CubColtPacer

If the Mets acquire some pitching, then they look like the team to beat in the NL. Marshall for Milledge? I dont think the Mets would bite on that. After all, their asking price for Milledge at the break was Barry Zito. I thought the asking price for Blanton was Milledge. I never heard anything about Zito/Milledge. The asking price for 1/2 a season of Zito was indeed Milledge. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/lastings_milledge/index.html Looks like towards the deadline more of the rumors were around blanton and haren than zito. Milledge for Zito was widely reported on ESPN the week befoe the deadline-was it legitimate? I don't know, but it was widely rumored in that week.

89 mph is being kind. Reporters are saying he didn't reach the mid 80's Maybe so-I'm just taking the results from the gun when he was up at Wrigley that I saw, but it's possible that the gun was a fast one. He definitely was getting it up to 89 and sometimes 90 on that particular gun in his starts for the Cubs at the end of last year though.

I'm not so sure Wade is completely done-even with his fastball only hitting 89 or so on the gun when he came back, his K rate was still high. If he keeps that up and his control gets better, then he could still be very effective.

This is good, as long as you're looking at the right things. This doesn't look like a very good start to me. It looks to me, other than the one quote from Lou (which, admittedly, I'm not enamored with), that Paul Sullivan is the one looking at all the wrong things there. I'm doubting that Lou said anything referencing how Eyre or any pitcher has done against a particular team. That's just absurdly stupid logic, pretty much what we've come to expect from Paul. That doesn't mean I trust that Lou will be looking at the right things himself, though. That's true, I didn't pay close enough attention to the quotes. Still not a huge fan of "throwing a little more speed" out there though, unless the catcher/pitcher/both is truly awful, and even then it's probably not worth it. Well, with the way our bench is currently, especially if Pagan does not make the squad, that might just mean that Murton plays instead of Floyd and Theriot plays instead of DeRosa-I mean, Ward, Floyd, or Blanco are not going to win any speed competitions anytime soon :D

True, and it's also about using those sample sizes to determine at-bats between similar players, or determine at-bats between vastly different offensive players that the weaker player just happens to have a few hits off some pitchers. I like the former a lot, and I'm not that big of a fan of the latter

I disagree. Look at who they have brought in...Izturis, Soriano, and DeRosa. Izturis is ALL glove. Soriano was above average in LF last year and that was just his first year in the OF. I'm not sure of DeRosa's metrics, but I believe he's been just fine and can play a lot of positions usually which shows defensive proficiency. Its not like we brought in Adam Dunn or anything. For it to be Hendry's philosophy though, he would have to be bringing in people to fit his notion of good defense-I doubt he's putting that much value in defensive metrics. Izturis I agree with you about-Soriano was seen as average around the league, and he's moving to a new position. DeRosa's reputation is that of an average or above average defender. You forgot the 4th person though-Cliff Floyd. The more Floyd plays in the OF, the more the OF defense is going to suffer because of it. If you look around at many of the people writing articles, they all are saying that the Cubs are going to suffer defensively-could they be wrong? Sure-but their method of judging defense is likely the same one as Hendry's, and so he wouldn't put a team out there with this bad of a reputation defensively if he really wanted a team that could "catch the ball" Except that Floyd will take time away from Murton who isn't thought of to have great defensive skills (regardless of whether or not that is true). No, he didn't go out and get Covelli to replace murton, but he didn't downgrade. I still think it's a downgrade, although it is seen as going from below average to absolutely terrible (although I think Murton is average defensively, and not below average). The last thing I'll present for my case is that they didn't know what position Soriano was going to play, and said that they were going to sign people first and figure out what positions they were going to play later. I don't see that as a huge emphasis on "catching the ball", although I do still think that they do think defense is important. It's just that they seem to stress defense at certain positions, which is why Izturis is at SS and Blanco got signed for so much to be backup C, while other positions don't mean as much defensively.

Yeah, I agree. I especially like discussion on pitching mechanics since I know much less about them than hitting. I appreciate it as well, and from seeing the pictures of Reyes and then comparing it to some of the other pitchers that are pictured in this thread, I can see what he's talking about as well. I don't know how much that will likely cause injury for him, but I certainly can see how that would cause strain on his arm.

