craig

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.

I was surprised that both Dopirak and Moore made it. And disappointed that neight Marshall nor Marmol did. Dopirak's got the gorilla power, but his numbers were so awful and his running/defense so blah, I didn't expect him to fit in such a competitive league. Rare for a guy who isn't exceptionally young to make the list with a mid-.600's OPS, if he isn't a golden-glove SS kind of prospects or a speedburner. Dope's BP power must still be pretty impressive even though he only hit 16 in games. Would you guess that 12 games and 69 innings wasn't enough for Marshall to stay on people's memory? Or that he just didn't look like as good a prospect as Moore or Dopirak or 20 other guys? If I was convinced that Marshall was healthy, I'm pretty sure I'd rank Marshall ahead of Dopirak or Moore on my Cub prospect list.

Thanks for that Lujan report! If it's the same guy, sounds like a roster-filler to catch Instrux pitchers, but sounds like he's neither young enough nor talented enough to be a meaningful major league prospect. O well. Funny reading, anyway.

i dont think corey was rushed. .... ..Take away half of 2003 and he's been a dissapointment no matter how you look at it. He should have learned that strike zone in the minors. He should have had that "you can hit 40 home runs" mentality taken from him in the minors. He should have stood for hours at the plate taking BP, getting a fine every time he swung at an eye-high fastball.... I agree with you when you say Murton and Cedeno are ready. They are. Pie isn't and we dont want him to turn into Corey 2.0. I agree that Murton and Cedeno are ready, and that Pie is not. I also thought that Corey was rushed when he came up. That said: There will never be a definitive answer on why Corey has been a disappointment. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the rushing cause the disappointment, or would he have been just as disappointing had they parked him in the minors for an extra three years, and he'd still not have changed much? We'll never know. Your post talks about how he should have practiced and been penalized for swinging at bad balls. Seems to me that while he didn't get $$-penalized in the minors for doing that, he's been essentially penalized every time he's struck out or hit a worthless pop or made an easy out swinging at junk. He's had years of booing and fan complaint and disappointing performance; if all the failure and disappointment and negative reinforcement he's gotten while doing those things in the majors hasn't caused him to correct, why would you assume that some negative reinforcement in the minors would have caused him to correct the problem? I suspect he wants to, but lacks the pitch-recognition/response talent to do so. That could have been as equally true in the minors as in the majors. An analog for Corey is David Kelton. Kelton didn't have the speed or the defense or lefty-ness of Corey, nor quite the good health that Corey has enjoyed. So he wasn't quite as toolsy a runner and wasn't drafted as high. But from the start Kelton was hyped as a great hitting prospect. Corey and Kelton, two great hitting prospects who were drafted at the same time. Corey moved fast ("rushed!"), the other moved very gradually (not rushed at all). Even though he was anything but rushed, Kelton has maintained the same types of problems that Corey has. Kelton K's too much, walks too little, swings at pitches he shouldn't, and isn't able to mash enough of the pitches in the zone. His hitting progress stalled and disappointed in a similar way that Corey's did, even without any "rush" to blame. Kelton didn't fail because he was rushed, but because he just doesn't have it. It may well be that Corey also failed not because he was rushed, but because he just doesn't have it. Of course I can't prove that. But neither can it be proved that Corey's failure is in any way caused by his rate of advancement. We'll never know for sure. But there are other guys who are rushed along who continue to make adjustments and improve even after reaching the majors, who find out that fanning at high fastballs is counterproductive, so they get the negative reinforcement and are able to improve following adjustment. That Corey has been unable to do so may be less about the rush than about Corey's ability.

