CubColtPacer

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. That's not the choice the Cubs would have likely gone with. The two options would have either been: Fontenot at 2nd, DeRosa at RF, Fukudome in CF or Fontenot at 2nd, Bradley+Johnson in RF (Johnson for the 40-80 games that Bradley doesn't play, Fukudome in CF Would you rather have DeRosa for 140 games in RF and Marquis in the 5th spot or Bradley for 100, Vizcaino in the bullpen, and 3 decent pitching prospects? Personally I think the Cubs are better off with the former. If the Cubs get another upgrade other than Bradley it makes more sense. But is Bradley really a more valuable RF than DeRosa this year? Plus if you kept DeRosa you could have kept an extra OF bat for the bench that could hit instead of having to pay Miles to be a backup IF (because DeRosa would essentially be your 2nd backup IF even while starting in the OF). So with DeRosa you have about the same offense over the course of the year, a better starting rotation, a better bench, and possibly a better bullpen (because it could be argued that Vizcaino hurts the pen more than helps it). Trading him should only have been done to get talent that could be used to upgrade somewhere else. Removing DeRosa's salary isn't much of a help because DeRosa was being underpaid so much. Cmon now, we are now counting the loss of Marquis from the rotation as a downgrade? And we are assuming DeRosa repeats his '08 career year but Bradley will be hurt for a significant portion? It is just as easy to say Marquis would wind up in long relief and DeRosa would wind up regressing and hurt overall RF production. I'm actually not assuming that DeRosa repeats his 08. I'm looking at around an .800 OPS next year for him (or somewhere between his 06 and 07). Yes, the loss of Marquis would hurt the rotation. 180-200 innings of mediocre pitching becomes more valuable the more injury prone the rest of your starting rotation is. If Marquis is gone, that means Marshall is starting. It is unlikely that Marshall throws over 150 innings between his injury history, a tendency to have a dead arm, and the fact that he's never done it before, not even in the minor leagues. Harden could throw anywhere between 50-160 innings (I see anything over 160 as unlikely as the Cubs are going to back up him at times, skip a couple starts, take him out early etc. to protect his arm). Those innings would go to Marshall but now have to go to somebody else. Then of course you have Z who has a decent shot of missing 2-3 starts over the season. So that's somewhere between 90-260 innings that you have to make up. The Cubs have options for starters behind Marshall, but the further you go the more you're both hurting the bullpen by taking them out of there, and also you have an increasing possibility they'll blow up and be absolutely terrible out of the rotation. It's just not as simple as comparing Marquis and Marshall. Marquis leaving pushes everybody a slot up and makes the rotation more injury prone while removing pitching depth from the system at the same time. That's a bad combination, and the depth would very likely not be sufficient.

Entertaining the thought that a full season of DeRosa is more valuable than a half season (of less) of Bradley means we're overvaluing him? So everyone is basing it off of injury risk? I understand that you have to be concerned, especially with his history, but come on, Bradley is a hell of a player when healthy. Quit being typical glass half empty Cubs fans. Now we are only assuming a half season OR LESS from Bradley? That seems a bit pessimistic. I have also seen people saying that we will be lucky if we get as many innings out of Harden in '08 as we did in '09. Worst case scenarios are pretty popular around here these days. Bradley has played 100+ games in the field exactly once in his entire career. I would say expecting him to only play 70-80 is being rather pessimistic, but it's hard to argue that he's going to suddenly be able to be out in the field for more than 100 games this year either. There's a lot of history that suggests he's not going to be able to.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. That's not the choice the Cubs would have likely gone with. The two options would have either been: Fontenot at 2nd, DeRosa at RF, Fukudome in CF or Fontenot at 2nd, Bradley+Johnson in RF (Johnson for the 40-80 games that Bradley doesn't play, Fukudome in CF Would you rather have DeRosa for 140 games in RF and Marquis in the 5th spot or Bradley for 100, Vizcaino in the bullpen, and 3 decent pitching prospects? Personally I think the Cubs are better off with the former. If the Cubs get another upgrade other than Bradley it makes more sense. But is Bradley really a more valuable RF than DeRosa this year? Plus if you kept DeRosa you could have kept an extra OF bat for the bench that could hit instead of having to pay Miles to be a backup IF (because DeRosa would essentially be your 2nd backup IF even while starting in the OF). So with DeRosa you have about the same offense over the course of the year, a better starting rotation, a better bench, and possibly a better bullpen (because it could be argued that Vizcaino hurts the pen more than helps it). Trading him should only have been done to get talent that could be used to upgrade somewhere else. Removing DeRosa's salary isn't much of a help because DeRosa was being underpaid so much.

