice. If you want Neifi to *not* play very much, that is much more likely is the 2B is required to bat 2nd than if the 2B bats 8th.

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.