craig

Any Updated News on Wellemeyer and why he was Pulled Early after only two innings on Sunday? At the time, one theory was that perhaps he'd been traded. That's not happened. (And if anything, if he was in the middle of serious trade discussion, I'd think letting another team's scouts see him on a scheduled day for 6-7 innings would be a nice way to showcase him...). A second was that he was getting called up to Cubs or something, for some reason. That hasn't happened either. A third, of course, was the dreaded one: injury. A fourth, perhaps the only remaining optimistic one, was that after a couple of good starts, they figured he's worked out his rhythm, and is being returned to relief cycle so that he's available to come back to Chicago and help the Cubs. If that's the reason, I'd guess he ought to pitcher either today or tomorrow. If he goes four days without pitching at all, it would seem pretty unlikely that he's a healthy reliever. Man, I hope he pitches tonight!

I agree. At this point, I don't think there is any reason to protect Dopirak. It's almost August, and he's only barely reached the almighty 10-HR mark! He's hitting .244, OBP below .300, OPS of .671! And this for a guy who's a bad fielding 1B/DH! Man, he's really had a bad year. He turns 22 after the season. Would be a total waste to protect him. Other guys previously on the "must protect" list may also be off now. Petrick's arm is obviously shot. I'm not sure his 5.99 ERA in A-ball commands a roster spot. Now that Marshall's arm is hurt, I wonder how crucial it is to protect him? I suppose that may depend on how bad the injury is, and whether or not he's a surgery guy or not. Nolasco has also had some bad pitching lately, probably related to his own shoulder problems. VanBuren has continued to do well, so perhaps he will get a spot.

Mora is 33

I think you're exactly right. Grieve is expendable, and Greenberg to 60-day DL is a possibility. Richie Lewis is also expendable if need be. So I don't think there will be any problem. If they do acquire somebody, it might well involved one or more 40-man prospects, so wouldn't necessarily add any stress and might relieve some.

Nope. :wink: Thanks, another lefty. Weird, Corey, Pie, Greenberg, Fuld all lefties.

Williams hasn't started many games yet. We'll see how he does over the next weeks and two+ months. By October it might be pretty evident that he's a stable, competent pitcher. Or that he's just not too good, and doesn't look to be much more than the 1W-3L, homer-prone 4.89 guy we've seen so far. I agree that Williams hasn't done enough to lock up a 2005 rotation spot. However, Dusty loves a guy who's been around, so certainly the burden of proof will be on Williams to lose that job or for Hill to steal it with Dusty. That said, I'd be pretty interested in keeping Hill in the rotation pool. Even if he's marked as the #6 starter in November, I don't see that as a big problem. Maddux is not going to be brought back after 2006, so if Hill had to wait another year, is that the worst thing possible? And that would happen only in the unlikely event that Williams pitched well enough to hold that job, both this season and next spring, and that then all the rotation guys stayed healthy all next year. How likely is that? In other words, I think the Cubs could do lots worse than having Hill on hold as the #6 guy for next year, with opportunity awaiting an injury or a Williams failure or at worst (for him, at best for the team) having the current rotation stay so healthy and so effective that they don't miss a start until Maddux leaves in 2007. The above suggests that I want Hill to be available for rotation. That can be a problem in Dusty-land if he is on the roster in relief. I can imagine him entering camp next year outside of the annointed starting five; then making the team as a lefty reliever; then Dusty using him very little and in situational lefty places. The in June Williams flops or somebody gets hurt, and what happens? Board says "start Hill, Start Hill!" but Dusty says, "He hasn't been stretchet out, he worked at most 3 innings in a couple of spring training games and only 1-2 innings max since then, if I put him into rotation he won't be stretched out and it wouldn't be fair to the bullpen. I'm going to call up Koronka instead, because he's got a better chance to give up 6 innings..." Point being, it's hard to switch into rotation once you work in Dusty's bullpen for a while. If Hill makes the team next spring in relief, I'm not sure he'll get a shot at rotation no matter how well he pitches or what injuries trouble the rotation.

