CubColtPacer

Agreed. Also add in a few facts: DeRosa has had questions about wearing down when playing everyday both in 2006 and 2007. I remember a lot of people saying that he needed days off in the late July/August stretch when there were some injuries, but the Cubs simply couldn't give them because they needed him on the field too badly. Orioles fans say that Roberts is the same way, that he would have given better production if he could have rested a little more, but the Orioles needed his bat too badly. Now, the Cubs can do both. Roberts has a significant left/right split. If DeRosa plays 2nd against even half the left-handers, Roberts' production goes up. Having another good middle infielder in the mix at least allows them to consider playing DeRosa at SS at least occasionally, which would help. DeRosa had less than half the at-bats at 2nd base last year. In effect, Roberts will likely be replacing somebody else just as much as he is replacing DeRosa. There are other smaller benefits that I won't list because I don't want to make this an essay. Suffice it to say to just compare DeRosa to Roberts and conclude it's a marginal upgrade is not looking at how Lou has and will use DeRosa. When you add in the fact of how Lou will use Murton and Patterson (not very much), and the fact that Gallagher might not have a clear cut spot on this years team, it makes perfect sense to make this upgrade.

Cabrera would probably be no bigger than an upgrade than Roberts would be. If it were just Cabrera vs Theriot and Roberts vs DeRosa, Cabrera would be a little bigger of an upgrade, but adding in the factor of DeRosa taking away 200 AB's or more from Fontenot and Roberts becomes the better upgrade.

I think, but am not positive, that his K rate and BB rate took a step backward in 2007. I know he took walks less frequently. Pie's walk rate in 2006 (AAA): 1 BB per 12.15 AB's Pie's walk rate in 2007 (AAA): 1 BB per 12.05 AB's Pie's walk rate in 2007 (MLB): 1 BB per 12.64 AB's Pie's K rate in 2006 (AAA): 1 K per 4.43 AB's Pie's K rate in 2007 (AAA): 1 K per 5.72 AB's Pie's K rate in 2007 (MLB): 1 K per 4.12 AB's So walk rate basically stayed the same in AAA with a very slight improvement and K rate improved quite a bit. His MLB numbers are down for both, but that's to be expected.

If you're worried about a strikeout not moving runners, Soriano is best served in the leadoff spot. A leadoff hitter is going to come up more often with the bases empty than a middle of the order hitter, so Soriano's strikeouts are actually least damaging in the #1 spot, not most damaging.

For some reason, people continue to overrate most hitters while underrating pitchers. There are plenty of hitters that are labeled stars or highly productive players that are slightly above average or even worse, but the criteria to be a #1, #2, or #3 starter is absolutely ridiculous when you compare it to the actual production of pitchers. For example, the Cubs rotation last year. Rogers claims there was no good #2. In reality, Lilly, Hill, and Z were all good number 2 starters last year. Marshall was a #2 by production knocked down a little bit because of durability, and most people would have labeled him as a #4 or 5. Marquis was a #3, but his perception would put him at #5 or worse. There's a reason why everybody complains about their rotation (except for a truly dominant pitching team) and that's because the expectations for pitchers are way too high. The Cubs were 2nd in the NL in E.R.A. by starters and 2nd in WHIP, but there were still lots of complaints about the rotation by media and fans alike about the rotation. My guess is if the Cubs had been 2nd in runs scored and OPS, a lot fewer fans would be complaining about the offense than complained about the rotation.

2 things 1. Someone being horrible at being a G.M. does not mean that he would be a bad scout. 2. Even if he is an awful scout, one bad scout will have little impact on the organization.

That's the part of this thread that I don't understand. Prior is free to go wherever he wants. If Houston is the best situation for him, then Houston is the best situation. I doubt it will be, and I doubt he'll go anywhere in the division. If he does though, it will just be be a business decision, just like the Cubs made a business decision in letting him go.

He had even worse numbers last year in winter league before they "messed with his swing". .216/.263/.296 to be exact. I don't think you can nail down messing with his swing as the one cause of his struggles.