He could have. But who would have given it to him? Nobody is signing big money free agents outside the Yankees. The Red Sox went cheap. A couple teams talked about Teixeira for PR purposes. CC was Milwaukee or NY. I'm not convinced he would have had a bigger buyer. Atlanta probably would have, although I doubt they would have gone as high as 20 million more. They were trying to decide if Dempster or Burnett was option number 1 when they started the offseason, and ended up offering Burnett something in the 4 year 60 million range (with an option for a 5th year) after Dempster had been signed.

Interesting. For a middle infielder, he has average OBP skills. Below average power. Overall a below average offensive player. I'm pretty sure he is rated at being very solid defensively (I know the Cardinals saw him as a strong middle infielder defensively). Overall, an average middle infielder. If DeRosa or Cedeno isn't traded, this is the end of the road for Cedeno. I don't see that as likely though. More likely is that DeRosa is traded, which means that Miles is on the bench so that the Cubs can use another bench spot on a player with very few positions (Hoffpauir) along with more depth. He would probably instantly slide in as the backup at 3B, where I don't think the Cubs trust either Cedeno or Fontenot defensively. Miles is a solid player to have on the bench. I'm not sure that's worth 2.2 million, but he has value to the ballclub if DeRosa is traded. He's never going to be a guy that is going to be very popular because he isn't very good. But he's good insurance that the Cubs will be turning to a "meh" kind of guy when having an injury rather that a likely horrible one.

That's the thing. I only like Bradley as an option if they have someone like DeRosa to fill in WHEN Bradley is hurt. When Bradley is hurt without DeRosa, now you have Gathright playing CF and Johnson/Fukudome playing RF, along with Fontenot playing 2nd everyday. I suppose that would be more tolerable if Jake Peavy was in the rotation every 5th day. Marshall has a lot of value to this team right now as Harden's insurance policy. I'm not sure the Cubs would actually have a viable 6th starter as the roster currently stands if Marshall had to be in the rotation. Plus if you move Marshall into a bigger role you have to have an insurance policy for him as well. That would leave the Cubs with 2 big risks for injury in the rotation (Harden, Marshall), one moderate risk (Z), and two low risks (Dempster, Lilly). If the Cubs trade Marquis they almost certainly will have to find another starter as that situation is a recipe for disaster.

Neither. He has 2 years left on his contract. Arizona refused to trade him last year, but if he demands a trade again I guess it's possible they deal him this year. Whoever traded for him would have to rip up his current deal and give him huge money.

A lot of that information was reported for the first time in that article. The first indication fans had that anything was wrong was in July when it was reported that Manning had gone under the knife. Not that he was going to..it wasn't reported until the day of. The story was bursa sac removal and a 4-6 week timetable. That was the last update Colts fans received over the next month. The second surgery was kept completely secret. So were the setbacks. In fact, a common thing on radio that month was speculation about where Manning was and what he was doing..there was even a mock hunt to figure out what secret location he was in. Once the season started, there was absolutely nothing said by the team about his knee. There was no indication (other than his play) that he was anything but 100%. So yes, it was known that Manning had surgery and might not be ready for the start of the season. But it's absolutely amazing in this day and age that the Colts were able to keep all the rest under wraps until now. It was a huge mystery that's finally solved, and it certainly gives me doubts about how much of the story fans ever get. There's a Colts chat on Monday nights with one of the local writers and that article really had the fans buzzing. Of course, I don't like Manning's choice in this. He should have gone to one of the local guys with the story. Also, the timing is...curious. It should be the final push needed to wrap up his 3rd MVP award, and even if he didn't intend for that to be an effect it still was poor timing to have the whole story released this week. You really didn't see the stories about the setback and second procedure? This stuff was reported before, but Peyton and the Colts either stayed quiet or denied it. The only exclusive part of this story was Peyton talking and giving some details. It was already reported. And that bolded statement is just bizarre to me. There was no indication he was anything but 100%? Are you kidding? Everybody knew he wasn't 100% and most everybody talked about it in every story about the Colts. There was a whisper or two about a second surgery during training camp, but just about nobody believed it. It was reported by some less reputable people as a rumor, and most reporters refused to report it at all. The Colts confirmed it out of the blue in the middle of the season that there had been a second procedure, but no details. I'm talking about official indication. Everybody deflected questions about the knee. He didn't appear on the injury report at all. People assumed he was still hurting because of his play, but that was even hotly debated (some people claimed he was having an off season, others said the injuries on the offensive line and the lack of a running game were the reason and that he was completely healthy).

