CubColtPacer

Marshall is the one who is out of the rotation. It will likely be Waddell that will be sent back to Iowa, although that's just my speculation from how he's been used and the way the other options have pitched (besides Patton, who the Cubs seem determined to save)

Doesn't Milton have a games-played clause this season that guarantees the final year of his contract? I'm guessing he'd be against going on the DL so he can reach that limit. I think he only needs to play in 75 games each year to guarentee the third. He'd likely easily hit that if he did a 14 or 30 day DL stint. They gotta put him on either one until he can get as close back to 100% Bardley-style he can be because right now it looks like he can't do squat and like he's playing in pain. He only needs to play in 75 games this year to vest the option. Next year doesn't matter. But it has to be this year, right? Let's say he's falls short this year but somehow manages to play in something nuts, like, 140 games next year: no 3rd year? That's my understanding of the clause. Of course, if Bradley played 140 games in 2010 the odds are pretty high that the Cubs would pick up the option.

What good timing! There was actually an article just written on the front page on this very subject: http://www.northsidebaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=11&Itemid=117 The one thing I disagree with your assessment is 2B. Everything about Fontenot from both a more visual approach and a purely stats based approach makes me see him as at least a little above average at second base although he should still be in a platoon (maybe you could find a better platoon partner for him, but Fontenot should still be getting most of the at-bats). Fontenot should be above average at the end of the year both offensively and defensively at second though.

Nah, dangerous hitters up who have seen him several times. I'd go with the Gooz. Yeah, it's the fourth time through the order and he'd be facing 2-3-4. As much as I'd like to see Guzman, I'm hoping it's Gregg, since that would mean the Cubs took the lead. Plus Z bats 4th in the inning, so if the Cubs take the lead it will probably involve Z being pinch-hit for. With both warming though, it looks definite that Z is done..just a question of which guy comes in for him.

Well, the Cubs still have Z for probably one more inning while Wandy almost certainly has to be done now (and if he isn't, he could really run into problems this inning). That is a small Cubs advantage.

Bradley hit a ground ball and immediately grabbed for the back of his right leg. He jogged down the line and then tried to stretch it out in between innings at first base. He then is still in the game..we'll see how he is when a ball comes his way.

If the Astros fall out of it, it makes more sense to trade him to a division rival than any other team. Tejada helps the other team like the Cubs for 2009, but then the loss of prospects hurts the Cubs every year after 2009 (when Tejada is probably not re-signed). Since the Astros wouldn't care about 2009 at that point, it's in their best interest to weaken one of their division rivals for upcoming seasons. Even if the Cubs won it all in 2009 because of that move, why would the Astros care? They weren't going anywhere anyway.

Seriously. We now have Fontenot, Miles, Scales, and Blanco. What's the damn point of having so many 2b? Two backup middle infielders is standard for a major league ballclub. The Cubs have 5 players to cover 2nd, SS, and 3rd, which is exactly what most teams have. Now it probably lines up like this: Fontenot is the starting 3rd baseman Miles is the starting 2nd baseman Blanco is the backup SS and gets some starts at 2nd Scales is the backup at 2nd and 3rd Miles, Scales, and Blanco all feel like they should be backups, so it makes sense that it sounds like there are way too many infielders. But there really aren't. Now I personally would have risked it and kept Fox. You can use him in emergency situations at 3B. But they worked him out there for over a week and it looks like they weren't comfortable at all putting him there. I probably would have still kept Fox anyway knowing that, but the 2nd middle infielder is much more needed as a standard part of this ballclub than the 12th pitcher. I'm much more unhappy that it wasn't Patton who didn't get the axe in favor of Fox instead of Scales or Blanco.

Look at Wandys last 3 outings, Id say its already been fixed. Lets just hope he keeps on that trend and doesnt go back to the early season Wandy. Unfortunately, it's not just early season Wandy. 2007 home: 95.0 IP, 2.94 ERA 2008 home: 81 1/3 IP, 2.99 ERA 2009 home: 39.0 IP, 2.31 ERA Wandy at MMP is a really bad matchup. He has seemingly figured out how to pitch to take the best advantage of the strange dimensions in that ballpark. Hopefully the Cubs can keep it close and scratch a few across against him. His recent starts do encourage a little bit although just one was at home.

