badnews

What I don't like about Colvin is that wise-guy Wilken had to put that Alex Rios comp out there. So I guess that means, like Rios, we're legally required to have him sit in a lineup for two full years as dead weight so he can turn into Rios his third year. Supposedly. Blargh.

Wrigley23 - why do you keep ducking one of the main points? You're lying to yourself: Wishful thinking. Equivocating. So forth. If Soriano is an .890 OPS guy hitting leadoff but an .810 OPS guy hitting in an RBI spot, then that's not adding a bigger hitter. It's subtracting one. As others have noted, there's nothing Roberts can't do hitting 2nd that he could do hitting 1st. Basically, if Soriano is not going to hit better than Fukudome or DeRosa batting in an RBI spot, if he's going to strand a bunch of baserunners, then there's no point in putting him there. Your arguments about "teaching him a lesson" are counterproductive to winning. What is good for the Cubs is Soriano hitting well, period. This is like the Red Sox with Bill Mueller. 2003-2004 Mueller was an ideal #2 type hitter and they wanted him to hit there. Mueller said he didn't much care for it there but okay, and sure enough, he didn't hit well there, and hit very well #8, where he was comfortable. They didn't say "Okay Bill Mueller, you can kiss my ass, you're hitting 2nd, even if your performance there hurts the team, because we're going to cut off our nose to spite our face and that will learn ya to mess with us." In fact, if Bill Mueller hadn't been hitting 8th, the Red Sox wouldn't have won the 2004 World Series. It was Mueller who, hitting 8th, drove in Dave Roberts in the 9th inning to force extra innings in Game 4 of the ALCS. I guess you would've said he was "wasted there" or something. The point you're missing: Players doing their best where they are more comfortable benefits the player and the team. Square pegs forced into round slots, players being forced to do what they are not good at, is not good for the player or the team. This is like the LaTroy Hawkins conversation again. "He's great in the 8th, of course he has to close!"

In a way it doesn't matter if Snider ever reaches his potential. He'd make fantastic trade bait right now.

Harden's just crapping away service time and getting more expensive by the year. If he gets injured again this year, he's pretty much going be in the position that the Cubs were with Prior this year.

Soto Vitters Gallagher Colvin Donaldson Veal Thomas Ceda Hart Patterson Petrick

I wouldn't buy high on a single standout year from Sherrill. It's not like we're talking about a lefty who pitches a lot of innings either, like Pedro Feliciano, Hideki Okajima, C. J. Wilson, Doug Brocail, or Ron Mahay, Sherrill averages a pretty low number of IP/G even for a LOOGY. I'd like to see the Orioles try and make a closer out of Sherrill, he doesn't have enough tricks against righties. Irony: People saying we need Sherrill and grousing about Cotts not realizing buying high on Sherrill now would be like buying high on Cotts after 2005.

Maybe it means Hendry has decided to trade Murton and Cedeno for Marlon Byrd. Ha!

Ugh. This topic has officially raised my blood pressure. A few months I made a topic, back when bashing Fuld mercilessly was in high style, about how Fuld and Willits basically had the same minor league career, except Willits hit in more hitter-friendly parks in the minors, Willits struck out more and hit for less power than Fuld, and Willits had a better base stealing record, including the caveat that Fuld has improved his basestealing in recent years. The response? "Nobody cares about Reggie Willits anyway." Unfortunately now I can't seem to dig up that topic. And now the same people who were crapping on Fuld are going wild for Willits? Make it stop. My ticker can't take this. Some points need to be made: - Willits strikes out too much for a guy with so little power. - Look at Willits' post ASB numbers. We'd probably be getting that with fewer walks I imagine.PASS - Willits is a foolish choice to buy high on. It'd be like trading a bunch to get Brady Clark after his 2005 season. - To whoever said the Marlins moving Willingham was a bad idea: It isn't. He's the worst defensive outfielder in baseball by an enormous margin, he's simply awful out there. - The fact that Willits had a high BABIP while hitting in Salt Lake should not impress anyone. - Cody Ross, to me, falls in the Ryan Spilbourghs category. They're both guys who look attractive because they have "center field" stamped on their resume but, Spilbourghs in particular, is not much better in CF than I would expect Murton to be. I like Ross better as a CF than Spilbourghs but neither is ideal.