Thanks, Jaxx (and Dave). Heh, I hadn't quite figured out that "lujan-mex cat." meant his name was lujan, and that he was a catcher from mexico! Now it all makes sense. The Cubs have only signed 2-3 players from Mexico, in my memory, and none that started low and went anywhere. Danial Garibay, of course, but he was already an established high-minors guy by then. Obviously Borowski, but he was special. I can maybe recall one or two youngsters, but I don't recall either making it out of short-season action. I wonder if Lujan is a not-so-young guy from the Mexican League pipeline? Or if he's a young kid? If he's young, it's interesting that he'd be in Instrux. Normally they don't invite total non-prospect roster-fillers there. Of course, they always need to have enough catchers to handle the pitchers, so having a catcher invited doesn't mean he's anything big. But I'm hoping that maybe he actually will be a prospect, and if not they'd have just brought in one of the roster fill catchers instead? Would be really cool to actually sign another International position player who was good. Zuleta early 90's; Choi late 90's; Pie early 2000's. Position guys who have been good starters even in A-level of full season ball have been relatively rare. Not likely that lujan is the next, but it's not impossible.

Choosing not to sign Giles or Damon seems quite likely. As does the likelihood of being unable to acquire an impact OFer at a cost Hendry is willing to pay. So, if those are the conditions for considering Furcal, then I think Furcal should remain under active consideration at least until we know Hendry is willing to pay the price required to get a knockout outfielder. It also seems plausible to both sign Furcal and get an outfielder. I think Furcal is a very good SS, both ways. The odds that Cedeno will be as good immediately, or ever, are not great. Furcal walks more than Cedeno ever has, he hits more HR's than Cedeno ever has, and he steals more bases than Cedeno ever has. He's a very good player. Further, he's equipped to be a leadoff man, now. With Cedeno's typically low IsoD's, and his inexperience, he's not a realistic candidate to lead off in 2006, and perhaps not ever. The number of big-spending teams likely to want a SS projects to perhaps be minimal. The Cubs might be able to get Furcal at relatively fair-value price, without a gross overpay. If Hendry can get an asset-SS who's plus defensively and offensively and who solves the leadoff problem at fair value, he should consider doing that. It's hard enough to ever get a quality FA at fair-value price; if that becomes possible, I don't think Hendry should pass on that simply because Furcal is a SS. I also don't think Cedeno would be wasted at 2nd. His defense is way better than Walker's. Whether you view Walker's as acceptable or as weak, Cedeno's would be a huge step up. And while the cost margin relative to Walker or the Grudz/Hairston's that populate 2B isn't as large as the savings relative to Furcal, it would still be substantial. If Cedeno's two-way combination is good value (especially at price) at SS, I don't see why it wouldn't also be decent value at price for 2B. And I think having middle-infield settled with two guys who can both field and run, and are young enough so that that should remain true for 4 years or more, would greatly stabilize the roster, the baserunning, the defense, the fundamentals, etc.. I'm not saying Furcal is the answer, or should be signed. But as I look ahead, I think it's possible that Furcal will be available at a much more reasonable price (given teams buying) than Giles or Damon, guys who may be targetted by multiple big-spending teams. If the market goes supply-demand overboard on Giles, who'll be 35, but is pretty fair on Furcal, it might make a lot better sense to sign the much younger guy at a more value-fair price, and put leadoff to bed for a bunch of years. Then we won't fuss with trying to force Pie into leadoff where his K-loving anti-walk profile will perhaps misfit. It will be easier to ease Pie into the lineup, batting low. Or Cedeno, batting 2nd or 7th or 8th. Or Murton, batting 2nd or 6th or whatever. Obvoiusly signing Furcal and starting Cedeno at 2nd could involve trying to get a fair-value trade for Walker. Should we do all that? Who knows. But I'd at least consider it.

Thanks. Who are: westphal, ... lujan-mex cat.? I know Westphal is the guy who hit .105 at Daytona, but where did he come from? I thought normally Instrux seemed to be for semi-interesting guys, not pure roster fillers. Surprised he's there.

