CubColtPacer

Baylor and Colorado in OT. Baylor could slide right from should be in to squarely on the bubble if they can't complete their comeback and win this one.

I don't recall reading anything that says Hendry offered or MacPhail requested. Everything I've seen to this point is speculation as to the names involved. Who point those names in there, I don't know. Fair enough. My point is this though, if Hendry feels that he has put his best foot forward and MacPhail is the one jerking him around, then walk away. If Hendry is jerking around MacPhail, then he needs to pull his head out and get on with it. I'm in agreement. I'm no Hendry apologist, I just don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that he's guilty of a lot of the accusations that have been flying around. If there is hard evidence that he's offering way too much or that MacPhail is trying to screw him and he doesn't have the sense to walk away, so be it. I haven't seen it yet. Bottom line is that Hendry has to know that the reporters are all over his players getting their opinions on Roberts and the potential trade. He also has to see that his team is 5-10 in the spring so far. Are those two things connected? I don't know. But I know that if I were the GM and I saw the players' (especially DeRo's) reactions to these questions, and saw how my team was performing, I would do something as soon as possible to put that to rest. Either make the trade, or come out publicly and say we are not pursuing Roberts anymore. Considering the starters have left several of these games with a lead, I really doubt that the Roberts trade is causing the Cubs minor leaguers and NRI's to be terrible and lose games. And I haven't seen a ton of interviews dealing with Roberts with the Cubs players. There have been a few, but not too many. Besides, most of the starters have been hitting the ball well in ST. Where's the distraction?

They may have been lightly dicussing this for 3 months, but there really haven't been firm negotiations for nearly that long. Bruce said that that after the initial discussions, the Orioles wanted to wait until after the Bedard trade was done, so that tabled the discussions for quite a while. Even when the discussions have continued now from media reports they have been somewhat sporadic, and there have been numerous reports that the delay has been largely based on that the Orioles want to do some further scouting of the Cubs minor leagues before coming to a decision. Now, I would agree that the discussions should be tabled for a while if we hit Opening Day with no deal. I just don't really care if there's a small distraction over the team in Spring Training.

Huh, Gordon still makes the same mistakes he did in high school and really didn't show any improvement under Sampson and has been passed on many people's draft boards by Rose and Bayliss. Huh. Huh, Sampson lasted all of a year and a half, but really it was just illini fans bitching about nothing, huh. how about gordon's the best player in the big ten and deserves to be first team and poy? as much as i hate the kid, i cannot player hate. He may be the best talent, but D.J. was the best (most productive at least) player in the league this year and was deserving of the award. He was extremely efficient and if he actually had guards that got him the ball consistently, they would have been even better. To be fair, he was partially extrememly efficient because they didn't get him the ball that much. D.J.'s not a great post up player. He'll make a good second post person in the NBA. He can rebound well, he shoots the jumper well. Playing back to the basket is not his game, and passing out of doubleteams isn't either. It usually resulted in bad things for IU when they tried to run the offense through him. At the same time, he's unbelievably valuable to have on the floor.

Couldn't it be argued that Gordon shoots from so deep because he struggles to get enough space to shoot the three? Wouldn't that be more of a problem in the NBA where most of the defenders are bigger? It could, although I argue that space for 3 pointers is more about your teammates. 3 pointers in the NBA typically come off 3 things: 1) A screen, either with the screen inside and the player runs out for the catch and the quick shot, or the ball screen on the outside to free the player up for a 3. 2) Transition 3 3) doubling of the inside player causes people to be open for a 3. Gordon gets none of those advantages. There is nobody that can set a screen well that is any type of offensive threat, so both defenders go to Gordon. Even if White sets a screen, which is not his strong suit, both defenders go to Gordon anyway and they switch off to White, which leaves the power forward wide open. IU ran a decent amount of this early in the season and then threw it to the open power forward, who promptly fumbled it out of bounds. IU's offense doesn't use any transition 3's, and nobody ever comes off of Gordon to be the doubleteam on White. That's why Gordon has to shoot from 5 feet behind the line all the time, and I don't think that will be the case in the NBA. Well in the NBA he will get a lot more transition threes. He is likely to be picked high enough to a team though, that will not have a post player who warrants a double team. I don't think his percentages will jump at all in the NBA. They rarely do. With the comment about his percentage rising, that was more about the injury. His 3 point percentage has plummeted since he re-hurt his wrist a month ago. He's 10 for his last 50 after being at 41.1 percent on February 10th.

