twothousandfive

The fact that Castro has shown he's an option for 2010, even if it isn't the wisest move, creates some notable flexibility for the Cubs. They are currently a bit challenged with no real back-up SS, but Blanco probably gives them the depth they need. As the season goes on, clearly Baker (28 years old), Fontenot (29) and Theriot (30), offer varying levels of utility value, and could end up as valuable components of a trade be it mid-season of after the season, so long as they play well enough. A Baker/Fontenot platoon gets them both at-bats, and the Cubs can expect a contender to come calling if they get a MI injury. If Theriot's salary makes his value equal to the other two, I could the contender's MI of choice, along with maybe Colvin and some bullpen help, getting the Cubs a promising prospect or two that provides more options for the 2011/2012 roster. Ike Davis from the Mets, Lars Anderson from Boston, or Thomas Neal from SF, added to Castro, Vitters, and Jackson, would make the top tier of the minors worth paying attention to. Even if the Cubs are in contention, they may be able to pull off a similar deal, though they might not be able to include Theriot.

[The last two years, Grabow has put up a 7.2 K/9, 4.7 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, and 1.34 WHIP. He hasn't been very good at all.] Legend has it that Rothschild has a knack for getting pitchers to stop walking guys. That seems to be the real weakness grabow has (which HAS to make it tougher to come in in the middle of an inning.) Let's say Rothschild gets him to cut that in half, which is downright monumental. I think that gets his WHIP down to 1.1, which is nice. The K/9 seems about right for a middle of the pen guy. That makes me thing it's worth a chance going two years with Grabow. And, since the Heliman return seems decent, the Cubs only feel comfortable dealing Heilman once they know they have Grabow. So, for me, it all comes together on that level -- maybe they are interchangeable, but Hendry knew Arizona wanted Heilman, so he moved on Grabow to make Heilman expendable. Timing creates trouble, but rather than wait to exchange numbers, and then split the difference, Hendry tries to speed things up by offering a bit less than what Grabow thinks he'll ask for, and double it to get to a two-year figure. That all makes sense to me. Heilman was at $1.6 million, Grabow was at $2.3 million. Maybe that difference is part of what makes Heilman attractive -- he's slightly underpaid. So, offer Grabow $5 million over two years. The Cubs can't do cartwheels, but it permits some other moves to start. I can see how it makes sense. HOW, THEN, DOES GRABOW GET A 50% RAISE and the security of two years? I agree.

If they are willing to move Theriot to 2B, they should ask Colorado what they need to add to Soto for Tulowitzki. If not they see what Boston has to say about what they need to add to Soto for Pedroia. Soto plus Gorzelany for either of those guys?

I'd say that's been Hendry's number one mistake. He heads into the off-season and believes he has to fix X, and goes full-steam to fix it. RF/LH was an example. He decided it should be Bradley (defensible in that Bradley is as good a choice as Dunn, Abreu, Ibanez, indefensible in that he's a fielding liability and not so good LH), but lost a ton of flexibility pursuing that fix. For 2010, they'll need Johnson or a replacement to platoon with Fukudome, and maybe another defensive-minded sub for the OF, but that's a guy they can put in Iowa (Hi, Sam). The for the infield, they can go with baker/Fontenot, with baker backing up at SS. Fox jumps in at all corners and we cross our fingers that he can catch. A rotation of Z, Lilly, Dempster, Wells, offer Harden arb and if he doesn't come back,http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=2&t=55387 give it to Gorzellany. Pen is Guzman, Marmol, Marshall, maybe Gorz, and offer arb to Grabow and Gregg. Get them back and the team is set. Then see what happens. If a top-flight 2B can be had, get him. SS? Move Theriot over and demote Fontenot. Fox hitting the cover off the ball and dropping everything? Hello American League. Contender with an injured 1B calls? Lee goes and Fox takes his spot. Want a starter? Ok, here's Dempster, but you have to take Gregg, as well and give us a top AA prospect. The Cubs can then backfill with Stevens/Berg/Atkins. Hoffpauir helps provide some depth, and they've got potential arms in Iowa.