I don't think you read my post the way I intended it to be read, because there are very few guys in that list that fit the description of what I'm talking about. All the guys outside of the very earliest rounds you can scratch, and in some cases you're listing guys who weren't regarded that way but we just lower round success stories. And Khalil Greene? He won the Golden Spikes Award the year he was drafted, he doesn't fit at all to the kind of Russ Adams/Cliff Pennington utility scrapper overdraft types I'm talking about.

Drafted "solid, polished, but unexceptional, unexciting" college guys. Maybe I'm not thinking of all the cases where they work out, but they seem to be pretty uninspiring busts, or, even when they succeed, the kind of guy you can pick up cheap on the free agent market. I'm thinking of guys like Cliff Pennington, that was his tag in the draft. It seems like the 21st overall pick is way too high to settle for a guy like that. I guess most of the guys I'm talking about seem to end up around the last third of the 1st round. I guess it's the way the scouting reports are worded, some of them sound totally bland (like Pennington) and some of them sound pretty exciting (like Craig Italiano, the A's 2nd round pick in that draft). If I had just read the scouting reports I wouldn't have thought Pennington was the higher ranked guy. Obviously you can point to the fact the future of Italiano's career now looks pretty bad. But isn't the point of the draft to shoot for the stars and not to just try to draft the utility players and bullpen guys of the future so early in the draft? I'm also talking about guys like Kyle McCulloch (2006) and Nick Schmidt (2007). Does anyone ever come back later and say "That was a fabulous pick that landed them a Top 20 prospect."

What about Jason Johnson? I feel though we should find someone closer to Samardzija's frame. They're both 6-6 groundballers with questionable control and low K rates but higher gopher ball rates. The stuff isn't similar though, Johnson has an average fastball at best and relies more on a curveball than a slider.

With Samardzija's money we could've signed Jordan Walden, Matt Latos, Lars Anderson, and still had money left over. Instead we signed Grant Johnson Version 2. I'm trying to figure out who Samardzija's major league equivalent is. Is he on the fast track to becoming the next Scott Munter?

Yeah, this is not one of those tremendous value deals like Nick Swisher or David Wright or Brandon Webb signed. It's nothing the Reds will regret, it's solid enough but kind of blah in terms of excitement.

I think some variation of the phrase "offensive production at a greater rate" would be more accurate than saying he hit better. But I don't think that has much to do with this year. Anyway it was an outlier year so I'm throwing it in the trash.

I wish Nate Cornejo would make a comeback. He was often the pitcher I used when making exaggerated statements about pitchers I didn't like. Now nobody remembers him so it doesn't work so well anymore. Likewise, we need another player to have a Tony Batista 2004 season, one of those seasons that spurs more acrimonious argument about the worth of HR/RBIs vs. OBP. I miss statements like "Who cares what his OBP is, at his salary I'll take 32 home runs and 110 RBIs any day" followed by "RBIs don't mean anything! And who cares about 32 home runs when you've got a .728 OPS!" Sadly, even Tony Batista isn't Tony Batista these days. Also, I'd like a return to the Golden Age of Russell Branyan, back when he'd hit like 20 home runs in 300 ABs while posting an .860 OPS but infuriating people by striking out in 40% of his plate appearances. Oh that was great. There were people who would just become livid if you said you thought he'd be a good addition. Without these three baseball is no fun anymore.

Nobody wants to go there. Roberts has to hit #1 because's a LEADOFF MAN. That's the explanation I keep getting. The second most frequent explanation is that "If he hits 2nd, we can't have a dead bat guy sacrifice him to second." Ugh. Believe it or don't, a lot of stolen bases pile up in that #2 position. The Dodgers had 57 steals from the #2 spot. The Phillies and the Devil Rays had 36, and so forth. In that case at the trade deadline we'll either be out of it or we'll be looking to upgrade shortstop, pitcher, or center field. I doubt 2nd base will be a black hole either way. I completely agree with that.