Couldn't it be argued that Gordon shoots from so deep because he struggles to get enough space to shoot the three? Wouldn't that be more of a problem in the NBA where most of the defenders are bigger? It could, although I argue that space for 3 pointers is more about your teammates. 3 pointers in the NBA typically come off 3 things: 1) A screen, either with the screen inside and the player runs out for the catch and the quick shot, or the ball screen on the outside to free the player up for a 3. 2) Transition 3 3) doubling of the inside player causes people to be open for a 3. Gordon gets none of those advantages. There is nobody that can set a screen well that is any type of offensive threat, so both defenders go to Gordon. Even if White sets a screen, which is not his strong suit, both defenders go to Gordon anyway and they switch off to White, which leaves the power forward wide open. IU ran a decent amount of this early in the season and then threw it to the open power forward, who promptly fumbled it out of bounds. IU's offense doesn't use any transition 3's, and nobody ever comes off of Gordon to be the doubleteam on White. That's why Gordon has to shoot from 5 feet behind the line all the time, and I don't think that will be the case in the NBA.

The biggest difference I see in their stats this year is that Gordon gets to the foul line a lot more, which ends up making him a more efficient scorer (1.62 points per shot to 1.29 for Mayo). Mayo has slightly higher assist and rebound numbers. Their turnovers are identical. I love Gordon's defensive game most of the time, so I would have a hard time definitely taking Mayo over him in that regard. Mayo has a better 3 point shooting percentage, but Gordon's injury and the fact that Gordon shoots most of his shots at beyond NBA range already is part of the reason for that difference. Gordon's percentage is likely to even maybe go up slightly in the NBA, while Mayo's will certainly go down. It's a close call. I'd probably take Gordon because some of the things that have plagued him at the college game won't be a problem in the NBA. Almost half his turnovers are traveling calls where he shuffles his feet before he takes a step. It isn't a very big traveling call, and it isn't called often in the NBA. I think both will be better off going to a town in which they aren't the superstar though. Both of them struggle against doubleteams and will have much less of turnover problems if they draw less attention from the defense. I do doubt Gordon's height a little bit, but I think he could survive in the NBA defensively because of his weight. 215 pounds is big enough that he won't get pushed around by other shooting guards, although they will be able to shoot over him.

I'm not happy with the way Indiana's playing as a team right now, but I do think the bracket lines up well for them right now. They just beat Minnesota by 14 points last week even during the middle of their slump. I'm not saying Minnesota doesn't have a pretty decent chance of winning that game, they do. I'd just rather play them than play Illinois again. Then in the semifinals, it's probably Purdue, and IU matches up much better with Purdue then either Wisconsin or Michigan State. That would be a really fun rematch. Then who knows who they would face in a possible final game. Mark me down for them losing on Saturday, but I think they have a much better chance of going to the final or winning the tournament then they would have if they were on the other side of the bracket.

This is the absolute worse scenario. Move Soriano out of the 1 spot, where there is at least some evidence that he's better at and he's comfortable. The only reason you would think about doing that is to move him to a middle of the order slot where his home runs might do more damage. To move him to 2 though? That would basically be the worst of both worlds. He would be a part of the lineup that both doesn't fit his game and he doesn't feel comfortable with. It simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen? he won't be better, he'll just get to bat more since he's higher up in the lineup. this isn't difficult. He doesn't get to bat more if he's batting 9th rather than 6th. 6th should be better than 9th, but it's not according to the analyzer. That's why I'm complaining about it. 9th should be the absolute worst spot to bat him in that scenario where the other 8 players are the same, but the analyzer doesn't think that's the case. Read this sentence of mine again..I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying: The analyzer says that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. Now tell me how getting the OBP guy less plate appearances by being in the 9 spot scores a full run more per game than getting him more plate appearances.

And it's not like many of them have significant splits. Lee had a 1.015 OPS against left-handers last year. Ramirez had a 1.220. Theriot was at .797. DeRosa and Soriano typically are better against left-handers than right-handers, but they weren't last year. If they can find a platoon partner for Pie, there is absolutely no reason for them to struggle against left-handers. By all reason, they should hit left-handers the hardest.

Are you referencing Spring Training or during the season? I don't remember anybody complaining about the power during Spring Training, and then yes, most of the first half people were waiting for him to get the power stroke going. Your use of never is incorrect as his power returned in the second half of the year.

