CubColtPacer

It's really strange with Lou on Marmol. He gives him proper rest so that he doesn't throw too many 3 days in a row, doesn't throw 2 innings the day after he threw 2 innings, etc. He's very concerned about that, but he isn't concerned about his overall pace of innings for the season. I don't know. Maybe pitchers aren't that big of risk for problems throwing 100-110 innings if they're properly spaced out. It's hard to say because we've had so few cases like that. Usually managers either hold relievers to 80-85 innings, or throw them 4+ days in a row regularly and run them into the ground.

Unless the Cubs build up about a 15 run lead here, my guess is that Marmol would go back in. It's too bad, but I don't see much way that it doesn't happen.

Not to mention only 8 baserunners in 6 innings of work, along with only 1 extra base hit given up, and that was a double.

His OPS has risen by over 200 points in the last 5 days (updated through the end of the 4th tonight). If you discount pinch-hitting appearances, he's gotten a hit in 17 out of the last 18 games he's started. The last 4, he has 2 hits or more, and the last 3 he's had home runs in. Basically, this is Soriano. The roller coaster will continue to ride all season, and you never quite know if he's going to end up with very good production or just average.

Well, he did give you the walk you wanted :D. Unfortunately, I've noticed a really disturbing trend with Colvin that I hope when I finally break down and review all the game logs becomes just my perception and not reality. My perception though is that Colvin really is terrible in games he walks in. He either hits or he walks. He doesn't seem to be able to do both in the same game. I believe it was true last year (in the rare times he did walk, but of course he hit a lot more last year) and I'm almost certain it has been true this year.

No, that's exactly the point. You said that was a possible argument, and I showed that it is a ridiculous argument. There is no manipulation in showing that Cedeno's minor league career was immensely more impressive than Fontenot's. You've done nothing to show that there are logical arguments for the things I listed. How about this: However much Cedeno's minor league numbers show he's a better prospect, Fontenot's minor and major league numbers show that he's more likely to produce this year, which is why he was projected to have better stats than Cedeno by most of the projection systems. As others have mentioned, PECOTA leads the way in that, but is joined by Bill James, Tango, and ZIPS. Add to that Fontenot has been rather unlucky with his balls put into play so far (a 27.7% LD percentage translating into a .304 BABIP) and Cedeno has been rather lucky (a 19.6% LD percentage, and he has a .400 BABIP) and that their difference in their stats is only 2-3 bloops falling for Fontenot or a couple ones caught for Cedeno. Plus if you're arguing over the last couple of weeks, you also have to add in that Fontenot is red hot while Cedeno is scuffling. I believe they are similar options hitting wise now over the course of the season thanks to Cedeno's improved approach (with Cedeno being the better overall player due to his capable defense at short) but if you're going to play one at second as part of a double switch, going with the hot hand or the left/right matchups is the way to go. Right now, that's been Fontenot quite a bit, and he probably has matched Cedeno so far this season in hitting the ball. It's just that a few more of Cedeno's have fallen in.

Said the same thing about Kendall And it was true. Kendall was quite a bit better in Chicago than in Oakland. In fact, his numbers in Chicago were a little above average for catchers last year, but it didn't justify both 1) his arm and 2) the fact that he was keeping Soto down.

I agree completely (other then the throwing Marquis off a bridge comment :D). Hill probably is at least close to being one of the Cubs 5 starters right now (he probably is on productivity, probably won't be on how deep he can get into a ballgame considering every team for a while is going to try to wait him out). I'd rather keep throwing him in AAA, let it get worked out, become the #2 starter again, and then come up. Pitching him in the majors right now is probably going to result in some more short starts, and that's going to cause a longer adjustment period for him. That doesn't preclude you from replacing Marquis though, who definitely is not one of the top 5 starters in the Cubs organization right now.

Marquis looks like a completely different pitcher right now than even his inconsistent self last year. His sinker hasn't worked for more than a batter or two at a time, which is completely different from last year. Yes, he probably still is and can put up 5th starter numbers, but the Jason Marquis we're seeing on the mound right now is most definitely not the best option for the starting staff. Before, there was a question. Right now, there's none, but I just don't know what they will be able to do about it.

Yes, it does.

Is that Tom Goodwin's little brother? No, but he is cousins with both Walter Payton and Gary Payton. Curtis did well for himself getting over 1000 at-bats in the major leagues considering he had a career .609 OPS.

Since April 27th: Fontenot: .444/.643/.722 Cedeno>Fontenot Both at bat and in the field. The difference between them so far this year is approximately 2 singles, and Fontenot was projected for better numbers before the season. Not to mention, as has been pointed out, the Padres pitcher currently in is much better against right-handers than left-handers.

Since April 27th: Fontenot: .444/.643/.722

Doesn't matter. He's not even close to the best kicker in the NFL now and never should have been close to the highest paid. Whether that lasts a week or a season is inconsequential. It's irresponsible cap management and bad business. For a team that talks about prioritizing contracts and paying their own, it's absurd that they reward a mediocre kicker who skipped voluntary workouts with an inflated contract while they have meaningful players in need of deals. He most certainly is close to the best kicker in the NFL. Maybe our coverage unit is just that good but his kickoffs haven't really hurt us and his FG kicking has been excellent. Among the best in the league over the last two years. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst2006.php Where Gould is involved, our kicking game has been pretty much undeniably excellent over the last two seasons. FO measures FG efficiency/effectiveness based on the percentage of attempts that are successful from that distance and adjusted for field and weather conditions. If you want to argue about Gould's contract in terms of an opportunity cost with respect to other needs, that's fine. Saying he's mediocre simply isn't valid. Personally I think the whole "highest paid in the leauge" angle is being overblown in light of an ever increasing salary cap and the fact that he's pretty damn good. Yup, he was helped by a little bit of down year in kicking overall last year. Taking a quick look at the numbers, it looks like he finished 3rd in field goal effectiveness both years.