And the Dodgers have since said they weren't going to trade top prospects for Maddux. B prospects or Izturis seems like the choice. Hendry went with the ML ready option, for better or worse. People can complain about Izturis all they want, but at least he's good enough to make the majors, which the vast majority of B prospects won't ever sniff. The other part of that trade was that it pushed Neifi into a backup role (with the trade of Walker, it would have been Neifi and Cedeno as the starters at short and second) which allowed Hendry to trade Neifi a couple of weeks later. It may not have been planned that way, but it is much less likely that Hendry is trading Neifi if Neifi seems like the only option for a starter at the time, so I connect those two deals especially with them being so close in time as well. It pains me to write it, but I'd rather have Neifi than Izturis. Well, I guess we'll have to see which Izturis shows up this season-at least there is a small possibility that Izturis will be ok this season, while Neifi passed ok a long time ago and continues to decline from his terrible level last year in which Neifi was worse than Izturis and Izturis was just coming back from the injury, while Neifi was healthy all year. I don't really understand why'd you take Neifi over Izturis, but that's just me. Two reasons: money and proximity. Izturis probably wouldn't get so much criticism here if he was on a major league minimum salary, but for a player who has been as bad as he is to get paid a substantial salary is not justifiable. Also, we haven't cringed at one of Neifi's plays as recently as we have with Izturis, and there is less of a threat of Neifi actually getting an AB as a Cub again. The grass is always greener on the other side. Overall, it seems likely to me that Izturis will have a better year than Neifi, but we'd probably be better off without either one. I would agree that the Cubs would probably be better with another shortstop. I do understand the grass is greener on the other side, and yes, Izturis does make about 1.8 million more than Neifi, which I think is justified for the much better possibility of production and optimism with Izturis. Like my post on page 4 spelled out, Izturis was aggressively promoted much faster than his bat developed, and his bat wasn't nearly ready for the major leagues. Looking at his numbers though, his bat has improved ever year from age 17 all the way through June 2005 when he started getting hurt. The only reason his numbers stayed low is because he was promoted way too fast. Now, the obstacle is the injuries-if he's truly healthy, from the pattern of his numbers I see it as somewhat likely that he has a below average to average for a shortsop offensive season (I actually see it as pretty unlikely he's below 650 if he's healthy, and a decent chance that he's at least somewhat higher than that). If he's not healthy, well, then the Cubs will put another shortstop in that will likely produce ok numbers as well. Either way, the Cubs SS position should be a decent upgrade this year, and Izturis will either be all right or gone after the year.

And the Dodgers have since said they weren't going to trade top prospects for Maddux. B prospects or Izturis seems like the choice. Hendry went with the ML ready option, for better or worse. People can complain about Izturis all they want, but at least he's good enough to make the majors, which the vast majority of B prospects won't ever sniff. The other part of that trade was that it pushed Neifi into a backup role (with the trade of Walker, it would have been Neifi and Cedeno as the starters at short and second) which allowed Hendry to trade Neifi a couple of weeks later. It may not have been planned that way, but it is much less likely that Hendry is trading Neifi if Neifi seems like the only option for a starter at the time, so I connect those two deals especially with them being so close in time as well. It pains me to write it, but I'd rather have Neifi than Izturis. Well, I guess we'll have to see which Izturis shows up this season-at least there is a small possibility that Izturis will be ok this season, while Neifi passed ok a long time ago and continues to decline from his terrible level last year in which Neifi was worse than Izturis and Izturis was just coming back from the injury, while Neifi was healthy all year. I don't really understand why'd you take Neifi over Izturis, but that's just me.

I think Lilly's going to need a long man more than Marquis-even last year, when Lilly was much better than Marquis, Lilly got pulled before the end of 5 innings 5 times, while Marquis only got pulled 3 times. In 2005, Marquis got pulled 5 times before 5 innings were completed, and Lilly got pulled 8 times. I would think a DH-less lineup should help Lilly stay in games longer in the NL Yes and no-his pitching might be a little bit better, but he also might have to be pulled for a pinch-hitter if the Cubs are behind.

And the Dodgers have since said they weren't going to trade top prospects for Maddux. B prospects or Izturis seems like the choice. Hendry went with the ML ready option, for better or worse. People can complain about Izturis all they want, but at least he's good enough to make the majors, which the vast majority of B prospects won't ever sniff. The other part of that trade was that it pushed Neifi into a backup role (with the trade of Walker, it would have been Neifi and Cedeno as the starters at short and second) which allowed Hendry to trade Neifi a couple of weeks later. It may not have been planned that way, but it is much less likely that Hendry is trading Neifi if Neifi seems like the only option for a starter at the time, so I connect those two deals especially with them being so close in time as well.

