CubColtPacer

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything. No, it doesn't, but it does give him the flexibility to upgrade the position that actually needs upgrading. And Hendry has really been one of the better GM's in the league at signing guys to big deals (9-10 million+ per year). He has a good track record of that...it's the middle deals (2-7 million) that have mostly hurt him over the years. Plus, the Cubs are going to need a cheap player or two to slot in around the diamond over the next couple years if they plan to maintain their roster, and taking away from that pool for yet another high priced player is extremely risky. He's paying a whole heck of a lot across the board in the OF without getting all that great of production out there. I don't see that as being among the best at big ticket purchases. The Cubs are in the top 10 in baseball in all 3 OF positions for total production. Even with throwing the numbers of the backups in, they are averaging around an 855 OPS from the OF. That is really, really good for an entire OF. One of them is struggling and not earning his contract right now while the other 2 are. Then you throw in that it's an average to slightly above average OF defensively.

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything. No, it doesn't, but it does give him the flexibility to upgrade the position that actually needs upgrading. And Hendry has really been one of the better GM's in the league at signing guys to big deals (9-10 million+ per year). He has a good track record of that...it's the middle deals (2-7 million) that have mostly hurt him over the years. Plus, the Cubs are going to need a cheap player or two to slot in around the diamond over the next couple years if they plan to maintain their roster, and taking away from that pool for yet another high priced player is extremely risky.

There is another team in the city he could play for. Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench? The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team. You don't trade for bench and bullpen guys in May. You don't give up important prospects for them either. Upgrading the bench/pen has nothing to do with a Peavy trade unless it's a matter of money. I crave Peavy more as a safeguard for injuries to Zambrano or Harden than as a replacement for Sean Marshall. If you can make the Peavy trade without giving up Marshall, you upgrade the pen and rotation all in one move. Not to mention that for upgrading you need prospects and the Peavy trade might diminish that. But I do agree that the money thing would be a bigger factor..and since we don't even know if there's room in the budget for Peavy this year, there almost certainly wouldn't be room for him and other upgrades. Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players. Personally, I'm not willing to pay a great deal for a guy who after this season would have a 4 year, 70 million dollar commitment. It's a fair deal that Peavy has, but the Cubs would be reticent to sign any free agent pitcher to that deal with the money they have tied up in Z, Dempster, and Lilly. When you add in that Peavy is not a free agent and that you'd also have to give up some good prospects to get him, it makes even less sense. And then you factor in that you're sitting down a good pitcher for the playoffs (one of Dempster/Lilly/Harden) and you're either taking a pretty good pitcher out of the rotation or trading him (Marshall). Essentially, the Cubs would be going for broke in 2009. 2010 and beyond would have worse versions of the ballclub every year with Peavy than without. That isn't really Peavy's fault, but he just doesn't fit with the players and contracts the Cubs have right now unless Ricketts really wants to take the team into Yankees territory on salaries.

Roberts just signed an extension 3 months ago. He isn't going anywhere. And the Orioles aren't going to use money on pitching. They are following the MacPhail strategy he had with the Cubs to buy bats and build from within through pitching prospects. They don't want to rush any of their prized prospects which is why they have so many stopgaps in the rotation/bullpen this year.

Aramis might not even be here in 2011, he has yet another opt out clause after 2010. I don't think he wants to leave and I don't think the Cubs want him to leave. I would imagine the Cubs do what they did last time and give him a slight raise. I hope not. If Aramis would take a 2 or 3 year deal after that season, then I'd probably do it (unless the money was outrageous). But I'm not giving a 4-5 year big money deal to a 32 year old 3rd baseman who would still have potential shoulder issues and who seems to have a history that would suggest breaking down as he ages.

Let's take these 1 at a time. I'd always love better advance scouting. But does advance scouting really play a huge role in the internet world? By the time the playoffs roll around, everyone has seen everyone in person most likely and definitely on video. There were no surprises that the Dodgers rolled out last year, and I'm not sure how better advance scouting would have helped the cause. This one is always an interesting one and goes down to series management. Do you focus on winning 1 game or 3? If you do the former, you have a better chance of not getting embarrassed but you have a smaller chance of winning the series. If the latter, you could win the series or you might get swept. Sacrificing 1 inning of Z for the right to not have to use Jason Marquis in the 07 playoffs was the right move especially when you consider that they were putting a pitcher on the mound who had been dominant most of the season. But it was a series oriented move, and it gave a higher chance of getting swept. It's the move a smart manager has to make, but he's going to get laughed at and criticized if it doesn't work out, and unfortunately in that postseason it didn't work. I sort of agree with you on this..sort of. I do think Soriano has certain pitchers he really struggles against, and in an ideal world we'd love to drop him in the order against people he struggles with. Making that big of a change that late rarely works though because players love to stay in their roles. The Cubs actually took a very large number of walks in 07. 14 in 3 games. Last year it was only 6 in 3 games. That partly was due to the pitchers they faced. But I don't mind more emphasis on plate discipline. I will concede that especially last year they might have been trying a bit too hard to make something happen and that helped feed into the problem.