The Greenberg analogy seems excellent. Both are small, both have little power, both are hustling fundamentally sound good-jump fielders albeit neither has the big arm or the great speed associated with gold-glove CFers. Both are guys who have hit for good average, but neither has hit .300 at any level in the pros. Both are similar age, Greenberg having turned 24 this spring and Fuld turning 24 this fall. Greenberg has the advantage that he bats lefty; Fuld is a righty, am I right about that? Obviusly Greenberg has the huge advantage that he's produced in high A and in AA and has gotten scouted favorably enough to have already been deemed worthy of big-leagues. Fuld may end up as promising, but he's only in low A and it remains to be seen if he'll be able to hit his way up. Starting his pro career at 23 with 24th birthday this calendar year is not in Fuld's favor. However, Fuld does have a potentially substantial advantage over Greenberg: he really is a contact guy. Greenberg has often K'd like a power hitter. Greenberg already has 53 K's in only 244 AA AB's, a 22% K-rate that isn't very good for a slugger, much less a mite like Greenberg. That kind of K-rate has been characteristic for Greenberg since his college days. Fuld, by contrast, does look like a true-blue contact guy, with his <10% K-rate. His walks are fine, but not nearly the big-time asset they've been for Greenberg this year. If Fuld can maintain that kind of anti-K profile against better pitching, and perhaps make more of a point of working some walks, there's a chance he could be a better OBP-guy than Greenberg can, simply by virtue of the K-difference. Of course, perhaps greenberg K's more because he walks more, and the two are inseparable. Taking pitches to setup walks puts him in 1-2 counts. Taking a dozen 3-2 pitches that are three inches off the plate gives him 8 walks, but umps call four of them for strikeouts... I did a quick check, and Fuld was still hitting only .196 as of May 23, which I chose as about half-way in games played to the current place. So if he's .275 now, and was .196 during the first 8 weeks or so, he must be hitting .350 or so over the last 8 weeks. Overall, his BABIP is only .300. For a guy with his quickness down the line and his contact skill, it doesn't seem he's been especially lucky, and it's easy to figure he might hit for much, much higher BABIP in future.

I don't have any strong feeling on Hill, other than that he's a pretty valuable commodity right now. It's possible that trading him now would be brilliant, that he's at a "sell high" spot. It's possible that trading him now would be idiocy, that he's going to be a real factor. (Not that anybody has discussed trading him...) Hendry and Fleita are two who in past said they projected Hill as a big-league reliever. That's largely what was in mind when he was drafted, and remained in mind particularly after his wildness through this spring. But now the situation has changed. When Hill came up earlier, Hendry himself said he'd tracked Hill for relief all along, but that now perhaps Hill was showing he could be more than that. Hendry didn't seem convinced, though. Does he have the stuff to start? I don't know yet! During his cameo with Cubs, it was fastball/curve. Can he win with that and go 2-pitch through 6-8 innings of big-league lineup, and keep doing that when St. Louis is seeing him 3 times a year? I don't know yet! Some guys can, most can't. Does the fact that he was fastball/curve with Cubs, and has mostly done fastball/curve with Iowa, mean he's too limited? I don't know yet! May well be that he's just gone with those as long as they're working well, which has been the case all along. But reports are that he has thrown a good cutter and a promising change on occassion earlier this year. Maybe those are just in his back pocket until teams start sitting on his curve/fastball? I don't know. Perhaps two years from now he'll have the dyno curve, the fastball, and he'll also have a high-level cutter and controlled change mixing in as well? If so, he might be Curt Schilling-good for all we know. I don't know. Should he be brought up now? I don't know. I'm fine with him where he is. But the point that an August callup to keep his innings down, that's not a bad idea at all. The idea that if Hendry moved Rusch or Rem, that hill could replace and improve on them, that makes sense too. I also feel that Hill could come straight to rotation, right now; as things stand, why bother. But if Williams was a piece that I could use to bring in Dunn or an outfielder of high Buildican value, I would not hesitate to trade williams and go with Hill. The Loogy issue is relevant to whether or not Hill should come up now for relief. Because the Cubs have a manager, Dusty Baker, and he's not likely to use a rookie Hill much, or against many righties.