He was only among the most accurate in 2006, and the only reason his percentage is high is because he never even attempts long ones. He's a high percentage kicker on chip shots and extra points. That's dime a dozen stuff right there. Gould doesn't kick a lot of chip shots (35 yards and less). He's way down the list in the 30 yards or less categories. He's 24 out of 28 the last 2 years on kicks between 40 and 49 yards (12 out of 14 each year). That's the most attempts in the entire league from that distance. Gould connected at a 85.7% rate from that distance each of those years, while league average was only 74.2 in 2007 (I didn't take time to calculate league average for 2006). And you should be happy he doesn't kick a lot from 50+. Those kicks are really bad bets, and shouldn't be used for anything but buzzer beating situations or any situation where you absolutely need a field goal to win or tie.

Definitely Kaz Matsui. He was going to get a 3 year deal at the position the Cubs have the most players at, and he's worse relative to average than Marquis is at his position. His contract is also higher relative to other second baseman, while Marquis's contract is below average for a starting pitcher. Neifi was just designed to be a backup and was a good defender at the hardest position on the field to cover. Womack, Wilson, and Podsednik were just supposed to be fill-ins. Burnitz signed a 1 year deal at average salary, and was around an average right fielder. Jones had a better history of production than Matsui and Marquis, and honestly the Cubs probably got the 12 million dollars in production they paid for him. Edmonds would be tops if he had a contract that the Cubs couldn't get rid of quickly, but since he does, the risk becomes a lot less. Rusch was actually a somewhat defensible move that went horribly wrong (the re-signing). It still likely was bad, but the chance of success was better than some of the other players on this list. Baker was bad, but it wasn't immediately obvious to most people, so that makes it less dumb then some of the other names on this list.

I have to think Marquis will get 1 more start after this one at the very least. If they had wanted to bring Hill up this week, they wouldn't be starting Gallagher on Friday. Marshall isn't fully ready quite yet from stretching out. Lieber just got demoted, so Lou isn't likely to throw him in there in place of Marquis. So I think Marquis will start today and Sunday. If Gallagher and Hill pitch well and Marquis pitches poorly, he might be gone. If Marquis pitches ok, and Gallagher pitches ok, I think Gallagher will be the one taken out when Hill comes back.

I'm confused as to how his OBP is .500 even though he has 3 PA's. One was the home run, what were the other 2? I know sac bunts go against your OBP, but the 3rd at-bat must have been something that didn't hurt or help his OBP. I'm sure it's something very simple that I'm missing. Sac bunts do not count against your OBP, but sacrifice flies do. So Johnson has had 1 sac bunt, 1 sac fly, and a home run against Estes.

I've never hated Edmonds, but I don't think he has much left in the tank, so I don't want him near this team. Hopefully he either impresses or bombs out quickly if he comes here though.

of course you could always invest in improving the offense itself, so it doesn't have to settle for so many FG's. This deal sucks. Kickers are like MLB relievers...very volatile. That doesn't make much of a dent in the offensive budget though, and now you've got another potential hole. Gould obviously doesn't deserve to be the highest paid kicker in football. That won't last long though, just like Josh Brown's reign at the top lasted for a month or 2. In 2 years, he may no longer be in the top 5 in contracts. At the same time, the kickoff thing is a big problem. That may be the reason why this turns out to be a poor deal, even with the Bears really needing him for field goals. I'll have to give that one more thought.

I believe very, very strongly on if you feel a kicker is reliable, you should pay him top dollar. The difference between a top kicker and an also ran is only between 2-3 million dollars. If you put that 2.5 million somewhere else, the upgrade you could get at another position is simply not worth the likely downgrade at kicker, because for most positions 2.5 million doesn't buy you very much. As the cap continues to grow over the next 5 years, that 3 million becomes less and less important. Gould has been one of the most accurate kickers in the league the last couple of years, the Bears offense is right in that range where they'll end up using him a good amount. It's a smart investment overall.

I love seeing a line of 1.000/.500/4.000. It's such a crazy line caused by the tiny sample size. I'm not sure if you're going to see the OBP and slugging more apart than that. It's technically possible, but it would definitely be rare.

Credit should go a little bit all around here. Perry...for working with some of the players and getting them to be more patient. Lou..for hiring Perry, and emphasizing OBP from day 1 Hendry..for adding hitters like DeRosa and Fukudome to balance out some of the Soriano's on the squad.

Unless they're trying to blow out Fox's arm once again, they won't pitch him after he threw 45 pitches yesterday. My guess is that he's unavailable until Wednesday or Thursday. Eyre for 1, Wuertz for 1 sounds good though.

PECOTA projects fontenot to be more productive than cedeno offensively. Really? Damn. Are you sure it wasn't actually just Bill Pecota going bonkers? Well, still, it flies in the face of Lou's "playing the hot hand" BS. Outside of like 2 games, Cedeno easily has had the much "hotter hand." Since April 27th: Fontenot: .444/.643/.722 Cedeno: .250/.368/.312 Fontenot has had 24 plate appearances this month, and 9 of those went for walks. Both have been red hot at times, and ice cold at others. Fontenot went 2 for 15 in the middle of April, which really drug down his numbers. Cedeno is 1 for his last 11 right now, with no walks during that stretch. Their overall number of at-bats is also so low that the difference between them so far this season is not all that much. In fact, it's pretty much two singles. It certainly hasn't been enough to say that one has been a lot hotter than the other.