Tracer Bullet

The only thing about that is that Theriot has already been moved to 2B in the past. If a poor arm is part of the reason for that, then it would be a deficiency again at 3B. Was his poor armstrength part of that? His competition in the system was Cedeno, who has a cannon and better range, so I don't know if the move was b/c he couldn't handle SS at the ML level or if he just got pushed to 2B to get playing time. I don't know why he was moved, that's why I used the if. However, if the reason was that Cedeno and Montanez were the reason he was moved off SS, then why was he kept at 2B this past year when we also had Fontenot(and later EPatt) at 2B and only Augie at SS in Iowa? B/c Augie is a rock star?

Wait, don't we already have 6 starters for next year (if Prior is healthy)? We may not have a lot of great SP, but it's not like we can get rid of a lot of it easily either. I'd love to have better starters, but I think we're kind of stuck with the guys we have at this point - or is there something I'm missing?

Not sure anyone's still reading this, but...loving Allen a little less right now.

I don't think it really matters. Frankly, I can't tell you off the top of my head what Pierre made last season. But I can tell you that he grounded out to 2nd way too frequently for a guy who depends so much on his speed. And he didn't take nearly enough walks for a leadoff hitter. And my 2-year-old son has a strong throwing arm. If the Cubs were a small market club, I might care more about salaries. But it's less important to me b/c we can afford to make a mistake or two and still field a good team. The fact that we haven't had good teams recently, imo, is more about the ineptitude of our GM rather than lack of payroll. It's not that we don't have the money to overcome relying on Wood as a starter or signing Neifi, it's that we also acquired Macias, Jones, Pierre, etc. We're not trying to overcome 1-2 bad moves, we're trying to overcome 5-7 (or more). In my case, I think there are 2 reasons I don't have a favorite player anymore: 1. I no longer idolize baseball players (I don't spend days and nights dreaming I played SS for the Cubs like I did when I was 10), and 2. players don't stay with one team their entire career - I loved Sandberg (until I tried to talk to him in St Louis after a game once - yikes) but guys just don't spend a decade with the same team so its hard to invest much in a particular guy. He's either only been with the team a couple years or there's always a sense that he could be gone at any time via trade or FA.

He basically had a little more than a year to put a team together. That's not nearly enough time. And let's not pretend that none of the moves he made helped the team get to the playoffs last year. Coletti used a lot of the parts Depo got and they didn't really miss the guys he got rid of. I like his approach and he studied under Beane. That's a lot of the reason I think he deserves a shot as GM. Give him the Cubs payroll and 5 years and see what happens. It won't happen, but I think we'd be in a much better position than we are now.

Okay then, so why would a guy, Depodesta for example, be a better choice? Do you think Depodesta recognizes the need for a balance of two worlds? Wasn't he instrumental in cutting a lot of Oakland's scouts? Seems to me that he may not recognize that balance either. I am in total agreement with you though. You need to look at both, and then try and make the best decision. I think Depo would be a great GM and I think he got hosed in LA (and Colleti is killing that org, imo). As for firing a lot of scouts in Oakland, I don't think that means he doesn't think a scout's perspective is important. But if you're a team with a small budget and you have to choose between flying a bunch of people around the country to watch a bunch of HS or college baseball or, well, doing anything else with that money, it's probably more cost effective to cut some scouts. Rely on stats to narrow a large field of HS and college players and send a handful of scouts to see the guys that the stats indicate have the highest likelihood of success. No one is going to be 100% accurate in picking players (scouts or SABR guys), but you can use a combination of the two to see as many guys as possible that have a high likelihood of success in a cost-effective way. I think that's a great strategy for a team without a ton of money to throw around. Sure beats sending an armada of scouts all around the country.

What? What?

What? I'm attacking the style in which Hendry and Hughes go about constructing a baseball team. Stuff like "we did a good job getting guys on base because we had a good average" and all that nonsense. If they posted here, I would right about what a terrible job they did, that's not attacking them, that's attacking their pathetic work as personel decision makers of the Chicago Cubs. Get away with my crap? Put another way - if Bruce were a terrible sports writer (and thank goodness he's not, I happen to think he does a great job), people would and should be able to voice that opinion here.