Lee, ARam, Barrett, and Z are about the only ones to be counted on. I'd build around dempster, too, given cost/risk/value. Personally I'd be happy with Walker back, but I'd be open to trading him instead if value was fair. I'd support resigning Nomar in some capacity (2B or OF) if he signed for a price I liked. I'm fine with either Murton or Cedeno or both. But I don't think any of the Walker/Nomar/Murton/Cedeno bunch are secure enough, health/performance-wise to count on them performing at a high level. Plan for him, but don't depend on him. If he's healthy and strong, absolutely structure your team so that he'll be able to be used as starter as opposed to relief. But don't structure so that if he isn't healthy and good, the season is cooked. I'm fine if they do, and use the funds to upgrade elsewhere. But I don't think it's a must. For example, if Murton was sharing a spot with a Hairston or Burnitz, or was perhaps a 4th outfielder platooning with somebody in left and available to play fulltime if/when Nomar got hurt, I'd be fine with that. I wouldn't object to Nomar in left and Giles in right, with poor Murton on the outside, for example. I don't trust him, really, and don't want to build around him as #5. I'd prefer to add a rotation pitcher (if price is right, which is rare for pitchers...). I think Williams could do well in relief, and would be better as #6 starter, who became #5 only if/when Wood or Prior or Z got disabled. Or,put differently, I'd like to see a situation where, in the even tof zero injuries, there was one spot to be filled by the winner of the Wood/Williams/Rusch (if back)/Hill/prospects pool. If wood is good, great. If not, Williams or whomever. But I don't want williams as #5, Maddux as #4, Wood as #3, Prior as #2. As soon as Wood or Prior get hurt, then a rotation with Maddux-Williams-Hill/Rusch as 3-4-5 could be scary bad. Nothing certain. I definitely believe Cedeno is ready to handle a job. But I'm not certain he'll really excel if so, and I don't think it would be a big problem to have him *not* be given a regular job. I'd like Cedeno at SS and Nomar at 2nd. I'd like Furcal at SS and Nomar at 2nd. I'd like Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2nd (if they use Walker to get some OF help, and spend the money well in outfield/pitching). I do think the prospect of going with Nomar/Walker defensively up-the-middle would be hard to love. Who plays CF? The Cubs can't trade Corey for very much right now, so the smart play is to rebuild him. That starts in winter ball. If he opts not to play winter ball, the Cubs can't afford to wait until spring training to find out if he can hit. Can the Cubs win a world series with Hairston playing CF? Who would you acquire? Sign Damon? Trade for Hunter or Cameron? Is Greenburg ready? Please don't tell me that you think Pie is? Greenberg no way. Pie not at first, for sure. Corey is a question. Not only can I not count on him, I seriously wonder if I even want his salary. I'm reluctant to be throwing $2.5 at a guy I don't trust to start, and if he's not starting will not be of much use. I could see just winging it; hope Corey bounces back, if not Hairston hold the fort till Pie? Do you bring Burnitz back? I don't think so. I think RF is the best chance the Cubs have to improve their offense this off season. I think the two best options are signing Brian Giles or trading for someone. Easier said than done, of course... Limited pool of options, and I assume the guys who are a significant upgrade on Burnitz are unlikely to be available for trade... But no, I'd like to make a change. Maybe just for change sake, I don't know. Getting Giles would certainly make sense in many ways, but unlikely the Cubs will pay the length he'll get. We haven't even touched on the bullpen. Re-sign Dempster? I do. Who else do you build around? Ohman? Probably. Wuertz and Novoa? One or the other, but preferably not both. Make a big play for B.J. Ryan? If possible. Trade for someone like the Twins' Jesse Crain? Depending on the price, yes. Stick with dempster and hope he holds up. Keep Ohman. After that, it all depends on everything else... Is Rusch back? Do we get a starter so Williams is possible bumped to pen? Williamson? I'd like to get one serious RH reliever from outside, and might be game to settle for that, pending Rusch.

