craig

Just to belabor a bit more, I think part of this is his own choice, and partly the result of having some prospects too good to surrender easily. It may be that Hendry is *not* offering Murton, or Cedeno, or Pie, or Guzman. Perhaps not even Hill. For Tejada or Dunn, sure. But I don't think he's shopping many of those kinds of prospects for Aubrey Huff or earlier for Brad Wilkerson. I think he's seeing most of those guys (perhaps not all...) as A prospects who he won't trade except for a very good major leaguer. If a couple of those guys weren't quite so good, and were more in the B+ class like Nolasco or Brendan Harris or Beltran or Bobby Hill when they were traded, Hendry might have alittle more to work with. But he's kind of asking a lot from his farm. He wants it to fill LF (Murton) and SS (Cedeno), the Maddux rotation spot (Guzman or Hill), he's already spent farm parts to get Pierre, and he still wants the farm to have enough left over to get a good RF and a good middle infielder. All this while having two recent farm graduates integral guys in the pen (Ohman and Wuertz), plus having another youngster (Williams) already in the rotatin. Not a lot of farm systems have that kind of blend of quality and quantity and depth.

Hoops, come in off the ledge! I don't see Hendry functioning all that differently from his past. Last year, he was allegedly very hot for Dan Kolb, but when the price got too high he stopped. Two years ago he wanted AJ Pierzynski, but when Twins demanded too much, he pulled back and settled for Barrett. We know he tried to trade for a RF last winter too, but when the prospect cost got too hot he stopped and settled for Burnitz. He wanted Kotsay this summer, but when the cost got too high, he stopped. Seems to me he always decides about how far he's willing to go for a guy, and then if that's not enough he stops. That's to his credit, seems to me. Whether his choice of which guys to target and how much is too much, that's a matter for debate. But seems to me that when he's looking at guys now, he's doing the usual this-far-but-no-further as he always does, whether considering cost-in-trade or cost-for-FA. And since the supply-demand is so unfavorable this year, sellers are setting a very stiff price, be that FA's for money or teams in trade. As Jeff notes, Hendry is already around $92 or so, with RF wide open. Add in the expected $9.5 he anticipated spending on Furcal and he'd be over $100, with RF still wide open and intent to fill that too. I don't think he's been choked by lack of funds. I think to a greater degree he's getting choked by a dwindling pool of trade-value minor leaguers.

If the AAA roster is 38, then the org can protect 78 guys against the minor-league draft. (40 on the big league roster, 38 more on AAA). To be exposed to minor league phase, you can rank no higher than 79th on the orgs valuation list. And that's at best 79th of the players with enough experience to be draft eligible. Obviously a huge fraction of minor leaguers have signed too recently to even be eligible. So normally anybody exposed to the minor league draft does not rank in the top 120 of their system. It's just an exchange of roster fill guys.

60 million things get discussed, but few happen. If Tejada is such a fusspot that they need to trade him for peanuts, it's one thing. If he's willing to be traded, but they figure to discuss it only so long as they can imagine getting tons and tons of talent (see Zambrano plus Pie plus Cedeno plus Hill type rumors...), then they probably won't discuss it very long. We hear about all kinds of discussions. -Hendry discussed Walker for Aaron Heilman. Short discussion. -Hendry discussed Corey for Kyle Lohse. Short discussion. -Hendry discussed Corey for Wilkeron. Short Discussion. -Hendry discussed Corey for Pierre. Discussion on those terms, at least, was very short. -Hendry disccused Corey for Sean Green. Short Discussion. -Phillies discussed Abreu for Zambrano, or maybe settle for Prior. Short discussion. -Hendry disccused signing Brian Giles, at short years and limited cost. Short discussion. -Hendry calls Baltimore and says he's interested in Tejada. Probably a short discussion, if Baltimore said they'd need Zambrano or Prior. Of if Hendry said he's willing to offer Williams and Corey and one good prospect. Lots of "discussions" are attempted. But many are grossly one-sided and very, very short. I'd guess Tejada is one of those. Maybe many of these aren't even "discussions". A discussion implies some back and forth, some degree of seriousness. If Baltimore calls up Hendry and says, "Hey, how about Tejada for Zambrano?" I'm not sure sure it really constitutes "discussion" for Hendry to say, "No way, how about jerome wiliams instead?" and for Baltimore to say, "No way, seeya later."