I wonder if we don't tend to overrate our own guys and underrate those of other teams? Julio is having a reasonable year (WHIP of 1.20, and excellent K/BB), is young, and has a big arm. Marlins need a strong reliever. Equating Julio with Hawkins is silly, IMO. Penn is 20 years old,, and scouts with a much bigger arm than Marshall, IMO. Bigbie is pretty worthless, but he's athletic unlike Dubois. If Florida considered the analogy to be Dempster, Hill, and Murton, would that look so trivial?

Don't know if her information is completely up to date. :? He's not ready for a game yet for sure. The article from InsidetheIvy.com said he was just starting his throwing program again. It should be a while before he's game ready. It sure would be nice to get an update on Guzman. Initial diagnosis (see above) was that he had a fore arm strain. BA just did an update on the Top 100 prospects (mid year review) and John Manuel claims that he's down due to a shoulder issue? Hmmmmm It's over a month since Fleita said that Guzman was doing great and was ready to start his throwing program within a week. If he's been throwing for a month by now, he could be ready to pop up in one of the Arizona League games one of these days. Of course, perhaps Fleita just has a "Guzman should be ready to begin throwing next week" message on his answering machine and in all his e-mails.... Hopefully Manuel is behind when he says shoulder, since shoulder was the last thing from last year and he hasn't pitched since. But perhaps he's right, and either Guzman has yet another problem manifesting, or perhaps Manuel can get info from Fleita that Carry Muskat or Inside the Ivy can't.

Huh?? We've got plenty in our system, and at the ML level that could be moved for Dunn. I'd be hard pressed to think that we couldn't "out bid" for him. The Cardinals have Wainright and Reyes, two high-level pitchers who are both major league ready and who are scouts favorites. If St. Louis is willing to include both, there's basically no way the Cubs can "outbid" that with prospects. You can put out Hill-Williams-Wellemeyer-Mitre-Guzman-Novoa-Ohman-Marshall-Nolasco-Pinto and let Cinci choose any two of them, but no pair from that group would be comparable to Reyes and Wainright, I don't think. Even if you let Cinci choose whichever three from that pool that you like, I don't believe that would compare to Reyes and Wainright. Personally I don't think St. Louis will offer up both of those guys. They may be reluctant to offer even one. But if they choose to offer both, there's nothing Hendry can do in terms of offering young pitchers (short of Zambrano) that can match, IMO.

According to newspaper reports, 525 PA asnd 575 are two cutoffs. The scenarios: 1. <525 PA. Walker has no option, Cubs do. 2006 contract is a bargain at $2.5. 2. >525 PA. Cubs lose their option, but now Walker has one. 3. >575 PA. If he doesn't opt out, the 2006 contract increased to $2.75. No way the Cubs will want to drop Walker, and he'll want back also. So whichever side of that threshold he reaches, I fully expect he'll be back. The key, though, is the money. Walker's defense has been more acceptable than I expected, and his hitting has been excellent. If he reaches 525 AB, he'd be crazy to take only $2.5 for next year. He'll certainly opt-out, and the Cubs will need to bargain with him and pay him more (perhaps a lot, lot more) than $2.5 for next year. I could well imagine that the difference between Walker ending with 524 PA and 526 PA could cost the Cubs a couple of million for next year. I think he's got a shot to make it. I don't know his exact PA, but he's got 172 AB and BB. Probably a handful of sacrifices and HBP, maybe he's at 180 or so? That would leave him about 345 PA short of option. There are 75 games left. 345PA/75 games = 4.6 PA per game. As a top-of-the-order guy, I think that's within reach. He probably can't afford to miss too many games, though.