Sorry, that is not the case: From the facts we have its safe to conclude that this was a mutual decision, IMO. The Cubs did not want the risk, Prior did not want to play for the Cubs for any longer for whatever his reasons are. I wish we had him back, but I get why the Cubs made the decision they did. It makes sense on both sides, IMO. Sorry, but you're wrong. The Cubs made the decision not to offer arbitration. That's the only fact that matters. The story that they couldn't get Prior to agree to what was undoubtedly an extremely team friendly contract does not make it a mutual decision. If I offer $20,000 for a Mercedes and they don't take it, that doesn't make it a mutual decision. If the dealer has a Mercedes listed for 30,000 that the market value has at 20,000, and you offer 20,000 and the dealer rejects it, is it all your decision?

It's not all about 2008 though. If Pie gets that experience, he likely will be a better value than Murton by 09 (hit a little worse, but as long as it's only a little worse playing a tougher position with better defense will make up for that). Then of course there's the fact that Fukudome doesn't really want to play CF consistently.

I would certainly hope that a corner outfielder who has had more major league experience, is in the major leagues because of his hitting rather than his defense and is closer to his prime could outperform a younger center fielder with limited experience whose bat is the one that is still being worked on.

No actually it is because the Cubs didn't offer him a contract. Wrong again. It's both. The Cubs did offer a contract, just not the one that Prior wanted. Then the Cubs refused to offer a standard contract.

Uh, if the Bears really did have a timeout, why did they not use it? I know you're frustrated, but you've got to give yourself one more chance to block a punt.

Padres probably ask for a little more, but that seems like a good trade. Here we are again, doing all of Hendry's work. How about changing it a little bit: Cubs get: Khalil Greene, Damaso Marte Padres get: Xavier Nady, Jack Wilson Pirates get: Chase Headley, Michael Barrett, Sean Gallagher, Ronny Cedeno, Eric Patterson The Padres are geting screwed in that deal. Giving up Greene, Headley, and Barrett for a platoon outfielder and an average shortstop? Let's add in Jack Morris to the Padres and the Pirates save a ton of money in the deal. You mean Matt Morris? And I really don't see what use the Padres would have for him with their rotation fairly set. Yeah, I meant Matt Morris. The Padres depth chart on ESPN only lists 4 starters and they have been looking at Prior. They would end up with a good corner OF, a decent replacement at SS, and a decent end-of-the rotation starter. Maybe the Bucs would send Bay instead of Nady, but I doubt it. The Pirates have been trying to give away Morris with little success. Even if the Padres wanted Nady and Morris, they wouldn't make this deal. They'd rather just trade with the Pirates, because the cost for the 2 of them together would be a lot less than Greene, let alone Headley as well.

Yup. Been a strange season for Carolina. 4-0 against the NFC West 2-3 against the NFC South (Tampa Bay left) 0-1 against their 2 other NFC games (Dallas left) 0-4 against the AFC South

To be fair, Floyd was only willing to go to one of the Florida teams this year, just as he was only willing to go to the Cubs last year and passed up several other offers to do so. With the way he limited his market, his agent did good to get that much. Also, Floyd was not an everyday player even when he was healthy last year. I really doubt he would have gotten much more elsewhere. If any team had come forward with a significantly bigger offer he would have taken it or used it as leverage to get more money from the Florida teams. I would probably agree with that for the same reasons why his at-bats were limited with the Cubs. He can't stay healthy for more than a couple weeks at a time, he is a 7 inning player, (and is unusable in some of the larger OF's in the league), and he only plays against right handers. The Rays deal is very similar to the Cubs deal for those very reasons. i don't think it's much of an embarrassment to the Cubs though to have a older player sign almost exactly the same deal as he did the year before though.

To be fair, Floyd was only willing to go to one of the Florida teams this year, just as he was only willing to go to the Cubs last year and passed up several other offers to do so. With the way he limited his market, his agent did good to get that much. Also, Floyd was not an everyday player even when he was healthy last year.