I think this move is the whole don't want get to stuck with 1 backup middle infielder with the only option in the minors not being able to come back up for 8-10 days. If somebody had a day to day injury in the next few days, the Cubs would be in trouble. It still isn't a good move to me even with that reason. But it doesn't preclude Fox from coming back up for interleague play either. He will be eligible to come back up before he would get any chances to DH so they can always revisit this situation then.

that part won't last But that's just icing, right? Miles can't hit and his defense is worse than Blanco's. If 2 middle infielders can't hit, might as well take the great defensive player. this. having said that, Miles isn't getting DFA, IMO. they didn't give him a two year deal just so they could give up on him 2 months into the season. And there lies the problem with this organization. They won't cut ties when it's apparent that the player they signed is no longer capable of doing the job. No siree, they won't admit to making a mistake. Of course, the Cubs never admit making mistakes, or so they say. Very few teams will ever cut a player who is both making over 1 million dollars and has another year left on his contract. Teams will cut high salary players that are gone at the end of the season, but they will rarely commit to having dead money in future years. Both Miles and Freel should not be DFA'd and there's a good reason why..depth. If they both leave the team and Scales and/or Blanco get hurt, who gets called up next? You could end up in a situation where you have a player that is absurdly bad getting playing time instead of just being a fringe major leaguer like those four are. That doesn't even take into account that Miles had a .229 advantage in OPS in 07 over Blanco and a .090 advantage last year, and that's with him playing in the major leagues and Blanco in the PCL. A healthy Miles is almost certainly a decent upgrade with the bat to Blanco (unless Blanco is finally starting to figure hitting out, which is somewhat unlikely but still possible at his age). Yes, Blanco is a very big upgrade defensively from Miles. So it's really a tossup if you want the extra hitting or the extra defense, and since their primary position is going to each be second base, which lowers the defensive advantage that Blanco has over Miles, I'd still rather take Miles. I wouldn't take Miles if I had to pay him that contract, but the team has to pay the contract anyway at this point. Freel vs Scales is a different argument I think. Scales is probably the better hitter and defender at this point. I would probably keep Freel for depth purposes until Ramirez comes back and then he would be the one who I would let go to make room for Ramirez on the roster.

A very nice night for Fontenot. And he's going to love what it's going to do for his numbers..I have him going from a .698 OPS to a .746 after the at-bats tonight. And his peripherals would suggest that he is even better than that. I'm happy overall with him. You know you're hitting decently well when you leave 13 men on base and still manage to score 7 runs!

Yeah, I'd think they'd want prospects who could help them in the future as opposed to swapping veterans for veterans. I'd think they'd be interested in cutting some costs, and getting prospects, which is is what the original post already noted. Actually it was a single prospect and our garbage. So it wasn't swapping veterans for veterans. It was some of their garbage, for some of our garbage, swapping out relievers with reasonably decent careers so far, with them saving money and getting a prospect. Maybe throw in another prospect if you insist. The problem is that they can get some decent value for Street in a trade. They don't need to just dump him. They'll probably have 5-6 teams knocking on their door looking for another good reliever at midseason. And if some contender's closer goes down or is ineffective, they could most likely get a steal for a guy like that. So even if those two prospects are a good enough haul for Street (and a decent pitching prospect and a throw in prospect are not going to do it) that still leaves you with Atkins for Heilman and Miles. The analysis of that trade? Getting rid of Atkins saves the Rockies about 4.7 million as of today. Heilman would be due about 1.08 million and Miles about 1.47 million. Then you add in Miles's 2.7 million next year, and that makes this part of the trade a salary swap of 4.7 million this year for 2.55 this year and 2.7 next year. The money is a wash. So they aren't really dumping salary (because Street can always be traded to another team for value) and they aren't getting nearly enough value for Street. Plus now they have Miles already putting a small dent in next year's budget, and the Rockies have less room to pay utility players that then the Cubs do. I see no reason why the Rockies would consider that deal.

Can someone remind me of Parker's stuff? I have found very little on what he throws. He's doing quite well for somebody who was converted to pitching just a couple of years ago. I had my eye on him last year but then had forgotten about him in the offseason, but he appears to have taken another big step forward this year. Even though he has problems with walks, only 3 home runs given up in 130 professional innings and over a strikeout an inning will still give you very good results. I wouldn't be surprised to see him added to the 40 man in time for September callups. Does anyone disagree with that assessment?

