USSoccer

Who in our system would even remotely interest Beane?

-Podsednik was an All-Star because of a ridiculous fan vote, not because he desrved to be there. -The White Sox won the World Series because every pitcher on that staff had a career year at the same time, not because of Scott Podsednik's presence on the team -1 GW homer in the playoffs does not a great player make.

The Sox just raised their hustle factor by +1. Podsednik is just terrible. Milwaukee really fleeced them on that deal.

I remember that well .. when he came out in the 7th there were plenty of howls from fans in my section - Prior should have been in the shower by the end of the 6th. In the postgame press conference I remember Dusty defending the move, something like "I didn't see McKeon taking out his starters, and we saw how fast that team can put up runs in game 1." He may as well have said "I have little faith that my bullpen can hold a 10-run lead." I'm really glad Dusty's gone. How many managers blow a World Series and an LCS in consecutive seasons? Cruz and Alfonseca could have gone the last 3 innings of that game and we'd still have won. The extra 40 or so pitches Prior threw sure would have come in handy in Game 6.

From what I can recall he mistimed his leap. I think he had about a 50% chance at that ball, and it would have been in the webbing of the glove.

Well, they got our guy that produced exactly zero position players, maybe we can pawn off some leftover scrubs on them. Some? We have a minor league system full of them.

Isn't he the same poster over there that was providing most of the O's info on the rumored Prior/Pie for Bedard/Tejada trade?

Hadn't heard anything about it. I wonder if Bruce Miles would like to discuss this. I've heard Bruce isn't always right. Can this be confirmed or denied? PM CT. He's the authority on who is to be believed...

Please, no more trades with Baltimore.

Hadn't heard anything about it. I wonder if Bruce Miles would like to discuss this. Yeah, I didn't even know Schmidt was an option until now...

I agree with his reasoning, not that I particularly care about the HOF or who gets in.

The NL West is a good place for a flyball pitcher linke Hawkins. Coors, in particular, played very favorably to pitchers last season (humidor).

I had seen it before, but watched it last night as well. My thoughts: -I disagree wholeheartedly with their #1 reason. I don't believe the Marlins were a better team. We should have won that series in 4 games, maybe 5. -Baker should have been the #3 reason, but they should have spent more time dissecting the abysmal managing job he did the entire series, starting in Game 1 with the decision to go Lowell v Guthrie, Game 2 leaving Prior in during a blowout for no reason, Game 6 for not coming out, and managing Game 7 with both hands wrapped around his neck (no Matt Clement, having Dave F. Veres come in to shut down a Marlin rally, leaving Wood in too long, and his poor PH decisions in innings 7 through 9. -Alex Gonzalez should have been reason #2. -Game 7 should have been reason #1. They led 5-3 after 5 innings, and had Matt Clement and Carlos Zambrano in the bullpen (both sinkerballers). They should have won that game. Last year, I think, ESPN.com had an article by some guy who met Bartman and talked to him. It was a really well-written piece. Also, this BP article is a good breakdown of Game 7: http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2411

There's also a snippet from Peter Nowak, Adu's D.C. United Coach saying he should head to Holland to play. If he's going to Holland, I would imagine it would be to Ajax, Feyenoord or PSV. I wouldn't want him in the Dutch league. La Liga or the Premiership, IMO, would be best for his development.

As well he should be. We pretty much have 3 open rotation spots right now.

If I had a choice between two middle of the pack starters, I'd take Padilla over Lilly. Padilla and Westbrook would like create one of the better rotations in the NL. If Hill shows the same glimpses as last year as well as Prior showing somewhat of his '03 form, it could be the best. I'm with you. Padilla is the one starter of the FA's left that I have the most interest in.

Hmmm....I understand your point, and I think it most applies to Marshall since he was the guy who actually showed some promise at times. Gooz, on the other hand, was a flaming disaster. I didn't see anything last year but a guy who has spent years & years in our system and still has no control over any of his pitches. To be fair to Guzman, his changeup was probably his best pitch, and that's a pitch that requires a lot of work to get a feel for how to throw it. His big problem was command. He walked way too many hitters, and that's a sign of rust from a guy who had really good command at every level in the minors. His stuff was great, and it he gets his command back, he's still the pitcher with the highest upside that's ML ready. I hope so, because he'll be 25 in a few days and has been with us for many years. He has yet to ROI in any meaningful way. I won't hide that I'm pretty disappointed in him. At times last year he even seemed a little lethargic or apathetic. Oh, trust me, I've been dissapointed in him as well. I even got into it with Ron Potesta in the minor league forum last year because I was sick of hearing about Guzman's potential, and thought he'd be best used in the pen. After seeing how he got through 2006 healthy, and after seeing his stuff, I'm willing to advocate that the 5th spot is his to lose in ST, depending on other moves.