1. You were a very successful HS pitcher, and have achieved quick success now in the pros. Did the Cubs suggest any changes to your pitching last summer or in the fall instructional camp? You know, adjustment in arm slot, or grip, or other mechanical tinkering? If not with yours, which have perhaps been pretty good from the start, do you know if that's very common with other young pitchers? 2. Do you throw mostly 4-seam or 2-seam fastball, or a mixture of both? 3. Earlier this summer I read that you have worked on both the change and the cutter. Are you already using the cutter, or is that more for future use? If you're using it now, do you see that as being equally useful versus both RH and LH hitters? Or is that more something that will give you another tool against LH hitters? 4. How different is your strategy and use of the curve when facing good LH hitters versus RH hitters? 5. Would you consider yourself more of a groundball or a flyball guy? Any things you plan to work on to try to become more of a groundball pitcher? To date, you've certainly excelled in keeping HR's to a minimum.

Given that this year's draft was just held last month, I have a couple of draft-related questions. 1. How close did you come to *not* signing and go to college instead? 2. Do you know who handled contacts and contract negotiations from the Cubs side? Did your area scout (Pina?) do that? Or Stockstill? Or Hendry himself? I've always wondered how that's actually done from the club's side. 3. Does your contract include a college clause, where the Cubs would pay for your college if your career broke down and you wanted to attend college? (Certainly hoping that your career stays healthy and great!)

Congratulations on the tremendous season you're having thus far. 1. You had some leg injuries early on. Are those all 100% now? If not, do you think your stolen-base output recently is not quite as exceptional as it might be next year when you're 100%? 2. Are there some specific aspects of your game that you know you want to focus on improving, and that you know you'll need to improve to become a major leaguer? 3. You guys play pretty much every day, in contrast to college where you had time for practices every week. How would you compare the amount of instruction you get from the coaches in pro versus college? With more time for practice, is it actually a lot better in college? Or do the Peoria coaches have plenty of opportunity to discuss things and help you out with something that might need some work? 4. You played against a lot of high-level competition in college. How much difference does going to wood bat make? And how much more difficult is the pitching in low-A than it was in college? Good luck! I hope your season continues to go well, that you stay healthy while in the minors, and that you have a lot of success in Chicago someday.

Questions relating to your draft experience last year: 1. How close did you come to going back to college? In your mind was it seriously in doubt whether you'd sign? Or did you pretty much know you would, but agent just figured holding out into the school year would ensure you'd get as much as possible in your deal? 2. Did Boras pretty much take care of the negotiations, and you left it up to the professional? Or did he keep you apprised about any contacts he and the Cubs had, and what was going on? Were the Cubs even allowed to talk to you directly, other than the initial call to congratulate you on being drafted? How much larger was the offer that you accepted in the end compared to what you could have gotten had you signed back in June?

What number are you thinking, Craig? $4 base. $1 for all-star, $2 for top-5 MVP. $1 each at the 250, 350, 450, and 550 PA thresholds. Cub risk: $4 out the window. Nomar risk: Short of award-level play, max contract is "only" $8 even if he's healthy enough for 550 PA. Something like that. Nomar gets an opportunity and some money for sure. If Nomar is healthy enough to play a lot, I think $8 contract is perhaps pretty reasonable. I'm not that keen on going much beyond that, short of awards-based incentives. Even if he's healthy enough to play, I'm not sure that Nomar is really going to be able to play defense or hit at beyond the place where $8-9 would be reasonable pay. I can't guess what the market for him would be like. I'd be willing to give larger incentives for awards-based stuff.

Obviously it would all depend on the money. I think Hendry has tended to be pretty reasonable in contracts, other than Alf I don't recall any really bad contracts he's taken on. Probably will also be influenced by what Nomar looks like in August and September. If he gets in 150 AB and looks pretty good, he'll get a much better deal than if he doesn't play at all, or hits .150 and shows no range defensively. I think it's very, very desirable that the Cubs be able to work out a fair deal with Nomar and keep him, though. 1. Hendry has money to spend. Money saved by going cheap at SS will instead be spent on outfield. With Murton and Pie around, I'd just as soon not block up the outfield too much with salaries. Especially since the OF free agent pool looks bad. I'd rather spend on Nomar and start Murton/Pie rather than Burnitz, for example, than start Cedeno and spend the Nomar money to bring Burnitz back. 2. In contrast to many OFers, Nomar could be brought back on another one-year-and-prove-it terms. If he works out, great. If not, Cedeno isn't blocked long. 3. cedeno isn't going to come in with no veteran around. I'd much prefer to have Cedeno backing Nomar, with a fair contract for Nomar, than Cedeno sharing with Neifi. Dusty loves Neifi, Neifi will be overpaid, and Neifi is healthy. Dusty would probably largely stick with Neifi, you'd get no production, and you'd still end up blocking Cedeno. By contrast with Nomar, if he produces he produces, great. If the concern is injury, then an injury would at least provide a clear opportunity for Cedeno and Dusty wouldn't mess it up. In other words, I know Hendry will bring in a vet shortstop. Even one as crummy as Neifi would likely block Cedeno quite a bit. With Nomar, the two major possibilities are a) he's not healthy. In which case he doens't block Cedeno. or b) He is healthy, in which case he's got a good shot to be pretty productive. Seems like a good-good situation. If spending a little more on Nomar than Neifi makes it easier for Murton/Pie to also get good shot, all the better.