A lot of that information was reported for the first time in that article. The first indication fans had that anything was wrong was in July when it was reported that Manning had gone under the knife. Not that he was going to..it wasn't reported until the day of. The story was bursa sac removal and a 4-6 week timetable. That was the last update Colts fans received over the next month. The second surgery was kept completely secret. So were the setbacks. In fact, a common thing on radio that month was speculation about where Manning was and what he was doing..there was even a mock hunt to figure out what secret location he was in. Once the season started, there was absolutely nothing said by the team about his knee. There was no indication (other than his play) that he was anything but 100%. So yes, it was known that Manning had surgery and might not be ready for the start of the season. But it's absolutely amazing in this day and age that the Colts were able to keep all the rest under wraps until now. It was a huge mystery that's finally solved, and it certainly gives me doubts about how much of the story fans ever get. There's a Colts chat on Monday nights with one of the local writers and that article really had the fans buzzing. Of course, I don't like Manning's choice in this. He should have gone to one of the local guys with the story. Also, the timing is...curious. It should be the final push needed to wrap up his 3rd MVP award, and even if he didn't intend for that to be an effect it still was poor timing to have the whole story released this week.

Going from 2008 to 2009 will very likely be their biggest payroll jump in the history of the club (and if it isn't, it will be very close). The team was allowed to spend money in 2007 and 2008 and the way the contracts were structured almost made sure that this would be a quiet offseason. The surprise really has been that the Cubs have been rumored after so many players. That isn't necessarily a bad thing btw. Most of the raises went to quality players this year that the Cubs would have missed out on if not for the creative contracts. But it's going to have to be sooner or later where the number of players acquired get back in line with normal payroll increases. One quiet offseason will make that process a lot easier for the next couple years.

It wasn't even an upset either. It was one of the two games against small conference teams that IU fans thought they had a good chance of losing (they managed to survive Cornell). IU is probably going to win their last non-conference game, but I have a tough time seeing them winning a single conference game with the huge gap between them and everyone else in the conference. Odds are on their side that they'll win at least one game over the 18-game schedule, but they certainly won't be favored to win any. Yeah. I see them winning 1, maybe 2 conference games. But I can't point to any game and say that's a winnable game. IU will most likely just get lucky a time or two and have a hot 3 point shooting night while the other team is cold and squeak out an upset.

It wasn't even an upset either. It was one of the two games against small conference teams that IU fans thought they had a good chance of losing (they managed to survive Cornell).

One pick. I thought Type A players cause teams to give up two picks? A team who loses a type A player gets 2 picks. One comes from the other team and one comes from MLB.

Well, the whole point is that we wouldn't want a ton of ABs for Gathright. Thats not his value, his value is on the bases and playing defense. Johnson Gathright Hoff Cedeno Font Backup Catcher If thats the case then we'd have to go with an 11 man pitching staff. I said earlier that that shouldn't be a problem, but looking at our BP, I think it might be unless we make some trades. So, assuming Marshall isn't moved to the rotation, Shark goes to the Iowa rotation, and we didn't want to lose anyone (besides Hill), we'd have to have a 7 man pen. But, I have a feeling Wuertz (~$1.2M) or Gaudin ($2M) might be traded. Marmol Gregg Wuertz Cotts Gaudin Marshall--1 option Guzman--No options Stay in the minors Samardzija--2 options Ascanio--1 option Hart--2 options Wells--3 options Hill --No options Petrick--2 options Pignatiello--2 options Between Lou's quotes about the pitching staff and the way the entire league has gone, I can't see the Cubs bucking the trend and going with an 11 man pitching staff. Gathright has to take Hoffpauir's spot to make the squad, and with the fact that we already have at least 2 capable players that could move to the OF in the late innings (Johnson off the bench or DeRosa shifting to RF and Fontenot coming off the bench) I have a hard time seeing how Hoffpauir isn't the better option. I understand the double switching/leading off the next inning argument, but I would say that Fontenot would be the guy to be most often coming into the game in that particular situation. If the Cubs signed Adam Dunn for RF (adding a left-handed slugger that also is more likely to need a defensive replacement) then it makes more sense to choose Gathright over Hoffpauir. I don't see that same appeal if a player like Bradley is signed though. It still doesn't change the fact that Pie will be traded at some point (unless they suddenly decide to go with him as a starter, which would be a shock) but I don't think it would be wise for the Cubs to only have 2 legitimate bats on the entire bench (Fontenot and Johnson).