Some Cub pitching prospect (with Corey's contract thrown in) for Quentin is not going to happen. I'm blah on Cameron. He's having a career year to be hitting .273 this year, but that's partly lucky. (His BABIP is way higher than normal.) Put his BABIP at normal and you have what I'd project for next year; a guy who'll hit somewhere around .250. A .250-hitting CF who takes a walk, hits a few HR's, and plays good defense would be better than what we got from Corey this year, for sure. And probably better than we should expect from Hairston for next year. But trying to sell the budget and sell the farm to get .250-hitters doesn't thrill me too much. Hypocritically, since Hunter is somewhat similar, with an extra 20 points in batting average but fewer walks, I would have some interest in Hunter. If Twins eat some salary, and perhaps throw in a prospect or something to level things, I'd be willing to consider taking on $7 or so in salary to have Hunter. For example, if they took Corey's salary, threw in $2, and threw in somebody who'd be maybe their #20 prospect (not great but might turn out...), I'd be interested. Hunter's not great. But he's better than average, he's better than Hairston, and he's more reliable to be better than the bad-Corey. Hunter's defense really is exceptional. It's possible that the Corey we saw in 03-04 might post a .770-OPS that's as good or perhaps better than Hunter might give. So we could perhaps make a trade, take on a $7 million of costs (plus obligation to 2007 buyout or contract), and have Corey play as well in 2006 as Hunter does. But I personally think that the security of having a .270-type hitter with a .330-type OBP and a .770-type OPS, combined with great defense and a really likable personality, would be worth some millions in cost. Corey might be fine, Pie might come along and be as good as Hunter by August, Hairston might be just fine, Cameron might come through and hit .260... but I'd pay some money for insurance against a big disaster, comparable to the disaster that Corey-05 has been, and that could happen again next year is you count on Corey or Pie, or a guy like Cameron who might hit .220.

Good points. He does have a lot of money and flexibility. Part of that flexibility is having a lot of servicable options internally for open spots, even if some of the internal options aren't great. It's not like he absolutely *has* to get a rotation pitcher; he could hope that Wood will be healthy, and Williams or Rusch or a prospect could handle #5. It's not like he *has* to get a 2B; walker could do that, or Cedeno, or Hairston, or perhaps Nomar. It's not like he *has* to get a SS; Cedeno could do, or Neifi wouldn't be the end of the world (if some other spots were upgraded significantly, a team could win with Neifi at SS..), or Nomar might be a possibility again. It's not like he *has* to get a LF; Murton might be a good guy there, or Murton/Hairston combo, or perhaps sign Nomar to play left; or even resign Burnitz to play left instead of right, and to platoon or share with Murton. It's not like Hendry *has* to get an outside CF; he could go with Hairston, and hope that Corey would bounce back, or Pie would be ready sooner rather than later. And it's not like he *has* to get an outside RF. Burnitz isn't going to carry you, but he wasn't awful, and if the rest of the team was clicking, having Burnitz be an average RF wouldn't be the end of the world. Or Nomar could perhaps be resigned, but used in RF. My point is, Hendry doesn't really need to go after roster-fill players to plug any of the holes. He's got acceptable hole-fillers for each of the open spot, guys who look decent enough so that if he was to focus his spending and successfully upgraded 2-4 of the spots, he could just leave things alone and settle with the internal candidates at a couple of the other spots that don't get addressed with outside pickups. He'll clearly have the capacity to make several big moves this winter, unlike last year. I don't think he's got it any lighter in terms of return contracts, though. Last year Aramis was the only major return contract, other than Walker and Nomar. He'll have at least as many FA returners to decide about (Nomar, Dempster, possibly Rusch if he opts out but Hendry wants him back, Burnitz..). And whereas last year Aramis and Dempster (edit: I mean Barrett...) were the only guys entering possible free-agency years, this year DLee, Aramis, and Wood will all be entering a year where they'll have the freedom to become FA's after the year.

I thought Aardsma was supposed to be prjected as a quality BP arm. I'm I wrong? Back a few years Aardsma was discussed as having a big-time fastball. I get the impression from his work at WTenn that his fastball is unexceptional, both in terms of velocity, movement, and command. And that his breaking stuff isn't above average, in terms of movement and command. Seems like fairly average fastball with fairly average slider and somewhat below-average control. Guys can improve, and I hope he does; but at present he looks pretty average and somewhat limited to me.