Who knows if Lou is still mad at Fox though. Fox got yanked out of the game immediately after one of his at-bats last August and never got another at-bat for the rest of the season. I'm not sure that he is going to get many chances with the team. Why, what happened to set Lou off? No one knows for sure, but the speculation was that Fox wasn't being as patient as Lou liked. Lou started him one day against the Giants. Fox saw a total of 5 pitches in 3 at-bats. After the end of the 3rd at-bat, Lou was visibly upset and pulled him from the game. The next day, it was reported he would be sent back to the minors, and he ended up not getting back in a game in the majors the rest of the year.

Who knows if Lou is still mad at Fox though. Fox got yanked out of the game immediately after one of his at-bats last August and never got another at-bat for the rest of the season. I'm not sure that he is going to get many chances with the team.

No real shockers there. Mateo and Samardzija have to go down to get their arm stretched out to be able to start. Fox has no spot on the team, and most of the other players were filler anyway who were there just to add innings anyway (with the possible exception of Campusano).

And what have those three done since the trade though? Pinto has been somewhat decent, the other two, not so much. Actually Pinto, the one that's done nothing. Mitre and Nolasco both have been alright when healthy. Both have already done at least as much as Pierre, when you combine them. Both have about 4 years under Marlins control to still do something. As far as future value, I'd take Donaldson over all 3 of them. At the same time, that trade I think perfectly symbolized Henry's biggest strength and some of his biggest flaws. He targets a scrappy player that is fast and has a good average. He recognizes which pitchers in his system are rated higher than they should be, but he fails to use that perceived value to get a good player. Most of Hendry's bad moves are not that staying pat would be a better option, but more that he probably should have been able to find a much better move for the value in his system. I do question the perceived value of players sometime, and Mizzou makes a good point up there. At the same time, it has been shown that Pierre has high value from several G.M.s (higher than he deserves, and his recent contract proves that) so if Hendry was able to trade for him the Florida G.M. must have put some pretty decent value on those pitchers. In this case, the pitchers perceived value was higher than their actual value, and they were used to trade for another guy whose perceived value was higher than his actual value.

You think? I figure Soto will produce more than Barrett/Kendall did last year. You gotta figure Pie/Fukudome will be more productive than Jones/Floyd were for us last year as well. This is definitely a better lineup than last year, IMO. In addition, you really would think at least 1, if not 2 or all 3 of Lee, Ramirez, Soriano will have better years than last year. last year at rf, we got a line of .298/.375/.419, which is about what we'd expect from fukudome, except a little higher SLG. last year at cf, we got a line of .254/.305/.404, and while i'd like to think felix pie could outproduce that, there's a very good chance he'll also match that or do worse. soto should put up better numbers offensively as the catcher this season, i'll grant you that. i don't expect lee or soriano to improve on last years numbers, i expect them to decline a little bit or stay the same. ramirez should improve, but he's also a big injury risk. so yeah, i don't think we've improved all that much on offense, and i'd expect us to be league average again. I'd expect us to be a little improved and a little above league average. Our two biggest spots for improvement are C and SS. C- .239/.304/.369. My expectation is that the catching tandem this year can do about 50 points better than that (Soto with a 750 catching 3/4 of the days, Blanco with a 650 catching 1/4) SS-.254/.309/.331. As bad as the position is for the Cubs, they likely will put up better combined numbers than that. Say a 30-40 point improvement over last year (which would put it right about what Theriot put up over a full season last year). There aren't really any positions you can see the numbers from last year and really say that it's going to go down. Of course, the biggest thing is going to be the play of Fukudome, Soto, and Pie. If 1 or 2 of them bust out (Fukudome with an 850+ OPS, Pie with a 750+, Soto with a 800+), or if Cedeno gets the job and he busts out (725+) there could be more improvement then that.