I just don't understand where he is going to fit. Even if he takes Pie's spot..there wasn't enough room for Pie on the bench. Are they planning to have Gathright and Hoffpauir fight it out for the final spot on the bench? I can see Gathright being a 5th OF. But the Cubs limited bench has meant that they haven't been able to carry a 5th OF for years, and I'm skeptical that roster change will happen now.

How do you know? Just because you aren't hearng rumors doesn't mean he's not getting a lot of interest. Again, why are you acting like you know this? You have no idea what is going on. Just to back this up: http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/12/03/theres-plenty-of-interest-in-adam-dunn/ I, too, doubt that any of those clubs are worried about losing a draft pick to sign Dunn. You know, because he wasn't offered arbitration. Yeah...I posted it to show the level of interest, but he didn't exactly show his breadth of knowledge there, did he? Actually, he did. That was his point. From earlier in the article: He was showing that there was so much interest in Dunn and especially interest from certain teams that the interest would not just go away if the Diamondbacks had offered him arbitration. Basically, there was no risk of him accepting arbitration, so it was silly for Arizona to not offer it.

They were rumored after Burnett for a while. 8 of their top 11 prospects are pitchers, and they have several other decent prospects who have already lost their prospect status because they've been forced into action on the major league level. Baltimore has a ton of options for arms in the next couple years, and given when they're likely to contend (2010 at the earliest) it doesn't make sense to sign a top pitcher right now.

Furcal's upgrade purely over Theriot isn't worth nearly 10 million dollars. But Furcal could be a quite valuable signing if the Cubs made all the other moves correctly (and of course this is hypothetical, because I can't see the Cubs benching Theriot to this degree). If you sign Furcal, you then trade Cedeno for a PTBNL or whatever you can get. You move Theriot to 2nd in a platoon with Fontenot, and DeRosa becomes your full-time RF. You then go out and sign a right-handed bench player. It would be preferable if this bench player could backup either 3B or 2B, but it isn't necessary. The main goal is to find a backup that can mash left-handers. Is this better than just signing a RF? Here are the pros of signing Furcal instead: Better defense at SS, and also possibly at RF depending on who the Cubs sign there. The bats should be close. It's basically Bradley+Theriot or Fotenot-Theriot/Furcal. Furcal is a little better than Theriot with the bat, and Bradley should be expected to be a pretty good upgrade over a Fontenot/Theriot platoon. Bradley wins here, although it's closer than it looks. The main thing Furcal would give is flexibility. As I said, now you can sign a backup to mash against left-handers instead of having to waste Cedeno on the bench. The Cubs have a clear backup plan already on their roster if any player on the diamond gets hurt. There wouldn't have to be any scrambling to bring up a player from AAA to start. Every position would have a capable backup. So Furcal makes multiple positions better by putting people in roles that are better for them. It uses Fontenot and Theriot's skills while hiding their weaknesses. It takes a hole for the Cubs late in games (no right-handed threat off the bench) away. Every single position player would be in a position to succeed other than the backup catcher, and the team could easily adapt to fit any situation that the long season throws at them. Furcal's not really a 10 million dollar SS. But the way the Cubs have assembled their team, his acquisition make all the pieces of the offense fit together a lot better, and that definitely could be worth that money.

