CubColtPacer

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.

Yes. She has explained as much in the past. Okay, you want it then you have it. I have pretty much kept this off the board but here it goes. And no I expect no one to believe me but you go ahead and ask Bruce Miles if I am lying and then you can get back to me. For the past 8 seasons prior to the one, I was indeed employed in the front office of the Chicago Cubs. I left of my own choosing partly to get out before a new owner comes in and sweeps the place clean and partly to be closer to my family as my parents are getting up there in age and the price of gas made commuting into the city was costing me more that it was worth. One of my two direct bosses is no longer with the club and left a year before I did. I suspected he left because he knew the Tribune was going to sell well before it was ever announced. The location of my office in the ballpark allowed me direct access most of the baseball braintrust on site whom I had contact with on a daily basis. In fact, my boss was interim GM from 2000 - 2002 until he handed it over to Jim Hendry. It's why I know the business side of this game as well as I do and it's why I have a great understanding of the rules, etc of this game. It's why maybe I get a bit perturbed when my knowledge of these areas is challenged by the people on this board even though I never came clean before now but that really shouldn't matter. I couldn't say anything for some time and didn't even want to bother until now but I am tired of the piling on and not being able to say one word back without being told I am a complete idiot or getting my hand slapped for responding. Regardless of my background, it shouldn't be assumed that because I am a female and I am not part of the little clique on this board that I know nothing about baseball. If it seems like I have met or know some of these guys, well guess what, this should explain that I have. Not all of the players but many...and because of my position, I always met all of the coaching staff. So fire away boys, I think it's time for me to take another break from the action. I still call BS, and it has nothing to do with you being female (which I didn't even recall at first). Over her credentials? They've been confirmed by Bruce at least once on this board and I think multiple times. I can understand the not wanting to watch the Cubs anymore but still being a sports fan after spending so much time close to the players. Ever worked in a bad restaurant/normal fast food place for a while? You've seen up close what they do, and you don't want to eat there anymore, even though you also know that people come through everyday and don't get sick. At the same time, you're still willing to eat at other restaurants/fast food places, even though your head acknowledges that the same sorts of things are probably happening there as well. That's basically what I think is probably happening here, and it's perfectly normal.

Ok...we've got a little bit of info on this from Cubs.com The he refers to Marshall at the beginning. I believe the Gallagher comment is a misprint on the name because we also have this: So it looks like it's Tuesday-Dempster Wednesday-Zambrano Thursday-Lilly Friday-Marquis Saturday-Marshall Sunday-Dempster

I doubt they'll send Dempster and Zambrano to the hill on 3 days rest this early in the season. I think your computer wanted to forget Marquis existed Fred :D , as does both ESPN.com and Cubs.com's probable starters. He or Gallagher will have to pitch sometime next week.

Didn't we tag him last year when we faced him? I thought we did. It was 2 years ago, and yes we did. 9 runs in 2 1/3 innings. The only 4 Cubs in the starting lineup that are on the roster today: Ramirez, Murton, Cedeno, Blanco. Ramirez was 2-2 against him that day, Murton 0-1 with a walk, Cedeno 0-2, and Blanco 1-2.

The one thing I was pleasantly surprised about: I was curious to see if Sabathia had any experience against Cubs hitters. And I found he hasn't had much. Only 68 at-bats against him, and 46 of those have been against either Soriano or Johnson. The Cubs have hit him to a tune of a .976 OPS so far though. It certainly doesn't mean much, but I'm really glad to see Soriano (who typically has either wonderful or terrible numbers against a pitcher) has had success against Sabathia.

Honestly, I'm not even sure the Giants are going to sell this year at the deadline. Even though they're 10 games under .500, they might also see that they are just 4 games out of a playoff spot right now. I think they're crazy to think that they can last the entire season, but with that small deficit I can definitely believe the Giants organization might think that they're right in the thick of it.

Marmol's about as extreme of a fly ball pitcher as it gets. 58.7% of balls hit against them are fly balls. That's why I'm not too worried about the home runs, as long as he can keep his control better. His HR rate at the start of the year was way too low for how many fly balls he gives up.

Lilly has been very quietly having a great stretch of games. He really has turned into that dependable #2-#3 starter again after his very tough start to the season.