CubColtPacer

Gaudin was warming in the pen. He looks like any other pitcher, really. Harden in the dugout yet? Yes. The Reds broadcast showed him a couple times in the dugout.

Yeah, how dare he expect Marmol to throw 35 pitches in the last week! His arm is going to fall off throwing so many pitches!!! It will because he'll have to pitch every game the rest of the year when Wuertz and Lieber wind up on milk cartons from trying to find their way to the mound. Exactly. I'm not upset about this outing because of any overuse of Marmol. What it does do though is take him out tomorrow for absolutely no good reason, and it also takes an inning away from pitchers who really could use it. That's the big problem with what just happened out there.

Zambrano with 80 pitches through 6. Cueto with 81 through 5.

I agreed to a point. If Harden shows he will be healthy, in the next 3 weeks, then another stater won't be necessarily (and I would be confident that Marquis/Marshall/Lieber/Geaux Dan would get the job done as #5), but if Harden shows a little wear and tear (which is possible), then you could see the Cubs make a trade for another starter. I still say try to see what Colorado wants for Aaron Cook. There don't seem to be nearly as many questions surrounding his durability as there would be with Burnett or Bedard, and he isn't as crappy as Wolf or Maddux. Colorado has flat out said they aren't trading Cook. He just signed an extension this past offseason, and they consider him a major part of their future.

Knee-jerk much? The two moves won't do anything of the sort. It would be MUCH worse if Marshall were relegated to his previous LOOGY role as he wouldn't be stretched out once Marquis starts to royally suck again. Chillll ETA: There was really no doubt in my mind that Marquis would keep his job over Marshall. Obviously, Marshall as the #5 is a much better option, but given the choice between the two probable outcomes, I'll take this one 8 days a week These were pretty much the points I was trying to make with my last post. For whatever reason they will not send Marquis to the pen regardless of how poorly he pitches. It's frustrating, but we just have to deal with it. If Marquis was pitching poorly enough, they'd do something about it. Unfortunately he's in that middle zone right now. Not good enough to make you feel good about being in the rotation, not poor enough to eat a lot of money for. If Hill comes up near the end of the August, they'd probably send Marquis to the pen then because of the roster expansion in September. And this time sending Marquis to the pen wouldn't have done much good. They had to demote somebody. This reminds me a lot of the Jacque Jones situation last year. It's not good business to eat several million dollars every time you have a roster crunch unless you have a player that's simply killing your ballclub. Marquis doesn't fall under that category. If it be July 31st or the offseason, they'll get somebody to take on that last year of that deal, throw in 1-2 million, and have 7 more million to play around with next season. 4.78era isn't exactly good and it's only a matter of time until he hits the 5era mark. He needs to go. You're right, it's not exactly good. It's not exactly terrible either. It's a little below average. Now let's say you cut Marquis today. You pay him his 11 million dollars he has left. You're left with a rotation of: Z/Harden/Lilly/Dempster/Marshall What's your projected ERA for Marshall? 4? 4.25? He's not likely to be quite as good as he was last year. Pros to this move: Marshall is likely to put up a better ERA in August and September than Marquis will. Cons: Depth. Harden and Marshall are both major injury risks. If one of them gets hurt, Gaudin steps in and the bullpen gets hurt by having a struggling Ascanio come up (as opposed to Marshall stepping in the rotation in the current setup and Gaudin staying where he is). If both of them get hurt, Gaudin and Lieber step in to the rotation, and the bullpen is hurt even more when Hart joins Ascanio (currently, Marshall and Gaudin would join the rotation, Lieber and Ascanio in the bullpen). If 1 of the starters gets hurt, you'd probably lose half of the better production you were getting from having Marshall in the rotation. If both of them did, you'd be losing more production than you gained. 2nd con: Money. You now have 9 million dollars of salary for next year for a pitcher who is not going to pitch. You lose out on the opportunity to trade Marquis at a later date, pick up a minor prospect, and possibly shed 6-7 million dollars off the payroll for somebody who could upgrade your roster next year. Is the better ERA really worth it? Is it really that much of a difference to make your depth worse and hamstring the budget for next year? I would say no way. Not unless Marquis gets quite a bit worse, to where the trading option becomes much more slim and the difference in the ERA becomes a lot larger. There's simply not enough benefit for the cost that you'd be taking on.

