CubColtPacer

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.

As others have said, we would all love to find a great OBP shortstop. If you can find a great OBP shortstop that also plays great defense that the Cubs could trade for, let us know. Our problems during the playoffs were 1) no power, and 2) couldn't hit for average. The Cubs walked at a very high rate in the playoffs. At the same time, the playoffs are 3 games, so let's look at what they did over 162 games. During the season, the Cubs were average at OBP, and average at power. They could use quite a bit of improvement at either one. Most of their offseason moves to date (including who they've promised the starting jobs to from within) have increased the OBP and the patience of the team. Increasing the power of the team still would be very helpful. The Cubs are not strikeout kings at all. They were actually above average in avoiding strikeouts last year, they had the 6th fewest in the NL out of 16 teams. One of the things you have mentioned is the Cubs need to see more pitches and get into a teams bullpen quicker. I would agree with that. The thing is, Khalil Greene sees a lot more pitches than Ryan Theriot. Greene has seen 3.75 pitches or more per plate appearance 4 out of the last 5 years. Theriot only averages 3.57 pitches per plate appearance for his short career. That means adding Greene will actually mean that the Cubs actually improve on getting into the bullpen quicker.

Why does it seem that way? The Pats, as the home team, get to pick. It just seems like that if a team makes it all the way to the Super Bowl, they should at least be able to pick what uniforms they'd like to wear. The problem is that there are 50+ million casual fans watching this game. If you get a situation where both teams choose the exact same color, there's going to be a lot of confused people out there.

I can jump in and give you Sickels rating while we're waiting for Raisin or somebody else with the Handbook to possibly look up BA's. Moore-15th, C+ (ranked directly behind Mike Coztanzo, which was an interesting comparison last year in the Tejeda trade thread) Renshaw didn't even make a C grade and wasn't in the Orioles top 35 list. To compare, Moore would have fit somewhere between 11 and 16 on Sickels list for the Cubs (he has the same grade as Petrick, Hart, Fuld, Fox, Maestri, and Clevenger). Renshaw would not have been in the Cubs top 36. It will be interesting to see how the BA Handbook compares with that.

For those who don't know, Nate Silver is the primary person who does the PECOTA computer projections. The PECOTA cards should be out soon (within the next week) but I found a question at the bottom of a recent Q&A with him about the Cubs? Lieber I expected, but Dempster? I found that very interesting. It should be something that is kept in mind when the PECOTAs come out. Note: I am in no way advocating Dempster for the rotation, so I hope nobody misinterprets this post as that. Here's the link: http://baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=410

Tampering is limited to either 1) talking in public about another teams players, or 2) talking to another teams player directly and possibly promising them something. Hendry can call MacPhail all he wants and discuss any player he wants to. Hendry can even call the press and say that he's interested in such and such a player, if it's off the record. What he cannot do is have it on the record that it came from Hendry. Hendry cannot come out and say that he's interested in trading for Roberts. That's why whenever anybody asks him about Roberts in public situations, Hendry says that he cannot talk about players from other teams.

I was just about to post this thought. It's tampering. This is now, at least, the second time this offseason that Towers has openly mentioned by name specific players from another team. He's not suppose to do that... Explain how it is tampering? Here's an old quote from the commissioner. Tampering rules are private, so it's hard to figure out what exactly is over the line. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1838447 Many people feel that Hank Steinbrenner has been tampering in the Santana trade talks for doing many of the same types of quotes that Towers is doing, and the Twins are not happy about it. Here's a blog from a writer from the Minnesota StarTribune on that: http://nc.startribune.com/blogs/neal/?p=282

