craig

Seems to me that Hendry has made it abundantly clear in the past that he does *not* consider it is appropriate to be telling the manager how to use his roster. That he does not interfere with his manager's usage of players. That he hired Dusty and approves greatly of the way he has handled his players and the team throughout the actual circumstances that have existed. On the face of it, I don't see *any* indications that Hendry would ever consider trying to "make it clear to the manager that Neifi is a backup". Am I reading the situation too simplistically, Bruce? That behind the scenes Hendry might be trying to drive the manager's decision-making on how to use the roster Hendry provides him? Or, for that matter, that behind the scenes Hendry might not be quite as enamored with Dusty's managing as his public statements have consistently suggested? I just don't think Hendry is going to tell Dusty how to use Cedeno and Neifi. Dusty is the manager, he runs the team and runs the games and runs the roster. That's his domain of responsibility. I don't think Hendry is likely to butt into that kind of stuff.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. I think Koronka has a chance to provide some service to the Cubs. Some players improve, and he has done so over each of the last several seasons. He's better now in AFL than he was during the year; he was better this year than last; last year than the year before. His ERA the last two seasons in the inflationary PCL were 4.24 and 4.34. Not thrilling, but hardly "terrible". Mitre, who's been highly regarded by many on these boards, had a higher 4.33 ERA thiis year. Zambrano's ERA's in the PCL were up around 4, not much better than Koronka's. I'm not saying Koronka has any chance to be an excellent major league pitcher, or much chance to even be average. But sometimes having a somewhat-below-average player is a lot better than having a terribly-terrible player. Koronka hasn't been that far off from being a servicable player. Not so far off, IMO, that with some improvement he might become one. Probable? No. But possible, yes. I was surprised how hard he threw with the Cubs, regularly in the 90's. We've often seen situations where a guy throwing rotation has his arm tired a bit after regular rotation work, and perhaps also needs to pace himself a little. It's not at all exceptional for a rotation pitcher to pick up 1-3 mph when he moves to relief, when he's throwing with all he's got for 1-2 innings, and when he's psyched to the max for the pitches he throws. In relief, I think it's possible that Koronka would be regularly in the 90-94 mph range. His change isn't bad. It wouldn't take too much refinement of his curveball for that to become a more useful K-pitch. Given the very mediocre standard for lefty relievers, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to see Koronka possibly evolving into a decent lefty reliever. No, not a great one, or a thriller, or a big stud guy. But instead of spending $2 on Guthrie or $12 on Remlinger, I think it's possible that Koronka might be a guy who can do a better job at minimum wage, in the not distant future. Probable? No. But possible enough to give the possibility consideration. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in 2013 Koronka has a well-established big-league career as a 2nd lefty reliever, and when we look back we see guys we had much higher hopes for (Mitre? Wellemeyer? Leiecester?) never made a mark. I'm not saying Koronka is very good or very likely to establish a career, or is a better prospect than Mitre or Wellemeyer or Sisco or Pinto. But he's not so much worse that it would surprise me if he ended up having more long-term success?

I completely agree. But Giles for RF would completely set up the 2006 season to be a success. Everything else would be gravy. Hendry can get 2 of Giles, Furcal, Burnett, but there's only a steep dropoff from NOT getting Giles. If he does go with Furcal and Burnett, he would have to be very creative in the OF. I don't know if I trust his creativity. (Burnitz). I agree. Of Furcal, Giles, and Burnett, I think Burnett is the one I'd rather sacrifice. If you don't get Giles, it's easy to imagine a situation where the offense will be very mediocre, and even with excellent pitching to struggle to win above .500. I think the potential difference between Giles and Jacque Jones or Giles and Austen Kearns may be larger than the gap between Burnett and Williams, for example. That said, there is the age thing, and Hendry does like to go younger. If you did sign Furcal and Burnett, put Cedeno and Murton in, and get Kearns (for example) in right, you'd have zero aging players in the lineup. That would provide a roster in which Maddux was the only one of the main 15 guys where any age-based decline would be expected in the next several years. Everybody else should project to remain at peak or improve nearer to peak. If you did that and the gamble (Kearns, for example) worked out solidly, you'd really be set up nicely.