Given that Hill had the bulk of his success in the minor leagues, I took that to mean that he left it behind while still in the minor leagues. We'll have to speak to craig or abuck about this. Entering last season, Hill was a wildman who'd yet to crack AA, and hadn't been all that great in A. In BA's report last winter, they also talked about the change, but comments on how given how much he had to pull together, expecting him to master a change besides might be asking too much. And since, given what he hadn't mastered, becoming a lefty specialist was more realistic than becoming a rotation pitcher anyway, the change might be a "frosting" pitch, but not a first priority pitch. Early in the season when he first strung together a couple of good games for WTenn (after his first couple weren't that hot), there was one game where he was quoted as saying that his change had been working, and how good it felt to have three different pitches all working and each of which he could throw with confidence. This was clearly a relatively unprecedented experience for him. Several of us minor-league followers got all fired up about the change as well as fastball (which in spring was being reported in the 90-94 range) in addition to the signature curve. But that was one game. Once Hill got rolling, a number of farm fans tried to attend Hill games and provide reports, and many others would research the Jackson or Iowa newspaper accounts of Hill outings. I don't recall any first-hand observers or any newspaper quotes indicating that Hill ever used his change much, or that it was ever a major pitch. My guess is that the change was *not* a significant contributor to the minor league success he had last year. He had two fastballs (4-seam and cutter), and somebody has said he has two curveballs as well. I think he mixed those four pitches for his minor league success, without much use of the change as a 5th pitch.

Veal was a 2nd rounder, not like a round where BA tends to overlook you. They had no problem putting Grant Johnson into the top ten, or getting on the Justin Jones and Billy Petrick bandwagon pretty fast. I don't think Veal is being discriminated against because he's "just" a 2nd rounder. Nor because he hasn't hit full season. (Pawelek hasn't either, and BA didn't mind that much). Perhaps Veal's ceiling is as high as Pawelek's, beats me, but neither BA nor draft scouts like him as much. But I think the fact that Callis reads Veal as throwing 88-91 while Pawelek as throwing 92-95 is a major reason why Callis doesn't see Veal as highly. If Veal throws 91-95 consistently, his ranking will rise (and he'll do pretty well in full-season). The issue of probability certainly factors. A guy who throws 92-95 consistently may not have a higher ceiling than a guy who throws 88-91 consistently but hit 96 in one spring outing; maybe with a mechanical tuneup he'll be hitting 93-96 routinely down the road. But the probability of which guy is likely to throw hard consistently in future probably lies against the guy who rarely throws exceptionally hard now.

The chat helped to fill in some of the next section. Callis said he had Pinto 11. Sounded like Veal and Marmol were in the 11-15 range (I think he made reference to how one or both could move into top ten following trades, so with Nolasco and Pinto already gone, #12 becomes #10, and #13 moves up to #11... Sounded like Gallagher was also in the 11-15 range. Didn't really give away who the other guy would be in that range, perhaps one of Moore, Sing, or Ryu? On Veal, I don't think they saw his ceiling as high as some do here, based on the probably typically inflated BA draft velocity. In the draft report there was reference to hitting 95 or 96 this spring, something like that. Callis alluded to that in chat. But suggested that at Boise, he actually was pitching at 88-91, which is nothing spectacular. A friend watched Veal's last game, though, in which he was pretty dominant. IN that game he said he was at 91-93 in the 4th inning, and that his fastball looked effortless and on that night was unhittable (by those crummy hitters.) He said Veal's deliver was extremely simple and repeatable, no flailing arms and legs or any of the Dontrelle herky jerk or any of that. But he said at least in that game, that Veal's delivery appeared to be deceptive, maybe the motion seemed too simple and the delivery too compact so that hitters were suprised at how fast the ball got to the plate.