If Gregg is no longer "the closer" then that should mean Piniella has decided he isn't the second best pitcher in the bullpen. The thing about the closer just muddies everything, but the best relief pitcher should be available from anytime after the fifth inning in a key situation -- one that calls for the best pitcher available -- things like up by one run with one on and one out. It just so happened that last night, the ninth was a tight situation, and Gregg made it even tighter. because he's the ninth inning guy, he ot the call, but the ninth inning guy is more often going to be asked to enter with a bigger lead than last night. Building a good bullpen, especially cost-effectively, is one of the toughest things in baseball. largely it is because the bullpen guys are lesser talents than starters, and because small sample sizes and short stints tend to reduce the ability of good and bad performances to normalize. Michael Wuertz, Will Ohman, Scott Eyre help highlight that, and so do Marmol and Gregg. The Cubs should give Guzman a chance to "close" only because it seems to be a small factor in potentially increasing a pitcher's trade value. Then they should plan to offer Gregg arb and if he accepts, they start next year with Marmol, Guzman and Gregg all in the bullpen. When a contender needs a reliever, make Gregg available. It'll probably cost them $5-$6 million o have him pitch 2/3 of the season next year, but then they get a prospect of sorts -- and he's still a better than replacement level pitcher.

If you accept that Theriot's main offense contribution is an ability to get on base, I wonder if fatigue makes him impatient. June to date is now the third data point, and for the third straight season, Theriot's OBP is falling like a stone. 07 08 09 .347 .415 .374 .330 .407 .339 .272 .369 .296 .437 .395 .315 .384 .257 .360 Jason Marquis' fade in the second half was clear from the stats. Theriot has less history, but so far there is no denying June and Sep are his worst months for OBP. I'd think it's unlikely that the All-Star break provides enough of a rest to rejuvenate him, but that is one possibility. If there's additional evidence, it might be wise for Piniella to give him a day off in early july, just to make sure he recovers this year. It might be painful waiting, but I think there's reason to believe that the Cubs have an added offense pick-up coming in July, if/when Ramirez returns -- Theriot will get on a lot more often.

If Dempster's performance was way out of line with his career, this might be an explanation. Though it is sad, and good to hear his daughter may be getting better (assuming the personal lives of pro athletes matter more than others), I find it hard to use it to describe why he is pitching at modestly better than his career numbers, and only worse than two seasons as a starter. He's had four seasons as a starting pitcher where he has been noticeably worse than this year. I don't think that makes it a poor performance so far in 2009.

The black cloud to Wells' silver lining is that he'll by the guy everyone asks for later this season. Would three of Wells, Ascanio, Marshall and Guzman get Peavy? Since Peavy would move into the rotation, the impact would be in the bullpen. I thought Hendry was wise to sell high on Mitre four year ago, but for a while last year it looked like Nolasco was the guy in that deal who really hurt. (Except, of course, for the fact the the trade was for Juan Pierre.) Is Wells at the Rich Hill point, where either you bank on him ending up really good, or the value goes poof? Sean Gallagher's arb/FA clock continues to tick, even as he returns to the minors for Oakland. Could they get Kyle Blanks (who is blocked at first by Gonzalez) along with Peavy with the right package? Would adding Vitters make it too risky for everyone?

Peavy, if I remember it right, has a contract in place (though the cost escalates, and he could demand a trade to force even more money), so he clearly is more than a rental. But, when Peavy was first mentioned, much of the debate (here, at least) was about letting Dempster go (thus saving that payroll hit), sliding Peavy into his slot in the rotation, and getting picks. That made giving up Vitters or really any prospect worth considering. The extra picks could be expected to get a guy who could fill Vitters spot on the prospect list. It's a lot tougher mid-season. Has anyone seen info on how the injury may continue to affect Ramirez? Is third base a big risk on re-injuring it? If he were to simply DH, is his shoulder a problem? Could he be the Cubs first basemen after the 2010 season? If so, there's even more incentive to keep Vitters. Many teams are in this boat, but I think the Cubs best shot for an upgrade is in the bullpen. Peavy would be a great addition, but unless he is a net plus -- pushing Marshall and/or Wells to the pen (and assuming they can do well in the pen) I'd think the Cubs should keep Vitters. if he is the key to keeping Marshall, put him in a deal for Peavy.