Knee-jerk much? The two moves won't do anything of the sort. It would be MUCH worse if Marshall were relegated to his previous LOOGY role as he wouldn't be stretched out once Marquis starts to royally suck again. Chillll ETA: There was really no doubt in my mind that Marquis would keep his job over Marshall. Obviously, Marshall as the #5 is a much better option, but given the choice between the two probable outcomes, I'll take this one 8 days a week These were pretty much the points I was trying to make with my last post. For whatever reason they will not send Marquis to the pen regardless of how poorly he pitches. It's frustrating, but we just have to deal with it. If Marquis was pitching poorly enough, they'd do something about it. Unfortunately he's in that middle zone right now. Not good enough to make you feel good about being in the rotation, not poor enough to eat a lot of money for. If Hill comes up near the end of the August, they'd probably send Marquis to the pen then because of the roster expansion in September. And this time sending Marquis to the pen wouldn't have done much good. They had to demote somebody. This reminds me a lot of the Jacque Jones situation last year. It's not good business to eat several million dollars every time you have a roster crunch unless you have a player that's simply killing your ballclub. Marquis doesn't fall under that category. If it be July 31st or the offseason, they'll get somebody to take on that last year of that deal, throw in 1-2 million, and have 7 more million to play around with next season.

Wells has 6 more years and 117 million dollars left after this year. Burnett could have 24 more. I don't think there's any way they could authorize anywhere near that much payroll. Wells might not even be an upgrade over Edmonds/Johnson (his numbers the last year and a half have been pretty bad) and currently has one of the worst contracts in the league. In addition, I can't see another starter being added unless the Cubs also found a taker for Marquis. Plus, there isn't nearly as much upside in adding another starter as there was before. Edit: Sorry to be so late. Didn't want to pile on..got distracted in the middle of the post.

Cotts was already optioned once to the minors this year, so he won't have any problem going down again. Wuertz also has 1 option left. You have to put him on revocable waivers to option him because of his MLB service time, but that's a formality that the Cubs probably did months ago.

I think Hendry's main weakness might also be a strength. He gives his manager the players that the manager wants. Fortunately for us Lou knows what he's doing and he does the right thing most of the time. I would agree with that. The other thing that Lou helps with is that if Hendry does one of his infamous buy low moves, if it's not working Lou won't stick with it for very long. I think that if Lou does leave after next season, that next manager search could be very important because Hendry might tweak his philosophy to whoever is the manager next. Hendry is a good talent evaluator and pretty good negotiator, but I'm still worried about his philosophy not being stable. It's just so hard to tell if his philosophy was changing and that's why he hired Lou, or he hired Lou and his philosophy changed to match him. And sure, spending money is nice for Hendry, but you still have to be a good GM to spend it on the right people. The Cubs are one of the top 10 payrolls in baseball this year. They are 18 games over .500. 3 of the top 10 teams in payroll are under .500. 3 others are 6 games over, 2 games over, and 1 game over. 6 of the top 10 teams in payroll do not have great results. Spending money certainly gives you an advantage over some other teams, but it's still not easy to spend what the Cubs have and build a top 5 team, especially a team that the window does not close in 2008. They haven't completely gone for broke here. They've set themselves up for now, but the next 2-3 years should still have contending teams once again with only minor moves needed to be done.

We'll see if Murton gets to play. Oakland has to clear up a little bit of a logjam first. Right now, Murton's reporting to AAA once again. I was always impressed with Gallagher, but his quotes at the beginning of the season still strike a chord with me. I can't find it (if somebody can, please post it once again. It was on two spots on the board, but the search hasn't produced any results yet) but basically when he got sent down to the minors he just talked about how much he still watched the Cubs games because he felt like they were family, and he was willing to do whatever it took to make the team win, even if that meant that he had to be in the minors. Also he said that when he came back up he was willing to accept any role. Unfortunately Sean, your service to the team had to be in trade. We didn't want to have you go. May your career be long and fruitful. Who knows, maybe we'll get to see you in a Cubs uniform once again before your career is over. Enjoy the time though. Leaving the atmosphere of Wrigley would be tough, but you're going to a good organization with good fans and a stadium that should help your numbers. Thanks for the memories and all the dedication you had to continue to get better as the years went along to prove first that you were a legitimate prospect, then to prove that you will be a good major leaguer, which I have no doubt of.

