davearm

Am I really hearing this? Folks complaining because the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players? Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

Although I am definitely rooting for Theriot to take the SS job and never give it back, I have to confess that in the couple of innings of tonight's game that I was able to catch, I saw three different balls hit to SS that Theriot didn't make, and on each one I got the sense that a better SS would've made the play. The first was the slow dribbler hit by Wilson that Theriot bobbled for an E6. The next was the grounder up the middle (Duncan IIRC) that Theriot had to dive to field, causing the throw to first to be late. A rangier SS can stay on his feet to field that ball -- Cedeno does this quite well. The third was the grounder through the hole on which Soriano nailed Edmonds at the plate. Theriot seemed to be shading to the bag and the ball was out of the reach of his dive. This one seemed like a combination of bad positioning and poor range. A better SS keeps that ball on the IF at a minimum, and maybe turns it into a forceout at 2B. All things considered, it didn't take me long at all to realize why Theriot is not the ideal candidate at SS, defensively.

Agreed. A long-term deal doesn't make much sense at this point. The Cubs control him for 2 more cheap years anyway. He's not going to even start throwing until 08. If we let him walk, then those "cheap years" will be exactly what this email was about. if Dr. Andrews is right, he'll rehab on the Cubs, and then go somewhere else and return to maybe a 2 or 3 pitcher in the rotation. I'd rather pay him 3 million a year to rehab and pray for a return to 2003-2005, than pay guys like Jockstrap and Itzcrappy, Neifi, Macias etc. money we are/have paid them. If he rehabs and goes elsewhere and returns to prominence, I don't want to hear one word about curses. We can extend him on the cheap, and we should take that chance. If we don't, it's our organizations fault. Get him to sign a new contract before the non-tender date this fall. Throw in some incentives and a substantial team option for 2009. But there's no reason to give him a multi-year extension. A team option for 2009 is pretty pointless. They've effectively already got that.

Agreed. A long-term deal doesn't make much sense at this point. The Cubs control him for 2 more cheap years anyway. He's not going to even start throwing until 08. If we let him walk, then those "cheap years" will be exactly what this email was about. if Dr. Andrews is right, he'll rehab on the Cubs, and then go somewhere else and return to maybe a 2 or 3 pitcher in the rotation. I'd rather pay him 3 million a year to rehab and pray for a return to 2003-2005, than pay guys like Jockstrap and Itzcrappy, Neifi, Macias etc. money we are/have paid them. If he rehabs and goes elsewhere and returns to prominence, I don't want to hear one word about curses. We can extend him on the cheap, and we should take that chance. If we don't, it's our organizations fault. Does Mark Prior get a vote in all of this? I think it's more than a little naive to think that Prior would readily sign any extension with the Cubs as soon as one's put under his nose, let alone a cheap one.

That's just the thing... Prior claimed all spring that his arm felt fine and he had no pain or discomfort throwing. IMO that's one really mystifying piece of this story. Was he lying, in hopes of sneaking onto the active roster to keep his service time accruing? Is there any chance that he's actually so tough that something that would "hurt like heck" for most guys didn't bother him? How ironic would that be...

I suspect everyone involved here is more than just a little frustrated. Until this week, there was no known medical explanation for why the Cubs' prized pitcher was unable to perform. Everyone suspected something was wrong, but the best orthopedic doctors around couldn't offer any substantive proof of that, or anything resembling a concrete diagnosis, let alone prescribe a treatment plan. And I never quite understood how people fail to realize that Prior himself probably wants to be out there more than anyone. Baseball is seemingly flush with cash, and the guy that stands to benefit as much as anyone from the $100M+ contracts being passed out is sitting on the sideline with an arm that mysteriously won't work right. Imagine knowing this week's lotto numbers, but the store closes in 10 minutes and your car won't start to drive to the store to buy your winning ticket. What could possibly be more frustrating than that? Well that's Mark Prior's world right now.

After 2007 the Cubs will have over 3 million reasons to consider cutting bait on Prior. Not saying they should or will, but there's certainly a legitimate reason why they might.

Brandon Sing and Jon Leicester are in Baltimore's system too.