Even with all the money, Hendry is going to need to do some gambling. Perhaps with a guy like Burnett; spend a bundle, hope he's both healthy and very good. Perhaps with the rotation in general: that Prior and Wood be both healthy and effective, and that if a williams or Rusch or Hill or Guzman is used, that they be effective. Very possibly with the rookies, Cedeno and/or Murton. Perhaps if he spends on pitching and Furcal, he'll end up gambling on RF (Kearns or whomever.) But even with all the money, I don't expect he'll actually be able to cover all the bases, which might include: Burnett for rotation, Giles for RF, Furcal for SS, some non-great but solid and safer CF person, solid veteran options at 2B in case Cedeno busts and in LF in case Murton busts, and a solid, safe RH setup man, and a solid, safe LH reliever also added. He can't do all of that stuff. My guess is that the place where he'll compromise will be either the Burnett rotation spot, the Giles RF spot, and/or the CF spot. He may end up coming short on several of those targets.

I like Burnett as a target. Burnett might never get better than he has been, but he's been good. In each of his most recent non-injury years, he's had ERA's below 3.7. He hasn't sustained the Cy Young <3 year yet, but he's been very good. If any of Z, Wood, Prior, or Burnett put up 3.3 ERA's, Cub fans will always feel like it's not quite as "ace"-ish as we expect, and would kind of see that as underachieving to varying degrees. But if you have all four of those guys, and they can all come in at or below 3.5, you've got a really good situation. And in any given year, probably 3 of the four will be fairly healthy. In a good year, one or more might have a really good year and be better than that. Rusch as #7, that's where he belongs. Williams as #6 would be a nice situation. I think he's got a chance to be a pretty nice relief guy; he's not afraid of working from the stretch, obviously, since he always worked with runners on base this past season but was uncommonly calm/lucky/composed about sticking to it and getting out of jams. Getting Burnett could also open things up to trade. We can call it "redundant", but without some redundancy how can you deal? Developing a redundancy would then make Williams and Hill more available for trading. I'm not saying I'd prefer Burnett to Giles. But either one would add a lot of fuel to the Cub engine. I like the idea of Hendry being proactive this winter. In past, I've thought he sometimes tends to be very patient; make a modest offer early on, then wait things out to see which FA's end up losing their bidders. That was the Alou way, Hendry jumped in late when Alou suprisingly came out with minimal market. Ditto for Maddux, Hendry came on when nobody ended up pursuing Maddux. But seems like maybe this year Hendry is going to target early. Makes sense, because he's got so much money, and so many different ways to try to fill out the puzzle. Every decision dominoes on others. So if he could resolve the Furcal/Burnett questions early, that would make it tons easier to know which other questions will remain and how much money he'll have left to answer them.

The Cardinals could definitely use Giles, no question about that. And since they aren't obsessed with youngsters, getting a vet like that would fit their habits. That said, when the Cubs played most of their Cardinals games this year, I didn't feel like the Cardinals really had that imposing of a lineup. Edmonds ended up with his usual wonderful numbers, but I admit I don't fear him like I used to. Maybe the fact that he hit .263 this year, and will turn 36 in June is part of that? Rolen was out for most of the Cub games, and that really makes a difference. He may be back strong, but is that a safe bet? They got really good years from Grudz and Eckstein, but I admit I don't really fear them, and think either could go down. They got very solid play from all the 2nd-fiddles, Nunez and Gall and Rodriguez and all those cats. But I wouldn't be shocked to see any of those guys do worse next year. My point being, they've had an awesome offense for years, and put up excellent offensive numbers again this year. But it was really their consistently strong pitching second half which made them so good. If they *fail* to get giles, if some of their other guys sag some (well possible), and if either of Rolen or Edmonds doesn't come back strong, it's possible that they could end up with an unusually mediocre lineup. That could add a little pressure on pitchers who are solid but not necessarily dominant, like Suppan or marquis. I think they may be more vulnerable than I sometimes realize. Course, if they sign Giles, Edmonds and Rolen come back healthy and stay healthy, a lineup with Giles, Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen in the middle in some order would be really scary, especailly when matched with one of the better pitching staffs in the league.

I wonder about this. Last year, coming off his good season, Rusch was classfieid by the Elias system as a *starting pitcher*, not a reliever. And he did *not* make class B, he only made class C which does not bring any compensation picks. I'm not sure exactly how they decide how to classify a guy: over 03-04, he'd appeared in a few more games in rotation than relief. Over 04-05, he may be now eligible for the relief class, since he appeared in more relief games this year. By innings, of course, he's got lots more rotation innings. Elias normally takes the previous two seasons. Given how bad his 2003 was, peerhaps even if he's in the rotation pool this year his 04-05 combo is improved enough relative to 03-04 that he'll now make class B. In the relief ranks, he's got a limited number of appearances, but a lot of innings, and his 2-year ERA of around 4.0 would fair quite well among relievers.