That takes into account Roberts' not-going-to-happen-again 2005, and it doesn't really tell the whole story. Most of the guys who are better than him having been playing that long. Huh? He may never hit as many HRs like he did in 2005 but he did you know have 24 total WS last year. Compared to 28 in 2005. Weeks and Kendrick seriously call me when they actually live up to their top prospect label. One can't stay healthy and the other has been a relative bust. He played more in 2007. Weeks and Kendrick, yes, seriously. Weeks took more walks than Roberts has every other year except 2007 in much less time, 78 walks in how many games? Wow. He also outhomered Roberts in how many fewer plate appearances? I'll take Weeks' next 5 years over Roberts' next 5 weeks. Howie Kendrick has been a bust? Oh yeah. He only hit .322 this season at the age of 23/24, what a sack of crap that guy is. After the ASB he was a .357/.854 OPS hitter. I wish the Cubs had more "flops" like that.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations. When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose 1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter. 2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter. I choose #1. What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th. But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth. What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!" Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty.

Aren't the Cubs going to get the same sabre-rattling treatment from Selig they got last year? It wouldn't surprise me to see them cheap out, relatively speaking. Sounds scary...

I don't have the time to organize this well, but I'll just quote what I don't agree with it and then post why I don't agree with it. Who knows who posted what. I don't think Roberts return value is predictable. Is he a 50 steals, .810 OPS guy, or a 35 steals, .750 OPS guy (which makes him look more like Ryan Freel)? Anyway, that's what all teams are faced with, even the Marlins in the Cabrera/Willis trade. Can Maybin get his strikeouts under control? Miller looks less like the next Randy Johnson every day. There are risks in every trade. How many guarantees should a Brian Roberts trade buy when trades like the Renteria trade bought no guarantees? We're past Gallagher, Murton, and Cedeno, now we're throwing in a 4th guy, and people are rightfully upset about this. Hendry's only selling high on Gallagher, and worse yet, he's buying high on Roberts. Cubs' prospects are not treated like gods - they're treated like crap, or as tools used used to try and get the "All Star flavor of the month." Gee, let's see - the Twins got Castillo originally for way less, their deal was settled around a relief prospect. The Braves got Renteria for less. Both are All-Stars. So you're wrong. Apparently he's the best player on the planet to have so few suitors. Here's a list of 2b I'd rather have than Brian Roberts: Chase Utley Robinson Cano Rickie Weeks Orlando Hudson Brandon Phillips Howie Kendrick I say that assuming equal salary on all of them. We're pretending Howie Kendrick makes $5 million and Roberts makes $5 million. I call it a draw on Placido Polanco. I don't think Pedroia is better than Roberts but Roberts doesn't blow him out of the water either. That takes into account Roberts' not-going-to-happen-again 2005, and it doesn't really tell the whole story. Most of the guys who are better than him having been playing that long. This one was Rawaction's, I believe: What doesn't make sense to me is, every time the Cubs overpay for a guy, people fall back on this all-too convenient crutch. People point out that compared to 1 month of Trachsel, the Cubs are getting ripped off when you look at the trades of Kyle Lohse and Jamie Moyer, and people respond "Yeah, but that was like a month ago and now they're not available, and this the deal we're looking at so..." So... what? It's just an excuse, a sleight-of-hand, a game of "Pay no attention to the fact that other clubs make perfectly reasonable trades and we get crapped on." Same thing with the Greg Maddux trade, or Jason Kendall trade. That's a poor evaluation of what makes a good trade, I think. The A.J. Pierzynski trade fits that standard. If the Diamondbacks threw Jose Valverde, Stephen Drew, and Chad Tracy into the A's deal that would fit that standard. The Mariners trading Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb fits that standard. Here's another reason why those standards are unfair. You're saying this in the only trade Hendry wants to consider and there are certain players on the Cubs that they don't value, so this is the only way the team gets improved. It's the same thing as the Kendall deal. "Is the team better off with Kendall than without him?" "Well, just play Soto." "Management doesn't want to play Soto." "Okay, the answer is we're better off with Kendall than Rob Bowen." "So make the trade unless you're a Communist sympathizer who doesn't want to improve the team." Fast forward and Baseball America keeps featuring Jerry Blevins in articles like "Hardest throwing lefties." So huzzah! We may have just made a Jeremy Accardo for Shea Hillenbrand type of trade. This is kind of pointless. No one can convince me that caving like a ton of bricks every time you want to improve the team is good policy. No one can convince me that trading Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, and Colvin/Veal for Roberts and taking back $5 million in deadweight crap salary in Payton is good policy. No one can convince me that making short-sighted, overpaying trades under the moniker of "OMG 100 yearz!!!111!!!" is good policy. The Indians haven't won a World Series in 60 years, I don't see them getting bent over every time they go to the trading table. If Angelos loves Roberts so much, fine let him keep him. I don't think caving just to satisfy, as Dennis Hopper put it in the 1994 smash hit Speed "the whim of a madman" is a good idea.