Marshall's a possibility. I'd guess he's start the year at Double A though. There's also Koronka. Hill and Ryu. Guzman might start at Iowa, might start at WTenn. Marmol I'd expect to start at WTenn, but could be wrong. Koronka at Iowa, but will he start or pitch relief? Brownlie, same question Pignatiello, same question. Valdes, same question. Most likely they'll sign a non-roster veteran, at least one or perhaps two. When it comes down to it, Iowa will probably have two good prospects, one or two FA veterans, and one or two fringey prospects from the Brownlie/Pigs/Koronka/Valdes type pool.

Good post craig but everytime I see a player is learning to throw a change I just see him having it hit 450 feet and saying the heck with that If I'm going to get beat it's going to be with my good stuff not this. True. There are very few pitchers who throw a good change, and it's not easy to learn or control or throw with the same motion as your fastball and curve. For every prospect that BA writes up as "needs to develop a changeup to act as a 3rd pitch...", there is only a tiny fraction that ever do. The odds that Hill is going to show up this spring or in August with a plus-plus change is pretty poor. Still, the reports on his change in spring were pretty favorable at the time. There were days when it was working pretty well. So I don't think it's a total reach for that to become a usable pitch. And I don't think he's all-or-nothing dependent on it. If he can throw his fastball for strikes without giving up a million HR's, I don't think he has to have a functional change to be an effective pitcher. He needs the change to be good, and for his normal fastball to be both faster and better controlled than his last two Cub starts before getting sent down, if he wants to become an all-star. Likely, no. But that's the kind of improbable thing that happens for guys who end up becoming all-stars. Seems to me the view is that if he's strictly a curveball/fastball guy, teams will just sit on fastball. Hard to throw three curveballs for strikes, so the hitter can sit and wait for fastball, then knock it. It's exactly in that sort of hitter strategy where a changeup might be pretty effective even if it isn't all that special. If hitter is thinking whack fastball, take curve, and he sees a pitch coming from hand that doesn't look like curveball, he may go into hit-fastball mode. But if it's a change, he may not be able to hold up. So I'm hoping that with Hill's particular repertoire, it won't take an especially high-quality change to have a useful effect.

I strongly hope the Cubs can put the team together without trading Hill. Maddux will leave, I hope Rusch doesn't start forever. There will be at least one and possibly more than one rotation opening between now and April 2007. With Nolasco and Pinto gone, Guzman and Hill are head and shoulders ahead. Ryu/Marmol/Marshall are not even close, and who knows if they'll ever be good enough much less as soon as April 2005 to be quality starters on a championship team. If Hill goes, that's too many eggs in the Guzman basket for my tastes. As we see, rotation pitchers are overpriced like nobody's business. I do *not* want to be going outside to replace Maddux, when guys like Loiaza get $20+/3, or Matt Clement gets what he got. Keep Hill and Guzman, so that you can hope at least one of the two is ready. On pitches: 1. Hill has fastball/curve, but there was talk of having cutter as well as 4-seamer. Mixing in the cutter with the 4-seamer could give him 3 pitches? 2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot. 3. Hill pitched 154 innings, after previously only once reaching as much as 109. I'm not sure that his fastball had as much life late, when we saw him with Cubs, as it did early. In Cub games, his fastball seemed pretty ordinary upper 80's. Seemed the spring reports from wTenn often talked about low-90's. I'm hoping when he comes to camp with a fresh arm, he'll be a little faster than we remember? And having gone through a full season now, that he'll be able to hold his velocity a little better? abuck what do you think about that? Did he seem slower at the end than when you saw him earlier? Also, Hendry is very cautious about planning prosepcts into the Cubs. Contenders don't take risks with kids, etc.. But he likes Hill a lot. If a kid is going to get a shot, it should be one of Hendry's favorites. Some guys won't get a shot, even if board advocates think they should. But if Hendry takes a shine and believes in a kid, he might actually. May as well hold on to guys like that who do have a real shot to get a chance. I don't want to trade Hill now for an outfielder, only to reach next winter and then need to trade the world and spend the world for some mediocre Esteban Loiaza type cat.

