craig

With New York having signed Matsui, I think it remains questionable how committed they will actually be to signing Giles and using Giles or Matsui in center. Perhaps that is what they'll want to do, I'm not saying it isn't. But the Yankees naturally get rumored with every big ticket player in baseball. It may well be that when it comes to cases, the Yankees will *not* prioritize Giles. And he's not the kind of familiar, high-profile AL star that gets Steinbrenner all jazzed, either. I think it's entirely possible that the Yankees will *not* drive Giles price through the roof. That SanD will *not* be able to make a competitive offer. If both of those hypotheticals proved true, and SanD and Yankees were out of the game, I don't see that the competition would look nearly so scary. That said, I don't think Hendry is likely to be serious about Giles. Giles is an aging skills player who walks. Hendry likes young aggressive dancers. I don't see Hendry being as interested in giles as will be most GM's, so if he doesn't like the guy as much it seems unlikely that he'll outbid GM's who like Giles better than he does.

I understand and sympathize with your point. But just to play devil's advocate, I've seen enough Cub teams with lousy relief to appreciate what it would mean to get consistently quality relief. There is good reason to feel Eyre would be an unsafe sign. There's a chance he'll be solid, and a chance he'll go remlinger/Hawkins. But that's also true with other candidates. Would you prefer to give Andy Pratt a whirl? Or perhaps Cliff Bartosh? Mark Guthrie? The pool of sure-success LH relievers that are available is zero in size. Every lefty reliever that could be had will have some risk. Eyre's risk may be pretty high. Bug given the pool, it may be that the alternatives have even higher risk. Hendry may be justified in taking a gamble on the least-risky bet out there. Doesn't make it safe by any means. But there are even riskier ways to go than Eyre. We all know that wanting to help the pen and throwing money at it is no guarantee that the resulting pen will actually work out. And Hendry has done enough Alf/Hawkins/Remlingers so that doubts about his relief pickups are well justified. But I'm not sure that means you should give up trying, and just settle for Bartosh cheapos. I'm pretty interested in trying to have a solid, deep bullpen. Haven't seen that since 2001. When the pen is short on quality guys, Dusty will keep going back to the hot hands. Sometimes in the process the guys who were competent get fried and then you don't have any competent guys left after a while. Having a depth of competence in the pen could help a ton, and could also do a lot to keep the competent guys from getting burned out. Will Eyre be competent? I'm not sure about that. But if he is, it could be money well spent.

On injuries: Hendry is clearly attempting to improve the club. His strategy may be moronic or whatever, or not, time will tell. But he's obviously attempting in his own way to improve the team. Whether his strategy is stupid or smart is another question, as is whether he'll have the player assessment smarts to get good value players in the guys he does pick up. But while it's true that all teams have injuries, I think it's also only being honest to recognize that the Cubs have been hit very hard, harder than most, by injuries in the last two seasons. The number of teams who win the World Series despite that level of injury is limited, I think. Also, I think some of the injury risks are unchangeable. Can you say, "Well, Prior and Wood are risky, lets just replace them with comparable guys who are risk-free"? The only big-time pitcher I see is Burnitz, and he's as injury-risky as Prior and Wood. To the degree that the would-be stars in the rotation are injury-risky, I don't see Hendry having any power to change that. If Z-Wood-Prior all have surgery in April, I don't think there's much of anything Hendry can do within his $100 budget to built a WS winner anyway. The success of the rotation is pivotal to the outcome of the upcoming season. The big-three are injury risky. That's just reality. I don't think Hendry or Beane or any genius in baseball history would be able to change that reality.

And he's spent it like a freaking moron. When guys like Tejada and Vladdy are out there, he's giving raises to Alfonseca, Macias and Neifi. Before he even gets a chance to spend on the impact players, he spends significant chunks on replacables like Rusch. He cuts corners repeatedly. I'm not saying he doesn't eventually spend the money. I'm saying he spends it on mediocrity, and that is exactly why this team has been barely above average under his control. "He cuts corners repeatedly", you say, and to me that implies not spending enough. That complaint lacks merit. The argument that "he's spent it like a freaking moron" and "I'm saying he spends it on mediocrity, and that is exactly why this team has been barely above average under his control", that's a different argument.

At least it shows Neifi starting is not plan 'B'. How about a lineup with AGony II starting at SS and Neifi at 2B? With Cedeno on reserve? They could catch the ball, that's for sure. That would get the board jazzed I'm sure!

