toonsterwu

The mildly plus side is that it was only 2 earned runs (error by Cerda to start the inning). The negative side is that the error led off the inning - he just didn't make the pitches necessary, and compounded things with his own error.

Hey, back to back games with hits for Marco Hernandez (granted, 2 isn't that inspiring, but considering his season so far, I'll take it).

Speaking very generally again, but I tend to wonder if it might be better to deal them separately, assuming of course, that both guys are doing well. If LaHair is performing, he'd be an intriguing mid-season trade chip as he's in his prime years and is still affordable for any team.

Speaking in very general terms, I think they could probably get a decent package in return. Obviously, a lot of variable at play, but if he's doing well, I think they could probably get one solid upper level prospect and a lottery ticket or two type in the lower levels. Of course, doesn't that depend on Dempster wanting to go? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't he have 10/5 rights?

BRING BACK HENDRY I agree with Garza and Hamels. As for Dempster, I don't see him going as team friendly as you'd think. He's going to be 35 tomorrow, and a strong season could net him a 2/20 or even 2/24 contract. Sounds like a good price for him, but assuming we signed Hamels and extended Garza, I'd prefer spend that money elsewhere. A rotation starting with Hamels, Garza, Shark, and then 4-5 could be between McNutt, Wood, and Volstad. Then I think we could contend, but I'd love to add another bat. Maybe Upton or Ethier for RF making DeJesus a 4th OF and LaHair insurance plan or trade chip. I've got no idea what's going on in this thread, but as for Dempster, I think he'd consider a reasonable deal. I mean, if someone gives him significantly more, then he's probably gone, but if we're close, I could see him accepting, if all the stuff he's said in the past about wanting to be here for his kid's sake is true, along with his foundation's work. I also don't know if I'm opposed to any 2 reasonable year deal for Dempster (including 2/20 and 2/24)- it's a reasonable length that doesn't handicap us in the long run and he's one of the few guys lauded for his leadership, on the team and in the community. He seems like the type of guy that you might give a touch extra to (than other comparable guys) because of the known locker room/off-field positives that he brings to the table, particularly with the team likely to get younger in the next few years (as a total side note, what was that ESPN game show that Dempster/Lee went on once? It lasted for all of a season before the show was cancelled.) I do have high doubts that we'd shell out for Hamels, though, at least, relative to the current rumors of what Hamels wants in length and total money. I'd still prefer Sanchez to Hamels because I expect Sanchez to come cheaper. I'm not real sure how the off-season is going to play out yet. I'd love to go out, add a key SP, bring back Demp, add a bat, but I also wonder if the organization's leadership is thinking that way. I could see them deciding to slow-play the team's development.

Yeah, Vitters should get that SLG above his OBP now (just realized that his SLG had fell below his OBP entering today). Well, Brett has a 3-game hitting streak. Let's see if he can get on a bit of a roll.

Pugliese has a knuckle-change? I recall reading that he toyed around with it, but I thought he went back to fast/slider/more basic change.

Smokies rolling over the Biscuits 9-2 so far. Struck done after 5.1 - not the greatest line (5.1, 5 h (1 solo homer), 4bb, 2 r (1 unearned), 3 K's. Ha 3-3 so far and Watkins (with a triple)/Bour (with a double)/Mota (with a HR) 2-3 so far. Daytona lost 6-4. Guess Weismann was sent down to A+. Jokisch with a decent start ( 6ip, 6 h (2 solo homers), 2 bb, 7 K's, 3 R's). Andreoli and Rohan each went 2/4 with 2 R's and a 2B. Torreyes was a late inning sub, with Silva starting at 2nd.

I think you guys are thinking of the wrong promotion. JCF is probably thinking of the Daytona->Tennessee promotion. Can't get the game logs from that time period, but looking back at the minor league thread from that day, you get this exchange (some things never change: Well, I was talking about the Peoria to Daytona promotion, and that's what jcf responded to, so I assumed that's the promotion he was talking about. I don't disagree on the Daytona-Tennessee promotion as being questionable. Btw, all the game logs are on fangraphs.

I recall it has a very slow start, he started to heat up a little, took another step back and then had a huge 3-4 day period after which he was promoted. It seemed at the time like they were just desperately waiting for an excuse to promote him. What I thought I recalled was a slow start, a hot mid-late May, then he cooled off, but looking at the numbers now, he had a better April than I recalled. He hit .302. Admittedly, he wasn't showing power (4 XBH), and if I ventured a guess, I'd assume that BABIP was high, but I'm not dedicated enough to figure out the numbers on my extended lunch break. He had a much better May, hitting .386, with 12 HR's and 6 2B's. It was in June where he slumped, hitting .239 with 6 XBH's. I think, IIRC, what I posted about it then (on another site) was that I didn't like the fact that he was called up when he was slumping a bit.

Looks like Vitters had a hot series from 5/16-5/19 of 2009 (12/19) and that may be what jcf is referring to, but he did go 11/29 from 5/24-5/31, so I tend to recall it as a 2 hot weeks. He cooled off badly in June, going 0/18 from 6/7-6/12. He did go 7/15 in the three days prior to the call-up, though, so I think that may be what jcf is remembering.