As expected, both cleared. Having both gone through free agency or waivers already, when anybody could have had them just for 40-man without the 25-man obligation, it was pretty obvious both should clear Rule 5. But nice to see they did. Juan Mateo taken by St. Louis.

Agree with main points. 1) Eyre and Rusch are not redundant, Rusch was never considered as a primary situational lefty reliever. 2) And he's no lock for rotation. That depends on Wood's health, whether or not Hendry adds another rotation pitcher, whether or not Williams gets traded, whether or not Prior or Z or Maddux are disabled, and whether or not Dusty prefers Rusch over Williams in the event that there ends up being one spot between the two of them. It's certainly my hope that health concerns do *not* necessitate a rotation with both Rusch and Williams.

Agree completely. They have no surplus at present. Hendry has talked often about wanting to have pitching depth. Wood, Williams, and Rusch for the 4-5-6 spots is hardly an excess that demands a deal. If Hendry does nothing else with pitching, Rusch and Williams both make the team. If Wood and the other starters are healthy, one of Rusch and Williams (I don't know which) goes to pen. But assuming Wood is *not* ready, or assuming that during parts of the season at least one of Wood-Prior-Z-Maddux will be disabled, there is room for both Rusch and Williams in the rotation. Personally I think Williams might actually do pretty well in relief. That said, I think the pitching supply is such that if there is a valuable trade that comes up, but depends on including Williams or for that matter Ohman, Hendry has assembled enough depth so that he could afford to trade one of those two. (I'm not advocating for that, just saying Hendry could...) The funny thing is that there continue to be rumors that Hendry is looking for *more* rotation help. One guy says Kevin brown, somebody else hears Corey for Kyle Lohse, somewhere else you hear Zito talk, and now and then you hear mention of the Cubs having interest in Burnett or Washburn. If Hendry *does* go after another rotation pitcher, *then* I think Williams becomes more likely to get traded. But Hendry has been all about depth, in rotation, in relief, and in the infield.

Who knows how accurate the Ryan contract rumor is. And he seems like a very good pitcher with a bright future. I know when Dempster signed, some thought guaranteeing $15/3 for a guy with such a short track record of success, and some control concerns, was a bit high. But the Ryan rumor kind of puts Dempster's contract into perspective. Seems safe to assume that had Dempster gone free agent, he could have gotten as much and probably considerably more than he got from Hendry.

To me it comes down to 3B. Somebody needs to stack as Dusty's first reserve at 3B. If the best alternative is Hairston or Mabry, I think Macias stays. For Macias to go, I think one of two things is required: *Dusty/Hendry like Neifi/Cedeno as 3B backup ahead of Macias, or *Hendry acquires a 3B from outside that he likes better than Macias. I just think Macias stays until/unless we have somebody that Dusty is more comfortable with at 3b. Maybe we already have that guy (Neifi), but I'm not sure that's true.

Probably Sweeney and Mabry are for the same role. The two would be mutually exclusive. Miles phrasing yesterday notwithstanding, I assume that Furcal and Abreu (or Giles) are probably mutually exclusive as well. One big contract, not two.... Brown was healthy enough to pitch 73 innings with an ERA of 6.50 last season. I wouldn't count on him being better than williams or Rusch. If really healthy he might be. But lots of veterans pitch without being fully healthy. The situation where a guy doesn't admit enough bad health to be disabled, but at the same time is too messed up to actually pitch well, happens all the time. And certainly with all his grizzle, Dusty couldn't ever consider replacing Brown with Hill or Guzman or Nolasco unless his arm was almost falling off.