Now with Hendry we've had 2 good years of him at GM, two bad years, and two more good years. While he's made the team better in 08 then ever before, I wouldn't say that he necessarily did a better job of building the team then he did in the first couple years. He just had more resources to play with. Do I think the Cubs have one of the best GM's in the business? No, probably not. His fascination with certain things will still lead him to make some head scratchers at times, and probably more than the very best do. That led to trades like Pierre and Izturis. I do think he is in the next level down of GM's though, the very good ones. Free agency has been a mixed bag for Hendry. Overall though, the biggest criticism you can levy at Hendry in free agency is what he didn't do in the offseasons before 05 and 06 to improve the team to what it needed to be, not to what he did. We've had a decent amount of overpayment over the years, but very few of the big contracts that completely flopped. He's balanced that overpayment of other free agents by managing to sign most of the stars that were already on the team to hometown discounts. At the same time, Hendry has usually done a very good job sifting through talent in free agency and finding the players who likely are going to be productive even while other attractive players flop (DeRosa and Lilly are the best two examples of this). Lately, Hendry seems to have gotten a lot better at bargain shopping as he starts to go for more players who are good at 1 thing to fill specific roles (Ward, Johnson, Edmonds), instead of trying to carry players who can do a little of everything but nothing particularly well (Macias, Bynum). Trades though have always been Hendry's forte. He always has done a good job of evaluating the talent on his own team, and so if you look at it with a talent given/talent recieved method, Hendry has come way out on top. Mostly for buying, and a little for selling. The biggest problem for trades has been that Hendry has sometimes targeted the wrong player. Pierre, Izturis, Bynum, Trachsel. Those weren't good trades no matter how little talent went back the other way, although the likelihood of any of those players playing for the Cubs today would be pretty low. Overall though, if you consistently either have a major win (people contributing significantly for your squad, not for the other) or a minor loss (trade value lost, but otherwise no significant contributions for either side) you're likely to come out ahead, and Hendry has done that. I think you'll see an extension for Hendry in the next month or two, and I won't be against it one bit. But I hope he doesn't take that extension as complete validation of what he's doing. He still could stand to improve quite a bit in certain areas. But I overall really like the new and improved Jim Hendry of the last 1 1/2 years. He has targeted mostly the right kind of players. He has overpaid at times, and gotten some other bargains. He has addressed the needs of the ballclub (talent infusion in the offseason after 06, more OBP in the offseason after 07, and more pitching during the season in 08). I'm looking forward to seeing what he does to continue to build the ballclub in the next couple of years even while knowing that there will probably be a few at-bats or a few innings given each year to his projects that don't work out (this year that was Chad Fox). Overall though, that's a drop in the bucket to the overall team, and the overall team continues to get stronger, for now and for the future.

I don't see any way the Cubs act like they already are in with Harden. That's the quickest way for everyone to get fired if it doesn't work out. So I certainly don't see them skipping his rotation spot at all. I do think and hope that they will be somewhat careful with him though, and keep him to a pitch count that is regularly below 110 and doesn't get above 115 in any game. My optimal would be to pull him somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 pitches each time out. Unfortunately, Lou's resolve for having his pitchers go deep if they are being effective will be tested with Harden, who will have to be removed in the 6th or after the 6th even while effective a great deal.

Yes, he still has 1 left.

The DBacks won't finish over .500. Sure they will. Time will tell, but they've been horrible since the first month, and don't have alot of major injuries or anything like that to blame it on. They started 19-7, 12 games over .500. Since the hot start, they've gone 25-38, 13 games under (under .400). They need to improve considerably over what they did the last two months just to play .500 ball. They are 21-10 against the West this year, and 41 of their last 73 games are against that putrid division. While I don't think it's a guarantee that they go over .500, it seems pretty likely. Of course, I expect Colorado to get better as the season goes along which could cut into their wins, and I think the Dodgers are going to hang in there as well.

