CubColtPacer

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.

I like this much better. The only problems with this: 1) The Orioles probably wouldn't take all 7 of those players straight up for Bedard, let alone three. There isn't enough star power for them to do it when they have better offers from other teams. 2) Offer what for Greene? Let's say the Orioles are unbelievably crazy and accept Pie, Gallagher, and Murton for Bedard. That leaves nothing that the Padres would want for Greene. They are a possible playoff team, and he's pretty much their only SS with SS's being quite a scarcity. They aren't going to give him away unless they get some great talent back, and the Cubs wouldn't have it.

So does Lou Piniella, Larry Rothschild, and Jim Hendry. Unfortunately Well thats just plain wrong. Leaders in appearances Howry 78 Wuertz 73 Dempster 66 Leaders in RP IP Howry 81.1 Wuertz 72.1 Marmol 69.1 But hey, why pass up an opportunity to bash management. Hey, why not ignore the fact that Wuertz went from being the team's best reliever from 2005-2006, yet was demoted from setup duty to middle relief. He was the 5th RH option out of the pen when Wood joined the bullpen. And let's also ignore that the only reason he had more relief innings than Marmol, was because Carlos didn't start the year in the majors. He started as one of the setup men, and then got demoted because other pitchers were pitching better than him. Wood and Wuertz were used interchangably IMO after Wood came back. Marmol and Howry were ahead of Wuertz from June on, and a big part of that was because Marmol and Howry were much better pitchers than Wuertz from June on. Wuertz wasn't the best relief pitcher in 06 either. Howry's peripherals were a lot better.

Latest Bracketology is out: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology Some Highlights: For all the talk about 4 no-doubt #1 seeds last week, this week there is a new #1 seed. Tennessee replaces UCLA in the top spot. Big 10 with a strange alignment. The 3 top teams are all 3 seeds. After that, I saw Ohio State as an 11 seed and one of the last 4 teams in. Another Big 10 team sneaks in with a quite solid 9 seed, and that's Purdue. Drake with a 4 seed..good for them. Hope they can keep it up. The Big East is probably going to suffer as the year goes along just because of attrition. They might have 9 teams worthy of a berth right now, but 1 or 2 of those teams will be left out by the time Selection Sunday rolls around.

I think this is dead-on. He's not a lefty, he's not a top of the order hitter, and he has a low batting average. Hendry won't be interested, even though he should be. Yes but in Hendry's mind shortstops are suppose to be poor to mediocre hitters with "moxy" "spunk" "grit" ect... I dont think we've had a good shortstop since Dunston. We talk every year about the glaring hole at SS when Hendry simple doesnt see it. He's happy with fielding crap at that possition for some reason. Hendry wants a defensive shortstop, the other terms you throw out are superfluous. Greene is outstanding defensively. Combine that with the fact that Hendry already tried to trade for Greene last season, and your reasoning quickly falls apart. Let's also conveniently forget that the Cubs drafted Greene when Hendry was in charge Hahaha. I think I've heard Hendry say somewhere that he's "baffled" at the lack of position players coming from our minor leagues. How about because you don't have the first clue how to develop them, Jimbo? Not that I disagree, but what does that have to do with the previous post? So Greene was our ballplayer, and Hendry helped in drafting him.....so yet another ballplayer of ours has to go somewhere else to become major-league ready. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the post bolded above to you? Greene was never our ballplayer. The Cubs drafted him in the 14th round after his junior year, and Greene chose to continue playing college baseball so that he could be drafted higher and get more money. He was drafted in the first round by the Padres the next year. This had absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs problems in player development. OK, so I didn't know that. I've got better things to do than to know the nuances of every player the Cubs draft. My post has plenty to do with the previous post, AS POSTED. If it would have given more detail, obviously I wouldn't have said that. I honestly didn't know that until he posted it either. If the Cubs really had traded Greene while he was in the minors, don't you think we would have heard about it 500 million times on this board? The Cubs finally get a good SS candidate in the system, and they trade him away? It would be brought up almost every week. It would be talked about as one of Hendry's biggest mistakes ever. The fact that it isn't makes it very logical to assume that the Cubs drafted but didn't sign him. I wasn't trying to be mean about it. I didn't say anything about your post not making sense, just that the conclusion made by the post was incorrect. I apologize if I came across as harsh.