Seems to me that for the Cubs to improve, both the pitching and hitting needs to get better. I think improvements in both are both possible and probable. A lot of things went wrong, so even without upgrading the personnel I'd expect a better outcome next go-round. But the personnel will be upgraded. Murton and Cedeno are upgrades already. Wood is very likely to be an upgrade. And with $35+ to spend, it's hard to imagine there won't be additional substantial upgrades to come. It's inconceivable that CF won't be an upgrade too, since they won't stick with anybody to be as awful as Corey was for so many CF AB's. Which should receive more focus, the pitching or the hitting? I tend to side with those on the hitting side. For several reasons: 1) the supply of pitchers who would provide an upgrade, and the associated price. Ryan, Burnett, Millwood, after that who is a safe bet to ugprade the staff by any significant degree? Given how overpriced pitching always is, supply and demand does not favor the Cubs adding scads of stud pitchers. Some improvement should come by adding outsiders. But most will need to come from within. Wood adding something. Prior giving more. Perhaps Williamson giving more. Somebody doing better than the Koronka/Mitre/Hill crew did in their rotation starts thjis past year. 2) As stated by others, we've got pitching that can get better, without going outside. But it seems clear to me that we have a number of positions where we can go outside and get probable improvement. If we can elevate the output at the other positions nearer to average, Aram and Lee could have the net offense well above average. It just seems so much easier to raise the level in LF/CF/SS than it does at rotation. 3) I know pitching is huge. But given the nature of some of our pitchers, I think we have some guys who really benefit from a solid, consistent offense. Maddux, Williams, the Prior we saw for most of the year, these aren't shut-down knockout aces like Oswalt and Clemens. These aren't guys who will throw back-to-back-to-back complete games like the Sox have been doing. These are guys who will labor their way to hold the damage to 2-3 runs in 6-7 innings. For an offense scoring 4-5 runs per game, that's enough to win a ton. For an offense struggling to score, that same level of pitching can give you a definite losing record. I guess I'm saying that an offense that scores will make life a lot easier on the pitching, and will make the pitching look a lot better. Did St. Louis have good pitching? Yes. But a lot of that came from Suppan and Marquis and Mulder and Morris, guys who competed but were rarely "great" and didn't dominate anybody. But they limited the damage and the offense usually scored enough to make them winners.

Yep the season's probably over if Prior and Wood bite the dust again... Obviously if Wood, Prior, and Z all miss the entire season, having Rusch available won't save the season. But I think there's a good chance that: 1) the Cubs might comtend for a playoff spot, 2) that if they do, they won't run away with a playoff spot by a bunch of games, and 3) that one of the Wood/Prior/Z trio will have some issues at one point or another during the season. Maybe Kerry is good for most of the year, but isn't quite ready at start of April, or has his back bothering him enough to need a 15-day DL in August. Maybe Z is good for most of the year, but sprains his toe in July or needs a 15-day DL for his back in August. Maybe Prior is good for most of the year but gets his elbow beaned in May, or has a collision with a 2B during July, or has his Achiles bugging him in September, or has the back problems that require him to miss a couple of starts. It's not like it's an all-or-nothing deal. Even a contender almost certainly needs some fill-in starts by their #6 and #7 starters at some points during the season. And given how injury-prone the Cub staff is, and that all three of Prior, Wood, and Z have battled recurring back problems in addition to recurring arm issues, I think it would help a lot to have a respectable option. Might actually help those guys. If Dusty has a Rusch who's having a good year, and can usually give a competent if non-dominant game, maybe when Z's back is killing him he can skip a start and get well. If the choice is between starting Koronka or Z-with-a-bad-back, Dusty will just ride Z and the back pain may never ease off.

Maybe that's exactly what they did.... and identified that there *is* a need to bring Rusch back as insurance? They charted Mitre's pitches, and noticed that he doesn't have anything that he can throw consistently in the strike zone to control the count. They watched Koronka; and made the logical conclusion that Rusch was a better bet. They watched Guzman in Arizona... and judged that his arm is iffy and he doesn't have any control at present, so they aren't sure if or when he will. They charted Wood going to surgery, and couldn't conclude that he'll be healthy and good. So they perhaps charted Williams in as #5, Hill in as #6, and Rusch in as #7. Hill may be removed because he may be invaluable in relief, or may be too wild to be good. Wood may be removed because he's injured. Prior may be removed because he's injured. Z may be removed because he's injured. Williams may pitch worse than Rusch. Seems to me there is plenty of reason, given the age and fragility of the front 5, to think that the #7 guy might be needed, and might be worth $2.5 million bucks. To want some insurance other than Koronka and Guzman as your #7 starter, I guess I don't see why that's so crazy.