You can know everything there is to know about designing, buildind and maintaining an automobile, and still run a car company into the ground. Exactly my point. Being very good at one thing that should play a role in decision-making doesn't mean you should be the decision maker. It sounds like Hughes is very good at scouting (or at least highly-regarded). I'm in no position to judge that. But I haven't read anything that makes me think he'd be a good GM and what I have seen, even what Bruce posted here, doesn't make me think "that's the guy I want making decisions for this team." My biggest issue with Hughes might be this - if he's a great scout, why don't we have any home-grown players on the big league team? In fact, how many players drafted by the Cubs are regular all stars for any team? There might be some (Willis, I suppose), but I can't think of many.

Gary Hughes may know a ton about baseball and may be the greatest scout ever, I still don't want him to have the final say in player acquisition. I'd want his input, but I wouldn't want him making the decisions.

If you're going to do that, at least put Murton second and don't platoon him with Jones. And I'd never ever bat Huff in front of ARam. Soriano Murton Lee ARam Huff Barrett DeRosa Theriot Assuming Jones is getting the bigger percentage of at bats in a platoon with Murton (more RHP than LHP), is why I put DeRosa 2nd. Aramis seems to like the 5th spot in the order more than 4th. Or is it just my imagination? If Hendry likes Murton as much as he claims to, I don't see Jones eating up many of his ABs. So I'd put Murton 2. I don't know where ARam likes to hit, but I'm not putting a guy who OPS'd about .800 last year in the 4 spot instead of ARam.

If you're going to do that, at least put Murton second and don't platoon him with Jones. And I'd never ever bat Huff in front of ARam. Soriano Murton Lee ARam Huff Barrett DeRosa Theriot

No, but JD Drew did. Playing time. A - Drew missed a lot of '05, but played almost 15 more games than Huff last year. B - I'd be very happy with an .891 OPS and 145 games next year.

I don't know what metrics they're talking about, and don't want to take the time to look them all up, but here's their OPS the last 5 years ('06 first): Drew: .891, .932, 1.005, .886, .778 Huff: .813, .749, .853, .922, .884 Unless they meant to say "four to five years ago, Huff's numbers blew away Drew's," I have no idea what they're talking about. If Huff reverts back to '02/'03 - sign me up. If we get Huff from the last 2 seasons...meh.

It's not a question of better but how much better. In order to be meaningful the 2007 team will have to be 25 games better. The bolded parts could probably be = instead of > No, I don't think they can, unless you are assuming worst case scenario only when projecting 2007. The raw number for 2006 or 3-year splits (when possible - we are dealing with a lot of rookies in there) show definitive improvement. That's the cup-half-full view. Those bolded parts might end up being better, might be equal, could even be a little worse in some cases. Overall, the team is certainly improved. But I don't think we can say definitively that it's improved at every single position.

I'm not sure the Cubs have anything better than Garland that can be traded. That may be the saddest thing I've read this off-season. Even more so b/c it's true.

If there's one way to convince a group of people that you're right and they're wrong, it's to call them [expletive].

Jason Hirsh. He was rated very highly by Sickels and BA before last season. He was roughed up a bit in his time in the majors last season, but went 13-2 with a 2.10 ERA at AAA Round Rock with a 1.06 WHIP. In 2005, he went 13-8 with a 2.87 ERA at AA. He'll be 25 years old in 2007. He's a top of the line prospect, and with a little patience is likely major league ready. Isn't there anything we could give the Astros that's better than Garland? I'd love to have Hirsch.

When he said Soriano 1 and skipped to Lee 3 without mentioning Murton, I knew we were in for some trouble. With the current roster, Murton should be written into the 2-hole in permanent marker. I know he didn't say Izturis was going to hit 2nd for sure, but the fact that he'd even consider playing him there scares me.

Hughes' quote makes it sound a lot more serious than some of the other reports. ESPN says he'll be in there for 2 days.

Sorry, didn't check transactions. Suppose it is a transaction of sorts, but man its tough to find threads around here lately.

I don't know, Colleti stockpiled middle infielders in the past. I wonder if he will do the same with corner OF's. He already has...Ethier, Gonzo, Kemp, Loney, Marlon Anderson, Repko, Werth They can throw Loney into the deal too.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2689330 Doesn't say why or how serious, but he stayed over night. Hope it's nothing serious. Get well, Jim.

I'd give them Hill and J. Jones and their pick of an AA pitcher for Hudson and Andruw Jones at call it an offseason. The minor league would need some serious restocking (but let's be honest, it already does). So the rotation would be Zambrano, Hudson, Miller, Marshall and Prior? Yikes. That's a good point. Hill stays.

Is a lineup that still has 3 major holes (P, DeRosa, Izturis) really "top 5"? Or do you mean "top 5 (in the NLC)"?