CubColtPacer

I doubt the Angels would be interested in him. They want to win now, and plugging Moore in at 3rd base this year isn't likely to help them do that. He would just waste away either in their minors or possibly as a bench player.

Can you tell me who the he refers to in the second line? If it's Hendry, that is a little change of heart. Before, Hendry said he had two trades that he was looking to push through, but you could tell he wasn't optimistic about getting them both done. Now, he thinks both should go through? Hmmmm. If Pie is involved in the Roberts deal like some have speculated, the second would be a deal for a center fielder. Hopefully it's Figgins and not Byrd, although I don't think the Angels have figured out their 3rd base situation yet.

How is Theriot going to get better though? He already is given every advantage in the world by having pitches thrown right down the middle to him. If he couldn't drive that ball consistently last year, what is going to make that change? Cedeno has a clear avenue of change. He has to lay off of the pitches outside the strike zone, specifically the ones that are low and away. If he does that, he has shown in the minors and in the majors that he can hit pitches over the plate a long way, and he could hit for average if he forced pitches to come in with strikes more consistently. If Cedeno doesn't make any adjustments, you're right that they will likely be around the same type of player with Theriot probably being slightly better (although we haven't started talking about defense yet, where Theriot is weak at SS). However, Cedeno has adjustments he could make that could make him a much better hitter than Theriot. Theriot has reached about the top of what his natural skills will take him. I understand that it's more frustrating to watch Cedeno have so much talent and have so much of it be unfulfilled with silly mistakes and that it's rewarding to see Theriot play the game hard and do as much as his skill set will allow, but if we're talking just about who is the better bet to be productive next year, the great likelihood is that it would be Cedeno, not Theriot.

But he didn't and that's been proven. He wasn't a power hitter so he didn't have a good slugging percentage. He wasn't a leadoff hitter so he didn't post a high OBP. We've established he takes no pitches at all. So what in the world is your argument here? I'm saying he has a good eye at the plate. Way better than Cedeno's. And one stat can prove that. Theriot has just about the same amount of walks as strikeouts. That is very rare at the ML level. Only a handfull can do that. Besides guys like Bonds, Helton and Pujols who have 10x more Walks than Strikeouts, it seems to be that most major leaguers have like double the strikeouts. Cedeno has 5x as many strikeouts as walks, and that is an understatement. It doesn't matter if he has a good eye at the plate. He still only walks at an average rate because pitchers just throw him strike after strike because they know that Theriot will ground out most of the time. A 1 pitch weak groundout is the pitcher's best result he can possibly get, and Theriot provided plenty of that last year.

Theriot's P/PA by month: April: 3.39 May: 3.99 June: 3.48 July: 3.59 August: 3.44 September: 3.30 Theriot's numbers didn't go down because of one month. In fact, the only reason they are as high as they are is because of one month. That was the only month in which Theriot was above the team average in. Every other month he was way below. The thing is, Theriot was batting between Soriano and Lee most of the year. So when Theriot made an out on the first pitch, it wasn't very noticable because most people were concerned about the at-bats of Sori or Lee. When Theriot was patient, it was a lot more noticable. So the perception becomes that Theriot was really patient when he actually wasn't.

I would have made them pass it off to a worse free throw shooter, but I completely understand starting that early in college basketball. If not, UConn runs 35 seconds off of the clock. Your best case scenario is that you get the ball back with 55 seconds left down 6. At the same time, there's a 50 percent chance that they either 1)make a basket or 2) get the rebound. So you have to hope they don't do either, then you have to come down and make a quick basket. If it's a 2, then you have to foul anyway the next possession (40 seconds left down 4). If it's a 3, then you can maybe gamble that you get the ball back with 5-10 seconds left and can run down and make a 3, but that whole scenario is really idealistic. IU's a good 3 point shooting team. I'd much rather try to trade 3 for 2 or 3 for 1 at that point until you can get it down to 3 or 4 points, and then play defense. Both ways have a small chance of winning, but playing defense with a 35 second shot clock just takes too much time off at that point in the game. I don't understand why he called the timeout there though, and that is a pattern for coaches to call their last timeout way early even though everybody knows what they are going to do. It shouldn't have been called there.

Plus Theriot brings a lot more to the table than Cedeno. 10x better plate discipline. Umm, Theriot led the team in 1 pitch outs. If that is true than I would be completely shocked. Because everytime I saw him bat he would be taking pitches till the count was full. That might be true but I still bet his pitches per at bat was more than most on the team. Think of all the position players who were on the Cubs September roster. Theriot had the absolute worst P/PA of any of those players. The only position players behind him all year were Izturis (traded), Moore (traded and had only 5 AB's) and Fox (had only 14 AB's before being demoted). And yes, Theriot did lead the team in first pitch outs, and it wasn't particularly close.