I don't see Hendry "cutting corners". He's had a growing budget, and he's spent the money he's received. The issue isn't "cutting corners". He's going to spend the $30 million, if indeed he has that much (or more) available. The question is whether he's spending the money he has available rightly. MacPhail, Lynch, and Hendry have always taken a spread-it-around philosophy. I'd have liked to see $30+ focused on Giles, Furcal, and Burnett. And improvise beyond that. Hendry is more likely to spread it around: $3 Rusch + $2.5 Neifi + $9.5 Furcal + $6 Pierre + $3 Howry (or MacDougal or Heilman or whomever they can get in trade for Walker plus a prospect), + $3 Eyre + $3-6 on some mid-priced RF (Wilkerson or Jacque Jones or Mench or Kearns or maybe even Nomar or Burnitz or some other RF to be determined later...) + $2-8 on some mid-priced rotation pitcher (Aaron heilman or Vasquez or Adam Eaton or Kip Wells or Washburn or Doug Byrd or Esteban Loiza or Jason Jennings or Derek Lowe or Kyle Lohse or some rotation pitcher to be discovered later...) With those numbers, if both the RF and the rotation pitcher are each $5 guys ($5 is below the average salary for a starter on a $100+ payroll team...), those numbers would sum up to $37 million! Perhaps some of those pickups would involve some odds-and-ends salary going away; maybe Walker's $2.5 is going out in exchange for riske or MacDougal or Heilman or whichever pitcher they deal him for. Maybe Jerome Williams at $1.5 or whatever will be involved in a package for the RF or Pierre. Maybe Corey's $2.5 is outgoing in one of the deals. Seems to me that if you subtract Corey and Walker's salaries, and add that spread-it-around list (beyond Neifi and Rusch add one rotation starter, one RF, one CF, one Furcal, one LH reliever, one RH reliever), you end up right in the salary ballpark that Hendry's budget calls for. Is spreading it around like that idiotic? That's a matter of opinion. But I think there is considerable reason to think that can be an effective, valid, justifiable approach to going after the next season. In Lee, Aram, Barrett, you have three players capable of being well above league average offensively. Well above. In Z, Prior, and Wood, you have three pitchers who still have a chance to be well above average in terms of pitching. You may not have all six of those guys healthy and producing at an exceptional level. But if you can get things such that you are getting average or better production throughout the rest of the roster, I think being a Lee, Aram, healthy Prior, healthy Wood, and healthy Z above average could make you a WS winner. In past, we've often been above average at some spots (Lee and Aram this year, in past Sandberg and Dawson and sometimes Grace, for example...), but so far below average at other spots that the below-average spots offset the gain of the above average spots. (Last year closer was killer bad early; LF most of year; CF most of year; Koronka-era rotation for a while...) I don't think it's an idiotic notion to try to spread it around and improve all the liability spots into average-or-above-average situations. I don't think I'd have gone that way myself, I'd key in on the fewer impact players. But I'm not sure Hendry is a dope to be choosing this path. Given the potentially inflated prices that Burnett and giles may get (and the depretiation potential both have, Burnett with his injuries and Giles with his age...), Hendry's course may be the right one. Of course, that will require that the guys he's getting really do prove to be at least average and in some cases above average. If Furcal and Pierre and Murton hit .265, if you go for Kearns and he hits .228, if Rusch goes 4.9 and Cedeno .243 and you spend $6 on Eyre/Howry and they both go 4.6, it's going to be failure city.

Even though he pretty much has failed every year, every winter Hendry says he's going to address the bullpen, and spends some money on it. I expect this winter will be the same thing. Hopefully the outcome will be better, and the money he throws will be useful, unlike Hawkins and Remlinger. It's true that Howry would be no sure thing, and that relievers tend to be somewhat unpredictable. That said, the likelihood of hitting on a reliever who's been good recently is probably better than gambling on an unpredictable relieveer who's been lousy lately! In Howry's case, he's actually been fairly solid for most of his career, albeit too few K's to be great. His lesser years all revolved around the arm problem, which eventually led to surgery. He's 32 now, and seems to be healthy. I'm interested.

