craig

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

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 And of those who can, which have any of the stuff that originally made them interesting?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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.