And yet, toward the end you could have easily let Rusch go and use Hill, likely not giving up a thing. I hate that this organization builds in the excuse not to use a guy in advance. "We have to sign Rusch because we don't know what Hill can bring us." Why didn't you see what Hill could do in the 2nd half. "We had to see if Maddux could manage a 15-15 season, and Rusch earned those starts." Make the right decision in the first place and you wouldn't be stuck feeling it's necessary to negotiate with Glendon Rusch. I most wholeheartedly agree. Although you are assuming that a few September starts would have established a viable alternative. It's equally possible that giving Hill or Mitre or Koronka 3 more starts in September would have reaffirmed rather than relieved the felt need for Rusch insurance?

The principle is the same. GM needs to decide whether he wants the player or not. Hendry wanted Rusch last year, and apparently would like to have him again this year. (And as discussed before, I don't blame him for being interested in Rusch at very restricted price.) So anytime GM has some interest, even if limited, he's always going to want to make the best deal he can. Which is better, $2.7 flat, or $2.0 with some incentives? Which is better, $2.7 flat, or $2.0 with a $0.5 buyout on a second year at $3.5? Which is better, $2.7/1 flat or $4/2 with the player having an opt-out on year two? Obviously if the judgment is that anything beyond $2.0 flat is too much, and if you think even that is actually too much, you don't mess around with any of these other things. You say "Take the $2 or take a hike". Or perhaps you hope he runs away from the existing $2 option, becuase you think $2 is already too much, without having any interest in jazzing it up further. Hendry's judgement seems to be a little different, apparently. He may be wrong, I'm no Rusch fan myself. But Hendry may be right, too. If we end up with the playoffs hinging on whether it's 4.5 Rusch or Koronka pitching a month of fill-in games, I may be glad Rusch is around. I don't think that a Rusch-type is safe to be even 4.5; obviously he might go 6. But at the same time I don't think it's valid to assume you can pick up a 4.5 type pitcher by snapping your fingers, for no money and at a moment's notice. The 1998 season in which we had Don Wengert and Mike Morgan losing almost every time they started is a reminder to me of that. And the problems that Mitre and Hill and Koronka had this year is a reminder that you can't always just call a guy up from AAA and be able to rely on him to perform at a mediocre level.

That is something I would not consider. The guy could easily throw up a 6+ ERA this year, injury or not. That would mean paying $2m for a worthless pitcher, and then being forced to do it again next year, because he knows he can't get more. No responsible GM should ever put Rusch in control of whether or not he gets to come back a year in advance. I'm also not keen on giving players player options. It usually works out unfavorably for the club; you never get the guy for the second year at a good price if you want him. If he's good enough to want back, he opts out. You only get him back at originally scheduled option price if he stinks or gets hurt. I also fully sympathize with your aversion to incentives, especially appearance-based ones that are unrelated to successful performance. However, I understand why GM's do these things. You're always negotiating value. The GM has two kinds of value to offer: he can offer guaranteed dollars, and he can offer other stuff, like option year buyouts, incentive clauses, player options, etc. Hendry gave those sorts of things on four of his contracts this past offseason: got Rusch back at $2 by offering the extra player-controlled option year and the incentives. Got Walker signed at modest price by offering the second year with vesting option and with player-option built in. Got Aramis signed (as many on this board urgently wanted); the dollars in the deal were not outrageous, IMO, but I suspect Hendry would have needed to offer more if he hadn't allowed Aramis the opt-out clause for after this upcoming year. Essentially Hendry only locked in a 1-year extension on Aramis, but he didn't have to give a huge salary to get that. Likewise Nomar got incentives. My expectation is that in each of those cases, Aramis in particular but also Rusch and Walker, they wouldn't have taken the offers without the extra "stuff" in them. Hendry had to decide: a) let them go unsigned (and in Aramis's case have FA hanging over all year...), b) pay them more guaranteed money, or c) keep the short-term guaranteed money limited by instead supplementing an otherwise inadequate offer by throwing in some player options or incentives. It's hard for me to judge whether offering those player-controlled options or incentives is wrong unless I know how much guaranteed money would have been required in their absence.