Heh. -Mark Sweeney is 36, and never hit more than 3 HR's in any season before 2004. Sweeney and Mabry aren't exactly what I'd refer to as "big bats". But interesting if that is the class of reserve outfielder that Hendry is looking at, and that Murton will need to beat out for playing time. -Furcal numbers are always how you look at them. I'd think the area of 4/38 is not that unrealistic. From the club side, guaranteed. I'd think the $50/5 that agent talks could be also accurate... if the guy hits incentives and a 5th year option kicks in. -Bradley, interesting. As noted, probably at best a backup contingency plan in case Pierre doesn't happen. As noted, probably a reminder that even as unlikely as Milton might be, that Corey or Hairston starting in Center is even less in Hendry's plan. The prospect of adding both Pierre and Bradley, with Bradley playing right, would fit the emphasis on defense and catching the ball (Bradley is a good outfielder). But that seems too unlikely to merit real consideration. Bradley for RF would certainly fit the budget and not cost too much in talent, though. -Kevin Brown, that's an instinctive "gimme a break" suggestion. And like Bradley, he'd be another name that seems radically contrary to Hendry's group of "quality, quality guy"s. That said, Brown might actually be kind of interesting. He's a groundball guy,which Hendry always likes. He's been on champions, so it's not like pressure crumbles him. He had a lousy 2005, but was above average in each of the previous two years. Even last year he remains strongly anti-HR and anti-walk. Saber guys might like him: To have given up 102 hits on balls-in-play last year in only 73 innings with 50 K's, that's pretty hard to do. I don't know where you get the exact numbers, but that looks to me like he allowed a BABIP of over .370 last season! While Howry's is impossible-to-sustain good, Brown's is impossible-to-sustain bad. If he came backk with the same K/BB/HR rate, but got the BABIP back to normal, you might possibly be right back to having a servicable pitcher. Not that I want him, by any means. I'd forget about getting rotation pitchers, unless they are obviously good or else are non-roster non-guaranteed guys.

I think he may be gone. But I think it's also entirely possible that Macias will be back. Mabry and Macias have limited relevance. Mabry is primarily a corner guy, OF/1B with a little 3B (but not much and not very good there). Macias is primarily an infielder. More than twice as many games in infield last year as outfield, despite all the OF problems the Cubs had. Macias has been most extensviely used at 3B, with Cubs and in career; and unless Mabry was viewed as a 3B first (which I doubt), it Macias could fill a role. As a reserve infielder who can play some outfield, he'd also have some depth value. As you know, the Cubs don't have much stock in OF. Most likely they'll open with 5 outfielders, with Felix Pie being the only other outfielder on the 40-man roster. What happens if one of the 5 outfielders gets disabled? (And how likely is it that you go a year with none of your main five outfielders having a DL stint?) Having an infielder like Macias who can play outfield, any of the spots, could make it a lot easier. Especially when an outfielder is hurt a little, but not enough to cost him full 15-day DL. So during the five days he needs to sit and otherwise you're outfield short, well you've got Macias! So to some degree I think Macias and Mabry are unrelated. You can get Mabry as your corner OF guy, but that doesn't mean Macias can't stay as your 2nd infield sub. As interesting as Macias is the question of Hairston. Like Macias, he's an IF/OF guy. I like him better; but his salary will be >$2, whereas Macias will be $1 or so (if that). I like Hairston better as a player, both as an outfielder and as a 2B. Unfortunately he can't play 3B the way Macias can. Plus Hairston might have some trade value. Some team like Minnesota might be able to take him seriously as a 2B contender. So I'm totally befuddled about what Hendry might do. Neifi is one infield reserve, well capable of handling both 2B and SS. There will certainly be a second infield reserve. Walker? Not likely, and he can't play 3rd. Hairston? Perhaps, but salary issue, and he can't play 3rd. Walker start with Cedeno on bench? He could play 3rd, probably, but hasn't hardly ever. So unless they want to commit to Neifi as the replacement for the oft-injured Aramis, I think Macias perhaps has the inside track, even if they did sign Mabry or some other LF/RF/1B type. Then there is the question of the 2nd OF reserve. (Assuming they end up getting Pierre, for example...) Hairston stay as the CF utility guy? Maybe. Corey? Somebody from outside? (Joey Gathright or somebody...?) Who knows. Hendry might not know either, unless he's done a lot of scouting around and is confident that he can productively trade each of Corey and Hairston and Walker.

