Fanzones trumpet

Lidge had significant arm problems in college and was never thought of as a starter in the pros. He was specifically drafted to be a reliever. Although it was a long time ago, I'm pretty certain that Wagner was viewed the same way. He never had much of a second pitch and was small.

Would you just say no to Billy Wagner, Brad Lidge and Huston Street?

I agree with that assessment given the promise Hagerty, Blasko and (to a lesser extent) Jones showed before their injuries, but it still hurts a lot to see a Brownlie taken a couple of spots ahead of Jeff Francouer and 6 guys taken ahead of Brian McCann. Where would the Cubs be now (and in the forseeable future) with those two guys in the lineup?. I think the 2002 draft ultimately shows the fallacy in the MacPhail/Hendry draft strategy of favoring pitchers at the expense of position players in the belief that excess pitching can always be used to acquire good position players. The strategy is flawed given the high volume of injuries to young pitchers. And even if you eventually get into position to use young piching in a trade, there's no guarantee that the player you acquire will benefit your ballclub. See Juan Pierre.

Disagree. Lilly was decidedly mediocre. And the Cubs had two LH SP last year too - I'd rather they be quality pitchers than pitchers who can throw lefty. Shouldn't mediocre in a DH league and a stacked divsion translate into at worst above average in the offensively challenged nonDH NL?

I'd do this in a heartbeat. ARod is one of the 20 greatest players in baseball history. Even though he's passed his absolutely prime, he still has a lot of outstanding years ahead of him. (HOFs tend to be extremely productive well into their 30s.) Z has a lot of wear and tear on his arm and there are red flags about his future performance (high walk rates.) He's also gonna get very expensive in the next year or so to the point where he's only making a couple of million less than what the Cubs would have to pay ARod. Given the composition of the Cubs farm system, the Cubs are far more likely to be able to replace Z than to acquire a hitter of ARod's caliber.

Very interesting questions Craig. In terms of 2007 effectivness, based on what I've seen, and allowing for projections, I'd rate it Hill, Guzman, Marshall and Marmol. Hill seems to me the best combination of talent, experience and--most importantly--health and durability. Guzman's been healthy this year, shows signs of breaking out and has sufficient experience and lights out talent. Marshall and Marmol are about equal for different reasons. Marshall's shown fine poise and good, though not great, stuff, but he's been hurt every year in the system and has never shown the ability to amass the # of innings necessary to be an effective ML starting pitcher. Marmol, has lights out talent, but doesn't belong in the major leagues now, or probably not part of next year. But the fact that he's holding his own in the major leagues right now despite his glaring lack of experience speaks volumes about his stuff. In terms of trade value, I'd fudge the question by saying that it depends on Hill's performance the rest of the season. If he's lights out, he won't be traded under any conceivable circumstance. If he's good, or even OK, I'd say he still has the most value of any of the four, particularly since he's a lefty and could be a good bullpen guy. If he blows up, he falls behind the other three. Of the other three, I'd rate Marmol #2 slightly ahead of Guzman due to health, although in this case, it would really depend on the particular GM. I rate Marshall #4 because I believe that other GMs are gonna look at that health history and shy away. On my valuations, again it's dependent on Hill's performance the rest of the season. Right now, I'd rate Hill, Guzman and Marmol about even with Marshall a distant fourth due to the aforementioned health issues. It wouldn't surprise me if one of these guys goes in a package for Hendry favorite Austin Kearns over the winter. Kearns is a FA after next year, reportedly isn't ecstatic about Washington and Bowden is on record as seeking young pitching.

He also had 260 more plate appearances. If there's been no marked improvement in his patience, then why did his walks improve from 14 in his first full (age 22) season to 45 in his last full (age 24) season? Because of the bolded part. Fair enough, but his walk rate doubled during that time.

He also had 260 more plate appearances. details details details. He had a .311 OBP in the minors, taking just 113 walks in well over 2200 at bats. He's taken just 116 walks in over 2300 major league at bats. Corey Patterson took 107 walks in less than 1400 minor league at bats, and 126 in 2500 career at bats. There is no marked improvement in Izturis's patience. He's always been worthless at the plate and likely always will be. If there's been no marked improvement in his patience, then why did his walks improve from 14 in his first full (age 22) season to 45 in his last full (age 24) season?