How could something that severe have eluded all of the various non-surgical examinations and imaging he's already had? It's not like up until now he's only been seen by guys that stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Good. Unless the Cubs can not pay him ace money, I don't want him. It's very strange, but I find myself more excited about the potential to trade Zambrano for some high-end prospects than anything else about the Cubs' season.

If Soriano is really an adequate CF then by all means Pie should be traded while his value is high. LF is an easy position to fill and Soriano's offense is far more valuable coming from CF. People who say positions are unimportant don't understand the economics involved. How valuable would Pujols be if he played CF? Certainly more valuable than at 1B or LF. Define "valuable". Like as in trade value? Soriano's not getting traded. And his value on the FA market is obviously irrelevant now. Soriano does not have more value to the Cubs as a CF, if they're sold on Pie. Similarly, Pujols is not getting traded, and he doesn't have value to the Cards as a CF (or at least hasn't in the past), because of Edmonds. For Soriano to have value as a CF to the Cubs, you'd need to find a trade involving Pie that nets a LF that's better than Pie, both offensively and defensively. Only then would the Cubs be better off as a team with Soriano in CF. Value is production (and salary) relative to average for the position. There are a lot of LF'ers who hit at near the level Soriano does, but there are few CF'ers, and even fewer 2B. So when he is in LF the Cubs are paying him an enormous sum to be not that far above average for the position. Offensively, Alsonso would be an elite CF, but not so with LF. So the Cubs would be that much better by switching Pie to LF and Soriano to CF (as Garwilly suggested earlier)? The point is, the same 8 guys hitting in the same spots in the lineup are going to generate the same number of runs regardless of where each one stands when it's the Cubs' turn in the field. So if playing Soriano in CF allows you to upgrade from Pie to someone better (considering hitting, baserunning, defense, age, salary, etc etc), then having Soriano play CF provides value *to the Cubs*. Short of that though, this whole discussion of "value" is off base. There's no value unless/until it enables a better and/or cheaper option to be plugged into the lineup (and they don't come any cheaper than Pie).

If Soriano is really an adequate CF then by all means Pie should be traded while his value is high. LF is an easy position to fill and Soriano's offense is far more valuable coming from CF. People who say positions are unimportant don't understand the economics involved. How valuable would Pujols be if he played CF? Certainly more valuable than at 1B or LF. Define "valuable". Like as in trade value? Soriano's not getting traded. And his value on the FA market is obviously irrelevant now. Soriano does not have more value to the Cubs as a CF, if they're sold on Pie. Similarly, Pujols is not getting traded, and he doesn't have value to the Cards as a CF (or at least hasn't in the past), because of Edmonds. For Soriano to have value as a CF to the Cubs, you'd need to find a trade involving Pie that nets a LF that's better than Pie, both offensively and defensively. Only then would the Cubs be better off as a team with Soriano in CF.

This is the issue right here. The Cubs control Prior through 2008 already, and very likely through 2009 (all that would take is him not reaching the bigleagues in 2007). But how long will they want to pay him millions for the possibility that he rebounds? At some point you have to cut your losses. The question is, when is that point reached? What Bruce is speculating is that it may be after 2007.

That's been true since the day Soriano signed.

not that july is before this, but remember two things 1) teams wont trade said prospects for two months of zambrano. 2) lincecum cant be traded until 366 days after he was drafted It's actually 1 year after he was signed... June 30th.

Trading is not the intent, it's just one of several options. If you pass on the BPA to draft a less talented guy because he might be a better fit at the major league level, then you've got an even larger problem with your organizational philosophy.

And the point at which you have to worry about position comes when you've got more than one guy ready to play a given position at the ML level. And even then, you've got options -- make a trade to fill another need, move a guy to another position, stash the young guy in AAA, etc. On draft day, though, you're a long way away from crossing that bridge, so you take the BPA.

I disagree. I'd use him in a platoon with Theriot for the first little while here. Give him 60-75% of the starts, and give the rest to Theriot (who Lou's trying to find ABs for anyway). Ease him in a bit by protecting him from difficult matchups vs. LHP for the first couple of months, while he gets acclimated to the bigs and (hopefully) builds some confidence. Then gradually ramp him up to 100% duty. The O's did this with their top prospect last year, Nick Markakis (also a LH OF). Worked beautifully, and the guy had a terrific second half after struggling initially.