Plus Theriot brings a lot more to the table than Cedeno. 10x better plate discipline. Umm, Theriot led the team in 1 pitch outs. Which player faced more pitches per AB? Cedeno. P/PA: Cedeno: 3.68 Theriot: 3.53 I would agree that Theriot has better plate discipline though. Theriot just swings at a lot of first pitch strikes, and since he's not a very good hitter that leads to a lot of easy outs. So Theriot has discipline, but not a lot of patience at the plate. Cedeno swings at a lot more outside the zone than Theriot, but is much more dangerous when he gets a pitch inside the zone.

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years. If the owner is truly looking it as a business and more about recouping his investment then winning baseball games, there's now way he would ever blow up the current team and rebuild. Are they the most efficient team? Absolutely not, not even close. They are marketing gold though. The PR loss in Chicago by trading the current star players in Chicago would be absolutely immense. Even if the team started winning 95-100 games a year in 5 years, it wouldn't make up for the economic losses they'd suffer in between. The Cubs are selling out, have good merchandise sales, and a good television deal. No owner who just looks at it as a business would ever attempt a total rebuild and potentially mess with that. I do agree with you though that the Cubs going up to 140 million in payroll right now would not be the best for the new owner. New owners don't want to see it go up that high because then they are expected to have to keep it that high. The Cubs could rebuild and still make money while doing it. The 2006 Cubs were absolutely horrible and expensive, but they didn't lose money. I'm sure most fans would sooner pay to watch a developing team win 66 games than watch that putrid overpaid 2006 team win 66 games. Attendance fell throughout the year in 2006 (and the reselling of tickets was a joke by August, you just have to look at the many threads on this board of people who couldn't give their tickets away), and TV ratings fell even faster. The only reason as many people even came as they did is that tickets were sold when many people thought the team still had a shot. It was really the end of the false hope from the 03 teams. If they hadn't made the moves they did in the winter of 06, they would have lost a lot of potential money during that season. And I'm not saying the Cubs wouldn't make money. It seems fairly obvious that no matter what they do they'll make a profit. They make more money by having lots of marketable players and at least the appearances of the chance at the playoffs ever year rather then have 2-3 years where there is no chance at the playoffs and some great teams. It's been shown lately that a .500 Cubs team will sell out every game. A team that before the season was projected to win 70 games? It probably wouldn't. A team full of youngsters? Maybe more television ratings, but not nearly the same merchandise sales.

David, did they say something tonight about Pie or are you talking about from awhile ago? I can't seem to find their comments on the Pie thing. near the end of page 11, beginning of page 12 on the huge Bedard trade thread at the top of the forum

they can afford it? If you know the name of the new owner please share it with the rest of us. i'm saying that the Cubs as a business creates enough $$$ to afford it. We know nothing about the new owner's desired time horizon to recoup his investment. If an owner blows $800 million on a sports team he might not want to wait 20 years just to make his $800 million back. All these huge salary commitments have the effect of directly increasing the time it will take to break even on the investment. Of course an alternative would be to dump payroll or even blow up the team and rebuild with a good GM who can create a competitive team without a giant payroll. If I bought the Cubs I'd probably do that, since I think the Cubs roster is really pretty lousy on a bang-for-the-basis, and it's only going to get worse in the next few years. If the owner is truly looking it as a business and more about recouping his investment then winning baseball games, there's now way he would ever blow up the current team and rebuild. Are they the most efficient team? Absolutely not, not even close. They are marketing gold though. The PR loss in Chicago by trading the current star players in Chicago would be absolutely immense. Even if the team started winning 95-100 games a year in 5 years, it wouldn't make up for the economic losses they'd suffer in between. The Cubs are selling out, have good merchandise sales, and a good television deal. No owner who just looks at it as a business would ever attempt a total rebuild and potentially mess with that. I do agree with you though that the Cubs going up to 140 million in payroll right now would not be the best for the new owner. New owners don't want to see it go up that high because then they are expected to have to keep it that high.

Not if they're getting Jones, Clement, Tillman and Truinfel for Bedard. I can't see them getting that deal. I think they would be happy with Jones, Clement, Tillman, and a lesser 4th player.

Let's review. Jones gets pulled from the Venezuelan league over his protest. He claims he is coming to Baltimore in the morning. MacPhail says he's not. What is going on here?

Lots of interesting statements over there right now. That same Cubs fan said that he wouldn't trade Marmol, but he'd be happy to trade Pie, Hill, Gallagher, Cedeno, Murton, Patterson, and Dempster for Roberts and Bedard :D And an Orioles fan said that he couldn't take Patterson because he wasn't a legitimate prospect, so he'd demand Fontenot instead :D.