Jennings is an interesting suggestion, Fanzone, I don't read that much so haven't heard that before, hadn't thought of him. He would be kind of an interesting guy. I wonder how Rockies feel about him and vice versa? Maybe he's a guy just itching to hit FA and leave Coors and get a decent ERA, so they see a need to transact him before the clock runs out? If so, perhaps you could get him for modest price. If they have a mutual appreciation, tne Rockies aren't worried about either his price or impending FA, he might be pretty expensive in talent. He's real wild, so he'd fit right in with the Cubs wildmen! And he might not be as good as Williams, but would be given rotation privilege regardless of performance based on status. But yeah, if he was available as a rising-salary-impending-free-agent for a modest cost in talent, he might be quite interesting. That's all well and good. The problem is Rusch owns a $2m option, and is apparantly willing to decline that option, theoretically hoping for more. What if he declines that option, and asks for a 3/$6m deal ($2m per)? What if it's 3/$9m? What if it's 1/$3 or 1/$4m? If Rusch exercises his option, I have no problem with his return (although it would be great if they could trade him). But if Rusch wants more than a 1 year deal with $2m guarantee and nothing more, then let him go elsewhere to find it. Well, that's why you have discussions. If he's asking for $9/3, you say goodbye and good luck. I generally agree with you but not completely; I would be willing to juice up his current contract a little, but not very much. Perhaps bump it from $2 to $2.5; perhaps add a year with a buyout, so he's guaranteed an extra $0.5 if they buy him out. Perhaps add an extra year in which he again has a player option, so that he's guaranteed another $2 even if he gets hurt. Perhaps juice up the incentives a little; if he ends up with a job out of camp, gets 33 starts, and pitches 200 innings, it rises to $4 or something like that. (Very unlikely without some decent performance along the way...). I guess I don't see the current $2 as being the best offer take-it-or-leave-it max. But I wouldn't go very far beyond that. And I'd also make it clear in any discussion that no rotation spot was being promised; ending in the rotation may be possible, but it is by no means something to assume.

I agree that he's just not good. But I don't agree that he's a dime a dozen. Seems to me that the market for guys like Clement, Lowe, and Russ Ortiz suggests that guys who can keep their ERA's near $4 are not a dime a dozen; they are $24/3 value! Rusch obviously isn't that good; I think he's got a fair shot to be a 4.3-4.5 type guy, a chance (small) to be a <4 guy, and a chance (fairly substantial) to be a 4.8+ guy. But guys who throw strikes and can be decent, 4.4-ERA types are *not* a dime a dozen. The market sets their value at around $2-3 million, maybe higher if they have any upside (Rusch has little). So I think paying Rusch at that sort of level, in the $2's, is not unreasonable. I agree with your point that incentives are based in appearances, not excllence. So the last thing we want is Rusch to get 30 starts, because that would mean a lot of mediocre pitching and would also mean that somebody who might be good (Wood? Prior?) was hurt. I also agree that Rusch should not be paid as a rotation starter. He should be considered as a swing man. A rotation filler, if: a) intended starters are injured (Wood, Prior, Z), or b) Williams flops, and c) nobody from the Hill/Guzman/Mitre/Nolasco pool elevate strongly very quickly. The best case is for the current 5 to be healthy and excellent, or to replace Williams with somebody like Burnett who turns out healthy and excellent. The next best case is that if a hole emerges, one of the young pitchers has already elevated his performance so that he's so compellingly ready that even Hendry and Dusty put him into the rotation, and he does well. The worst case is that the rotation springs a leak, the young pitchers are not improved enough to command or succeed a shot as the replacement, and Rusch becomes the best option. That would be very non-ideal, IMO. But it's still realistic enough so that you need to cover yourself. I'm not interested in Rusch as an intended rotation member. But I am interested in him as a #7 starter. Because often you need to use your #7 starter for a while. And to spend $2 for a #7 starter who'll possibly be fairly decent for a while does not strike me as money ill spent.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to commit beyond one year or a couple of million to Rusch. If he wants to decline the option, and thinks he can get a guaranteed rotation spot or >$3 on the market, go ahead. But I think having him back with a base of around $2-2.5 and some incentives that go up to $4 or so is fine. Wood and Prior have had some injuries, obviously, and Z is due for some. Maddux is old. Williams is hardly a high-quality or safe bet. Still, good starting pitchers cost a mint. With Prior/Wood/Z/Maddux all locked in, and Williams looking pretty respectable, what are some choices? 1) Go after a top-flight guy. After maybe Burnett and Milwood, are there any others available? Do you want to spend the super-excess price that guys like that cost? Starting pitching is always overpriced a ton. Does it make sense to spend the moon on a non-quality guy like Burnett who's injury record makes Wood look Maddux-durable? Maybe, but I can easily imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable. 2) Go after a decent but second-tier guy? Clement, Russ Ortiz, Derek Lowe, guys like that cost $24+ million. Do you want to spend that much for a guy who's unlikely to be more than a middle-of-rotation pitcher, and who you might not need at all if both Wood and Prior show up healthy? Do you want to go $26/3 for a guy who really may be no better than Williams? Maybe, but I can imagine the price might jump beyond reasonable. 3) Go after a limited back-end guy for insurance. But any starter costs too much. Do you want to spend $4-6 per, perhaps for two or more years guaranteed, for a guy who may be worse than Williams, and hasn't the upside of Hill or Guzman or Nolasco, but who by virtue of his contract will then be locked into the rotation regardless or how the kids are developing or that salaried vet is performing? Maybe, but maybe not... 4) Go after a Rusch-type. Doesn't cost too much. Too small a fish to be guaranteed a rotation spot. Given his left hand, could have some function on the team even if he wasn't that hot in relief this year. Isn't a big enough contract or a big enough name to block Williams or Hill or Guzman or Nolasco or Pinto or whomever if they are earning a spot. But is still a decent insurance policy: if Wood isn't healthy, or Prior or Z have trouble, or williams bombs, or Guzman doesn't improve at all, or none of the Nolasco/Pinto/Mitre types really elevates significantly. Seems to me that Rusch at $2-2.5 base isn't free, but provides a reasonable safety net at modest cost.

