CubColtPacer

Why wouldn't Rizzo? June at the latest. He's 22, and this team is terrible. There's no reason to even consider him on opening day. Why rush him? Let him solidify his abilities in Iowa and call him up in September unless he's absolutely destroying everything. September might be a little late. This would already be Rizzo's second option used up this year. I'd hate to only bring him up in September and still don't know if you have to use his final option next spring training.

I liked Cashner's potential over Rizzo, but since it would probably take 3 years to get Cashner up to a full workload, it makes sense to trade him rather than deal with that headache. The big questions for Rizzo are if he can limit the strikeouts enough, and how much of his jump in power was PCL related. And Cates for Na makes perfect sense for both sides. Cates is the better player, but Na could potentially fit really well in SD.

I don't particularly like the move, but I don't think Theo did this to be cowardly, or blame the Cubs' past suckiness on anyone. Based on his comments he sought advice from nearly everyone close to the situation and made an informed decision. Even though I don't care for the move, I like the willingness to call it what it is. I meant the players, who supposedly kept telling him Zambrano can't come back. Guys like Wood, Dempster..., who's left on this team now? Oops, looks like I misread it. I agree to some extent, but if they asked for the player's opinion and the player gives them an opinion, isn't it up to Theo to sift through what is reasonable and what is just sour grapes? Why ask the player's opinion? Theo from his comments seems to believe in a minimum level of team chemistry. He'll give you a lot of time to make it work, but at some point it becomes too divisive (which is similar to how they handled the Manny situation in Boston). Reading between the lines, it sounds like if Theo had gotten a mixed response he might have given Z another chance but with nobody in the clubhouse willing to support him he felt it was time for him to go. Plus, asking the players makes them feel respected by the new general manager, which could have benefits down the line in contract negotiations.

How are they going to pull that off? After this year you can no longer spend huge on prospects. The baseball budget is set year by year. You can't go out and spend an extra $50m above that budget one season after not spending it, because the next year you are going to be screwed trying to get back down to your real budget. Unless there's another Darvish on the horizon, there is nothing to use the carryover money on from a baseball standpoint. $50M in, say, a 5 year budget amounts to one pretty decently sized contract on a per year basis after that, though. If I thought they were going to pocket the money, I would be a lot more upset with the current path. But I trust Ricketts when he says he plans to spend all the money. So money not spent on the major league payroll will go somewhere-probably in hiring a much larger front office, training staff, minor league development people. Or it could be transferred over to the business side for renovations or maybe used for future years. As long as its used somewhere productive to try to either increase the talent level (players or staff) or in an effort to increase future revenues I'm ok with it. But unless it's spent on the major league payroll, I don't think we'll ever know for sure where it went.

I don't think that my pretty simplistic exercise really directly points to that type of solution. Really, I was trying to point more towards the surprisingly small number of FA's that have star-quality seasons. The difference in "develop your own stars" and "trade for guys who are not yet stars but might/will be soon" isn't terribly important, especially in the context of all the other comments that were made in the original post and the ensuing replies. Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky. It's pretty risky (albeit with high rewards as well) Looking at the top 4 free agents the last 5 years (in terms of total contract value) and what their WAR was in year 1: 2010 0.2, 2.5, 6.7, 5.7 2009 6.7, 4.1, 1.5, 1.1 2008 5.2, 6.4, 3.5, 2.6 2007 6.3, 2.6, 1.4, 5.7 2006 7.0, 1.7, 3.9, 3.4 So some great production, but some huge busts as well. And some of those success stories were short-lived. The 7.0 from 06? Alfonso Soriano. The 6.3 from 2007? A-Rod. The 5.7 from 2007? Posada. On the other side of the coin, the 4th largest contract from 2009 was only 36 million (Figgins) so it hardly counts as a big deal. Here's the full list of players. Whose contracts would you have wanted? Crawford, Werth, Cliff Lee, Beltre, Holliday, Lackey, Bay, Figgins, Teixeira, Sabathia, Burnett, Lowe, Rodriguez, Hunter, Rowand, Posada, Soriano, Zito, Matsuzaka, Carlos Lee. Several that are very good deals, but it's hardly not risky.

And that's my biggest problem with acquiring Volstad on purpose. He may wind up a cheap average player for us this year, but we're not trying to win games this year, so what's the point. By time he matters to us, he's no longer cheap. Well, if he breaks out and becomes a 2 to 3 win pitcher, then he'll have enough value to be fine to pay whatever he gets in arbitration or have trade value. If he doesn't, then he gets non-tendered. I would agree though that Volstad isn't the ideal buy low because of how much service time he already has.