He was terrible, then had a huge weekend and was promoted. It was bizarre. It was more a solid 2 weeks, IIRC, and I wasn't in love with the promotion then, particularly (and my memory could be off) because I think he had cooled down when he was bumped up ... but ... in hindsight, was it really that bad to send him up? They had held him down a full year by keeping him in Boise, and the MWL isn't exactly hitter friendly. I just don't know, in hindsight, if it was that bad to send him up, but I am mildly surprised I feel this way as of this writing. Looking at it now, I'm more bothered by the jump to AA.

Well, let's take the dynamic that jcf loosely suggested. Let's forget he was a top 5 pick. If Vitters was a 5th round pick, 21, somehow in AAA now, and had the same numbers he had going up the ladder, would he deserve to be rated any higher? We don't know what Vitters would've become if he had been held back, but I have high doubts, if we changed the hypothetical to an issue of draft slot, that Vitters would be rated any higher. I still have an issue with the idea that Vitters was put on an "aggressive promotion schedule", tbh. It may be an issue of definitions, though, particularly as it relates to the word "schedule" in this circumstance. I just don't know, in looking back now, with the benefit of hindsight, that there have been that many points in time where he was "rushed" up the ladder, which the wording seems to suggest. He's basically had a full season at each level, and the Cubs were very careful in sending him down to Boise again that first year and not letting him up. In hindsight, I really can't fault them for sending him to Daytona in 2009. I know I initially had an issue with that, because IIRC that half year in Peoria for him, it was very streaky, but considering his draft status and the fact that he had a decent overall line in MWL, you hope he learns as he goes up the ladder. Starting him at Daytona in 2010 was the right thing to do. If I have any issue with his overall "promotion schedule", it's with the one point in time - his bump in 2010 to AA. Leaving that aside, he had a full year and a half in AA, and while I wouldn't have had an issue with Vitters in AA again this year, I also understand why the new regime chose, for a guy in his 5th full season of pro ball and hitting Rule 5 years, to put him in AAA. I guess, I don't disagree with the idea that we could've been slower with him, but I also don't think he was rushed that much relative to how his overall career arc has looked. He's been in pro ball since 2007. The better issue, IMO, is whether or not the practices of the old "old school" regime was the right match for Vitters development.

I tend to agree with jcf on this one. Vitters issues seem more an issue of trying to back away from his instinctual habits on the baseball field and trying to find a balance between being disciplined and his instincts. It's hard to believe that he'd be "crushing" the FSL right now, unless the assumption is that somehow, by keeping him down, he'd have flipped some sort of switch that 5 years of coaching hasn't even minutely began to change. I don't think my other point should be disregarded relative to this hypothetical, though. Admittedly, we're speaking a hypothetical that will never be known and can be debated back and forth, but I imagine, if, entering his 5th full pro season, Vitters was still in A ball, regardless of his age, there would be a vocal chorus of people, even if he was "crushing" A ball, that would be significantly disappointed in his development, to say the least. Particularly if you are using a .830 OPS in A+ ball as a measure for "crushing" it. With Vitters, as I said above, I tend to think that the fact that he was so young out of HS makes age-appropriate ... a hard discussion to have as it pertains to his development and fan reactions. He'll always be too young for his level unless you keep him floating around in the minors in the low levels for 5 years, at which point, there has to be a level of legitimate questioning on his abilities.

Really nice run Szczur is on, .333/.435/.538 over the last 10, showing power, speed, and discipline. Very impressed that it seems like he's found a balance between discipline and instinct. Let's see if Silva's 3 hit game can get him going offensively again. He had slumped a bit. Good to see Del Valle have a solid start, but seeing him starting still makes me wonder why Antigua isn't, as Antigua seemed like a better arm. Oh well. If we're going to keep guys like Schlitter and Morris around, I hope they get pushed up, like Schlitter did, asap. Morris just got off the DL, so I'm not suggesting anytime soon, but considering their ages, let's move them up and move some arms around. I don't know if I ever bought what the Cubs were selling on Concepcion, but I agree with others who say this is way too early to be disappointed. When you factor in that the MWL probably isn't all that warm this time of year, to say the least (actually haven't checked weather reports, since I'm on the East), let's give him some time. Although it's two awfully bad starts to the year. Willengton Cruz has made two solid outings since the shift to a pen/piggyback role (I actually don't recall if it was defined what role he would be in). SSS, of course, but it does make one wonder if he's simply better off using the plus breaking ball in a pen role.

To be fair to Cubs management, it's not like Vitters was rushed either. Now, I have criticized the fact that they seemed to call him up off a hot streak, and would rather have seen him have sustained success at a level before getting a bump, but he has gone through each level of the system, spending some extra time at AA. If he played at "age-appropriate levels", he would've had to been held back twice (if we use age 21 as the marker for Low A). It might or might not have been in his best long term interest, but I tend to think that there would've been a lot of Cubs fans that also questioned why he was taking so long to work up the ladder. My point? Age-appropriate levels for Josh Vitters is different from many other HS kids since he was younger than most coming out. For him to be age-appropriate, he would've really had to struggle badly.

