davell

This actually makes you pay attention to teams that just have never interested ANYONE. I was following the Indians-Royals series, for instance. I don't think we have any chance oif catching Pittsburgh, but I don't think Baltimore can breathe easily right now. They let up one little bit and we can catch them.......

There;s also specualtion that the Dodgers will resign him too though. I ndon't see them trading him for less than what they received in the first place. I'm not a fan of Olney to begin with, but I think he's reaching here. As far as offering arb to him, I think the Dodgers would do their best to resign him before they had to do that, but if it came down to it, they'd probably let him walk. Although I think a bottom 15 team would give up a 2nd rounder to get him on their staff personally.

Well, I believe the original plan for Lee was to start at Peoria before his Tommy John surgery. Since Kim got $1.2 million, I think he probably will be advanced as Rhee if he shows up healthy. It wouldn't be a big disappointment if he started at Boise but I don't think Mesa is likely since no Korean kid has yet to start there (Rhee debuted at Peoria, Lee, Ha, Jung and Na debuted at Boise). Maybe this is worth noting, maybe it isn't, but I seem to recall that the cubs liked to make sure there were a few other people who spoke korean when deciding where to place everybody, so that the new guy would have an easier time adjusting. You're certainly right though they were willing to push Kyung-Min Na to Boise even though Dong-Yub Kim was rehabbing in Mesa. Na is probably going to be at Peoria next year and Dong-Yub Kim at Boise so Jin-Yeong Kim should have a teammate at either level. Hopefully the Cubs aren't done signing Koreans this year - last year, they signed 2 and they signed 3 in 2008 so 1 this year would be a bit of disappointment. I'm still waiting to see where the kid Boras signed is going to be headed to. But, if I remember correctly, he's not finishing high school until late this year, or maybe even in January or so.

By the way, as far as Rusin goes, do we think of him as a lefthanded version of Casey Coleman or do we think he has more upside than that? I know being a lefty helps at least a bit and he does have better K rates to this point. But, does he have any upside whatsoever higher than a back end of the rotation type at this point? I'm asking this partially because when I either make rankings or look at others, it interests me to see where they value that type of guy......

AROD, Bonds, and Clemens were HOF'ers with or without the roids, if you ask me. At least depending on when Clemens assumedly started taking them. If he was taking them midway through his Red Sox time, then maybe he wouldn't have accumulated enough longevity to truly make it in. As far as some of the others go, I don't think of Palmeiro, McGwire, or Sosa as HOF caliber guys without the advantage they received most likely.

Eh?? I guess I'm figuring those guys as being the vets that are disappointed in the team's direction. Plus, I'm also figuring in Soriano and Ramirez' recent comments. Soriano about possibly playing 1B and Ramirez saying he doesn't have time to go through a rebuild at his age. Plus, I just count Z since he's considered to be the clubhouse cancer guy of the year anyway..... :lol: I'm not figuring Byrd as a guy who would show himself as disgruntled, even if he is disappointed. Same with Dempster. But, I could most certainly be wrong and that whole part of my original post was totally presumptious to begin with. I guess I just figured with Bruce's comments about tensions being high in the lockerroom and some of the recent comments, that this was probably happening. That said, I DEFINITELY don't know that this is the case. Maybe just kind of hoping, so we can finish out as poorly as possible. :D

I'm not sure how much worse it CAN get honestly. But, I would THINK odds would almost creep in and make us improve over our last stretch anyway. That said, an 8-31 stretch to finish out the season would put us squarely in the Rendon sweepstakes at least. :D If you look at like this though, I have no idea how bad we can be: We've traded away our best pitcher(Lilly) and a middle of the order hitter, who also was the clubhouse leader, according to most. Couple that in with a lame duck manager, a bunch of malcontents(Soriano, Ramirez, Zambrano) and a bunch of youngsters who don't appear ready to play in the majors whatsoever(basically anyone not named Castro, Colvin, and Cashner) and this is absolutely a recipe for total disaster.