It's November, and Hendry still has $20 or more to spend. He's not done with the offense, so I don't see that the fuss about working on the bullpen is ignoring the offense. Last year Corey, Dubois, Hollandsworth, Lawton, Macias, and Nomar combined for 1576 AB, and walked (23+7+18+4+6+12=) 70 times. I may be wrong, but I don't expect any of those six guys to be back. Seems to me that you get on base by hitting very well, and by walking. You thought that the Cubs hit very well. Seems to me that if they can hit as well, it's inevitable that they will walk more too, just by replacing those 6 guys. Reducing Neifi from a 572AB/18walk guy to a utility player will also help. Obviously replacing Walker with hacker Cedeno will not help the walk output. And ousting Burnitz, who walked quite a bit, could also be a wash or could result in a decline. But it looks to me as if the offense will almost certainly walk more next year than this past, possibly by quite a substantial degree depending on who ends up in right and whether or not Walker gets traded and replaced by cedeno/Neifi. If they can do the changes without hurting the actual hitting, the OBP will rise. If they can both hit better while at the same time walking more, all the better. And that too seems possible. Dubois/Lawton/Hollandsworth were pretty sad. Murton and Mabry (or whomever) may not be Manny Ramirez or Brian Giles, but they could be a big upgrade. Juan Pierre may not be Jim Edmonds, but he'll hit for much higher average than Corey/Hairston did, plus have the better OBP and add some value with the stolen bases. We may not end up with the Giles-type upgrade we want in right, but it won't be that hard to at least equal the .258 BA/.755 OPS that Burnitz produced. And even within the Mench/Kearns/Wilkerson/Huff type of younger guys who may be essentially younger versions of Burnitz, they aren't likely to produce much worse and each has a chance to produce quite a bit more than Burnitz did. Even Jacque Jones is likely to at worst hold even and perhaps add some relative to Burnitz. Furcal at SS should produce considerably more than Neifi. So it seems to me that Hendry doesn't need to be Houdini or pull a bunch of blockbuster Giles-esque signings in order to upgrade the offense, including the walks and also the average, both of which should result in improved OBP. Seems the only spot where there should be an offensive talent downgrade should be 2B, assuming Cedeno replaces Walker. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that the offense will be much improved even in the absence of adding Giles.

Keeper, what have the studies shown about OPSBIP versus BABIP? We know that BABIP is tightly bunched given a decent sample size. But do groundball pitchers tend to allow more singles and fewer doubles than flyball pitchers? Just wondering. K's are important, but as you noted they don't come in a vacuum. HR's-allowed and BB's are also key variables, as you noted. Howry has been great for his walks the last two years, and this past his HR's-allowed were excellent. I don't think those three variables are independent. A nibbling approach, trying to make unhittable pitch is good for raising K's (good), but also correlates an increased number of walks allowed (bad). Keeping the ball down may be good for limiting HR's and walks, but throwing high 4-seamers may be good for K'ing people... but also may raise the HR-allowed. Throwing a lot of curveballs is good for K's... but may raise the walks (hard to control all the curves) and may also raise the HR's (some curveballs willl be hangers). A heavy diet of sinking fastballs and sliders (that aren't necessarily sharp untouchable sliders) may be poor for K's, but may be excellent for limiting walks and HR's allowed. I'm not suggesting this is true for you, Keeper. But I think sometimes saber fans realize how important K's are, and get too preoccupied with the K's. If the K's are compromised by too many HR's (Dotel and Prior, for example), the guy may not be as good as you'd expect. If the K's are compromised by too many walks (classic Wood?), the guy may not be quite as great as you'd expect. Howry's walks have been so low that is he can sustain that, he doesn't need high K's to remain effective. His BABIP last year was flukishly low, but even with normal rate he'd still be pretty good... as long as his walks stayed so low. I'm actually more concerned that his HR-allowed were so uncharacteristically low. (Same goes for Eyre and Dempster. All three of those cats have histories as HR-pitchers, but all three last year were strongly anti-HR. Will that repeat? Maybe yes, but maybe no...) If his BABIP and HR-allowed return to normal, Howry should still be a solid guy. But he may not be a sub-3 ERA guy.