I predict two out of the pool of Mitre, Wellemeyer, Nolasco, Pinto, Marshall, Ryu, and Marmol, if the rumor proves true. I wouldn't assume that Pie and Pierre are one or the other, or that having Pierre would block Pie. As was mentioned, if Pierre were to perform very well for the Cubs, Hendry might be intereted in resigning him and bringing Pie in as a corner outfielder, to give the outfield incredible speed/defense. (If the infield had Furcal, Cedeno, and Lee, the infield could have incredible defense too...). I know we all want a big producer in RF, but it doesn't appear that Hendry is on the same page with that. The notion of getting Pierre, than letting him go and replacing him with Pie is quite possible. Especially if Pierre doesn't play very well! But given Pie's low walk/high K rate, I'm not sure he really profiles well at leadoff, especially as a rookie. If Hendry were to acquire both Pierre and Furcal, then even if Pie replaced Pierre in 07 he wouldn't have to bat leadoff, and might be quite nice hitting 2nd or 7th. (By 07, perhaps either Cedeno or Murton or even Barrett could be well qualified to hit 2nd.) I get the impression that Hendry is way to infatuated with Pierre to necessarily envision him only as a roster-fill rental till Pie. I also really believe he's not committed to pie in center. There was considerable talk this summer about going after Mark Kotsay for CF. Given the expected cost, that would not likely have been for a short rental. So I think Hendry thinks Pie has enough pop to profile as a corner. Whether that happens, or whether that's a waste, I don't know.

Also, if you decide to carry Corey at $2.5 as a backup CF, that kind of follows the same them as paying Neifi $2.5 as a backup middle infielder and paying Rusch $3 as a #7 starter. There may be some merit in building a roster with backup options like that. But it isn't going to construction plan that leaves room to sign guys like Giles. You can't have a roster crawling with $1.5-3.0 million dollar backups like Blanco, Hairston, Walker, Neifi, Corey and Rusch, plus sign guys like Giles besides.

I just think that if Hendry still thinks he can offer Patterson and get genuinely valuable players with good value-per-salary in return, that's silly. As silly as going into last winter thinking he could move Sammy and all of his contract and get a valuable player in return. You can wish for that kind of thing all you like. But it isn't going to happen. Sooner or later you need to get more realistic. Or else you're going to have to face the nontender date and decide whether you want to count on Corey at $2.5 as a serious candidate to be your center fielder; or nontender Corey rather than pay him $2.5 to be a backup; or take whatever you can get, if anything, for him. Which is going to be a lot less than values like Wilkerson, Mench, or even Pierre. Trying to dream up deals for useful value-per-contract targets in which Corey is the principle bait just isn't going to work.

Offering Patterson for Wilkerson, that's like a big-time duh so-what offer. He can offer Patterson or Mitre for Dontrelle or Mensch or Wilkerson or Pierre. He can offer, but that doesn't mean the other teams won't say "No" so fast your head would spin, and walk away shaking their heads laughing at the outrageousness of an offer like that. That's as silly as Marlins asking for Pie for Pierre, or Dodgers thinking they can get Pie for Bradley. Or as silly as thinking you could trade Sammy and all his money for Wilkerson last winter. Some rumors are too silly to take seriously. Wilkerson for Patterson is one of them. Cubs will need to offer a whole lot more than Corey if they want to get guys like Wilkerson or Mensch in return.

That would be good I haven't been a big Pierre fan. I've been pretty interested in picking him up as a salary dump, while paying little. If Cubs also acquire Furcal, and trade for Pierre and he bats second, he might lose all his SB value; how often will he try to steal in front of Lee and Aram? When there was talk of Pierre for Corey, I was enthused about that, because Corey at $2.5 is way expensive for a guy who isn't going to start. He's an expendable guy, so if Corey is a central piece, add in a Mitre and you've maybe got a deal, awesome. But with "young arms" plural, it depends on the arms. Now we aren't just talking about unloading Corey's lousy contract. Thinking it's going to be Wellemeyer/Novoa types, guys we don't want anyway, is wishful thinking. Nolasco and Marshall, that's a different equation. Nolasco and Hill, that's a different equation. I see Corey, Mitre, Wellemeyer, and Novoa as guys who are expendable. Corey's salary is too high and he's pretty worthless if you've acquired an every-day CF. Mitre and Wellemeyer are out of options, and don't seem qualified to make the team, so they'll need to be exposed to waivers come March. Even if they do make the team, they seem unlikely to be productive players. So giving up guys like that, great; that's sacrificing nothing, really. But if it's two out of the Hill, Nolasco, Marshall, Guzman, Mateo pool, that's a different and much more serious cost.