I still can't find the Neyer archives, but I think I meant Roberto Petagine. One real shot as a very young man, where he underwhelmed. Then even his flashes of talent went un-noticed. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3042

He hasn't been called scrappy, yet, but sticking with the game in the minors makes him scrappy. I'm sure he's also comforted by a significant increase in salary, for as long as it lasts. It's always unclear why some guys who seem to deserve a shot get stuck in the minors. I guess Neyer used to make Pico Brogna the poster boy for that, but he got a few shots and didn't produce. (Not that he had enough time to really show what he could do, but at least he had a chance to catch lightening in a bottle). I wonder if he makes it clear he's a league minimum guy, never gonna' get caught up in negotiating for more, can Scales stick around until 37 to get his pension.(It's five years, right?) Bobby Scales or Mark Ellis? Bobby Scales or Ty Wiggington? Bobby Scales or Ronnie Cedeno? Bobby Scales or Rickie Weeks? Bobby Scales or Josh Fields? Bobby Scales or Andy LaRouche? If he's only making league minimum, doesn't cause any trouble, and is always ready to come into a game, he might be able to make $390,000/year for the next few years.

Even his bullpen usage backed up the general idea that Piniella was ready to take a loss. Marshall got through seven with, what, 86 pitches or so and three runs allowed? With Lincecum at 115 pitches or so Piniella could have switched to playing to win, but I guess he'd decided to stick with the plan. So, he tested to see if Marshall could stay tough while getting to 90 pitches (sample size of one says "no.") Then it was the back of the bullpen to finish it up, though it seemed as though turning to Samardzjia was at least a chance to get out of the jam. On other days, isn't that a spot for Marmol? Since he pitched two days in a row, I guess he was getting a rest, too. Even when he's taking it easy, though, Piniella clearly doesn't want Hoffpauir or Fontenot up against a lefty.

It seemed as though that was exactly the idea to start the season -- Samardzija at Iowa to learn to be a starter and be stretched out if need for a brief stint with the Cubs. He had a taste of the bigs last year, so it wouldn't be a complete experiment. The final few spots in the pen always go to question marks, but to move Vizcaino out when they did, and bring up Samardzija, was silly. For instance, even if they still had Vizcaino, they could drop him now, and bring up a Jeff Samardzija next Wednesday who already had five Iowa starts, ideally the last couple with more than 6 innings. It's not Vizcaino, but the timing of the move and the idea that the whole plan for Samardzija was then thrown out. Right now, if they need a starter, I guess they can go to Ascanio, but he's coming off his worst start in Iowa.

I brought them up mainly because the thread is titled: "Hendry's offseason moves so far". I believe they meet the definition. Same goes for Marquis. And deciding to not re-sign Kerry Wood was also an offseason move, as was trading Michael Wuertz. If you believe Miles and Gregg are using money that could have been spent elsewhere, it seems relevant that they aren't spending (possibly even more) money on Kerry Wood. On WHiP and ERA, Stevens, Gaub and Archer all appear to be doing well. They are now in the Cubs organization because of Hendry's offseason moves.

There's a lot to be disappointed about, and many were questioning the moves at the time, but Heilman at 1 run in 11 innings and a 1.18 WHIP is far better than 'alright.' Cedeno was the cost of that move, and Miles took his role. Heilman for Pie and Cedeno is fantastic. And if you're not going to pay a returning bullpen stopper $20 million for two years, Gregg is what you get in return. Three good outings and five bad ones, but it is surely a small sample size. Have you noticed how deRosa, Pie, Cedeno and Ceda are doing? Fontenot so far is hitting better than deRosa. Dempster is about the same as Marquis (though park effects can mess that one up). Bradley is the problem with the off-season moves. If he gets in the line-up and hits, everything else goes away. If he doesn't, then the offseason was a bust. Hendry made a bunch of other moves to permit that one, but that's the key move. And it was supposed to pay-off against righties and in the post-season. The Cubs are just over .500 and three games behind St. L. It's okay, so far.