Hmmm....I understand your point, and I think it most applies to Marshall since he was the guy who actually showed some promise at times. Gooz, on the other hand, was a flaming disaster. I didn't see anything last year but a guy who has spent years & years in our system and still has no control over any of his pitches. To be fair to Guzman, his changeup was probably his best pitch, and that's a pitch that requires a lot of work to get a feel for how to throw it. His big problem was command. He walked way too many hitters, and that's a sign of rust from a guy who had really good command at every level in the minors. His stuff was great, and it he gets his command back, he's still the pitcher with the highest upside that's ML ready. Of all the guys that started last season (Walrond and O'Malley don't count) I was the least impressed with Marshall. His stuff seemed pretty pedestrian, and his command is pretty spotty. Nothing about him really stood out in a positive way. I don't see him as a viable, longterm rotation solution, but I'd certainly give him a chance to prove me wrong over bringing Maddux back.

Myth. How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does. Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not. 4.50 is alot better than your making it out to be. This is the same statement that was been thrown around when Glendon Rusch was signed to his extention. If last year proved anything, it was that young players don't necessarily translate into an improvement. In fact, the Rusch of 2005 was quite a bit better than any of the 2006 rookie starters. (Its too bad the Rusch of 2006 was horrible.) Another example was Niefi Perez last year. He was widely considered the worst hitter in all of baseball, it turned out that Ronnie Cedeno may be throwing his hat in the competition. 4.50 sucks. It's nothing worth paying a guy millions for. I'd rather have a 5.00 ERA at league minimum. Young players won't necessarily improve, but 41 year olds never do. That's my point. Guzman (for example) is as likely to blow up as Maddux, but the odds of Maddux having a sub-4 ERA as a Cub next season are longer than Guzman's given that last season was his first full season in a while. One is signifigantly cheaper than the other. One is signifigantly younger that the other. Save the money.

I guess I was speaking more in general than about Greg specifically. Even so, the worst case scenario with guys like Maddux, Meche and co. just aren't as bad as with our kids. Hell, we don't even know if Rich Hill is going to consistently perform next season (though I think so), much less guys like M/M/M and Guzman, who put up -lets face it - really bad numbers last year. Counting on any of those four to give you even 150 innings at even a 5.00 era is a risky proposition at best. Even if the Cubs were to land Schmidt (big if), Hendry still has to acquire a cheap(ish) innings-eater with some kind of track record. I consider Maddux differently than I consider Meche and the rest of the SP's out there. Meche, Lilly, Padilla-these guys all have the ability to be good. They are all around age 30, which is an age that pitchers tend to begin peaking. Maddux is going to be 41 in April, and 41 year old pitchers don't usually trend upwards. If we were the Padres, or played in the NL West, which is full of pitchers parks, it's a different story. Maddux can be that effective inning eating type of 5th starter. I do not see it happening in the NL Central. If you're going to spend on a FA starter, spend on one with some upside, instead of spending for the nostalgia of a Greg Maddux.

Myth. How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does. Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not. Aot of people here poo-poo every free agent starter out ther who has a 4+ era saying that any of our kids could do it, that is far from a safe bet. IMO, any of Guzman/Mateo/Marshall/Marmol are just as likely to post a 5.5-6.00 era as a 4.5. All four of them were in the 5.3-6+ range last year. At least if you sign a guy who has consistently put up a 4.50, you can expect him to do it again with a fair bit of probability. Honestly, we can't say any of our kids are a "decent bet" to do it. Sure they might improve, or they may be even worse. A 4.50 ERA is nothing great, but signing a guy likely to give you that over 180-200 innings is is a much safer bet to help the team than counting on the kids. I'm sure that after the total unpredictability of the past couple seasons, Hendry is going to go with a known commodity, even if that commodity isn't the hottest. For 3 out of his 4 Cubs months Maddux was above 5 and had one month with an above 6 ERA. It's not as if he's a great bet to be consistent either. Given the choice between the 40 year old expensive guy who might blow up or the league minimum guy with upside that might blow up, I'll take the latter.

Myth. How do you figure? A 23 year old has more of a change to progress than a 40 year old does. Guzman, Miller, and Marshall are all decent bets to put up at least a 4.50 ERA. And it's not like 4.50 is good. It's not.

I'm totally there.

Boy, that joke never gets old, does it?

And those 3 months combined with his great April made him an average pitcher for the Cubs last year. Throwing out a guy's best month by far accomplishes what exactly? It shows that outside of a fluke month that favors flyball pitchers in Wrigley, Maddux was terrible. It took a incredibly good month just to give him a mid-4 Cubs ERA. Why would you pay for that? A mid-4 ERA can be attained by any one of our in house, league minimum options. There's no reason to go chasing the past by signing Maddux. He's a 40 year old pitcher who's not going to get better and has declined over the last few years. He's not going to get better. He was bad last season for us, and he's not worth bringing back just because he's going to pitch 200 below average innings.