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing. Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do. We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world. I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it could be demonstrated that spending top dollar on the cream of the crop amateurs works out about as well as spending top dollar on the cream of the crop free agents (the Sorianos and Teixeiras and Sabathias and Zitos etc.). What if it's the case that to land that elite caliber of amateur player necessarily requires overspending to the point of yielding a negative expected value? I don't have the data to prove it, but it stands to reason that these markets quite possibly function in a similar way, where the prices at the very top escalate exponentially, and out of proportion to the talent difference. I guess what I'm saying is, there seems to be a presumption that spending (relatively) big in these amateur areas is inherently good and smart. It's pretty much accepted as given that you want your team doing this. Nobody seems to stop and think, maybe it's not smart at all, once a robust risk/reward analysis is applied. The reason that it IS a good idea to spend on these guys is the fact that the ones that DO pan out become cheap, good, controllable players for a while. Even if the risk is higher, it pays off more in the longrun by hitting on a couple of them every once in a while. It makes alot more sense to augment your team with free agents than it does to go try and buy a team, which is basically what the Cubs have done recently. Oh I get the theory. I just question whether the empirical data would support the notion that it's effective, especially as it pertains to the top-level guys that cost upwards of $1M to land. I scanned thru BA for a little bit but haven't found it yet. I'll find it later if someone doesn't beat me to it. I'm curious as to what the findings are myself. That said, if given my choice, I would spend much MORE on the draft than on International FA personally. If given 12 mill to spend, I'd probably break it up 9-3 or 8-4 depending on how the draft looks. It's simply much easier to get good looks at guys in the draft, while it's totally hit and miss in Central America. Basically, you had better really trust your scouts. Which is one reason I like the fact that recently we've been doing a ton in the Pac Rim. It may be quibbling, but all I want from Central America is maybe one extra bigger signing per year honestly. Last year we supposedly got a guy for around 800,000 and this year we spent on a guy somewhere in the mid six figures as well. If you add one more of those types to our budget and then add a couple of solid overslots to our draft, I think that we'd have one of the best systems in baseball with Wilken running things. For what it's worth, our strategy in Central America appears to be a "strength in numbers" approach. Which is a good way to go, if you ask me. Castro only got a 50,000 bonus, if I'm not mistaken, for instance. Like I said, I'd just like to see a little more splash than what we've done. But, the bottom line is this: Upping the budget to 12 mill or so would almost definitely increase our odds of acquiring one of the best farm systems in baseball. And what brought this whole topic up to begin with was that Ricketts had said he was upping our budget, yet we haven't seen anything yet here. To me, if it comes off the major league payroll for a couple of years, I'm perfectly fine with that. Since, it doesn't appear as if we're very close to becoming a true contender overnight.

Cubs spent 4,727,100 total on the 2010 draft, according to BA. Up slightly from a tad over 4 last season. Their total spending ranked 19th this past draft.

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing. Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do. We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world. I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers. I wonder if you would feel the same way if it could be demonstrated that spending top dollar on the cream of the crop amateurs works out about as well as spending top dollar on the cream of the crop free agents (the Sorianos and Teixeiras and Sabathias and Zitos etc.). What if it's the case that to land that elite caliber of amateur player necessarily requires overspending to the point of yielding a negative expected value? I don't have the data to prove it, but it stands to reason that these markets quite possibly function in a similar way, where the prices at the very top escalate exponentially, and out of proportion to the talent difference. I guess what I'm saying is, there seems to be a presumption that spending (relatively) big in these amateur areas is inherently good and smart. It's pretty much accepted as given that you want your team doing this. Nobody seems to stop and think, maybe it's not smart at all, once a robust risk/reward analysis is applied. The reason that it IS a good idea to spend on these guys is the fact that the ones that DO pan out become cheap, good, controllable players for a while. Even if the risk is higher, it pays off more in the longrun by hitting on a couple of them every once in a while. It makes alot more sense to augment your team with free agents than it does to go try and buy a team, which is basically what the Cubs have done recently.

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing. Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do. We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world. I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers. Exactly. I don't really even care if the money comes off the major league payroll for the next couple of seasons, but if Wilken was given 10-12 million to work with for the draft and international signees, I truly believe we'd see some serious talent come through Wrigley within the next 4-5 seasons.

You think they may start Kim in Peoria over Arizona or Boise? I guess they did with Rhee, but that's pretty rare for them, isn't it?

Could it be that Wilken simply liked the guys he took better? I don't know the answer to that, but I think to write it off and assume he simply went the cheap route because he was ordered to is potentially assuming too much. You may be right, but my question was do we know for sure? My point in bringing up Simpson was that he was regarded much more lowly by most experts and he ended up being an underslot guy, but do we know that he was taken because that was the order from ownership? Or did Wilken simply like him more than anybody else at that spot (including overslot guys)? And if so, could that be extrapolated throughout the rest of the draft? Anything is possible. I just find it hard to believe in some of the cases though. I guess I was expecting more from the draft and more from international free agency, especially due to the season we've had at the major league level. I just don't want this to turn into Ricketts basically staying par for the course, counting on being able to sell Wrigley Field as the attraction and not the team on the field. I know it's early too and I didn't expect him to come in and make wholesale changes immediately. But, when the team has struggled all year, you've said you wanted to model yourself after the Red Sox in lots of ways, and then you come out and kind of lay an egg in a way on the draft(your first chance to make a statement) it raises an eyebrow with me is all.

Like I said, I'm not asking Ricketts to promise a payroll of infinity. Not by any stretch. What I am saying though, is in the 1st year of their tenure, in having a horrible season, they could and should have spent money on the future. Especially since this is what they said they would do and also what it appears they are trumpeting at this point through Hendry. In the end, it may or may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it could also very easily be the first sign of things to come as well. At any rate, what kind of questions were asked?

Yeah, he threw 24 pitches, so i wonder what happened? On a better note, Wallach and Raley each had decent outings.