INteresting question, Jeff. In past the Cubs have typically had the two waves of rosterings, the 6-year guys (Zuleta years back and Ohman last fall are examples), and then the Rule 5 protections later on. So if in fact they have declined to roster him before the 6-year free agency deadline, I assume it's highly unlikely they'd decide to roster him later even if they could. I do suspect that they could, though, that it would be permissable. I'd think if he becomes a FA, he can arrange any kind of contract he can get from any team, and the Cubs are on equal footing with St. Louis or KC or whomever. If they want to offer him a roster spot, I assume he could (and would) accept that. If he wants to accept a minor-league contract from the Cubs, I assume he has the freedom to do that. Question: There is a period where players are required to "declare FA". Has it ever happened that somebody was eligible but did not do so, or would there ever be a reason why for a minor leaguer, they might elect not to even declare? In Sing's case, assuming the Cubs elected *not* to roster him, I'd think he might swing a better salary on a minor-league deal elsewhere, but more significantly I'd think a player with his power and production could arrange a roster spot with some team or other. And of course unlike a Rule 5 pick, that team could still option him to the minors for the next three years, so they'd have plenty of time to polish him up. I would think that if Sing does *not* get a better deal elsewhere, either in terms of money or roster status, that there would be little reason to leave. He's been moving up the ladder steadily, he's spoken quite favorably about some of his coaches, he's got a lot of friends in the system, and he's a Chicago area kid. He signed young, had a lot of develolpment to do, and lost hunks of two seasons due to injury. So it's not like the Cubs have been stalling his progression or anything like that. So I'd think taking a minor league contract for the same salary with another team would have zero advantage over taking equivalent deal with the cubs. mhuber makes a good point: if he has become or is about to become a 6-year FA, then what's he doing in the AFL? If he has just become a FA, could he even remain in the league? If he's about to become a FA, would it have made any sense to send him? The fact that the Cubs sent him would seem to suggest that the Cubs expect him to remain with them somehow or other. Maybe the dealine hasn't really passed yet, and they will roster him? Maybe they have already rostered him, but haven't press-released the news? Maybe he's not going to declare FA? Maybe we don't have a full understanding of the rules, and he's not actually eligible yet after all? Maybe he's already told them he won't declare? I dunno. But the fact he's there doesn't seem consistent with a scenario in which he's gone history.

Sound like a fair number of outs came via flies. Must not have had the sinker doing much sinking today.