What you keep ignoring and not responding to is that the Cubs have "gone cold" for 101 years. And that was due to bad management for most of that time. I don't think anybody would argue that. The Cubs were not anywhere close to the playoffs for most of that time. You can't win the Series if your team isn't good enough to make it into the playoffs in the first place. But are you saying that all the Cubs playoff teams over the last 100 years are built the same way? That the formula hasn't changed at all? I don't see what bringing up what the Cubs of 60 years ago did has anything to with today. Different ownership, different coaches, different players, different philosophy. It's simply not relevant to the issue.

I wouldn't make that deal. Fontenot and DeRosa have been pretty much the same player this year. Fontenot's not going to hit .207 all year long, and with his walk and power rates he should improve as the season goes along and some singles start to fall in. If you trade him for DeRosa, you're committed to trying to find a new second baseman after 2009 with limited funds available. Considering that we're not even sure yet if DeRosa would be an upgrade over Fontenot this year, it would be a bad gamble IMO.

I think we all would rather see Scales than Miles, but id be nice to see what Freel could do a little, if not the drop him and call up Fox. The main reason they got Freel in the 1st place was to have a 2nd backup middle infielder on the bench so they didn't feel so constrained every time they made 1 move during a game or a player had to sit out a day. They don't actually intend for him to play a lot..he's simply an insurance policy. The Cubs had several games in April when Aramis was day to day where they had no backup on the bench capable of playing 2nd, SS, and 3rd, and they decided that wasn't acceptable. Bringing Fox up would be better than when they had Gathright, but it would still have that fundamental problem.

Confusing night for Thomas. A single and a walk in two plate appearances so far, and both times when he has gotten to first base he has gotten picked off. The 2nd time was with the pitcher standing at 2nd base so he almost certainly wasn't going anywhere.

If its essentially a done deal, and only formalities are in the way, cant he give Hendry the go ahead to get the deal done? If the Tribune doesn't want to take the risk, then no he can't. And the Tribune might not budge on it...they're taking on risk for very little possible benefit to them.

It's .267 since his first homer. He's actually getting on base slightly better since the first home run (.377 OBP) than he was before the first home run (.368 OBP). I'm putting the home run itself into the pre-home run camp, and then every at-bat after that into the post home run camp.

I think Marshall is a much better starter than Wells. But I'm fine with riding Wells and putting Marshall in the bullpen for a month or two. I'm still very worried about Marshall as he gets over 140 innings. I don't think he would be able to survive the entire season in the rotation. Pitching in the bullpen for a month or two keeps his innings down and gives him a much better chance of actually being effective in August and September.

Lilly's pitching Tuesday. Marshall wasn't supposed to pitch until Thursday so he'd still be on full rest if he was to go today.

No..closer to 6 million more per year for Wood. A little less than 6 this year, a little more than 6 next year. Oh, the fun of a somewhat decent and very inconsistent relief pitcher. Gregg has been dominant his last 6 outings, and now he doesn't have anything on his pitches today. This is starting to remind me of Dempster in New York in 2007, which is not a good memory at all.

Lou has said he wants Wells to stay even before today's outing. He just doesn't know if he's going to stay in the rotation or go to the bullpen when Z comes back.

Part of it is that he's 26, but also there's no position to put him at. He'd have to produce like crazy on offense (which he might, but it's no sure thing) to make up for his defense. If we could find a way to trade DLee (which we can't) the option would arise to platoon Fox at 1B with Hoff, but that's not open right now. From what I hear, Carlos Delgado is injured and could miss an extended priod of time. Like Lee would ever want to go to New York. Fox is in the same position as Hoffpauir was last year. Everything he does is something that Hoffpauir already does and so he's stuck. If an injury happens that DL's Soriano, Bradley, or Lee, than Fox will likely be up pretty quickly. Otherwise, he'll likely be waiting until September.