Which Tejada are you referring to? Certainly not the one that's leading the NL in batting average right now. Yea, it's some sort of an inside joke. Theriot's never been better than Tejada. I would tend to agree. But they are pretty close this year (Tejada's peripherals absolutely scream luck so far this year). Why would you ever want to trade the two of them? Tejada is more expensive. He might be worse than Theriot defensively now (metrics would say he is). And if you do trade the two of them for each other, who starts at SS in 2010? It makes no sense to make a trade like that for a possible upgrade in 2009 and a definite downgrade in total value every other year.

A QB winning a Super Bowl doesn't necessarily mean anything about his talent level. Agreed...Rex made it to a Super Bowl, and I think we can agree he wasn't a franchise QB. But lets be honest, usually these kinds of lists do factor in those kinds of achievements. It's just unclear exactly what he's using as measurement other than complete subjectivity...that's all I meant by that comment. The fact that his best QB's have only ever been in one system is more of a problem for this list I think. The problem is always going to come that the best QB's are always going to only play on one team (I would argue that the system is going to change over the years for these QB's as the people around them change, even if they're still wearing the same uniform). Why would you get rid of a top QB? It simply becomes a measure of how well-rounded the QB is. And while I understand the need to put some subjectivity in it (different teams ask different things of QB's which skew stats) there was too much subjectivity in this article. But it's a really hard task to try to compare quarterbacks because of the vast differences in talent and the fact that most QB's who are any good at all stay with their original team for most of their career. I actually also like his rankings for the most part. There's a thin line between the QB's ranked 4th through about 12th, and so a writer has a hard time going wrong putting those quarterbacks in just about any order.

Can't recall the exact sources from where I've heard that, but I remember reading not too long ago that part of the reason he wasn't able to stick at anywhere defensively was because he didn't have particularly favorable relationships with his coaches. Those sources could be wrong, of course, but it's what I heard. It came from Bruce Miles on his blog. He said that one of the reasons the Cubs were finding a tough time trading Fox was because of that it was becoming hard to shed the uncoachable label that he had developed. Here's one quote from him: I haven't found the other one, but there was definitely even a stronger one than that somewhere from Bruce. BTW, this is what mlp had said (I normally don't quote comments other than Bruce, but I know several of you respect mlp): Bruce has said that he still doesn't really have any value around the league even now.

Moving the pitcher one spot is crucial when he's 7 hitters away. Coming late to the party here but I don't think anybody has pointed this out, Marshall would have been due up 2nd next inning in what was formerly Fox's spot if not for the double switch.

What was the stat? Since 2002, pitchers making their major league debut against the Cubs have something like a 5.57 ERA (14 starts IIRC).

Lou has already said that he thinks being calm is the best thing for this particular team. He cares..he is just being calculated and trying to act like what he thinks will be the best for his team going forward.

That was too bad. Soriano and Theriot had a massive jump-hopefully they picked something up on the pitcher to time it that well.

Wells would definitely be a surprise on three days rest. If they wanted to move Dempster's start back or skip it (due to the blister) it would be Marshall's turn in this spot. But since they look like they are ready to skip Marshall this time around, who knows what's going on with him. I guess we'll find out soon enough. And now I saw the post right after I posted this. Dempster it is...I really doubted he would suddenly miss a start with the blister after hiding it all season and pitching well in his last start.

That wasn't a pinch-hit spot. Johnson was already in the game and was staying in the game. The Cubs really haven't had a pinch-hit spot yet tonight.

Why do you think Cashner is so good? He's not. It's ridiculous to act like he would be some kind of key piece when trading for a big bat He really has regained that 1st round luster with his performance in Daytona this year. He isn't anything special but he definitely has a decent amount of value and will likely be once again in the Cubs top 5 prospects. I don't know if he would be a large enough prospect to be a centerpiece for a player like Holliday (because of his control) , but it isn't an absurd notion either (because of his stuff and success in high A).

I'm not sure about that yet because Owings looked like he had pretty good stuff and he wasn't missing the strike zone by a lot. The Cubs didn't really have a good swing against him in the 1st. If he gets locked in with throwing strikes, it could be problematic. Of course, the 1st inning will also make him tired faster which is where the team might be able to take advantage of him.