06:$3.1M 07:$4.15M :shock: 08:$5.45M club option($0.3M buyout) Oh. My. God. That contract makes me yearn for Neifi's deal. We're going to pay $9.5m for a guy who can't put up a .300 OBP? What was Izturis's OBP in 2004 (his last healthy year)?

Yup. You don't keep quiet for years and turn down a managerial spot to return to the team if strongly disagree with how the pitchers are being used (which a good pitching coach would). The abuse and bullpen mismanagement tell us all we need to know about Larry. Either he is incompetent or he just won't speak up. Having one of those qualities is enough to be canned. Rothschild did not turn down a managerial job; he turned down a multi-year contract to be Leyland's pitching coach. And he's not gonna be canned by Hendry after showing such loyalty to the organization. If Hendry did that, he'd get a bad reputation in baseball circles for ingratitude that could hurt the Cubs down the road when it comes to hiring other people.

I agree with you 100% on this Tim, especially considering how weak the NL is now. You can make the case that Kenny Williams set up the 2005 world championship by using this exact same strategy in the summer of 2004 when the White Sox weren't going anywhere, by acquiring Contreras and Garcia.

Would that happen quietly? I genuinely don't know the answer, not trying to be sarcastic or anything. Depends on whether the Cubs thought they could drive up the price with a bidding war or not. Or how much either party wanted to keep it a secret. My feeling is any Cubs sale would be somewhat of a surprise when it happens. I don't think you'd see it negotiated in the press for months on end. Corporations are very good at keeping deals quiet if they want to. And it's a lot easier to sell off an entity within a corporation than to sell the entire business, which would require shareholder votes. Great analysis. If I remember correctly (it was a long time ago), that's the way it happened with the sale to Tribune. It was speculated for a couple of years that William Wrigley would have to sell due to estate taxes, but the actual sale (and the buyer) seemingly came out of the blue.

I remember Lanier. The prototypical good field no hit shortstop of the modern deadball era (late 60s) (Dal Maxvill, Mark Belanger were other examples). He was hidden in a loaded Giants lineup (Mays, McCovey, Hart, Davenport). Later managed the Astros to a division championship in 1986. Bobby Lowe was actually a fine player for many years in the 1890s, but was washed up by 1904. He once hit 4 HRs in a game.

I totally agree with you. When he's on he's got absolutely electric stuff. I'll never forget the Houston game where he threw 15 straight sliders and made them all look like total fools. Williams is solid too. If we trade either, I'd rather it be for someone who has a more involved role than "stop gap for Lee and PHer when he gets back". I'd imagine that's about the max you'd get for either of them. We have a lot of pitchers who are right around their level, I don't object to dealing one to fill a glaring hole for 2 months. It sucks to lose Lee, but acquiring Clark or the like is only going to be a marginal upgrade over Hairston. Unless you're getting a defensive whiz too like a Mientkiewicz, the difference over only 2 months isn't worth giving up players of Wuertz's or Williams's caliber. Tony Clark is a very good first baseman defensively.

The have been stable because they've won. And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side. 25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year. Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do? Dallas Green pleaded with the Tribune Company to open the purse strings and they didn't or the Cubs would have won IMO. That set up McPhil and letting Maddux go to the Braves (if I remeber correctly). When Dallas Green was hired by the Cubs he built the 1984 team bringing in Ryne Sandberg to name just one of many. Green built the 1984 team exclusively through trades. His real contribution was building up a terrific farm system that was just starting to produce when he was canned. The Green farm system was the foundation of the 1989 division champion team. Actually, the Trib did open the purse strings when Green was the GM; they had the third highest payroll in MLB in 1985. The thing that sunk Green was the injuries/poor play of expensive veterans he had signed in 1985-1987 (as well as personality conflicts with Trib executives). The problem with the firing was that it happened at precisely the time that his young players were starting to produce. The Trib also opened the purse strings for Green's successor, Jim Frey. In winter 1991, they went on an expensive spending spree for George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. It was the bad experience with those high priced players that led to Tribune financial retrenchment in the early 1990s.