Jeter will probably pass Theriot this year in a couple weeks. They've been trending opposite directions for a while now. If I include salary, I have to take Theriot. Jeter's probably an 800 OPS type of player at this point with terrible defense. I'd rather save the 21 million and use it somewhere else. You could use it on a SS in the next offseason or two to replace Theriot if he's slumped, or you could use it on an ace. If I don't include salary, it's not even a question. Jeter is quite a bit better than Theriot, and will continue to be.

As has been pointed out, there's not enough roster spots for that to happen. There aren't enough roster spots for 5 OF? Who are you dropping from the squad to make room? I know you were one of the big proponents of 2 backup middle infielders. I'm not the one making the deal, nor am I aware of who has been talked about as trade bait. I was just responding to the assertion that there aren't enough roster spots for 5 OF. I don't know what you mean about being a big proponent for 2 backup middle infielders, but I have mentioned in the past that I'd doubt the Cubs would go without a backup SS. I am a big proponent of doing away with the 12-man pitching staff. I just can't see the 12 man staff going away, and it's not because of Lou Piniella. Having at least 12 pitchers is one of the most universally agreed baseball decisions right now. The Angels are the only team in the league who get away with having 11, and that's because they lead the league in starters innings right now. I can't see any GM in baseball taking over the Cubs and carrying 11 pitchers. So realistically, there aren't enough spots for 5 OF, unless you count Ward as a backup OF.

As has been pointed out, there's not enough roster spots for that to happen. There aren't enough roster spots for 5 OF? Who are you dropping from the squad to make room? I know you were one of the big proponents of 2 backup middle infielders.

You wouldn't be able to keep both Edmonds and Johnson. You'd have to either trade or release one of them. Why? Soriano, Fukudome, and Bradley would all need some time off,and Johnson could play the corners while Edmonds backs up in center. You only have 5 bench spots. 1 of those go to the backup catcher. 2 more go to middle infielders. So that only leaves 2 spots left for any corner infielders/outfielders. Ward takes one of those spots, so the other spot can only go to 1 of Edmonds/Johnson.

You wouldn't be able to keep both Edmonds and Johnson. You'd have to either trade or release one of them.

One of those is a really cheap deal. One is fairly expensive. What would you offer? My offer would probably be closer to the second, although I think the 2nd deal is too much talent to give up. You just implied that Pie, Atkins, and Veal=Hill, Ceda, Cedeno and Colvin when the 2nd deal has probably close to double the value of the first deal. They aren't comparable at all. This is just my opinion, but I figure Beane is going to want either Pie or Hill. He's probably going to want at least one, and possibly 2 pitchers in the deal. Do I think Atkins/Veal=Ceda, Cedeno and Colvin? Kinda. Apart from the centerpiece players (Pie/Hill), I'm not all that concerned about giving any of the other guys up. Colvin at best is Mark Kotsay. Ceda is a good prospect, but didn't we just draft a college reliever? Wouldn't that make Ceda somewhat expendable? Cedeno is filler. Veal and Atkins are P prospects. I don't sweat giving up either, because half our rotation is signed fairly long term and the other half is Gallagher and Marshall. As far as what to do about a backup SS without Cedeno, those guys are easily found prior to the waiver deadline. I can understand what you mean about how it would have a similar impact on the Cubs. I'm looking at their potential value to the A's: I just look at the deal this way: Pie>Colvin (Somewhat similar type players, Pie is further along and has more history of success). Cedeno>Atkins (Cedeno has a use on a major league team, and has a small chance of starter upside. Atkins is basically a non-prospect that could turn into a #4-#5 in a couple years if a major league team gives him enough of a chance). Ceda=Veal. They are both pitching prospects who have question marks. Veal has more upside being a starter, but has less of a chance making it with his control. Ceda could be a dominant closer, but also has control issues. These two have been ranked right next to each other in most prospect rankings, and I don't think their performance so far this season has changed that. So the deal is pretty comparable if you look 3 for 3. Deal 1 is probably slightly preferred by the A's because teams tend to like deals with better centerpieces and worse supporting pieces rather than the other way around. But when you add Hill in to deal 2, that changes everything. As the centerpiece of deal 2, that makes deal 2 quite a bit better than deal 1 could ever be. I agree with Rawaction. If they could substitute Marshall for Hill, then I'd do the deal. If they want Pie instead of Colvin, I'd then exchange Cedeno for Murton and make the deal Marshall, Pie, Ceda, Murton.