Definitely not true. Dubois was old doing that in AAA. Geo was not. Not sure I'm real sold on the age argument. For one, the difference is only a year (DuBois 25 in '04; Soto 24 in '07) For another, DuBois was getting his first crack at AAA, while Soto was spending his third straight year at AAA. I guess I just recall things differently that you guys, because I recall people being awfully excited to add a (perceived) middle of the order thumper to the Cubs' lineup, despite his well-recognized defensive and baserunning shortcomings. How did this discussion go from the Cubs being unwilling to trade their top prospects to a comparison of Dubois and Soto? Neither one of those guys are that highly thought of and if they were rated in the top five Cubs prospects at any time it was more of an indication of how weak the Cubs farm system is/was. Soto is Number 2 on the Cubs prospects list for both BA and Sickels. This is for a farm system that cannot really be labeled as strong, but is probably closer to average than weak. Certainly if you were able to add 3 prospects that would be graded higher than Soto to the Cubs system (making him 5th, the mininum criteria for your statement) the Cubs system would be graded highly. I think you're underrating Soto's projection right now, and I'm not even one of his huge fans. His positional value is just too much to be ignored, even if he regresses quite a bit with the bat.

Definitely not true. Dubois was old doing that in AAA. Geo was not. And there's the key point. It was Todd Hollandsworth that was pissing people off a lot more than a lack of Jason Dubois. Dubois was a little less than 10 months older than Soto was in their big years in the minors. I certainly don't think that qualifies one to be old and one to be not old. The better reason of course is positional scarcity. An 800 OPS for Soto with his defense would mean the Cubs have a greatly above average catcher. An 800 OPS for Dubois playing a below average left field would make him a below average left fielder overall.

as an alumnus, i'm totally excited with this seemingly last-minute turn-of-events. all the rumors about brady hoke made me want to burn my diploma. the fact that he's bringing gibson (db coach) and magee (oc) might mean debord's gone. excellent. DeBord was on his way out anyway. Run left hasn't worked for years. I'm also excited about Rich Rod bringing our strength and conditioning program into the 21st century as well. I do hope they keep Ron English on as DC. I wasnt so sure about what would happen with Debord. His status caused a lot of consternation after reading all the rumors of what was going on in this process behind the scenes. I was never so sure until RR was hired. The new guard at AA won on this one. As for Mallett ill be surprised if he transfers. He burnt his redshirt and transfering would cost him another year. Plus after listening the RR's presser this morning there were at least 3 questions about his offense and how it will fit in. He said that his spread offense is moldible to the talent of a passing or running qb and in the past they have geared it towards a throwing qb and utilizing the skill position players. I thought Mallett was a true freshmen this year. Yeah, if he transfered he only has 2 years of elgiblity remaining but had he redshirted like a lot of Qbs he would have 3 left which isnt so bad. And its not like hes played all that much this year to granish a year of experience. At the same time a lot of qbs dont get their first start until their junior year so who knows. IF he transfers it will definetly hurt UM. Waht are you talking about? If he transfers, he still has 3 years to play. Not redshirting actually helps him keep a year. If he transfers to a 1-A school he has to sit out a year and that year counts against him. If he goes 1-AA then I think he can immediately. I think Hosak is referring to that if he hasn't used his redshirt year yet, he can declare the transfer year as his redshirt and then still be eligible for 3 years starting in the 2009 season.

Let's just say this. After they traded Tejada, they only had to remove 1 guy to make room. When talking on Oriole Hangout about who the extra players they might have to remove from the 40 man roster in order to account for the talent coming back for Bedard and Roberts, there were a few players listed. Only 1 of the players listed were there multiple posts about really hating to lose this player off of the 40 man. That player: Freddie Bynum. Any questions?

no, they can't beat the patriots because they're not as good as the patriots. those teams were not heavy favorites. san diego was favored by what, about 5 points against the pats last year? denver was also very good in 2005. and three years ago the pats were 14-2, and had won 2 of the past three super bowls, and were facing a rookie qb... i think they were actually favored over the steelers in the afc championship game. hey maybe i'm wrong and the pats will lose, but i don't think so. I doubt the Pats are big favorites over the Colts, if those teams meet in the AFCCG. If the line is big, bet on the Colts with the points. The Pats barely won the first meeting despite the Colts missing half their team. half their team? the only important players missing from that game were harrison and ugoh. if the officials hadn't been wearing colts jerseys during the game, the margin of victory would probably have been larger. 2 of the 3 starting linebackers on a team would usually be considered important. The Colts didn't even have 3 linebackers healthy for the Patriots game, let alone their best linebackers. Also Anthony Gonzalez missing the whole 2nd half and the Colts having to rely on the horrible Aaron Moorehead as an outside receiver (and if you don't believe that's a factor, take a look at how the Colts offense has changed since Gonzalez came back). It wasn't a shock that the Pats defense had a lot easier time against the Colts the second half after he left. Then you add in the fact that Brady hasn't been the same player as he was earlier in the season in the last several weeks, and things have changed significantly since the Patriots were destroying everybody in the first 8 weeks of the year.