That was the strangest part of the whole thing-since then, Bruce has confirmed multiple times that the Dodgers said no to prospects. Could Hendry have had an agenda? That whole situation on if the Dodgers actually were or were not willing to give up prospects is just very strange.

I think the key point that you are missing is that you are assuming Hendry values players at the same level you do. And you know that just isnt true. While we think Izturis is a crap return, Hendry values Izturis way more than we do and thought he was bringing back something good. Which would actually be much worse than if he just was unable to get a decent player in return for him. I think it is probably a combination of both. Hendry likely overvalues Izturis, but I doubt that anyone was about to give up serious talent for mediocre pitcher in his 40's. We certainly have no evidence that some GM was considering it. Yeah, the reports coming out the day or two before the deadline was that there was mild interest in Maddux, but nobody was going really hard after him.

Maybe so, but the sad thing is that Izturis will still most likely be an upgrade both offensively and defensively over the Cubs SS's in 2006. Edit: Another thing-the fact that people who are watching Izturis in spring training and are "raving" about his defensive skills, including apparently Bruce, tells me that he hasn't lost that much if at at all from the injuries defensively. How he responds with the bat, and if he continues his offensive progression before the injuries will be the big key.

Uh oh-Thomas is sounding more and more like Gallery :D

I share that optimism, even if cautiously so. Lou seems genuinely to believe this is as much talent as he's had as a manager. I'm confident he'll put productive lineups together. The health of the pitching staff will determine much as will Ted Lilly being able to throw innings and keep the ball down and Jason Marquis to bounce back. I'm not among those counting Marquis out. I gues spring training really is a time of optimism. Bruce, heard you on the radio this morning raving about Izturis's defense. How valuable do you think that will be for this staff? since neifi is rated similar defensively, i doubt that it will be a big enough improvement to really be noticed. that goes for cedeno as well. just my 2 cents. Are you implying that Cedeno played well defensively last year? I would definitely disagree with that if you were. I think he has more defensive potential then he showed last year, but he struggled there for long stretches of time. Ronny made some brilliant plays last season, but the routine stuff gave him problems. He has the potential to be very much above average defensively at SS. The skills are there. The consistency is not. I would definitely agree that Ronny has the talent to be excellent defensively if he could just improve his consistency. i'm saying that defense is not going to be a problem, nor was it last year, so it's not worth discussing, imo. I think defense at SS was a problem last year, and I think it will be a big upgrade this year. How much impact will that have on the team? I honestly don't know.

I share that optimism, even if cautiously so. Lou seems genuinely to believe this is as much talent as he's had as a manager. I'm confident he'll put productive lineups together. The health of the pitching staff will determine much as will Ted Lilly being able to throw innings and keep the ball down and Jason Marquis to bounce back. I'm not among those counting Marquis out. I gues spring training really is a time of optimism. Bruce, heard you on the radio this morning raving about Izturis's defense. How valuable do you think that will be for this staff? since neifi is rated similar defensively, i doubt that it will be a big enough improvement to really be noticed. that goes for cedeno as well. just my 2 cents. Are you implying that Cedeno played well defensively last year? I would definitely disagree with that if you were. I think he has more defensive potential then he showed last year, but he struggled there for long stretches of time. Ronny made some brilliant plays last season, but the routine stuff gave him problems. He has the potential to be very much above average defensively at SS. The skills are there. The consistency is not. I would definitely agree that Ronny has the talent to be excellent defensively if he could just improve his consistency.

I was browsing around, and found somebody speaking about The Fielding Bible on a website. They threw out this statistic from it that simply amazed me and made me wonder at the same time: The 2006 Cubs were above average in outfield arms last year? :shock: http://mvn.com/mlb-cubs/2007/01/04/ten-things-ive-learned-from-the-hardball-times-2007-annual/

I share that optimism, even if cautiously so. Lou seems genuinely to believe this is as much talent as he's had as a manager. I'm confident he'll put productive lineups together. The health of the pitching staff will determine much as will Ted Lilly being able to throw innings and keep the ball down and Jason Marquis to bounce back. I'm not among those counting Marquis out. I gues spring training really is a time of optimism. Bruce, heard you on the radio this morning raving about Izturis's defense. How valuable do you think that will be for this staff? since neifi is rated similar defensively, i doubt that it will be a big enough improvement to really be noticed. that goes for cedeno as well. just my 2 cents. Are you implying that Cedeno played well defensively last year? I would definitely disagree with that if you were. I think he has more defensive potential then he showed last year, but he struggled there for long stretches of time.