It's true that his trade value is lower than it's ever been before. But of the three time zones, the only two in which a trade is possible is present and future. It's entirely possible that Corey's trade value may be as high now as it ever will be, even if it isn't as high as it used to be. Corey's at a place where the default is for trade value to get lower and lower, based on aging and approaching free agency, and that's been going on for some time. For any young player, the value is based on potential, and the reasonable assumption that a guy has a good chance to improve a lot. The longer a guy goes without improving a lot, the lower drops his trade value. And the closer a guy gets to free agency, the lower drops his trade value. Corey hasn't improved over his career. Even without the extreme and surprising decline he's shown this year, just staying flat would have caused his trade value to continue to deteriorate.

Haven't read all the posts. But with 3 all-star-days off, Corey needs to only be down for 7 games. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't just a 7-day thing for him. Greenberg, in the interm, can watch, ala Fontenot in his couple of callups. Dusty doesn't need to puzzle over lineup past midnight, Hairston plays center and leads off, no double thinking about it. If Lee is healthy and starting, Murton takes the Dubois role of resting Holly or Burnitz when Dusty thinks his veteran starting corners need rest (which shouldn't be often, especaillywith 3-day break coming.) If Lee is not healthy and misses some time, Corey or Dubois can be recalled if Lee gets DL'd. If Lee isn't DL'd but misses games, perhaps Murton will play left with Holly at 1B. Or else Walker will play 1B, opening infield starts for Macias or Cedeno. There's no reason to think this is any long-term thing, just another of the series of "try something" moves to get Corey untracked. Certainly Dusty isn't going to play Greenberg ahead of Hairston, or Murton ahead of Hollandsworth or Burnitz.

