CubColtPacer

Bruce Miles / Daily Herald Thanks for posting that I had not heard that he had options. That's the only way the waivers are revocable-if he didn't have options, he would have to be put on irrevocable waivers and the Cubs wouldn't be able to pull him back if somebody claimed him. Prior's just in that gray area where he has options, he doesn't have enough service time to refuse getting optioned, but he's been around long enough to have to pass through revocable waivers, which he should be able to do.

No, I believe that was game 2. Sosa's homer in game one was to left-a long shot into the mass of people that were standing on Waveland.

Exactly-in this lineup, Izturis makes sense in the 2 spot. From his usage patterns, here is what I think Lou has decided on a regular basis: If Theriot is in playing anything but short, he will bat 2nd (or if he's playing short and Blanco is playing, he would bat 2nd). Murton will bat 2nd when Theriot is not in, or when Theriot is playing short and Barrett is playing (this should be the majority of games). Jones will bat 2nd most of the time when he and Floyd play together, unless Blanco is playing. Izturis bats 2nd when Murton is not playing, Theriot is not playing, and Blanco is in the lineup. I haven't figured out yet when DeRosa will bat 2nd (he's only batted there once this spring IIRC). That pattern shouldn't always hold, but it's been pretty consistent over the last couple of weeks.

Hill is my choice. Z has become too much of a high strikeout/high walk pitcher to complete many games, Marquis goes deep a pretty good amount of the time but rarely goes 9, Lilly doesn't go deep enough on a regular basis to be considered, and Miller doesn't have the arm strength to go a complete game.

Which is the difference between signing a FA from another team and getting a hometown discount from your own team. The two pitchers were signed to similar salaries as players like them signed in the same offseason, and Soriano was probably overpaid relative to the market but not that badly so.

1. 88 wins +250 2. 9 wins +75 3. 838 runs +25 4. 791 runs 0 5. 1st place +200 Player stats 1. 36 HR 0 2. 44 SB 0 3. .302 +10 4. 128 0 5. 17 +40 6. 4.47 +50 7. 193 +50 8. 184 +30 Bonus 1. Z's batting average +30 2. Aramis's HR +30 3. Cesar's OBP 0 4. Barrett +30 5. Hill 0 6. Hill +30 Bonus Part II 1. Soriano +30 2. Lee +30 3. Zambrano 0 4. Dempster +30 Tiebreaker-834 OPS Total: 940

More of a short reliever-he had 48 2/3 innings in 31 appearances in double A last year. He put up good numbers in double A-2.22 ERA, 1.17 WHIP, over a strikeout per inning, and he was added to the 40 man roster over the winter. He has also impressed during spring training-10 1/3 innings, 1.74 ERA, 15 K/6 BB.

When Urbina faced Sammy in game 1, I told the 40 half Cubs fans/half Marlins fans watching the game with me that if Urbina didn't throw an inner half fastball, Sammy would strike out. The first inner half fastball he threw would be deposited on Waveland. Sure enough, 3 pitches later it became reality :D

Wuertz must be one of those guys who just starts the year slowly, kind of like Ryno back in his days. He never was great in March or even the first half/all of April. I agree that I think Wuertz is our best reliever, but he's opened the last couple of years in AAA, and has not looked sharp this spring. We haven't really gotten much of a look at him in April before. It might be best for him to start there for 2-4 weeks then come up. I'm optimistic that Lou won't forget about him down there the way Dusty did for half of the season. I'm doubtful that Cotts will hang around too long, I think he's going to pitch his way out of a job and make an opening for Wuertz. I'd like to eventually see a pen of Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Ohman, Wuertz, Cherry, and Guzman for the long man. That could be an awfully tough pen. Actually, we have gotten a decent look at Wuertz in April-he spent the whole month here in 2005 and got 3 appearances in April before being sent down. You're exactly right in that he is a very slow starter. Last year-he had an outing where he came in with the bases loaded and 1 out, and allowed 2 runners to score. Second outing was 2 scoreless innings last outing he came in with a guy on first, gave up home run, home run, single, and then was lifted and sent down to the minors. He was not good in April either in 2005-4.38 ERA and 1.57 WHIP. This is a guy who says that he's had this arm problem for 3 ST's in a row. He then has come out and not preformed well at the beginning of the season. I am in favor of sending him down for now, as long as the team brings him up and keeps him up when he gets over this like he has the last couple of years, because he is very effective when that happens.

They are going to give Izturis some time to get back to playing everyday coming off of the 2 years of injuries. Unless Izturis goes on the DL for a period of time, I doubt you'd see a starter change until at least the midpoint of the season, and then only if Izturis really struggles. Also, Cedeno hasn't made up much ground this spring anyway because Izturis is also having a very good spring (OBP wise anyway, which if you're going to get something out of Izturis this year it will be in OBP, not SLG).

I interpreted the question as more of-how long do you give Hill? And what happens to him? I have to give Hill a longer leash than a couple of the other starters-at least half the season. If he's doing terrible at the break though, I really don't know what they would do with him. They could send him to Iowa-but if he dominated, wouldn't that just be the same thing? That would be really difficult on what to do with him at that point. However, I think a healthy Hill will be a lot better than that, so I really hope it never comes to that.

Big C doesn't slow down, no matter the longitude. I think you mean the latitude, although we will have a longitude change once we go east :D-I hope you're right also. With all the division games in April, it would really help the team to get off to a good start.