That's a very interesting question. My guess is that most of it is that the Cubs have put together a rotation that typically allows a low BABIP is the main root of that. Look at these splits: Z: 04: .284 05: .258 06: .265 07: .275 Lilly: 02: .241 03: .303 04: .272 05: .301 06: .300 07: .272 Hill: 06 (AAA): .286 06 (MLB): .261 07 (MLB): .280 Marquis: 04: .305 05: .268 06: .292 07: .280 Marshall 06: .288 07: .295 I had to use different data because Hill and Marshall have very little data. I also extended Lilly's data out 2 years to show that he has had now 3 lower BABIP seasons. These pitchers have tended to come in with very good BABIP's. Now, pitchers like Lilly and Marquis could have a .300 BABIP season once again next year, although last year for either of them wasn't a complete aberration. Z, Hill, and Marshall were very consistent with their prior career (I threw Hill MLB 2005 out because he was throwing so much differently then). What should benefit those 2 pitchers that may expect a regression in BABIP though is the Cubs defense next year. However good the Cubs defense was last year, with the addition of Fukudome, Soto, and Pie over Floyd, Kendall, and Jones should add quite a bit of help to that defensive ranking. With the combination of the typically low rating for all the pitchers and the great defense behind them, I think the BABIPs for the Cubs pitchers will not regress much at all, and may improve for pitchers like Z.

That's one thing on my mind. The other is of course that had the Cubs not made the run Hendry may have gotten rid of Baker sooner. In addition, he might not have wasted so much money on mediocre relievers and a washed up Greg Maddux. I don't think getting Lee would have been effected one way or the other. He fell into Hendry's lap like manna from heaven. The rest of what was posted is specious logic at best. Maybe one season earlier, but a manager with the track record of Dusty Baker wasn't likely to be fired after just two seasons no matter what the records of the team were. And since the Cubs would either have the young pitchers healthy, in which case they'd be mediocre, or have the injuries excuse to fall back on Dusty would stay away from the blame for a while. Maddux was a good pitcher for the money for the Cubs in both 04 and 05. Maybe not the unbelievable pitcher that people were expecting, but an above average pitcher who throws over 210 innings both years is and was worth quite a bit of money. He was maybe slightly overpaid, but if so it wasn't much at all. As for the relievers, that could be true. At the same time, Hendry was overpaying for relievers when the Cubs were very good, and he continued overpaying for relievers after 2005 when they weren't so good. That seems more of a GM flaw in Hendry's early GM tenure rather than a direct result of the 2003 run. I would definitely agree that the Ramirez trade was a direct result of the 03 playoff run. The Lee trade is a lot more murky, but most people at the time thought it was the same sort of "win now" move as the Maddux move was. The best argument against the 03 run was the health of the Cubs young pitchers. To keep them healthy though, one would have to hope that the Cubs never became good during Baker's 3 years and that Wood would have to hold up during that time. The 03 playoff run was one of the best times to be a Cubs fan there ever was. To want to reverse that for me, there would have to be good evidence that the Cubs would be a better team if that hadn't happened. I don't see that evidence. Before 03, the Cubs were a middle of the pack payroll team with a lot of organizational promise that would have mostly gone unfulfilled because most of the prospects flamed out. Without 03, the Cubs may have never turned into the high payroll team they are today and the benefits that come with that.

It's too bad that Baylor and Texas A&M wasn't seen as a big game when television schedules came out. They are now entering the 4th overtime tied at 90.

I think you just happened to miss this Vance. Exile is the other Colts representative.

Actually, I could see it happening. We obviously need more than Murton, but that would make a lot of sense I don't see how. The Padres want Murton to fill a hole. Trading Greene would make a much bigger hole. There's not much the Cubs could trade them that would help them fill other holes on their roster, so the Padres chances of winning in 2008 would go down pretty much no matter what in a trade.

One has to imagine that with all the consternation over the center field position since Corey petered out, if the Cubs at all felt Murton was a viable defensive option in center field they would have tried it by now beyond one emergency inning. Oh, I'm not trying to say Murton as a CF is a viable alternative. I'm just saying Murton in the 10 games a year you want to give Pie a break in CF is better than Byrd anywhere on the team. I'd be shocked if Pie starts more than 140 games next year. Even if he starts the season without a platoon partner, Lou isn't going to put up with his putrid bat against left-handers for long.

I don't think the Cubs ever intended to move him. I'm pretty sure they have always maintained that he's going to play in RF and RF only. It was just speculation that had him moving to center against left-handers, although that would be a better option that trading for Byrd.