I think this is dead-on. He's not a lefty, he's not a top of the order hitter, and he has a low batting average. Hendry won't be interested, even though he should be. Yes but in Hendry's mind shortstops are suppose to be poor to mediocre hitters with "moxy" "spunk" "grit" ect... I dont think we've had a good shortstop since Dunston. We talk every year about the glaring hole at SS when Hendry simple doesnt see it. He's happy with fielding crap at that possition for some reason. Hendry wants a defensive shortstop, the other terms you throw out are superfluous. Greene is outstanding defensively. Combine that with the fact that Hendry already tried to trade for Greene last season, and your reasoning quickly falls apart. Let's also conveniently forget that the Cubs drafted Greene when Hendry was in charge Hahaha. I think I've heard Hendry say somewhere that he's "baffled" at the lack of position players coming from our minor leagues. How about because you don't have the first clue how to develop them, Jimbo? Not that I disagree, but what does that have to do with the previous post? So Greene was our ballplayer, and Hendry helped in drafting him.....so yet another ballplayer of ours has to go somewhere else to become major-league ready. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the post bolded above to you? Greene was never our ballplayer. The Cubs drafted him in the 14th round after his junior year, and Greene chose to continue playing college baseball so that he could be drafted higher and get more money. He was drafted in the first round by the Padres the next year. This had absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs problems in player development.

they almost beat NE in week 17 tho Yeah, when the Pats had everything sewn up except the perfect record. Means little, if anything. They both played their starters the whole game. So? So? The Patriots players publicly said that they considered it a special game and one of the most important of their lives. The Giants got their best shot in week 17, they didn't hold anything back. I'm sure they'll tell the media whatever they want to hear. They're not going to say what the reality is: if they lose the game, it means absolutely nothing in terms of the actual goal, which is winning the Super Bowl. First off, did you happen to be able to get a chance to see that game? Teams that have nothing to play for often don't play at the huge intensity level that was present in the Patriots-Giants game. And it's not in the Patriots public interest to say that they were interested in going for 16-0. If they wanted to be "correct", they should have said the outcome of the game didn't mean anything to them. The fact that they said the incorrect thing made the chance that they were being completely honest much greater. This Patriots team wanted to go 19-0 for a long time now. They've won Super Bowls, they wanted perfection, and they wanted all the records. Now, that doesn't mean the Giants will be able to play as well in the rematch. They had a kickoff return for a TD, which is somewhat of a fluke. Eli played really well in that game. The Giants put up a very good effort, and yet still couldn't get the ball with a chance to tie in the 4th quarter. If they don't have a good game in the SB, it could very easily be a huge blowout.

they almost beat NE in week 17 tho Yeah, when the Pats had everything sewn up except the perfect record. Means little, if anything. They both played their starters the whole game. So? So? The Patriots players publicly said that they considered it a special game and one of the most important of their lives. The Giants got their best shot in week 17, they didn't hold anything back.

There aren't very many people who ever look in Fantasy Sports, especially this time of the year. Most of the people who look either just care about baseball or are already signed up, so I don't see many signups happening as long as the thread stays here.

This has been a very strange end to the Florida-Kentucky game. Florida was inbounding the ball with 15.5 seconds left. The player had trouble getting it in, and suddenly the ref signaled like Kentucky had called timeout. The Kentucky bench obviously disputed this and wanted a 5 second call. At the same time, another official ran in and said there was a foul even before the first official's whistle. Then, after they get this straightened out, there are back to back timeouts by Florida and Kentucky before the free throws are even shot. Finally Lucas goes to the line and makes 1 of 2. Kentucky goes down and misses the 3, gets the rebound, the ball goes out of bounds, and the ref rules it Florida's ball. Of course, another official runs in and overrules the call late just like what had happened 10 seconds before. Then, Kentucky hits the 3 to send it into OT. I don't think the refs have any idea what's going on in this game. Now tied with 3:43 to go in OT.

Ugh. Lou plans to hit Theriot 2nd. Is Dusty back? I saw that. Wasn't too happy about it, but soon realized that Lou changes his mind on lineup decisions every 2 weeks, and sometimes even sooner than that. It's probably less than 50/50 that Theriot survives ST as the 2 hitter, and if he does that, he probably won't survive April. It will be another year of a rotation in the 2 spot is my guess. Theriot, Pie, DeRosa, and Fukudome will all probably get significant time in that spot.

Jenkins signed a 2 year deal with Philadelphia.

Jennings has had one year out of the last 5 with an overall ERA under 5. Part of that is due to the parks he has had to pitch in, sure. His second best ERA number during that time away from home is 4.86. He hasn't been good at home or on the road in 4 out of the last 5 years! To add to that, he's coming off an arm injury. Jennings is younger than Lieber, and that's about it. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate why Jennings would outperform Lieber this year. Lieber has consistently been better than Jennings, both at home and on the road. Jennings allows way too many baserunners, and that problem has stuck with him his entire career.