With Raw, I can't think of many Cub prospects who have skipped high-A, other than the Pattersons. (Assuming Eric starts next year in AA...). Both were special cases, Corey with his high draft and talent, Eric with their emphasis on not bouncing first-year guys around, and with WTenn losing Theriot and having playoff situation whereas Daytona no chance. Other skippers: Sergio Mitre skipped high A. Didn't seem to bother him any. I think maybe Tydus Meadows skipped high A for a while, then got sent back there short enough. Nolasco skipped low-A, but that rotation was crowded, so somebodyhad to. There has been some talk of Gallagher perhaps skipping high A. Blasko started in low A but jumped to high A after about 1 or 2 starts, due to injury and hole at Daytona. Soto skipped low A, didn't seem to hurt him any. I don't see a lot of skipping in the system. AA is obviously the big step. Anybody who's rocking in AA is within a shot of the majors, circumstances being right. A guy can go straight up like Murton or Greenberg, or Mitre in 03, or Beltran and Sanchez in years past. But it's also true that the Cubs have had a lot of pitchers who looked just fine at Pringles who weren't really major leaguers. Brian McNichol, Phil Norton, Mike Meyers, Jeff Yoder, Matt Bruback, Sergio Mitre, Todd Wellemeyer, Pinto, Nolasco, Kyle Farnsworth, etc.. There have been a lot of prospects who had real solid numbers and seemed like real solid pitchers in Pringles who were never any good in the majors, and many who looked pretty competitive, perhaps outstanding, in Pringles but got rocked once they hit AAA. There aren't any "nothing to worry about" steps along the ladder.

Excellent point. For Cub pitchers, pitching-friendly Pringles/Southern League to hitter-friendly PCL is no question the toughest step. A lot of guys who looked good in AA have looked like roster-fill in AAA. (See Brownlie, Pinto, Valdes, Pignatiello this year; Nolasco last year...) I used to consider the jump to Pringles to be the worst step for hitters, back in the days when Corey dropped from a .300+ guy to .260, Hinske went from a .300-type to .250-.260, Zuleta and Roosevelt Brown weren't quite as hot, Ryan Gripp went from an interesting prospect to a bust, etc. etc.. Recently that's seemed no longer true; Murton, Pie, Greenberg, McGehee, Sing, Bacon, Soto, Hoffpauir, Craig, Coats, Theriot, they've been pretty much the same hitters at WTenn as they were at Daytona, sometimes better. Obviously the AAA to majors step is larger, much larger, than any individual step in the minors. And with reason. In minors, the gap between entry player and top players is always limited; if a guy on top is too good, he doesn't stay in the league. But guys like Pujols and Bonds don't get promoted out of the NL.

I'm 8 pages behind on this thread, and don't expect there's any substance to this alleged rumor constructred by unknown unreliable sources. But Lowe touches on a favorite subject of mine. Lowe is noted as a sinkerballer, which is normally inferred to be an asset. A low-K low-walk sinkerballer who gives up a lot of hits but gives up few HR's because of his sinker can be a huge asset. But a low-K sinkerballer who's giving up lots of hits and also gives up lots of HR's can be a disaster. Just because a guy is GB-oriented does *not* mean he doesn't give up plenty of HR's. On hanging sinkers, I suppose. Lowe gave up *28* HR's this year, while pitching in pitcher-friendly HR-unfriendly LA. That's a *lot* of HR's. The combo of lots of hits (it's been 4 years since Lowe has allowed fewer hits than innings...) and lots of HR's is a combustible combo. Be careful what you wish for.... All that said, Lowe has often *not* allowed all *that* many HR's. In Boston his HR-allowed were often pretty respectable. Had his HR-allowed been normal this past season, his ERA would have been a lot more impressive.

Do you think that could give the worst defense in cub history? I'm not saying the offense might not make up for it. But the notion of having awful Manny in left, with rubber-band-arm Murton in right, and Walker and Aram in the infield, is really scary. Murton's likelihood of being the intended RF for the Cubs is about somewhere between 0% and 0.000001%.