Kris Benson maybe? It's hard to know without seeing him pitch. Maybe Mike Wuertz? Or Don Wengert? Got July VineLine yesterday, had a length draft story, including scouting reports (including quotes from specific scouts, Stockstill for Pawelek, then either the area scout or crosschecker for others guys) through the first 10-rounds. Highlights: 2: said Veal's velocity was average, but that he gets some action/tail inside versus righties, and his throwing-across-the-body delivery gives some action. 3: talked about Holliman touching 93 but typically working in the 88-91 range with fastball, working inside, and having an excellent slurve. Referred to his good frame (even though he's not that tall) and large hands, which I assume are conducive to good breaking ball. 3: Billek, discussed as a strong, 3-pitch control artist with good mechanics/delivery, said he can throw strikes all day long. The Cub scout perceived his issue being that at present he doesn't have a putaway pitch. I imagine they figure that if he can sharpen his slider into something he can use as a punch-out pitch with 2 strikes, that he's got a chance to be a high-level rotation pitcher. If he's a strong strike-thrower, he'll probably sail through the low minors pretty well even without a punchout breaking ball. 4: Mostly discussed Johnson's defensive skills, although siad he does have some bat speed and shows occassional hint of some opposite-field power. Said his defensive tools could play anywhere, including catcher. 5: Taylor, said he was once clocked as fast as 92. I'd gotten the impression from BA that 90's wasn't that rare for him, but Swoope didn't make him sound nearly as fast as I'd assumed. Said he had a slider, and at present used a curveball for his changeup. (didn't sound like that would last in the pro game..) 6: Reynolds, said he was wiry strong, good athlete, good bat speed, can play anywhere. I believe compared him to Vizcaino defensively. Referred to his swing sometimes getting long due to his height. I assume that's the issue that he'll need to correct to succeed as a pro. Also, not from VineLine, but my understanding is that Reynolds has played almost all season with an injury, which may be responsible for why his hitting numbers weren't better. 7: Trey Taylor, referred to 82-89 mph fastball, big-time movement, and sharp breaking pitch. 8: Swoope (in my view the Cubs best scout, and not a gusher...) gushed about 20-year-old Muyco's defense. I'm not sure even Ryan Jorgensen got such good buzz. Swoope also said Muyco has good bat speed, although obviously HR-power is not in the picture. 9: Said Avery can throw 92 consistently when he's right, and has good movement. Obviously he isn't right and 92 consistently; but obviously the minors is to help guys lock into doing things correctly. 10: Simokaitas: Didn't scout as weak a hitter as I expected. Didn't scout as great defensively as I expected. Anyway, the reports were as long or a little longer than BA reports. Several of the players I came away with revised perspectives. Veal as an action prospect, more than as a power-pitcher guy; Billek as a solid 3-pitch control pitcher, rather than as an erratic unrefined power guy; Taylor as not so fast or so fantastic as BA made him sound; Reynolds and Muyco as not so hapless and hopeless as BA made them sound.

It is a little strange. The Boise roster already has 13 pitchers, so where do Holliman, Billek, Avery et al go? I don't see where the Cubs are going to be able to fit these three pitchers in. How about this: *Billek will fit in on Boise anyway. *Holliman won't pitch for the Cubs this summer. Often they don't want college guys racking up more innings, particularly guys who pitch deep into the college playoffs. Also, as a high-profile high-draft, he may well take so long to sign that it won't be worth bothering anyway. *Avery had an off year to slip down to the 9th round. He was expected to go higher than that entering this season. Unless the Cubs are interested in super-slotting him, he'd probably be smart to go back to college and raise his stock. In other words, he may not sign, and if he doesn't the Cubs needn't worry about fitting him in! I don't think it's a problem. Mesa has nothing but a few Latin pitchers. They always need to staff Mesa with some NDFA types. If some draftees sign, they can drop some guys as needed.

