davearm

I sure hope it goes that way myself. A big key will be for all three guys to remain healthy and continue to dominate for the rest of the college season. I'd like the third spot a whole lot less if one of those three guys fell down the boards for whatever reason. You're looking at either a HS kid or a bit of a reach for a college pitcher after the "big 3".

I seem to recall that Josh Kroeger's name popped up a year or so ago as a guy the Cubs might try to get in exchange for Corey Patterson. Apparently he hasn't been too impressive since then, if he got released by Arizona.

I'm not in love with Ichiro, but the guy would be a nice upgrade to the 2007 team, and the perfect bridge to Felix Pie. If you can get him for a reasonable, one-year rental type of price, then go for it. Plug him in for a year and then take the draft pick(s) when he signs elsewhere for 08 and beyond. Seems doubtful to me that the price would be reasonable though. At least not prior to the deadline anyway.

C'mon now, ARod's not going to volunteer to take a 50% paycut, especially since the lion's share of the savings would not be realized by his new team, but by the Rangers. Think about it for a minute. If ARod voids his $27m/yr deal and resigns someplace else for $15M/yr, the Rangers get out from under ~$10M/yr, and his new team saves ~$2M/yr. Makes no sense.

And this is precisely why ARod is unlikely to opt out. Since the Rangers are subsidizing a large share of the contract for the next 4 years ARod is going to get above-market money per year ($27M), while whichever team ARod is playing for will pay below-market rates per year ($16-$18M). And if that team is not the NYY, the Yankees stand to benefit much more from accomodating ARod with a trade (even if it's for 50 cents on the dollar) than risk having him opt out and get nothing. The best-case scenario for the Cubbies is that ARod and NYY come to a mutual decision to part ways at some point this year, ARod uses his NTC to dictate a trade to the Cubs, and NYY, having basically no leverage, accepts a modest return in the trade. If his #1 concern at this point is winning though, would it not benefit him more to opt out and not force the team that takes him to have to give up talent. The Yankees aren't going to accept only prospects, any ARod deal will have to include major league talent and that hurts any team ARod goes to. So, if he's comfortable with the way his bank account looks (like CarolinaCubFan said, I think) and primarily wants to go somewhere to win, the more logical move would be to opt out and not cost his new team any of their major league talent. If he opts out, he's going to cost either himself or his new team a ton of money that would otherwise have been paid out by the Rangers. Something on the order of $10M a year, IIRC. Now $10M doesn't buy what it used to, but you can probably replace the major league talent that you traded away with that kind of cash.

And this is precisely why ARod is unlikely to opt out. Since the Rangers are subsidizing a large share of the contract for the next 4 years ARod is going to get above-market money per year ($27M), while whichever team ARod is playing for will pay below-market rates per year ($16-$18M). And if that team is not the NYY, the Yankees stand to benefit much more from accomodating ARod with a trade (even if it's for 50 cents on the dollar) than risk having him opt out and get nothing. The best-case scenario for the Cubbies is that ARod and NYY come to a mutual decision to part ways at some point this year, ARod uses his NTC to dictate a trade to the Cubs, and NYY, having basically no leverage, accepts a modest return in the trade.

As I see it, the question of good faith is irrelevant. All the Padres are doing is exercising a right that Walker's union granted them through the collective bargaining process. Bottom line, if the players don't like the clubs' "out" clause, then they shouldn't have agreed to it when they negotiated the CBA.

I agree but if he really is OK there's no reason to have a week of negative press if it can be avoided (especially considering the last few offseasons). It'd be pretty troubling and discouraging if the ballclub was letting the media's reaction dictate decisions such as this. We're in a lot of trouble if they've devolved into making the popular choice over the smart one.

That is not quite accurate. First of all the 25% number is a guess. We have absolutely no idea. If it is 12.5% the Cubs are getting no bargain. But this logic could be used to justify paying any Major League pitcher who had success as recently as 2003 (Jose Lima, Jason Marquis). But there is another problem. Like in Deal or No Deal the variability of outcomes is tremendous. There is no need to pay anything approaching how your formula values Miller because the chance that he goes 4-7 with a 5.80 ERA is quite high. And that is worth almost nothing to the Cubs who could get that from Mateo or Guzman for the league minimum. I was simplifying the analysis to make the point. In reality you'd probably want to spell out anywhere from 4 to 12 different scenario outcomes, assign dollar values and probablities to each, and then just do the math to come up with an expected value across the scenarios. 25% and $12M was just one of several such scenarios you'd want to consider. FWIW, BP's PECOTA forecasting system does exactly what I describe above (using 7 scenarios), and they've put Miller's value for the 2007 season at $2.375M. JMHO, but they're being pretty conservative too, since his 90th percentile case still shows him throwing only 108 IP.