So basically Ryan Theriot meets Milton Bradley. Sounds like a decent enough playe, but not exactly what we were hoping for from Vitters. Are you being sarcastic? Im just saying Id like a bit of a higher OPS from Vitters. When your dealing with a Theriot type, a high avg. and a mediocre OPS is just fine, but for a third baseman, especially a top prospect, Id like some better power numbers. Didnt he have some good ones with Boise last year? Still, I know hes just 19 and has quite a ways to go in his developement. His slightly better power numbers last year only came from several more doubles than this year (which could have been that he was hitting gaps better last year, or it could have been quality of defense). It sounds like his power is merely a problem of slowly adjusting his swing to adjust for the fact that his body is growing as well. He had a pure line drive swing in high school and as he continues to fill out his frame they will teach him how to elevate the ball better. Honestly, I'm not very concerned about the power. Some of his home runs that have been hit have been long gone, so he obviously has the ability in there. He also is obviously hitting the ball hard which has led to those high batting averages. It's not that difficult for a player to learn how to put those two abilities together as opposed to a player who has to work on having one of those present. The one thing I'm concerned about Vitters offensively is the walk rate which might be only a function that these low level pitchers make enough mistakes over the plate that he makes contact with and therefore never gets deep enough in the count to walk. That also lines up well with his low strikeout totals. But at some level he is going to have improve them.

Unfortunately, Bradley is probably not going to get a fair deal the rest of his career. In some ways though, he kind of deserves that. Many of us (including me if I am remembering right) were saying that Lee's prior history of good behavior should be taken into account after his fight with Chris Young a couple years ago. I still believe that should be the case to a small degree. Well, a player with Bradley's history gets the opposite treatment. It's hard to ignore the frequent confrontations with umpires, teammates, media, or the several times he has been arrested in his career. There probably isn't anybody in the game today who has had more incidents than Bradley that looked poorly upon the league. It makes sense that they are going to scrutinize him a little closer than the average person and be quick to pull the trigger on a suspension. I truly think Bradley has grown up (although I thought that at times about Ron Artest, who Bradley reminds me of as an intense person on the field/court, wants to win really badly, and can usually be mellow except for in the heat of battle). I believe Bradley and can see that he almost certainly isn't the man he used to be. But it's going to take a long time to shake off that many problems.

Thanks. I knew that but got mixed up while I was writing. I have edited it.

We should whine about Gaudin being let go regardless, that was a weird move No it wasn't. Gaudin doesn't strike anybody out and he walks way too many. He's not a good pitcher. He's not a terrible strikeout pitcher, but his walk rate has often been very high in his career and ever since he came back last September he seems to have had major control issues. It looked like he was afraid of coming into the middle of the plate today. He was majorly nibbling, and that's just not going to work very well except for the most aggressive teams out there.

One flaw I see in there is that I really don't think Freel who has not anywhere near the range he used to have is going to be a better defender than Ramirez. I also think that extrapolating wins can be a bit problematic because it doesn't take into account the quality of team involved. A 100 win team isn't going to lose too many wins when a key player is out because they are still quite a bit better than most teams they play. A 60 win team isn't going to lose many wins when they lose a key player because most of their wins come from opponent bad days anyway. The teams who are hurt the worst are the ones who are slightly above average..those who are a little better than the teams they play and might become a little worse than many teams they play with a key injury. Essentially, I don't think winning is a linear continuum. I think it's much closer to a bell curve. But those are just minor quibbles with the methodology. And of course, a large part of it is what you think of Freel this year. His numbers could vary wildly with the injuries. He's simply a hard player to project and so the dropoff could be quite different based on what numbers you use for him. I agree pretty much with that 1 win average. Of course, based on how the difference in created runs is spread out it could be 0 or 5 games. We won't be able to tell that even in hindsight which is why the win average has to be created in the first place. But I do wonder if the methodology is making some assumptions for the sake of simplicity that might not be quite true.

Vitters has a .308/.348/.449 line so far this year. Wieters has not been called up. His line in AAA is .263/.366/.368.

Is that a rhetorical question? Just seems like WGN is on the way out for cubs broadcasts. It's been going that way for years. No reason for WGN to air the games itself when it/the Cubs could sell the rights to CSN. Exactly. They get paid for every CSN game they show and have to pay a fee for every WGN game they show. It's actually pretty amazing that they're still showing almost half the games when you consider their potential revenue differences if they switched like the Braves did and abandoned the Superstation.

He has a .220/.281/.439 line for the Tulsa Drillers, which is the Rockies AA team. He has managed to cut down his strikeouts slightly so far this year but still doesn't appear to be anything but a pure slugger.