Pie/Fuku in CF? Boy, I'd love to see that combined batting line against lefties. Fukudome actually hit lefties better than rhp last year. Overall, I think the Cubs could live with Fukudome's .359 OBP in CF. Now if Fukudome had crazy splits depending on what hand the pitcher is pitching with I can see a platoon, but he doesn't. And we seriously don't know what the Cubs have in Pie. Fukudome was only slightly worse against left-handers last year (although it's close due to the better OBP against left-handers). That though was purely a function of how he was used. First, he got benched against most of the tough left-handers all year long which propped up his numbers against LHP. Second, and this is even a bigger one, the Cubs stopped playing him against LHP when he started slumping. So the majority of his at-bats against LHP came when he was hot and so is not a representative sample. For example, 16 of his 29 starts against left-handers came in April or May (55.2%) even though only 38.7% of his total at-bats came in those 2 months. BTW, his BABIP against left-handers was .347. Luck was definitely part of the factor as well. As for Pie, we don't have to look at just his major league at-bats against left-handers to know his struggles. We also have minor league splits and winter ball reports to go off of, and it shows that he is likely going to be absolutely terrible in the major leagues against left-handers. Johnson is a good bet to be 100+ points better than Fukudome against left-handers (and that's even allowing for Johnson to regress a bit) and 200+ points better than Pie. That's a big difference even over 150-200 at-bats. Then when you look at the Cubs bench, you see the need even more for Johnson. The two biggest bats on the bench are left-handed, and 1 of those has already proven it can't hit left-handed pitching. The 2 other bats are your backup catcher and a right-handed shortstop that cannot hit left-handed pitching. Johnson is the Cubs big threat against left-handers in the late innings. Those two things together are worth 3 million dollars.

3 CB's on IR for the Saints'll do it. I remember when CCP had hopes for him. Hehe. Too bad our CBs haven't been much better. I feel safe answering this now :D I think you were thinking about Olemiss here soul. I was laughing at NO for signing him to that contract. He was decent in Indy because of being a zone corner only, but I knew he would simply be an awful corner when he had to play any man to man (as he has proven). Good win Bears to stay in the hunt. Win the next 2 games and I think you've got a great shot to get in the playoffs in some way.

Even if the Padres were able to open it up to all teams, they'd have to be pretty happy about a haul of a top 50 prospect, 3 left-handers between the ages of 24-27 that are major league ready and are all decent to good prospects, an unknown prospect (this is the 2nd one from the Phillies), a lower end starting shortstop/good backup, and a reliever with upside but will likely be worthless due to injury issues. The Padres request was for young major league ready pitching. This deal had it in spades, and if they had wanted they could have probably gotten a 4th good young pitcher instead of Vitters. It is debatable if a 6 for 1 deal or a 7 for 1 deal is the right thing for Peavy. What is definitely clear though is that the Cubs were not going to get any sort of discount for the fact that the Padres had nobody else to trade him to. They were having to pay full value on Peavy, and they were only willing to get him if they actually got the benefit of Peavy falling into their laps.

If those two things happen (with Marshall sliding in for Harden for over 1/2 the season and Dempster pitching just as an average starter) the rotation would still be well above average.

He's one of the only guys who can get the ball over the halfcourt line without turning it over constantly. Dumes certainly can't. Williams can't. Verdell Jones is decent at it but hasn't played since he got destroyed by that pick. IU has been using Moore as their primary point guard, and when Moore is out of the game they have been shifting Malik Story from small/power forward to point guard. Moore is a frustrating player. He is much better than I could have realized at driving around people and through traffic (actually one of the two Hoosiers who can drive)...but since he doesn't really ever shoot, that leaves him into some pretty bad spots when he gets around the rim. It's always drive and kick with him, and well defenses catch on to that pretty quickly. He has quick hands which helps him on the defensive end and his size hasn't killed him on that end of the court.

I feel like the only way he'll stick is if they decide to be patient with him because of his talent level. He's not likely going to be a good LOOGY in the major leagues because he cannot throw enough strikes. The Pirates tried to keep Meek back there last year but eventually had to dump him because their pitching staff was too bad to try to hide a pitcher in the back of the bullpen. I could see a similar situation happening this year.

Crawford did choose to transfer because everyone else left (he was the last player to go). Holman also was mostly his own decision, although we don't know what happened in that meeting that made him so angry. McGhee was kicked off the team and probably wouldn't have been eligible. Thomas was kicked off of the team for other reasons. Bassett had been eligible for 1 1/2 seasons already, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that if Sampson had stayed he would have remained eligible. I can't give that benefit to Ellis however as he had no history with the school. As for the APR, you know I believe as well that it was an absolute joke that IU was able to take the penalties this year. That does not mean that my problems with the system are not still there..I don't believe that APR and men's basketball mix real well. The formula hits you too hard with transfers and early entrants into the NBA to work as a true gauge of what a program is actually doing academically in that particular sport. But right now, the formula is what it is, and IU shouldn't have been able to take the penalties early. If it had just so fallen to where their penalties were in a year where they had few people anyway, then that's good luck. But they shouldn't have been able to proactively take punishment just because it wouldn't hurt this year.