CubColtPacer

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.

He has had continued dizziness. They thought it might just be an ear infection but he was still dizzy after the infection cleared up so they DL'd him to be safe. Is that your personal opinion, because I just searched him in google news and they say it is stress. It's both. There was a personal issue also that he asked to get away from the team for a couple of weeks, but he wasn't playing much before that because of the continued dizziness. It was less of an issue than they thought originally for why he went on the DL (when I stopped following it) but they said it did make it easier for them to honor his request knowing he likely wasn't going to play much anyway.

He has had continued dizziness. They thought it might just be an ear infection but he was still dizzy after the infection cleared up so they DL'd him to be safe.

After 2007 would have been perfect For straight value, sure. But it would have also left the Cubs with a huge hole at 1B in 2008 (at least what would reasonably be expected to be a huge hole). You don't trade away one of your key hitters (which Lee was still at the time) when you have absolutely no idea how you're going to replace him, even if you do think he will decline and not be worth his contract. By the time the Cubs knew they had a potential fill in there, his 10/5 rights would have already kicked in. Yeah, it's really hard for a playoff team to trade a 31 year old guy who just posted a .913 OPS when there's no successor waiting in the wings. Hoff had just OPSd .917 the year before, but that was after an .852 in 2006 and .663 in 2005. 2007 was also Hoff's only year above a .900 OPS in the minors up to that point. Hoffpauir also had a severe knee injury that ended his season in 2007, and of course that .917 was in the severely hitter friendly PCL. He had been just starting to get a chance at a bench job when he got hurt..he certainly wasn't close yet to being an option for the starting job.

After 2007 would have been perfect For straight value, sure. But it would have also left the Cubs with a huge hole at 1B in 2008 (at least what would reasonably be expected to be a huge hole). You don't trade away one of your key hitters (which Lee was still at the time) when you have absolutely no idea how you're going to replace him, even if you do think he will decline and not be worth his contract. By the time the Cubs knew they had a potential fill in there, his 10/5 rights would have already kicked in.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2009/268290.html That's impressive? That was a typo. Obviously if he's walking in 15.5 percent of his plate appearances his OBP wouldn't be that close to his average. His current line is .284/.400/.483

What don't you get? It makes sense to me. At least indicates that it is definite that he spends a month more on the disabled list and then a possibility for more. The may be indicates that it might not be so definite. They don't really belong together in the same sentence. However, it really isn't a big deal. The meaning was still pretty clear from the sentence.

Close. His 2nd of the season. Happy to see Lee continue his great hot streak. Without his neck injury in May, he probably would have been over .800 already. As it is, he's coming up close to it rather quickly. Also nice to see better performances from the bullpen all around. Soriano probably should sit a couple of days to rest that knee. But it's going to be hard to sit him since he hates to sit and they already want to sit Soto and Bradley is hurt.

Unfortunately, no. Bradley is hurt. Z is available if you needed him, but I think I would rather trust Hoff to try to lift one to the OF. But you're right, this is a bad situation for him.

That's fine. But last winter, there were serious doubts if Fontenot could play 3rd (although he had played a little 3rd in the minors), and it was pretty much assured that he couldn't play SS. So the Cubs would still have had to get a 2nd backup middle infielder that played SS, and then Fontenot would have backed up 2nd and maybe 3rd. He wouldn't have gotten very many at-bats at all this year unless something major happened to one of Hudson or Ramirez. If Hudson was willing to sign a 2 year deal for low money, I would think about it. But giving up a draft pick for 1 year of production when there's a reasonable chance you can get slightly worse production from a guy you already have on your roster? That doesn't make very much sense to me.

Sadly Kerry Wood's year has not been anything to write home about, so I don't see how you can guarantee different results. Getting rid of Kerry Wood for financial reasons did not mean he had to trade for another multi million dollar reliever with a significantly worse track record. I hated losing Wood, but I understood the financial motivation, what I don't understand is then turning around and wasting a ton of cash on Gregg, just like trying to trade DeRosa at a high and then wasting the financial benefit on a guy like Miles. Because Jim Hendry sucks. We could have had Dunn and Hudson. I have no idea if the Cubs were interested in Hudson, but that is one thing that really irks me. We could have Hudson for the price we're paying Aaron [expletive] Miles. Hudson was all because of Mike Fontenot. It's not like the Cubs could have signed Hudson to play the role that Miles is playing. Fontenot would have likely needed to have been traded and then the Cubs would have lost their 1st round pick. Plus, even if Hudson has a good season, now you either need to sign him for a ton of money or have no second baseman. So I can see why they would have rather gambled on Fontenot than sign Hudson.

Brad Snyder would be the best bet to replace him, but since hes on the DL, Taguchi San woudl probably get the nod because of his experience. I can hardly wait. That might be the last straw for me. It would be between Taguchi, Fuld, and DuBois, and Fulds lefty edge might give him the edge. They don't necessarily have to call up an OF. They would still have 5 OF's even with Bradley gone. They really could use another backup IF who can play 2nd and 3rd (since they're back down to 1 with all the roster moves) but I don't know if there is anybody else that can realistically be picked. They probably would call up an OF for a few days until Freel's 15 days is up and then send that OF down at that time.

Eh, it's not that hard. People rave about Lee but he doesn't seem to to anything impressive defensively. I doubt very much the numbers people have shown for defensive ability at 1st. The best two things that Lee does that makes him very impressive defensively IMO 1) His range on balls down the line is very good. He can stop a ball that normally goes for a double into the corner. Sometimes he doesn't actually get the runner on it, but it's still a whole lot better than other first basemen who would watch it sail past them. 2) Picking throws. He has had a small problem with this the last week or so, but he is normally one of the best at it. Also, he doesn't swipe at the ball like most first basemen do, so when he does have a problem it's not because he completely missed it which allows the baserunner to also move up a base in addition to being safe.