Thanks for the warning :D Seriously though, I think the most likely option is that since he's working on his mechanics a little bit, they want to give him some extra time to throw to live batters without the supposed "flaw", and also give them more information against live hitters for them to evaluate.

I think Lilly's going to need a long man more than Marquis-even last year, when Lilly was much better than Marquis, Lilly got pulled before the end of 5 innings 5 times, while Marquis only got pulled 3 times. In 2005, Marquis got pulled 5 times before 5 innings were completed, and Lilly got pulled 8 times. Twice Marquis got left in and lasted 5 innings to save the pen. At the very least he should have been pulled before 5 innings 5 times. That's true-I actually was going to note that as well, but forgot while writing the post. Thanks for the help!

I think Lilly's going to need a long man more than Marquis-even last year, when Lilly was much better than Marquis, Lilly got pulled before the end of 5 innings 5 times, while Marquis only got pulled 3 times. In 2005, Marquis got pulled 5 times before 5 innings were completed, and Lilly got pulled 8 times.

I disagree. Look at who they have brought in...Izturis, Soriano, and DeRosa. Izturis is ALL glove. Soriano was above average in LF last year and that was just his first year in the OF. I'm not sure of DeRosa's metrics, but I believe he's been just fine and can play a lot of positions usually which shows defensive proficiency. Its not like we brought in Adam Dunn or anything. For it to be Hendry's philosophy though, he would have to be bringing in people to fit his notion of good defense-I doubt he's putting that much value in defensive metrics. Izturis I agree with you about-Soriano was seen as average around the league, and he's moving to a new position. DeRosa's reputation is that of an average or above average defender. You forgot the 4th person though-Cliff Floyd. The more Floyd plays in the OF, the more the OF defense is going to suffer because of it. If you look around at many of the people writing articles, they all are saying that the Cubs are going to suffer defensively-could they be wrong? Sure-but their method of judging defense is likely the same one as Hendry's, and so he wouldn't put a team out there with this bad of a reputation defensively if he really wanted a team that could "catch the ball"

Wood was most effective when he did this. He'd induce easy grounders early in the count instead of getting a true outcome going deep into counts. Some of Priors really bad games were when he was flirting with the black the entire game. If you are getting the calls you are unhittable, but if you arent you need to ADAPT and start making the other team put the ball into play. If we are going to care so much about getting guys who can "catch the ball", we might as well try and get our pitchers to actually make a ball get in play. Well, from the looks of most of our defenders this year, I'm pretty sure that they have abandonded the "catch the ball" philosophy-considering that only 2 defenders on the squad are considered to be considerably above average, and then you have the outfield defense, which will likely be one of if not the worst outfield defense in the entire league.

Right, and I'm also not the programming director for the MLB channel. I'm sure they'll do shows on baseball legends and all the other stuff that NFL network does. But you're sort of making my point. The MLB network is going to be somewhat unremarkable, so why won't cable just put it in the basic package? Why try to make their customers pay more for something that isn't that great, and in doing so, cost yourself the revenue from EI? It's horrible business sense from cable Each channel has it's own fee per subscriber I know the NFL Network's fee is incredibly high for a cable channel (they want 70 cents from every subscriber, which would make it one of the priciest cable channels out there), and if MLB's network is the same way, than basically cable operators might have to raise everyone's basic cable bill by a dollar in order to make up for what putting those networks on what cost them. Since such a low percentage of people would want those channels, the backlash would be enormous on cable bills going up for what most people would see as a "worthless channel". They are only putting it on a special package because then the people who want it can pay the extra large fee for it . MLB wants it on the basic package because then they get that subscriber fee from every single person who has cable. Edit: Basically, to sum up what I'm saying is that it only makes sense for cable to add these channels if there is enough popular demand for them. A large percentage of their consumer base would have to beg for them (which is why the NFL network tried to put games on it so that enough people would complain) in order to justify the higher bill for everybody. As you said though, this channel will likely not be remarkable, so it makes no sense for cable to make everyone pay a higher bill for a bad channel.