Also, as an added bonus, during those 3 years we get to waste cheap 5+ WAR seasons from Starlin Castro. If we're blowing an offseason that could have made us a playoff team or near playoff team, why are the following two seasons already written off when we've only gotten rid of expiring contracts and added guys under control for several years? This is becoming somewhat maddening. Having good players under team control I agree is a good thing. Mediocre players, or players who were once good and are no longer good, I don't see much of a value in. There's plenty of value in average cheap players. You don't want a full roster of them, but baseball players do not follow a standard bell curve. There are not tons of average players out there, so if you have some of them for cheap that's helpful to make sure that you don't have a hole at certain positions.

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of. There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is. Volstad is not a long shot to turn into something decent. His K/BB ratio is already there. Now he just needs to either have some improvement in his HR rate (which was not a problem for him in the minors) or figure out why he strands so few runners. There's a reason that a couple sites have already mentioned him as a potential breakout candidate. Does he have elite potential? No. But he has a pretty decent shot of becoming average to above average.

one issue i had with that fangraphs piece is that zambrano has, up until last year, consistently outpitched his xFIP, to the point where you can't just write it off as a fluke. even with his ERA being a half run higher than his xFIP last year, his career ERA is still more than a half run higher than his xFIP. No, it definitely wasn't a fluke, but there were different reasons for it recently than in the past. From 2002-2008, the main reason Z's ERA was always better than his xFIP was that his BABIP was low. And since he did it so consistently, it definitely wasn't a fluke. In 2009-2011, his BABIP became league average. The big reason he performed his xFIPs in 2009 and 2010 is that he suddenly had one of the best HR/FB ratios in baseball (top 5-10 both years in fact). The HR/FB ratios even beat his 2003/2004 years when he was throwing his sinker more. One of those years he had his best IFFB rate, but the other year was one of his worst so no real explanation there. In my opinion, those HR/FB rates were unsustainable. Maybe he won't have an 11.3% rate again like he had last year, but he's very unlikely to be below 6 or anywhere close to that. And the ability to control his BABIP has been gone for 3 years now, and the last time he had it he was throwing his fastball a lot more than he does anymore. So the xFIPs tell a much better story than they did earlier in his career.

This is wonderful. The Marlins would be the one team who might have a legit reason to overpay for Z. I'm still not sure if I expect anything great back, but I expect more from the Marlins than 5-7 million in salary relief which is all I expected from any other team. I'm guessing the money will still be about the same, but the Cubs will receive something decent back instead of just straight salary relief.

I'd say between .725 and .775 for LaHair this year. His power has been big enough the last 3 years that it would be hard to not project 15-20 HR for him over 600 PA. That with a pretty good walk rate will be enough to get him that high even with a very high strikeout rate and a low batting average.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Pittsburgh curb stomping. They are losing players left and right and struggled to beat Cleveland twice in the 2nd half of the year. They barely beat KC, Jacksonville and Indy at times this year. They might shut out the Broncos, but they also might now score much themselves. Agreed. A Pittsburgh team who was already not playing that well, now loses both Mendenhall and Clark and is playing on the road? I don't trust them very much at all. It's amazing how fast the AFC has fallen. The last few years 3-5 teams legitimately had a shot to win the Super Bowl. This year it's...2 maybe?

You can use your amnesty at any time on a player that was under contract when the CBA was signed. So they could amnesty Boozer at any point, but they still have to pay out that money. It just doesn't count against the cap. Yup. Ended up being perfect for the Bulls because they don't have to make that decision on Boozer immediately and can wait until if and when he breaks down. But they'd still have to be pretty creative to sign Love unless my numbers are wrong. With Rose, Deng, and Noah's salaries I'm not sure where they'll fit in another max player even if they do amnesty Boozer. Maybe in the 2013 offseason if they pretty much get rid of everybody else on the roster, but that would require Love signing his qualifying offer with the Timberwolves when he's a restricted free agent this offseason.

I don't know what's going to happen. I do know that Martz didn't want Hanie, that Angelo essentially forced Hanie on Martz, and that the 2011 season was lost the second Hanie stepped foot on the field. On the surface it looks to me that Jerry lost a power struggle and that Lovie will get one more chance. It makes plenty of sense to bring back Martz in that situation. But that assumes Lovie and Martz got along. There were reports each of the last 2 years that Lovie was not OK with the run/pass ratio early in the seasons. Playcalling has been an issue. Getting play calls in from him up in the booth has been an issue. who is in the quarterback's ear? i always thought martz was talking to him. i don't understand why there has to be a middle man between martz and cutler. Martz sends the play to Day (QB Coach) who sends it in to Cutler. Martz can't send directly to Cutler from the booth, I don't believe. That's correct. It's against NFL rules for coaches in the booth to talk with the players through the helmet ear pieces.