It was a 2-inning, 3 ER appearance in relief that was the problem. He's got two decent starts, though a bit short. Which is another reason it would be bad to add him to the pen -- he hasn't shown he's better than any of these guys, really, but he can learn and imporve as a starter in Iowa. How has Smardijia shown he's better than Ascanio, Hart, Eyre, Marquis or any of the other interchangeable bullpen/fifth starter candidates? Looking at the pen, I still wonder what was going on late last year, when they released Eyre (is the guy they got from Phily still pitching?), but kept Cotts. I figured Cotts had more trade value, and Eyre has certainly been better so far this year.

That's clearly the common opinion. But ESPN found someone linking it back to his injury in 2006. Does anyone have a mid-season 08 (really any time after April) cause for the decline? Anyone have a comparable fall-off from another player? As I look at it, a year ao he picked up where he left off, after a hot Sep 07, which finished a pretty good 07 season. All of a sudden, at age 32, it just goes? I don't buy that. Maybe scouts around the league picked up something (Kevin Gregg, what did they say in Florida?). And it looks as though his ave/obp did okay for a few extended stretches last year after April -- it's is power that seems to have gone. Is it that 2005 was a career year, and 2007 an aberation? I'm skeptical that he rebounds to better than league average for 1B, bt it's puzzling. What happened?

and today followed a game where the pen was called on in the fourth inning. (I didn't see the game, which may affect my view, but) I was pleased to see that a rested Heilman was the first guy called on. He didn't get the job done, so for a tie in the seventh, the Cubs got the first look at Patton on back-to-back days. That's gotta' happen sometime, and today it wasn't pretty. Maybe it's too much to expect a day after 2 innings and 30 pitches, but you have to learn that sometime. When he gave up the lead, I think it was wise to not burn either Marmol or Gregg. Now, with Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster in the next three days -- the guys more likely to go deep into the game -- the Cubs may be able to go to the big bullpen guns with a narrow lead, while mixing in only one or two of the other guys. If Heilman and Patton keep giving up three runs every two innings, this time will either struggle to make the playoffs or they'll replace them, maybe both. Eight inning and seven runs in 2 games for the starters -- that's a bigger problem to try and fix. Of course, neither suggest a trend, yet. It happens sometimes

I absolutely think Lou made the right call here. It's probably making Carlos a little angry in the short term, but he'll hold the closer's role for ample time before he becomes a free agent, I'd say. Being a fireman this season won't hurt him that much long term - plus it's better for the team now. Wait a minute. A big part of why this is the right decision is Marmol is the better pitcher and can be used in more valuable situations, as opposed to sitting around waiting for the ninth inning, or occasionally coming in in the 8th. The Cubs are fortunate that Gregg has experience pitching the ninth AND did a bit better than Marmol this spring. Piniella can claim Gregg "earned" the spot, when in fact (and Piniella has indicated this in the past) Marmol is getting the more important role. The trick is that, from his comments, Marmol doesn't seem to agree that the best relief pitcher needs to be available as early as the sixth inning. There are reasons to think Marmol will be closer a year from now, but that's unlikely to be the best move. I hope someone is thinking about how to keep Marmol in the relief ace position for 2010, as well.

as good as marmol is, it's awfully absurd to suggest that there haven't been just as good, if not better, setup men than him. You're going to have to refresh my memory of set up men that were better than 210 K's in 150 IP and era+ or 326 and 167 over their first two full seasons. K-Rod qualifies as a equal and who else as better or equal? this discussion is getting away from the original point -- that marmol the setup man will get paid less than marmol the closer, and i was thinking out loud (or on keyboard, i should say) how badly that will affect him. if you want to go through BR pages and see if i'm wrong in my notion that marmol isn't the best setup man ever, go for it. i don't really care to though. In supporting your argument, would you care to offer an example or two? Who has been better than Marmol as a set-up man, and/or first two years as a set-up man. Some have offered examples (i.e. Rivera). Do you want to even, like, you know, comment on them? Brad Lidge 2003 might be an example. He didn't get closer money until he actually spent time as a closer. And then Marmol becomes "closer"? I hate to think this plays a role, but it probably does. Though, wouldn't Gregg as set-up man be a bit cheaper and easier to bring back? I suppose the stats can be used to make an argument (six years versus two) but I think Marmol is the better pitcher. Is it possible they want to keep open the option of Marmol starting? Maybe after 2009, re-sign Gregg, and make Marmol a starter? Perhaps because they traded several starters depth (Samardzija, Marshall, Heilman) mid-season for a top-notch starter?