The have been stable because they've won. And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side. 25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year. Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do? You have to look at the direction the team is headed. I wasn't old enough to remember the beginnings of Jocketty or Green's terms, but it's pretty clear the Cubs have regressed from the beginnings of Hendry's regime, in terms of talent on the major league roster, talent in the minor league system. His decision making has also been much more questionable as time has gone on. The talent's regressed from the beginnings of Hendry's regime? Here's the starting lineup on opening day 2003--Miller, Choi, Grudz, Gonzalez, Bellhorn, Alou, Patterson, Sosa. Other than Sosa (who was in the midst of a precipitous decline) and possibly Alou (who was coming off a bad 2002), 2006's lineup is better or equal. The current bullpen is much much better than the bullpen in 2003: (Veres, Borowski, Remlinger, Guthrie, Farnsworth, Alfonseca). And the only reason the starting pitching isn't at least is good is that Wood and Prior are currently hurt. I disagree about the relative farm system strength. The Cubs are starting two position players who like like they're keepers (unlike Hill and Choi). They have Felix Pie at AAA, and good pitching depth.

The have been stable because they've won. And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side. 25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year. Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do?

The Cards team of Jocketty/LaRussa was less successful in their first few years than the Hendry/Baker team in their first three years. Jocketty took over before 1995, LaRussa before 1996. Three bad teams (1995, 1997, 1999), one mediocre team (1998) and one surprising run to the NLCS in their first year together (1996), where, like the Cubs in Hendry/Baker's first year (2003), SL blew a 3-1 lead.

The Cub Reporter--March 31, 2004--had this quote from the Sun-Times: "Prior admitted that he has been more conc erned about his elbow than he has been about his right Achilles tendinitis which is the ailment the Cubs have been citing as the reason for holding him out." Sorry I can't provide the direct Sun Times link because it's too old.

are you talking about his achilles injury? The elbow injury was simultaneous with the achilles injury. The elbow injury was speculation from a reporter in NJ. The achilles injury is what kept him off the mound. I think you have it backwards; the elbow issue was the real problem.

are you talking about his achilles injury? The elbow injury was simultaneous with the achilles injury.

significant elbow injury? when was this, and did he have surgery? i seem to recall rumors and conjecture but nothing that could be called "significant". He didn't have surgery, but I'd characterize missing 2 months of a season as a "significant" injury.

Durability issue? Would Willis not have missed time if he took a line drive off the elbow? Would he not have missed time after trucking into Marcus Giles? Prior's missed time in '04 can be held against him for his legitimate injury, that's fine. But Prior has more IP than Willis, so it's not a sample size issue. He's been better in his career, and the durability is only a concern if the legitimate injury returns, which is only marginally more likely than Willis developing problems of his own with his motion. Prior has 20 more IP than Willis only because he's been in the major leagues a full season longer. He's had a significant elbow injury in his career that can't be dismissed. We also don't know at this point what effect (if any) last year's injury will have; he certainly wasn't the same pitcher after getting hit. I can't see how anyone can make a case that it would be "insane" to trade Prior for Willis at this point given their respective ages, performances last year, and Prior's injury issues.

I'm not following you CPatt. Are you saying there's a significant difference between 124+ and 132+ era? Even if that's the case, the durability issue is critical.

He's not nearly as dominating, nor does he has near the upside. Florida wouldn't make the trade only because Willis is the face of the franchise and they are trading veterans for prospects. 22-10 with a WHIP of 1.13 at age 23 is plenty dominating. And his upside is the same as Prior's--the Hall of Fame. The fact that he doesn't strike out as many batters as Prior irrelevant; he gets batters out quicker, allowing him to go deeper into games than Prior. Florida wouldn't make the trade not because Willis is the face of the franchise but because Willis has been at least as effective over the last three years, is younger, and--most importantly--far more durable.