The Cubs weren't planning to take anyone in the Rule 5. I highly doubt they wasted time scouting potential Rule 5 picks, Josh H. included. You don't just all of a sudden decide to take a player we didn't have room for much less haven't scouted, nevermind the agreement. Obviously they never intended to keep Hamilton for themselves. Everyone can see that. That doesn't change the fact that Hamilton was their property, and they could've kept him if they had wanted to. You indicated the Cubs traded the pick. They didn't. They traded the player that they selected with the pick. Think of it this way. The Bears can trade away a draft pick prior to the draft, and if they choose to, the NFL will officially recognize that the pick no longer is controlled by the Bears, and the Bears will have no influence whatsoever over who is ultimately selected with that pick. The situation in baseball is 100% different, because MLB does not allow draft picks to be traded. Thus, the pick itself, and then the player taken with the pick, belonged to the Cubs throughout, right up until they officially dealt Hamilton to the Reds, as per their unofficial/unenforceable handshake agreement. Perhaps it's a pointless distinction, but I had a problem with the way you were characterizing the situation as being totally out of the Cubs' hands entering the draft. Not in MLB's eyes, it wasn't.

link That doesn't change the fact that the Cubs could've bagged the whole deal the second before getting that slip of paper, the second after getting that slip of paper, or the second after selecting Hamilton. True, but you better have quite a reason to do so-normally, there's not enough of one to make the other GM's in the league upset by breaking an agreement. I agree. Hendry's too much of a standup guy to go back on his deal. I was just pointing out that nothing was official with the Reds until after Hamilton was Cubs property, and technically, they could've kept him (or offered him back to TB, or not taken him in the first place, etc.). RichHill characterized the situation as being completely out of the Cubs' hands before the pick was even made. That's not true.

link That doesn't change the fact that the Cubs could've bagged the whole deal the second before getting that slip of paper, the second after getting that slip of paper, or the second after selecting Hamilton. Hamilton *was* Cubs property, albeit only for a few minutes. Sure they could have. But if they already knew Hamilton was available and went into the draft not wanting to take anyone, why would they change their minds then? The only reason that I can think of would be if they got squirmy at the possiblity of Hamilton "finding himself" in the NLC, and terrorizing the Cubs 19 times a year. I know personally I'd much prefer it if it was some AL team that was taking the flyer on this guy.

link That doesn't change the fact that the Cubs could've bagged the whole deal the second before getting that slip of paper, the second after getting that slip of paper, or the second after selecting Hamilton. Hamilton *was* Cubs property, albeit only for a few minutes.

I suspect Bud Selig would be very interested to see your evidence of this, since it is against the rules to trade draft picks. Rule 5 draft picks are a different story. The pick itself cannot be traded. The Cubs were under no obligation to select Hamilton, and once they did, they were under no obligation to trade him to Cincy. There was clearly a handshake agreement in place, but the Cubs could've walked away from it at any point along the way if they had wanted to... before the Reds revealed Hamilton was their guy, after the Reds revealed Hamilton was their guy, or even after the Cubs selected Hamilton.

I suspect Bud Selig would be very interested to see your evidence of this, since it is against the rules to trade draft picks.

This situation with Wade Miller is starting to remind me of how things played out with Joe Borowski. Recall that in 2005 Borowski was attempting to come back from an arm injury that had kept him out for most of the prior season. He was stinking up the joint to begin the year, giving up HRs left and right, but right around the time he started to feel better, the Cubs decided to cut the cord. He caught on with the DRays and had a decent season for them (including 0 ER in his first 20 appearances), then turned around and saved 36 games the following year. Now let me say, I was completely in favor of the Cubs dumping Borowski when they did. He flat out wasn't getting the job done. But nevertheless, his situation illustrates the potential benefit of being patient in these situations. Seems like Miller might be in virtually the same spot here... crappy to date, but just a start or two away from returning to productivity. I'm really not arguing either way, and I'll be fine with whatever the Cubs decide to do with Miller. But it doesn't strike me as too farfetched to think the guy will end up being a decent guy to have around by the time the dust settles.