I dunno our first round pick was somewhere around the 200th best prospect on most people's draft boards. Maybe Wilken really loves him, but he probably could have gotten him a round or two later. So why was he picked in the 1st round? I'm not knowledgeable enough about those things to say definitively but on the surface it looks like they were trying to limit their spending in the draft. The story was someone from Anaheim was there scouting Simpson while Wilken was there and they had a few picks in between the Cubs first and second round picks, so Wilken was sure they would use one on him. Which is fine, in all honesty, if true(probably is actually). The problem stems from that point forward in the draft, where a team like the Red Sox outspent the Cubs by probably 10 million or so, not counting 1st round picks. It was considered a weaker draft, but there were guys available that the Cubs could have spent on for sure. Especially considering the fact that they got Simpson signed for 500,000 UNDER what slot value for the pick was. When all is said and done, it looks like the Cubs were one of the weakest spending teams in this year's draft and the only teams behind them were the teams that couldn't get their 1st rounders signed. So, for a team that appears to be emphasing younger talent, this certainly raises a red flag with me. Especially considering he said that the scouting and player development budget would be raised and they don't appear as if they were whatsoever.

Soriano was asked if he would play 1B, and his response was "Never". Said something about he played 2B for 5 years and he didn't want to do that....... Not that I want him at 1B, but this comment gets under my skin anyway. We're paying this guy TWICE what he's probably worth. To me, a guy should play where he's asked to, I guess is what I'm saying. That said, I hope the Cubs don't ask him anyway.

It seems to me like we haven't changed anything by having a new owner honestly. He talked alot about accountability and there would be someone to answer the tough questions, but since this season turned into a train wreck, has there been a peep from him? Other than to say he knew what was going on during the Z blowup anyway? I was under the impression he was going to communicate with season ticket holders and keep them up to date with where money was going to be going......The troubling part to me is that we've known for a while we were going toi be going through somewhat of a rebuilding process, which is fine by me. Hell, a full one would be fine with me, but it doesn't appear to be in the cards, with some of Hendry's comments. But, with this being the case, we certainly didn't spend money in the amateur draft, nor have we made a huge splash in the international free agency period. Although, we have saved close to 5 million off THIS year's payroll by trading away Lilly, Theriot, Fontenot, and Lee. Meanwhile, we were supposed to have money available for deadline deals, if we needed it. So, not only have we saved the 5 mill, we've also not had to spend anything extra obviously. This has raised a huge red flag with me. I have no issue whatsoever in lowering the payroll. But, if we're going to trumpet our youngsters as the future of this organization, then it only makes sense that this is where the money should be spent and this season, quite honestly, it just hasn't been. We've discussed this some in the minor league forum and the amateur draft forum as well, but I know quite a few people don't read those forums as much as they do this one..... So anyway, to any of the season ticket holders I ask this: Has there been anything come out from the Ricketts family? A direction we're taking? Why money hasn't been spent in the scouting department when it looks like this is what we're banking on as the future of this organization? I understand that this is just year 1 of this regime, but since it has probably gone worse than what anyone could have imagined, I would have thought that they would have shown some sort of commitment to the team by spending on our future, if for nothing else, as some goodwill actually.......

I'm on board for going stopgap type at 1B, but only IF we think AGON will wind up available at some point. If he's not, then Dunn at 4-60 isn't a great value, but it does make us quite a bit better anyway. And if we dream and can get him AND Greinke(2-27 with issues that could rear up in Chicago quite easily) somehow, maybe we're back to being borderline contenders possibly......

McNutt is done, finishing with 6IP 1H and 6K's. :D Carpenter is at 5IP 1H 1R 3K on 63 pitches so far. :D Guyer has a home run too.

Players look at things alot differently than how we do, is my guess. They probably all agreed with Lou around the deadline that we just needed one hot streak to get back in it.......Granted, I think we were 8 under .500 at that time and we could all see the writing on the wall. But, it's not the players or the manager who make personnel decisions. Both the Lilly deal and the Lee deal can help this organization in the future. Lilly and Lee could not and we weren't going anywhere this year. I'm all for these moves, but as discussed in other forums, if we're going go to this way, the Cubs need to commit more to the draft and more to international free agency, to prove it to us.

Who said that O_O ?

Did you look at his A ball numbers? They weren't terrible, but they weren't good. In low A. The only thing going for him is that he's 19. It's ok, I'm not saying it was a bad trade or anything like that. He's a very intriguing guy. Stats aren't the best thing to judge kids of that age on. Go look at Chris Archer's stats before we acquired him from Cleveland. We got a kid with solid upside here and the more I read, the better I think we did on this one.

Maybe piggyback him with Batista for the rest of the year? He's got close to 100 innings and is only 19, so it's not going to bother me if they limit him quite a bit honestly. Next year will be very interesting for him though: Will he move up to Daytona or repeat Peoria? Given his age, either is acceptable, if you ask me.

I'm not putting anything past this bunch at this stage. Lou is not interested whatsoever and we just traded the one guy considered to be a lockerroom leader. 41 games left. Team is apathetic, fans are not showing up and we still have 20 games against teams competing for the playoffs. I'm thinking we have a relatively decent shot at finishing top(or bottom) 3.