Guy at Guzman game the other day said he was awesome, hit 97 with his 4-seamer, was consistently 93 zone with 2-seamer, threw all four pitches, threw strikes strikes strikes, and said that the six hits were three infield hits and three bloops. Said he looked fantastic. And like so many first-hand observers have noted, observed how easy and relaxed and pure his mechanics looked. This is one of the puzzles with the guy. They've always talked about how good his delivery looks... yet he's had arm troubles anyway. Personal thoughts: 1. Pitchers get injured sometimes. Sometimes when they are stronger, they are less prone to that. He isn't the guy he was back in A-ball. 2. Sometimes we look for patterns, and for good reason. But injuries sometimes do come and go, as coincidences. A guy gets nagged with injuries for a while, then gets healthy and stays healthy for a while sometimes. Other guys are healthy for years and years, then suddenly get bit by injuries now and then. Are some guys at higher risk of injury than others, perhaps much higher, and is Guzman one of those guys? It would sure seem so. But I'm not sure that injuries are all that predictable, especially for a guy with great mechanics. 3. Ron, I disagree that moving to relief would be that problematic for him. If he's as good as he sometimes looks, he'll be good in relief too. Pitching isn't *that* much different, if you can throw strikes and have good stuff starting, a guy who can throw strikes and has good stuff should also be an effective reliever. 4. While it may be that rotation is more likely to cause injury than relief, it's by no means certain. The irregular and unscheduled usage in relief may perhaps be almost as or more risky. It's not as if he'd be injury-proofed by using him in relief. 5. Personal opinion: keep him in rotation, not even close IMO. It's basic risk/reward stuff. His possible value in rotation is so high, and the difference in injury risk, while perhaps being higher, to me seems only slightly higher. Not enough difference in risk to justify giving up on him in rotation. 6. Take your chances and take what you get. As Cub fans, of course, it seems perhaps inevitable that anything that could go either way will go against us. But I think we just have to put him out there and hope he holds up. Sometimes things do work out, you know. Cruz didn't, but Zambrano has. Corey didn't and Choi didn't and Hill didn't and Kelton didn't, so it's seemed like all position prospects fail. But now all of a sudden Murton doesn't come up and fail, he comes up and looks good. And Cedeno does too. Maybe our luck with kids is ready to turn around, and Guzman working out will be a big part of that.

Ron, thanks for your comments. I don't get the impression that many of the nsbb posters are too interested in Ryu, so I really agree with your view that he's flying under the radar. This year the goal may have been simply to get through the year, and he did that very nicely. Eventually the goal will need to be better than that, to not only get through a season but to be a good pitcher! He was a good pitcher this year, relative to AA. Can he be a good pitcher, relative to the NL, at some point in the future? That's the question I'm intereted in. I'd like to think the answer is yes. With his curveball and his change, seems there are a number of useful big-leaguers who are effective with high-80's/low-90's fastballs. And my guess is that as long as it reads his fastball as 87-91, nsbb won't be that enthused about a RHP with 87-91 velo. But if we'd been getting reports about 90-93 with touches of 95, suddenly the enthusiasm for Ryu would be way higher. Does a 3-mph difference really mean that much? I dunno, maybe yes, maybe no depending on how great the curve is and how useful the change is and how much location/movement there is on the fastball. But I also remain hopeful that with another year, that not only will Ryu be even better at using his stuff (i.e. better control), but that he'll actually have better stuff. He's still young enough so that he could possible pick up a couple of mph. After a year (or more) with arm issues, I don't know what his conditioning plan was for this year. But it's at least possible, if not necessarily likely, that being a year further removed from his arm problems, that perhaps the arm will be a little bit more strong, or a little bit more healthy, or he'll be better able to condition it over the winter to be a little more jazzy next year. I'd think that if he has the curve and the change, and suddenly nsbb perceived his fastball as being an asset rather than mediocre or perhaps a mild liability, nsbb might be a lot more interested in him. Is any of that likely? Probably not. But it's at least within the realm of the possible. I'd love to see it happen.

Questions: For JaxxRadio, perhaps especially. 1. Somebody suggested they liked Marshall (if healthy) better than Pinto or anybody, suggesting that he throws as hard as Pinto but has better control. Ron, would you say that's true, from your observation on Marshall? I was under the impression that neither his fastball velocity nor his fastball movement were nearly as good as Pinto's. I'd have guessed his fastball more in the Hill 88-92 range. What are your thoughts? *note: I wonder if Pinto's stuff isn't underappreciated a bit by some posters. Sure, he's kinda wild. But man, that guy was totally anti-HR this season. You can put a few more guys on base and get away with it when you didn't give up HR's. (See Zambrano. And see Maddux for the opposite, a guy who may have a nice WHIP but gives up so many HR's that his ERA will be average.) 2. Ron, how good do you think Ryu's stuff is, compared to the other lead guys? What is it that makes him not quite as good as Nolasco or the other guys? Not quite as much velocity on the fastball? Not quite as much life? Not quite as good control of the breaking ball? 3. Somebody touched on Hill, how he can have "electric stuff" but still profile as no better than a #3. I wonder if the "electric stuff" is misleading; he's got an electric pitch, the curveball. But I'm not under the impression that either his change or fastball qualify as "electric". One electric knockout pitch with some perfectly fine other pitches can win a lot of games. But I think really it's the curveball that's special. 4. Ron, thanks for feedback on Pie's defense. The tepid report on his defense concerned me some, since I've always assumed that his defense was going to be a signature virtue for him.