"An unnecessary gamble?" There's 4 minutes left, if Dallas punts they might not get it back! Also, they're a good offense, they should be able to pick up a 4th and 2. Finally, even if they don't get it, they still can get the ball back down only 1 possession! It would have been criminally bad to not go for it there. And what do you know, they pick it up with complete ease.

To be fair, I don't think cuse ever actually said pressure situations. At the same time, cuse didn't mean anytime runners get on base Prior folds (all he said to begin with was when Prior "got hit he faded", and then he clarified it to when he had been hit hard, i.e. given up 4 runs or more in a game. Nothing has been used statistically to refute that yet. Now, if someone did the legwork they could refute statistically that Prior's performance didn't suffer in those situations, but that would be a lot of work for a person to do for a small argument that in a week will mean nothing :) . The fading part is a qualitative statement that the stats can give indicators for (if he pitched well in those situations he has a greater chance that he wasn't fading at the time) but cannot prove it definitively to be wrong. I also think there's been a quick rush to call an unsupported opinion as a "bad" opinion. A bad opinion is unreasonable, somthing that is incredibly unlikely given the available evidence. We know barely anything about how Prior performed after giving up 4 runs, so virtually no opinion that doesn't touch the extremes is likely to be unreasonable (for example, an extreme would be that Prior cried on the mound when he gave up several runs. We all saw that he didn't do that in those situations, so that's a bad opinion). At the same time, the detractors are right that it is an unsupported opinion. Even though it's reasonable, so are a host of other opinions. Because it's an unsupported opinion, it's very unlikely that it's going to convince anyone to change to that way of thinking (it certainly hasn't changed my belief that Prior did a great job of settling down and pitching well most of the time after some early runs in games). That doesn't make it unreasonable though, not until the available evidence changes significantly.

his experience as a high school baseball coach gives his opinion as to the psyche of a professional player he's never met respect? not from me. He has seen plenty of pitchers lose it on the mound, and has a greater idea than the average fan of what little things to look for to get an indication of that. Sure, professionals lose it a lot less than high schoolers. If you know a person, that also makes it easier to tell, and obviously Cuse doesn't know Prior. Body language experts would tell you that doesn't matter all that much though. There are many traits that all people do in similar situations if you know what you're looking for, and Cuse has seen examples of it so many times that he has a better chance of noticing a little detail than almost anyone else. So yes, I do believe his profession gives him an edge on noticing something like this. Right now I disagree with him, but his opinion is not absurd. high schools pitchers have about zero in common with major league pitchers. come on. Exactly. Right. MLB and colleges get their numbers that are projected by PECOTA and Bill James when players are little leaguers and draft them by using those. How many high school kids have you seen go straight to MLB and pitch? A high school kids mentality is far far different then a MLB pitchers. I highly doubt most MLB pitchers are worried about passing their Chemistry 2 test while pitching, and whether or not Suzie from down the road "likes him". Come on Cuse, there is a big difference between pitching in high school ball, and pitching in the pros. The changes in a person's body language when they lose confidence in what they're doing (which is basically what cuse is asserting that Prior lost confidence and faded when he was hit hard) is not that much different from person to person. Also, patterns such as trying too hard to rely on your best pitch when you're being hit hard is normally the same no matter what the age of the person. A high schooler typically has a more pronounced effect because they're much less used to dealing with failure, but any person will have the same fundamental body language indicators when they are not confident in what they are doing. The pros indicators will just be more masked and harder to detect.