1. I don't either expect or want Rusch to be intended in the rotation. If one or two of the front five get hurt for a while, he's OK as a backup. I think you want to pick up another guy, specifically so that Rusch can be used as a swing/backup, but not an intended even-if-everybody-else-is-healthy starter. 2. If the need arose, no I would *not* want to be using Pinto or Nolasco or Ryu in the Cub rotation. They have yet to show they can handle AAA; it's premature to assume they're ready to start for a big-league playoff team. Their opportunity will come in time, but planning on them as your pitcher-insurance right now isn't right. That's what Hendry signed Rusch for, to be the insurance reserve. If not traded Williams could serve that same role. With their $100+ payroll Hendry has enough dough to pay some key insurance guys $2.5-3. That's why he signed Neifi, that's why he signed Rusch. But neither of those guys are intended to start. They need a starting pitcher in front of Rusch, just like they need a starting middle infielder in front of Neifi.

kessinger, the notion that a pinch hitter is more important that solidifying the rotation seems kind of silly to me. Let's see, which would I rather compromise on? For example, I have the choice on either tolerating Jose Macias as a primary pinch hitter, or John Koronka getting 15 starts. Which is more important, replacing Koronka or Macias? Seems a no-brainer to me. I don't strongly disagree with the emphasis of your post. However, I just don't think Hendry is that interested in Giles, and after Giles it's going to be hard to find a worthwhile LH middle-of-the-order RFer. Assuming you're not going to have great success in your priority #2, that will leave more monetary resources left for rotation. Second, assuming you don't sign Giles, it almost follows that Hendry will likely trade for RF. Seems to me that to whatever degree Hendry trades to strengthen the team, that will probably weaken the pool of available young pitchers and thin out the pitching depth in the system. Which could *increase* the priority on acquiring another starting pitcher. If you don't add any starters, can you afford to trade Hill and Mitre and Nolasco? But if you do pick up another starting pitcher, perhaps that enable you do deal Mitre in a PIerre pickup, or include Hill in a trade for Dunn or somebody for RF. In other words, acquiring a promising but somewhat established youngish starter might not only benefit the rotation imediately, but it also might facilitate the acquisition of an outfielder who can hit.

I think the Cubs will add another starting pitcher. The question is whether he'll be excellent, another average guy, or a liability. Who, how, how good, and for how much? The only guys I'm keen on as "excellent" are Burnett and Milwood, and they'll cost. Unlikely Hendry will offer the years it will take to get Burnett. So, outside of Burnett, he'll likely get a guy who either is kinda average or who maybe projects to perhaps be better but no safe bet. If you get Jennings from Rockies, or Kip Wells from Pirates, or somebody like that, they mght turn out to be pretty solid. But they might also turn out to me no better, if as good, as williams or Guzman or Rusch. But if you've just traded for them, and they have a substantial contract, they'll start whether they excel or not. Is relying on Z/Prior/Wood risky? Absolutely. Unfortunately short of obtaining Burnett, the cubs are basically going to have to play that risk and just hope for the best. Not like there are a couple of Zambrano's available at prices Cubs can afford. But I see Hendry acquiring one rotation pitcher. Whether that be a FA veteran in the Washburn/Byrd type class, or a somewhat younger guy he acquires in trade, in the Wells/Jennings sort of class or somebody something like Matt Clement was when we got him. Somebody without a consistent record of excellence, but somebody with enough talent so that if he did improve some, he could pitch at <4 ERA. I think that could work out well. That could put Williams and Rusch as 6th/7th starter types, available for injury replacement. I see Williams perhaps being a pretty effective reliever if he's not needed for rotation. I see Mitre going in the eventual Pierre trade. I'd shop Hill if I need to, for the outfield help or in the trade for the solid youngish pitcher who'd be given the rotation spot. I'd prefer to keep Hill. I'd like to see Hill and Guzman spending the year proving and refining themselves, such that whichever looks better will be a convincing successor for Maddux in 2007. Hopefully the guy who doesn't succeed Maddux would still provide good depth insurance for 2007, along with Rusch and Williams (if not traded first) and Nolasco etc..

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.