Interesting stuff videographer. That's as positive as I've heard anyone on Rosario's change-up. Enjoy the games!

Here's hoping Rhee can bounce back from a couple sub-par starts. He did get off to an inconsistent start last year, before warming up as the weather warmed up. I imagine that Francescon/Jensen might get priority over Burke as the next guy up (as a starter) because they have been throwing a full workload. Cates in AA? I'm just hoping he can string together a few decent starts in A+ first.

my take: Rusin - End of the rotation ceiling. If you want to say a "4" on a very good year, sure, I guess I can buy that. Average stuff, plus control. Cabrera - Don't know what he's throwing this year yet, but he topped out in the mid-90's as a starter. I've always thought he had late inning potential, as he was still whipping a good breaking ball last year. Schlitter - No freaking clue. With all the talk by AzPhil about guys needing to move out of XST to ease the congestion, guys like Schlitter, Ty'Relle Harris, and AJ Morris (when he's off the DL) strike me as the type of guys that could be cut to clear some space (along with some upper level guys). Wang/Reed - Reed may be better suited to relief work, in all honesty, with his mechanics. It's hard to imagine that he can consistently maintain those mechanics for multiple innings. Wang's an interesting case. He really did well last year, and has had a good start to the year. On paper, he has solid stuff that seems to give him a shot as a starter, but so far, he's been in the Liria grouping - pen guys working 1-2 innings each time. The Concepcion call-up pushes Cruz into that grouping as well. Wang may simply need some guys to be pushed up before he gets a shot in extended innings. Or, it's possible that they simply view his ceiling as being average as a starter, and feel like keeping him in the pen is the best thing possible. There will be other high ceiling arms pushing for Peoria soon, such as Peralta.

out of curiosity, who's the Loosen comment from? That does sound promising for Loosen, though.

What do you mean? He's the same guy as he was, a plus control guy with average stuff. Unless there are reports of something different?

Both Jensen and Francescon should be near to the 40 IP mark after their next two outings. While it would still be relatively early, assuming all goes well, I'd really like to see one, or both, get an early call up to A+ to see how they can handle it. I think there's more than enough guys that can be moved around to give Francescon or Jensen a look in A+, and 40 IP is a decent enough amount that I'd really like to see an early move.

No that should be Jose Rosario. We have an off day May 1 so it would bump everyone. The way it looks right now, barring any moves is: Concepcion, Jensen & Francescon in Lake County Rosario, Wells/Burke and Concepcion in Fort Wayne Off Day on Tuesday May 1 Jensen (Wed), Francescon (Thu), Rosario (Fri) in Kane County Burke/Wells, Concepcion, Jensen & Francescon in Quad Cities commuters Thats our 13 game, 14 day, 2150 mile road trip. Have fun. Longest road trip of the season?

truffle, it is very possible the Cubs were wrong. I don't disagree on that. But my point is, the Hayden Simpson that is out there now isn't the one that was seen pre-draft. Everyone acknowledges that the Cubs saw him at his best that year - probably at the start of the year and the end of the year. They didn't see him when he was down, in the middle of the year. Yet, and if I'm wrong, please correct me, the reports from when he was down that year still had him in the low 90's, something he isn't hitting now. What I'm saying is that, from a talent perspective, it isn't the same Hayden. What I did note above is that, if you want to blame the Cubs for some failure from a medical perspective, fine. Maybe there was something medically about him that should've indicated that he would struggle to rehab. Maybe the Cubs didn't do their due diligence on the mono. Maybe (and, heck, probably) they screwed up somewhere last year with him with the fracture. I don't know any of that, and it's fair game. But the "talent" is noticeably different.

Geesh, I really want to leave this topic alone, and for the most part, I'm going to leave it alone, but it needs to be pointed out again ... his struggles now have to do with the injuries. I don't recall a single report out of college that had Hayden topping out in the mid-80's. This isn't the "talent" that anyone saw. Maybe he still blows at 90-92, the low end of the reports that I recall pre-draft, but again, I think that it isn't accurate to say that his production now is indicative of the talent pre-draft. I fully recognize that Truffle didn't actually explicitly state that, but it veers close enough that I think this needs to be stated again. Now, if you want to criticize the Cubs for something medically-related (misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose the fracture) , or that he might've had the mono pre-draft and that the mono issues were so serious that he was so tremendously weakened (I think, could be wrong, timing was fairly close and I just don't recall), okay, fair game. But ... he's throwing slop up there now, if the reports of topping out mid-80's are true. There wasn't a single report suggesting that his "talent"-level was that of a guy topping out mid-80's. I'm going to leave the rest of the stuff about the pick alone, as we beat that to death in the other thread, but I really felt like this needed to be mentioned again.