Agree that Marmol, Marshall, Nolasco, and Pie are in... *if* Marshall's arm is expected to be healthy. If ITI is wrong and he needs shoulder surgery or something, different story. Sing maybe, although I don't think it would be the end of the world to expose him, and I'm not sure how much the Cubs like him or how they see him contributing as a big-leaguer. When a guy is hitting 6th for the home stretch, when offense is his strength, I wonder how much they really like him? Won't be much trouble fitting those first 4 on. What happens with Sing, Ryu or Brownlie will depend on some scouting stuff (if Ryu was regularly throwing in the 89-93 range, and touching 95 on occassion; he's on. If he was mostly 88-90, less clear. If Brownlie was getting into the 92's more regularly late in the season, and if they still think that may become more consistent in future, he could make it. After the Sisco thing, they'd look pretty sillly if they let Brownlie go, then he showed up throwing 92-94 next spring and looked really solid...) I don't think Craig has any shot whatsoever. Will be some issue with who to deroster. Cubs have tended to be pretty slow to deroster people. Lewis seems like the only no-brainer. Leiecester obvioius candidate. Koronka and Rohlicek are good suggestions, but the Cubs have an undying love for lefties, so they may see things differently. Other possibilities, IMO, could be Fontenot (hasn't been improving, no power, not notable defensively, pretty expendable...); Soto (he'll stay, just to have a catcher, but he's obviously not close to being an asset major-leaguer); Aardsma (seems pretty limited). Obviously Mitre, Welle, Leiecester are all out of options, so two or all three of those will be gone by opening day.

That's awesome news. For a while there, when Nolasco was slumping and injured, before Ryu had risen, before Marmol had done much at AA yet, and while Pinto still seemed like wildman supreme, Marshall looked like perhaps the best bet of the AA bunch. If his injuries are nothing that will limit his future, that's fantastic. Nolasco, Marshall, Ryu, Pinto, and Marmol, all five of those AA pitchers are pretty solid prospects. None are great, dominating ace prospects, but all five would seem to have a solid chance to be decent major league starters, useful relief guys, and/or meaningful trade bait. Some separation (Nolasco probably on top) but given how young they are, and how little Marmol and Marshall have pitched, and how Ryu is a little younger and maybe is the most likely to pick up some mph, any of them could end up being the best of the five, even if it isn't quite equally likely. All five throw more or less in the low 90's. All five seem to be mixture pitchers with standard fastball/change/breaker repertoirs. Pinto's anti-HR profiile is special, unfortunately his control is not. All five were born within less than a year of each other (the similarity in age sometimes surprises me), even though the pitching experience is less comparable. In 1982, Pinto was born in July, Marshall in August, Marmol in October, Nolasco in December, and then Ryu the following May of 2003.

I know Marshall missed a lot of time last year with the hand problem, and my understanding was that he was late starting this year for the same reason. Is that true? Or was he held back this spring because of arm trouble? I know that he pitched well, then got shelved with IIRC was shoulder problems. I thought at the time it was described as shoulder tendonitis or tired shoulder or whatever; at the time I don't recall the report being any more severe than when Nolasco got shut down for his bad shoulder during the summer. But whereas Nolasco came back, and must be fine to do as well as he's been doing recently, Marshall never did. But I haven't heard anything since. Is he just resting/rehabbing? Has he had surgery? Is he going to take the Ben Christensen/Mike Meyers route where he has a little shoulder stuff, and will be perpetually two weeks away, until 15 months later he has major surgery and his career is done?

I know, and recall being pretty disappointed. A lot of RHP have good success in low-A, where there aren't all that many dangerous LH hitters. But the higher the level, it seems the more enriched lineups are in good-hitting lefties. In the majors, you need to have a good way to attack them. Perhaps Gallagher already has a good way. But it's often common for a RH curveballer to have problems with lefties, if he doesn't either have an effective change or an effective cutter. I assume Gallagher will pursue the typical Cub way, which is to have the standard fastball/breaker/change. But a cutter might be an option, especially in the event that the change doesn't become as excellent as needed.