This is what I mean about people thinking that increasingly outrageous deals are "decent." RynoHawk, I do not understand your post. Jay Payton is due $5 million in 2008, and at this point in his career he's like a .740 OPS guy against lefties and a .690 guy overall probably. He is no more of a fallback option than Sam Fuld or Eric Patterson, and he's probably worse than Angel Pagan and definitely worse than Craig Monroe. Plus, all he does is bitch about lack of playing time. So you're saying it's okay to trade our top pitching prospect, our 2nd best position player prospect, an outfielder in Murton who I think could only be a step away from becoming a Conor Jackson type hitter, and a shortstop who's fairly high risk/high reward, for a pure pricey salary dump and 2 years of Brian Roberts? Are we trading more than the Red Sox did for Josh Beckett yet? Yeesh. I'm sorry. I grow increasingly baffled by the reasoning that goes on in this topic. Soon enough we'll be rationalizing how trading Soto, Hill, Marmol, Pie, Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Wuertz, and DeRosa for Roberts, Payton, and Danys Baez is a fair deal.

Petit had a strange delivery they could at least point to as being enough to fool minor league guys but not the advance scouts in the majors. Gallagher I don't know what they say. "Yeah, we don't believe Soto or Cedeno's (in his breakout year) numbers are for real because of Iowa, but then we don't believe a guy with good numbers pitching in that same offense-minded atmosphere either." I don't know how that load works. Someone remind me, who was the 21 year old to post a 2.66 ERA, 8.19 K/9, and 1.13 WHIP at a place like Iowa in the PCL that got shafted and appeared lower on the team list than a 1 season wonder reliever with massive walks problems in a pitcher's league, and will probably end up somewhere like 80 on the Top 100 list? Too bad he hasn't put up studly numbers like Ervin Santana did during his minor league career.

Somebody a page or two ago said they were glad that Jim wasn't caving on giving up any big pieces "like Colvin or Veal" but Gallagher is worth more than Veal. And Jim caved on Gallagher a long time ago. The problem with Gallagher is that if there's one guy who is really going to bite us in the ass on this trade it's him, and he alone isn't enough to get it done which further complicates things. What I know is this - for his first two years Baseball America seemed to poo-poo Gallagher and say, yeah, his numbers are nice but "they aren't for real" though we know if Adam Miller put up Gallagher's numbers they'd be soiling themselves. They did a comp a few years back, Gaby Hernandez vs. Gallagher and concluded Gaby Hernandez was better, I think it's safe to say Gallagher has shot ahead of good 'ol Gaby. And every year we've heard reports of increased velocity and so forth... so we've got a guy who isn't valued much by the Baseball America types but keeps proving people wrong, and thus we have to sell him for less than a guy with worse numbers Baseball America says is good. But Hendry is so confident in Felix Pie, he figures he has to hold onto Colvin. Why? Also, why do they mention Ceda among the untouchables? Nothing about this makes much sense.

Just an aside, was anyone else surprised Mitch Atkins wasn't on Baseball America's Top 30 or 32? He's not dazzling but he's a nice guy to have in the system.

Sherrill doesn't sweeten any deal for me personally. I don't think it's smart to buy high on LOOGYs. I think that's a position where you just about always give up more than you get.