Yep. :? Thankfully nothing saying that he's likely to be in the deal though, just inferring that's it's possible. And Rosenthal's edit I think just saved some heart attacks in Chicago.

If you sign Lofton, there's no reason to not trade Pie in some sort of deal. Pie isn't a good 4th OF candidate because of his lack of hitting and the fact that both he and Lofton don't hit LH's well. Keeping him in AAA another year is kind of pointless. He either has to play (even if it's a platoon) or be traded.

Rosenthal, you've also had a terrible offseason. Please be wrong once again. I just don't see the Cubs trading Pie in that deal. Hopefully Hendry won't prove me wrong on that.

BTW, one OH insider are saying this is a 4 for 1 deal and 1 other insider says that the Mariners fans are not going to like this deal, but are refusing to report the actual names due to the furor over last month and the fallout with their respective sources.

That's one more tiny benefit from the Roberts trade (although not that much of a benefit). It likely keeps Theriot from being anywhere near the top of the order without an injury and keeps Pie from batting 8th. Again, it's only a small benefit because of how relatively little lineup order means, but it does add a little more.

I'm very confident that the Bedard trade is going to happen soon (way too may weird things happening on that one from the mariners board report, to Jones getting taken off the roster today, to the insiders saying soon all at the same time). Any one of those things would have made me slightly skeptical, but together I think makes it pretty likely. The Roberts deal is I think likely (70% or so). The only thing we have is insider reports and the thought all along that Roberts would be traded after Bedard. The insiders have been having an awful offseason, and because of that they've talked in much, much more vague terms lately which is what a person with contacts would do, not a person without contacts just having fun. At the same time, all signs point to the fact that MacPhail is trying to run a tight ship and stop leaks, so misinformation could be out there again. It's really hard to tell. I wouldn't say the Roberts deal regardless would be soon though (next day or two). If it happens, it would be anytime in the 2 weeks following the Bedard deal.

Except he didn't block it. He goaltended. After seeing the replays, definitely a goaltend. I can't blame the refs too much for it though, I thought it was a goaltend on live action but I wasn't sure.

1. I don't care about ERA. 2. I don't care too much about WHIP. 3. The last column actually hurts your case. I understand why you don't care about 1 and 2, but I don't understand why it matters since there are no other stats out there that is gonna put Santana behind any other pitcher in baseball. ERA+ isn't an end all stat, but it's tough to ignore numbers that high. Also, what other start pitches 200+ innings and keeps his WHIP under 1.00 three straight years? It's sick. I'd give up a lot for 220 IP and 250 K's, even if for just one year You're right we can't ignore ERA+. Jake Peavy had him beat least season. And had more Ks. And had a lower WHIP oh come on, we both know you're smarter than that. Using one year to determine worth? Here let me try: Santana had an ERA+ of 161 in 2006, while Peavy's was 99. I win! But I don't care about ERA+, so you don't win. because it hurts your argument correlation doesn't mean causation. Ok, you're correct on that. Past ERA+ numbers are not necessarily the best indicators of future performance. With that said, what are your reasons for believing that Peavy will have better ERA+ numbers than Santana over the next 5 years? What are the factors that haven't come in to play yet that will make Peavy have better performance? What is predicting that change in performance? Edit: I see your last post now, and will wait for your argument.

The cost in players can't be that small. You have the two biggest budget teams in baseball that have been talking with the Twins all winter long and they haven't come to an agreement. Do you really think the Yankees are balking at giving Santana the extension he wants? Sure, the Yankees are being slightly more careful with the money they used to, but they're not going to bat an eye at giving the best pitcher in the game today the money. It has to be the prospects the Twins want that are the problem. Same goes for the Red Sox, and same would go for the Cubs.

While I don't know about its authenticity, that trade deal does fit all the available facts. 1) There are numerous sources that seem to suggest that the Bedard trade is close 2) When the Gallagher, Marshall, and Cedeno deal came out in the press it was remarked as inaccurate. The reason it was labeled as inaccurate due to some sources (including Navigator's source) was that one of the players was wrong. Also, many people thought that the Roberts trade would never come until after Bedard was traded. Numerous sources later said including Rosenthal that the Cubs did not want to trade Marshall, and that he was likely the wrong one in the deal. At the same time, Murton is reported as being very available. Also, every report has Gallagher as the centerpiece in any deal. So Gallagher and Murton are two likely pieces, and Cedeno is the only one that hasn't had a ton of rumors about. So the "sources" may be completely inaccurate, or even this new guy might have made them up. It's hard to tell. What is true though, is that the trade is very logical. I don't think anybody would seriously question that these three teams would be willing to make these trades, it's just a question now if the trades will be executed or not.

Wisconsin should have really got that foul call at the end, but trying to drive in and get a foul on the road in the final 10 seconds is never a great idea. Good win for Purdue.