One of those is a really cheap deal. One is fairly expensive. What would you offer? My offer would probably be closer to the second, although I think the 2nd deal is too much talent to give up. You just implied that Pie, Atkins, and Veal=Hill, Ceda, Cedeno and Colvin when the 2nd deal has probably close to double the value of the first deal. They aren't comparable at all.

Bedard's still been able to make 2 more starts than Harden has so far this year. I'm not particularly interested in Bedard between the injury history (this would hardly be the first time he's broken down) and all the whispers coming out of Seattle this year. He seems to be at the center of all the dysfunction there. There have been way too many sources who says that he does whatever he wants and comes out of the game whenever he wants. Plus, he's been absolutely awful at being efficient with his pitch count lately.

So is Colvin a small diamond or coal? Too early to tell. His K percentage and BB percentage are getting much better lately. 2007 K percentage: 20.5% 2008 April through May 15th K percentage: 28.9% 2008 May 16th through present K percentage: 11.96% 2007 BB percentage: 3.05% 2008 April through May 15th BB percentage: 7.54% 2008 May 16th through present BB percentage: 10.87% Unfortuantely, at the same time his batting average is way down this year, and the loss of all those singles is really killing his slugging (his ISOP is also down a little bit, but the batting average being down is the bigger cause of the really bad numbers). So he was actually more productive last year, but his peripherals are a lot better these last couple months. It's obvious the Cubs are working with him quite a bit to make him more comfortable deeper in counts. Now when he gets more comfortable, will the batting average go back up a ways? Next year maybe? It's really hard to tell. All we know for sure right now is that he has shown the ability to hit for average last year. He has shown the ability to have a good K/BB percentage over the last couple months. What he hasn't done yet is put it together, and while I'm willing to give him a year or two before I write him off due to his adjustments, he can't be an exciting guy until he starts to put it together.

Why? Despite the claim, there's no personal attack is abuck's message (unless it was subsequently edited and I missed something good). I figured abuck's suggestion that the other guy go to Desipio would get it done except that's not what happened. We don't often get along, but if it means anything, IMO you were only pointing out that Rothschild couldn't help Hill and it appears that someone else "lower" in the organization has been able to. That's a valid point -- it doesn't mean Larry is always going to be horrible, but in Rich's case, it appears Larry didn't have the answers (and he probably should have). The point is though that lower in the organization does not always mean inferior. While every level has to be worried about mechanics to some degree, at the major league level it can take a backseat and becomes more about how to make the pitcher be most effective to the team he's facing that day. You'd be better served by keeping your best pitcher mechanics experts down in the minors where they can help a multitude of pitchers. To achieve the best results, you'd want that guy not tied down to any one team. In the Cubs case, they have hired an excellent minor league pitching coordinator. Besides...they were always going to let Hill have a month or two of trying to get his old delivery back before they then tried to change him to something completely different. For some reason, Hill still could not find his old delivery, so they took the risk of teaching him something new and it has worked well so far.

First off, I doubt that the difference between a major league pitching coach and a minor league pitching coordinator's salary is anywhere near that high. They're both important but somewhat expendable. I bet Rothschild makes more, but only because he's in the spotlight more. In many ways, the job that Riggins does is much more important. Second, it's not like Riggins is chopped liver. He's probably the best pitching coach we have in the system, and I don't think there's any problem with admitting that. He's been both a minor league and major league pitching coach before. He's been a minor league pitching coordinator for the Cardinals and Cubs for the last 13 years now. I absolutely trust him more than Rothschild, but that doesn't mean I think Rothschild is incompetent. Rothschild was trying to fix it on the fly so he could keep starting in the major leagues. Riggins has the freedom to have Hill do a completely new type of delivery and have time to keep working on it. That freedom allowed this solution to blossom.