They do and they will, if they can't trade him. I'll bet he doesn't see opening day on the Padres roster. $4 mil to sit on the bench, I doubt it. Agreed. It was nice that Walker won his hearing, but the only way he actually makes that $3.95M salary this year is if the Padres are able to trade him this spring. IMO it's far more likely that he'll get cut, the Pads will eat around $650K, and Walker will be scrounging around MLB looking for a bench job for 1 or 2 mil come the close of ST. Is that true? I thought it would be a guarenteed contract for the whole thing since he is vested or won the arby? I didn't realize they could cut him for a percentage of his salary. If a team loses and arb hearing, they can cut the player prior to opening day and pay only a small % of the arb award. An earlier poster said it was 1/6, and that sounds right.

They do and they will, if they can't trade him. I'll bet he doesn't see opening day on the Padres roster. $4 mil to sit on the bench, I doubt it. Agreed. It was nice that Walker won his hearing, but the only way he actually makes that $3.95M salary this year is if the Padres are able to trade him this spring. IMO it's far more likely that he'll get cut, the Pads will eat around $650K, and Walker will be scrounging around MLB looking for a bench job for 1 or 2 mil come the close of ST.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away. Obviously you have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. That goes without saying. And almost by definition, you're going to have more misses than hits. Which is fine, and everybody should realize this going in. Nonetheless, the general principle is a sound one, and successful teams follow it regularly. As do some horrible ones. They didn't become horrible because of their good decisions though.

The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004. The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter. That's the supposed high upside. A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business. It isn't bad business when you look at the cost and you can afford to make a gamble like that but you have to add who's spot is he taking away. IMO when you add it up it isn't worth the cost. I don't consider losing a marginal lefty reliever with no spot on the ML roster like Campusano a meaningful cost.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away. Obviously you have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. That goes without saying. And almost by definition, you're going to have more misses than hits. Which is fine, and everybody should realize this going in. Nonetheless, the general principle is a sound one, and successful teams follow it regularly.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything. The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004. The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter. That's the supposed high upside. A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business.

Miller, definitely. The Cubs apparently couldn't get anything at all for Campusano, which is why he went into the Rule 5 instead of being traded.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business.

The guy's coming into his age 27 season. Not too difficult to imagine that his "career year" is still ahead of him.

Has anyone affiliated with the team indicated anything like this? Rightly or wrongly, it seems like the club itself is feeling pretty good about having Izturis there.

I don't think the Cubs view either situation nearly as bleakly as you do. CF is only an issue if Soriano can't handle it. That remains to be seen, so there's a bit of uncertainty there, although there are alternatives readily available (Jones, or Pie + Theriot) if Soriano doesn't work out. I've yet to read or hear anything to contradict the idea that Izturis is cemented into SS. No uncertainty whatsoever there, at least not from within the club. At this point, I'd be very surprised to see a new everyday player brought in. That's not to say that I wouldn't personally love to see a guy like Ichiro brought in to put the CF question to bed once and for all -- assuming the pricetag would be reasonable. I just see that possibility as extremely remote right now.

Yeah the Angels are going to trade two of their best prospects and a good young pitcher for one year of Big Z. That's a terrible article. Obviously you are not a student of recent baseball history to make such a sweepingly inaccurate statement. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1) Bagwell for Larry Anderson; 2) Smoltz for Doyle Alexander; 3) Randy Johnson to Hou (for less than one season) for Freddy Garcia, Carlos Guillen and someone else who I cannot recall at this moment; 4) Former Cubs luminary Heathcliff Slocumb for Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe. Anyone wish to add to the above? Bartolo Colon for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips Richie Sexson for Lyle Overbay, Chris Capuano, Junior Spivey, Craig Counsell, Jorge DeLaRosa, and Chad Moeller.

For weeks we've been speculating about who'd be moved off of the 40-man roster to make room for Cliff Floyd. Well, isn't this move the answer to that question?

I agree that this is the most logical and prudent course of action. However I'm convinced that if Z is neither extended nor traded before opening day, we're ultimately going to watch him sign elsewhere and be left with the draft picks. So I struggle with the fact that the most likely outcome of the most prudent course of action is (IMO) the least desirable of the three possibilities: re-sign, trade, and 2 draft picks.

That's not a flaw. In fact the situations are perfectly analogous. The only reason the Cubs would deal Zambrano is if they can't (or won't) pay Z what he is going to demand as a FA. At that point, their choice is between taking the players he could be traded for, or taking the draft picks when he leaves. Same exact choice the Royals had with Beltran. No, the Cubs also might deal Z if they feel the prospects would be a better option than trading Z, but that they would sign Z as a fallback option-the Royals did not have that luxury of having that fallback option. I just don't see it in the either-or terms you're describing. Plan A is to re-sign Zambrano. Period. Put every effort into getting an extension done now. Only if Plan A fails, and all avenues have been exhausted, do you move on to Plan B, which is to look at trades. So by design, if you're onto Plan B and investigating the trade route, then re-signing Z is no longer a fallback option (since if it was, things wouldn't have reached the Plan B stage in the first place).

That's not a flaw. In fact the situations are perfectly analogous. The only reason the Cubs would deal Zambrano is if they can't (or won't) pay Z what he is going to demand as a FA. At that point, their choice is between taking the players he could be traded for, or taking the draft picks when he leaves. Same exact choice the Royals had with Beltran.