I'm pretty confident that Hendry will spend $20+ on position players. I don't expect him to sign Giles, and I expect that he will prioritize speed/defense more than some posters would like. So there may well be fault-finding with the scouting valuations of different players. But I don't think you'll end up being disgusted that he didn't spend even $20 of his $30+ millions on position players.

The Cubs didn't hit very well last year, or pitch very well last year. I agree with goony that offense has been a more persistent problem than overall pitching. But I think that relief *has* been a persistent problem. I don't know how much cash Hendry has to work with, $30 or $35 or whatever. I don't have a problem that Hendry isn't going to spend it all on players. I would have a problem if he spent it all on pitchers, but that's far from the case. It may well be that the $10.5 toward Howry/Eyre/Rusch (if Howry proves more than rumor) may perhaps be all the cash expended on pitching. If the $7.5-8 spent on Eyre/Howry does largely solve the persistent bullpen problem, I think it's money well spent. (Obviously the bigger question is whether they'll actually be good or not. But if you believe that they will be, it's not faulty strategy to spend for that area.) If $21+ now gets spend on Furcal, Pierre, whoever gets acquired for RF, and for some other outfield depth, I don't see why it should be said that offense is being ignored! Seems like spending $2 on players for $1 spent on pitching this winter is a reasonable distribution. Whether the guys acquired for the dollars spent will be the right ones, that's a scouting opinion and time will tell.

Reyes is a good fielder. The Cubs like good-defense catchers. Surprising, given how offense-less he is. But not that astonishing that a big-league defensive catcher who could hit even .257 at age 21 in AA might be viewed as a future major leaguer. Sing has already been exposed. Nobody will draft him Rule 5 when they could have signed him as a FA, for the 40-man, without the 25-man obligation. He's safe. Ditto for Fontenot and Rohlicek. having already cleared waviers for 40-man, nobody will consider them for 25-man and Rule 5. Analogy applies to Greenberg. On waivers somebody can claim him for 40-man. If nobody claims him for 40-man now, certainly nobody will draft him for 25-man in Rule 5. So if he clears, don't worry about Rule 5. We'll see if he clears. What's interesting to me is that the 40-man is already stuffed now. Usually they keep some free spaces for signing free agents. The decision to stuff the roster means they figure to be losing guys as soon as they gain guys. That spells trades to me. Obviously there is still Aardsma to deroster. But it looks to me that for every free agent that they sign, they figure to be involved in at that many trades in which they give up more quantity of 40-man guys than they receive. If you deal Mitre and Nolasco for Pierre, that clears an extra spot for FA Furcal. Etc..

As CP20 said, I was referring to his fielding-independent ERA, not traditional ERA. (Which is a somewhat more palatable 4.45.) Eyre has put up some respectable (though never stellar) ERA totals in recent years, but his K/BB ratio and HR allowed rate have never been better than average. (And were usually pretty bad.) These numbers are better predictors of future performance than traditional ERA for the reasons CPatt mentioned, leading to my wariness in Eyre. Good points. Over last three years (the best of his career), Eyre's WHIP is 1.29 and 15HR/175 innings. Entirely mediocre. The ERA's look deceptively good because of coming in with one or two outs in many occassions, I presume. Sounds like a mediocre, slightly below-average pitcher during his zenith years. With money, pressure, and age, likely be less than average over next three years. I would guess less than likely to be as good as Ohman.

Keeper's complaint is that Eyre has a career 5 ERA, so Banana you want to get Affeld instead, who's been 5's last two seasons? If you can trade Pigs or Aardsma or Coats or vasquez for Aafeldt, by all means I'd like that. But I don't think you can get a decent young lefty arm for these guys that aren't good enough to crack our 40-man. Guys who aren't 40-man worthy aren't too hot, IMO. I don't think it's that easy. On Eyre, Keeper suggested he's had one effective year, and that it was probably fluke lucky. Perhaps so. However, if you look in Baseball Reference, his *ERA+'s for the past 5 seasons have been 157, 108, 129, 98, and 138. May not be that much of a reach to think he might be above average again?