While this is better than "Cubs won't add payroll mid-season" if they are willing to see payroll rise, they should do it now. Mid-season trades by contenders are usually for high/over-priced guys where if you take the salary you don't have to give up prospects, or soon-to-be FAs, where the salary may not be prohibitive, but the cost in prospects is. Peavy, if he's available in June and still interested in Chicago, would be different, but if they are willing to give up prospects and pay Peavy, they should do it now. Maybe it can't happen, maybe Towers will need to see Sean Marshall for two months, maybe he'll change his mind on Kevin Hart or one of the guys from Cleveland -- but how likely are any of those things? If willingness to pay Peavy is a barrier now, a barrier that falls in June, then this is rotten. If that's not the barrier, then there's no reason to think Ricketts owning the team will make any difference.

Fontenot basically sat behind DeRosa. Cedeno (with Pie) brought Hielman, not exactly nothing. 30 would be a good age to pick for decline, especially for someone who's "peak" wasn't much. DeRosa is a notable exception to that common drop-off. If Hendry was shrewd in determining that DeRosa's uptick would stick, perhaps he is also expecting Miles to continue to produce, based on something other than stats. If all of the Cubs infield moves are seen through the lens of "why'd they trade DeRosa" then of course they are poor. The DeRosa trade doesn't make much sense, but it's done with. Grabbing additional middle-infield depth, especially depth that can be stashed in the minors, is wise. The Cubs just might have a couple of injuries this year. And maybe German or Miles is the next DeRosa.

If guys on base for Soto is such a big concern, then an argument can be made to move him down to eighth, putting Theriot's .387 OBP in front of him. Of course, his three-year numbers aren't as good as either Bradley or Ramirez. Rather than carping on where Soto is hitting, I like the idea that there's a bit more power just a bit further down in the line-up. A starter can't who gets the sixth batter as the first or second out in the inning can't relax on the idea that he won't get taken deep before the pitcher comes up. Line-up construction is of course a very small thing, but there is evidence that mixing up the guys who can slug and the guys who get on base produces a bit better. Fontenot (who, of course, may have some power based on last year) followed Theriot seems to but two on-base guys together, and unless it's a PH or Z, the next guy isn't likely to get a big hit. I also think it is wise to hint to Soto that he's not being counted on as a thumper. He's still only in his second year -- .350/.450 and a strong Sep and beyond will be just fine.

That happens a lot at home. I think I'm saying three things: 1) They haven't really gotten more left-handed (as others have piinted out) except maybe 2B 2) If the "problem" is against righties (and they are fine against lefties), Derek Lee, Alfonso Soriano, or Ryan Theriot need a platoon partner -- they are the guys who are noticeably worse against righties 3) If the real "problem" is the playoffs, then (sample size of six games), then Soriano and Ramirez need to be platooned. But, why platoon Ramirez based on six games? He generally hits righties fine. Why platoon Derek Lee? He's been fine in the play-offs. Same with deRosa so the Fontenot move doesn't solve the "problem." Platoon Soriano, since he just isn't quite the slugger we need against righties? That would mean he sits while, who, Hoffpauir starts? Not at that price tag. I think it is difficult to conclude there is a problem. If there is a problem, they haven't solved it. But (again as someone else said) if they perceived a problem, and perceive they have solved it, maybe it will all work out.

On a three year basis, Fontenot is better against righties than DeRosa (sample size issues). Bradley is likely to be better than Edmonds. So they may have made some gains on the margin. But Lee, Soriano, Theriot all drop by about 100 points on OPS against righties. Soto's drop wasn't quite as bad, and Ramirez is very consistent no matter which hand a pitcher throws with. So Fukudome, but that isn't saying much. Lee and DeRosa hit pretty well in the playoffs the last two years, Ramirez and Soriano haven't. If combined those two guys can't get at least a hit a game in the post-season, it is very tough to win. The left-handed righty mashers from last year play first base and third base. The Cubs first baseman has hit well in the post-season.Their third baseman hasn't but he typically hits lefties well. The problem isn't really against lefties, but if they think it is, and they now think we have solved it, that's fine.