At present, here are 9 guys I'd like to add: P: Hill, Marshall, Nolasco, Marmol, Petrick; Players: Pie, Murton, Sing, Dopirak I think those will all fit, assuming: a) that one of them (either Pie, Hill, or Murton) plus Cedeno (or some other current 40-man guy who'd still have options next year, from the Fontenot/Aardsma/Pinto/Koronka/rohlicek/Guzman pool) are on the 25-man roster; and b) Lewis and Crouthers gets kicked off the 40-man roster. Craig, Ryu, Pigs, VanBuren, Connolly, Kelton, Greenberg, there just isn't room for everybody. If Petrick is injured, or Dopirak doesn't merit 40-man protection, or trades open up more spots, then one of those guys could slip in. To fit the 40-man, as mentined above, assume Pie and Cedeno (and of course Wuertz) would make the 25-man. a) Five 40-man position players in the minors: Murton, Sing, Fontenot, Soto, and Dopirak, in that order. b) Ten 40-man pitchers in the minors: Guzman, Hill, Marshall, Pinto, Marmol, Aardsma, Rohlicek, Novoa, Petrick, Koronka. Those guys will all still have options next year. Perhaps they'll want Pie sent down to the minors at first, at least long enough to defer free agency. In that case, either one of my minor leaguers has to be traded up to the 25-man (perhaps Hill, or Fontenot, or one of the pitchers...). Or else you can't have so many prospects on the 40-man. Currently there are 43 names on the 40-man roster, counting the three 60-day guys (Nomar, Fox, Williamson) and the retired man (Crouthers). Of the 43 names, 9 are pitchers who can't be sent to the minors next April without waivers: Lefties: Ohman Bartosh Old Righties: Fox Borowski Williamson Young Righties: Wellemeyer Mitre (I'm not positive on him, though) Leiecester Williams Assuming a bullpen with 2 LHP, Dempster, and wuertz as givens, and a healthy team, there could be only 2-3 spots open for other RH relievers. If Hendry decides which 2-3 from the above group (I'd hope Williamson or an outside guy from the old guys, and Wellemeyer and Mitre from the young righties?), then he can protect 9 new guys from Rule 5 as I suggested above. So he might want to trade two of those four RHP-without-options before Rule 5 decision comes. Very likely he'll want to keep all four of those guys, and let them compete in spring training (in hopes that Williams will rediscover some fastball). In that case, he'd have two fewer spots available. If he pulls a Kelton and keeps Richie Lewis, that would cost another spot. Ways to make space: a) protect fewer new guys. Expose guys as needed from the Petrick, Dopirak, Nolasco, Sing pool. b) trade from my list of guys I want to protect or that I want to send to the minors c) deroster one or two guys that I'd like to keep, be that Koronka or Soto or Novoa or Rohlicek or whomever. d) plan to fill one or two spots on the 25-man roster with non-roster players. If you sign a 5th outfielder to a non-roster contract, then he can be added once you've decided which of Leiecester/Williams/Wellemeyer is going to get cut, or once some pitcher gets designated for the 60-day DL. Summary and bottom line: I don't expect the Rule 5 thing needs to be that big of a problem, beyond Brownlie/Ryu/VanBuren/Craig/Greenburg/Pigs/Hagerty type cats. However, that's what I thought last year; until they surprised me by protecting guys like Koronka and Ohman, total suprises, and insisted on wasting a spot on the beloved Kelton. If they insist on keeping Lewis, and protecting guys like Pigs and VanBuren, then it could be more problematic.

Furcal is having a horrible year, .229 BA, .281 OBP, .614 OPS. Career prior to this year: .347 OBP, .751 OPS.

I don't see Burnitz being a desirable choice, and I'm not sure $5 is appropriate. But yes, I think it's conceivable that the Cubs might choose to resign Burnitz at a price that's performance appropriate, and perhaps in a time-share with Dubois or Murton or something. I just think Hendry's in an ideal spot in that he's got some internal options, be they prospects (Dubois/Pie/Murton for OF, Cedeno for SS, Mitre/Guzman/Hill/Williams for rotation) or modest-priced veterans (Rusch, Walker, Burnitz, Dempster, Neifi), in hand. If he decides to spend his money on Giles, Wagner, and Burnett, it's not the end of the world to go with Walker, Neifi/Cedeno, and Pie. The Cubs have sometimes talked about "filling holes", and "spread it around", when they had so many holes with no adequate internal options. Once they'd "spread it around", they had nothing left for big-ticket guys. I just feel like Hendry has enough options internally that he can adequately refill any of the holes and can reasonably expect performance that's not too far below league average, if at all. So he doesn't need to spread the money over all the spots. He has the luxury of being able to focus $25-30 million on just 2-3 spots. whether those be OF, rotation, and closer; or OF, OF, and SS; or whatever. Where I don't think Hendry's in an ideal spot is that I don't see real desirable, premium free agents available at the places we've got holes. Were a Tejada available, I'd be all gaga. Were a Beltran and Drew available as I saw them last winter, I'd be all gaga. The two places I'd most like to target are a big bat for corner OF, and SS. But the pool of really desirable corner OFers seems really thin, both in terms of free agency and in terms of guys getting close enough to free agency so that their teams would consider trading them at reasonable cost. And SS, there's Nomar and Furcal, not exactly like when ARod or Tejada were free. Kind of reminds me of last winter; obvious hole was closer, but the pool of candidates at the prices required was terrible. (And we're probably fortunate that Hendry didn't spend a ton on Kolb or Benitez or Percival or Dotel...) I'm just worried that hendry will have money to spend, but there won't be the calibre of guys to spend it on. Or where there is somebody, the small supply will mean that there's tons of competition for the same guy, so the price becomes ridiculously high.