Great job Cedeno, and another very good Cubs win! Let's not lose the momentum when you go up north, and I'm not talking about Vegas :D

Actually, I think that's 9 walks for Izturis now-7 entering the game, and 2 today. I also find it interesting that 3 MIF's lead the team in walks-DeRosa, Cedeno, and Izturis.

Thanks Toupee for doing this-anyone know who's coming up for the Cubs?

How many outs are there? Can anyone do pbp just for the end of this apparently close game please?

Could #90 be Norwood, the guy who is apparently playing 1B for the Cubs right now according to the box score? He would be the only one I haven't seen before, so it's possible he's the guy you're looking for.

My guess is that they didn't see the race as that close. Even if Prior was brilliant tomorrow, they were more comfortable with starting Miller in the rotation at the beginning of the season. Because of this, they announced it now so the controversy wouldn't be as large if Prior does pitch great tomorrow.

Wuertz got one of the two spots-the other spot is between Guzman/Cherry, with Guzman having the inside track.

The NFL started awarding compensatory picks in 1993.

To give you an idea, AJ Hawk drafted at #5 last year got 6 years, 37.5 million.

I'm not sure he will win now. The fact that the Padres waited until the end of ST (they paid Walker about 300K more by waiting until after March 15th) plus their insistence that they would take the 25 best people regardless of contract with them, plus Walker's ST performance gives the Padres now a good argument that they gave him a chance to make the team and that he didn't do well enough to do that.

It's not either or though. The Bears can re-sign Briggs AND keep Tommie Harris. And what 4th-6th round pick has replaced an All-Pro and got close to the same production? Not saying it can't happen, but I think it takes a lot more talent than what you are giving and it definitely takes a similar caliber player in order to uphold one of the best defenses in the league. They can probably keep both of those players, but at some point some of those key players will have to be released. It will be hard to sign Briggs to a large contract, Harris to a large contract, Grossman or another QB to a large contract, and Benson to a large contract-and even if you get those 4, you probably lose practically everybody else. There are more examples than this of the Cover 2 and replacing weak-side linebackers, but let me go to the Colts here for an example. Mike Peterson-2nd round pick-2002 in the cover 2 system at weak side linebacker-137 tackles including 113 solos, 9 PD, and 3 INT. David Thornton-5th round pick in 2002-entered the lineup at weak-side in 2003, had 145 tackles including 112 solos, 2 INT, 5 PD Thornton was so good in 2003 that the coaches decided not to waste him at the easy weak-side position, so they promoted him to strong side. Cato June-6th round pick in 2003-entered in 2004, 110 tackles including 84 solos, 2 INT, 9 PD-better numbers at weak-side then Thornton had at strong-side that same year, and that continued in 2005. Thornton's numbers went up when he got out of Indy in 2006. June made the Pro Bowl in 2005 with 103 tackles, 5 INT, 2 TD, and 7 PD. In 2006, June had 142 tackles, 3 INT, 2 FF, 4 PD, and 1 sack. The Colts plan to replace June with Freddy Keiaho, a late 3rd round pick that is 1 year into the league. The Cover 2 inflates the numbers of the weak-side linebacker and deflates the numbers of the strong-side linebacker. Weak-side linebackers drafted in the middle rounds can usually enter the lineup after a year and be almost as good as the high-priced player they are replacing.

This what I have been saying the last month to you crazy kids. The Bears cant CANT cant invest 120 plus million at the linebacker position with Tommy Harris, and the starting cb all due for extensions in the near future. Has nothing to do with how good Briggs is. So moving up to a top ten pick for a guy who does not want to be here is gravy, IMO. 7 million gets freed up, we draft a young impact player... LB is not one position. It's 3. They should invest heavily in their best defensive players. LINEBACKER IS 3 POSITIONS????? DEAR GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER KNOWN ABOUT FOOTBALL!!!! congrats on missing the point completely. Congrats on a childish comeback. That's not necessary. His point was that you are worried about spending that much money at the LB position, when it's not just 1 person. They would be spending the money on 2 of the top 3 players on the defense, the strongest unit in the NFC. Whether they spend it on 1 LB and 1 DB doesn't make a difference, if they are spending on the DB who is a worse player than the LB. They both play at the same time. It's not like the Atlanta situation with Vick and Schaub where they could only play 1 of them. Actually, which position they spend it on makes a huge difference. Briggs position in that scheme is the most easily replaceable position. To pay big money to a player who could be replaced by a 4th-6th round pick after one year and get close to the same production (which has been done plenty of times in that scheme across the league) and losing an impact player on the defensive line for example would be a really bad scenario. People who can make an impact on the line are rare-weak side linebackers in the Cover 2 who can make a significant impact are not rare at all, so that position becomes one that should be one of your lower salary positions, not one of your higher salary positions.

What makes Walker more valuable than Ward? Ward had the better year last year by far. Before that, Walker had the better years-but if Ward regresses back to his usual year and Walker keeps declining, then Ward will likely be slightly better. Both can play 3 positions-Walker the 3 in the infield, Ward the two in the OF and 1B. What is there to justify eating a million by dropping Ward and signing Walker? Please read what I wrote. I said, pretty clearly, that it was worth considering. I did not say that Walker was better than Ward. You should always look to improve your team, and if Walker is an upgrade, then it might be worth it. I would agree with that-I just don't see any argument out there that would make Walker a better option than Ward at this point. Because of that, I was just looking for a reason why it should be considered-sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to imply that you thought that Walker was better than Ward. To me, you should only release a player and sign another when there is either 1) a clear upgrade or 2) no downside (the player you're releasing is so terrible that the second player cannot be worse). Walker IMO is not a clear upgrade-in fact, he's most likely a small downgrade.