And you've made a lot of good points on this page. I like his ability to evaluate talent. There's a reason he was good at being a scouting director. Coveting Barrett and then flipping him right before he fell off a cliff is a good example. Ramirez and Lee have both developed further as Cubs. For the most part, he is just not going to trade away talent. All the minor leaguers that went to other organizations busted. Where Hendry is not good, however, is 1) staying away from his love of versatile, scrappy players and 2) understanding trade value and contracts. Minor leaguers who Hendry correctly realizes will bust likely still had higher trade value than Hendry traded them for. He just still doesn't quite understand how to work the system to his full advantage. I wouldn't call Burnitz a bust. He wasn't what the Cubs needed, sure. But he was a mediocre outfielder getting paid mediocre money. If the Cubs had made a major upgrade somewhere else, nobody would be worried about Burnitz. But they didn't, and so Burnitz gets unfairly labeled a bust. Agreed, and that references my comments above. Hendry's ability to find DeRosa was great, and shows his ability to find talent in unlikely places. His love of players like Theriot, and his love of DeRosa's versatility has led to the Roberts speculation rather than possible SS speculation, which becomes his mistake. The Hernandez thing is ridiculous and both fanbases are saying so. Several of the reports lately have said that the Cubs are only willing to take on Payton if the Orioles will take Marquis. I don't think there's much factual evidence of a mistake here. I don't necessarily agree with the EPatt decision, but sometimes you have to cut your losses. Should Harvey stay a hitter because practice makes perfect, and not switch to the mound? If they decide that his defense was bad enough that his only future was as a good hitting utility player and that no amount of practice would make it better, then they made the right decision. I haven't seen him enough nor am I skilled enough to make that determination. I can say that IMO he probably isn't going to get much better defensively than he is now. IMO if you haven't become at least competent at second after several years of playing there, another year or two of practice isn't going to really help matters. I just don't know if his level of defense is really bad enough to justify moving him off the position or not.

The Cubs saved 2 million dollars even after factoring in Burnitz's salary, and as mediocre as Burnitz was the Cubs still upgraded quite a bit in RF from what Sammy was like that year. Burnitz was 27 points better in OBP, 59 points better in SLG, and played better defense. That ended up being a good deal for the Cubs. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. The Cubs devalued Sosa to nothing more than a couple of minor league throw ins while picking up most of his salary to play for someone else. It didn't have to become public knowledge that Sosa decided to leave a few innings early. Teams would have been much more interested in Sosa if the bad rep wasn't following him around at the end of that year. I disagree that the reputation had much to do with it at all. It's as Bruce said with the Marquis situation. People in other organizations don't really care. If they feel a player who is talented can help the club, they'll make the trade He moves to a new club, and it's forgotten within 2 weeks. Unless there's something major that happens, there's very little that you can do to devalue a player in the media. Besides, the Sosa situation had died down nationally by the time he was traded. The camera incident was found out on the 7th of October. He wasn't traded until February 2nd. The negative media attention made no impact on what other teams would offer IMO. It may have made a difference on if Hendry was desperate to move him, but he waited long enough to see all the offers, and then he took the best offer. If clubs really thought that Sosa had something left in the tank, they wouldn't have passed him up just because of 1 incident that kept the nations attention for a week and then they moved on. History has proven that the best offer was better than keeping him.

The Cubs saved 2 million dollars even after factoring in Burnitz's salary, and as mediocre as Burnitz was the Cubs still upgraded quite a bit in RF from what Sammy was like that year. Burnitz was 27 points better in OBP, 59 points better in SLG, and played better defense. That ended up being a good deal for the Cubs.

Outside of Juan Pierre, I can't think of one trade that Hendry has made in which he got ripped off. And looking back out at it, it wasn't really a ripped off. And before people say what about Dontrelle Willis, I say Matt Clement was better with the Cubs then Willis was with the Marlins. So that wasn't really a ripped off. So, I don't get what Hendry gets a knocked for being ripped off in trades, when in reality, Hendry has made more good trades (even if they don't turned out as well as expected, ie Nomar) then bad trades. Now FA, that's a different story. Maddux for Izturis, although that was more of a case of wasted trade value then getting ripped off (since Maddux wasn't going to help the Cubs anyway before going into free agency). Trachsel for Moore, Cherry, and Renshaw. My guess is this trade simply won't matter in 3 years. I would agree with you though that if you lined up the 10 best players the Cubs have traded for and the 10 best players the Cubs have traded away during the Hendry era (as their careers have gone since the trade) the Cubs have come out way ahead, even when you get beyond Lee and Ramirez.

How long ago was this conversation? Lou's been in Arizona the whole last 3 weeks, and Jim probably has been as well. Before that, I don't know of any reason they would have had to go down to Florida together after the winter meetings, and that was 3 full months ago. Edit: saw your reply.

I honestly don't understand how somebody like Trent Green gets a 3 year, 9 million dollar deal. He's going to be 38, and all the teams should have refused to sign him for his own personal safety with the head injuries, let alone the ability to play football at a high level.

Cedeno or Cintron would be the extra person inserted into the batting order to spell Aramis, but DeRosa would probably be the one playing 3rd on those days.

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen? Perhap b/c typically a team's best hitters are at the top of the order, so if 9th hitter gets on base, more likely to be driven in... but in the scenario we plugged in the other 8 hitters were the exact same.