These just being 2 teams that are desperately seeking starting pitching. The Marlins and Orioles are also known to be actively seeking I really don't get why nobody seems to be willing to take a chance on 1 year of Big Z, a year that promises to be a walk year as nobody will pick up the 19 mil 2013 option. He has a 9 mil buyout which I'm sure the Cubs would pick up or maybe split. Obviously, Z has his mental issues, but if there's ever a year that he'll act and pitch anything like a 18 mil pitcher, this would be it, and although his velo is down a bit he still has what it takes to be a 3 guy in most rotations, probably 2 for the Yankees depending on how seriously you take Nova. A lot of teams seem very reluctant to give Edwin Jackson 4 years and Z would cost less in terms of prospects than Garza, Floyd, Jurrjens, or Wandy. I'd be willing to eat a good chunk, if not all of the salary if we could get 3 decent prospects in return, possiblly 1 of somebodies top 10 and 2 high ceiling guys or big league ready types, but obviously nowhere near the caliber of guys we'd expect for Garza. I understand that Z isn't a guy that should be railroaded out of town, but the way the 2012 season's shaping up, if we have to pay the 18 mil anyway it could be more valuable to us if we got some prospects and let Z pitch elsewhere. Perhaps a change of scenery would do him well. Maybe teams will be more desperate in the summer. I'm not sure where you are getting your contract details WSR, but there is no 9 million buyout. Z gets a player option if he finishes top 4 in the Cy Young voting. If he doesn't, the contract automatically ends after 2012-no buyout. The Cubs or any other club have no choice to make.

So he effectively got a free timeout? Yup. I don't think most coaches would have thought about that since the result of the play was so similar (completed pass vs penalty to the same spot).

That was a really smart challenge in the Michigan State game.

I was worried Irsay had too much respect for Bill Polian to get rid of him. I didn't think it was likely, but I'm not that surprised. Yup. I figured Irsay liked continuity too much to fire Polian yet, but I'm not shocked by it either. In addition to his performance issues over the last few years, Bill Polian has had a beyond toxic relationship with the local media and has blatantly lied multiple times on his radio show this year to try to make himself look better. The interesting thing is that we knew Polian was taking Luck and had no interest in the trading the pick (with no idea if he was planning on bringing back Manning or not). Will the new GM? Was this part of the reason the Polians were fired? Tons of speculation right now.

Well, first I don't think we know that it will be the same people in the developmental spots. There could be significant turnover or at least significant additions to the staff in that area that wouldn't necessarily be publicized at this point in the offseason. Second is that as people have said those coaches/staff could change their philosophy. For most of them, it's not like they've been with the Cubs for 30 years. Many of them have been with multiple organizations, and they aren't necessarily all huge believers in the philosophy that was laid out by the previous regime. And if they don't follow the Cubs extensive manual on player development that Theo has said is going to be written that explains in detail how they want players to play, then they'll quickly be shown the door. And third, I don't think even the previous regime did a lot to mess up top prospects. They didn't do a good job of correcting flaws in raw players, but if highly regarded A or AA players come in it's not like they're going to get ruined by a year of being under these coaches. They're simply not that incompetent.

Not really. PSU cannot afford the public perception problems that they're once again putting football ahead of ethics if they hired somebody like Saban. He's just not the right fit for them at this time with their public image so fragile. That doesn't mean they're too good for him, or that they wouldn't love to hire someone like him at another time. BTW that effectively says that PSU is too good for Saban. Not bc he's a bad coach but bc of his reputation. But that's a meaningless distinction. That's the thing. It's not only because of Saban's reputation. It's Saban's reputation+PSU's issues. If either part of the equation wasn't true, they would want to hire him. So while saying PSU is too good for Saban if they refused to hire him might technically be a true statement, it's horribly misleading. That statement would be interpreted in 2 primary ways. The first is PSU thinks they could find a better football coach than Saban, and the second is that they think they are morally superior to Saban. Neither is true in this case, which makes that statement a very bad summation. I do agree with that I don't know how tarnished Saban's reputation is among college football fans right now. The real question though is what the media would write about it because they could change a lot of minds

Putting several words in bold isn't an explanation. Come on, man. You know what he's trying to say. PSU is going through a major scandal and hiring a coach like Nick Saban, who's looked at like the devil by everyone except Alabama fans, is probably not a good idea for PSU right now. Right. PSU is too good for Saban. Not really. PSU cannot afford the public perception problems that they're once again putting football ahead of ethics if they hired somebody like Saban. He's just not the right fit for them at this time with their public image so fragile. That doesn't mean they're too good for him, or that they wouldn't love to hire someone like him at another time.

DeWitt's not gone. I'll go on record and say at least half of those guys will be on the team to start the year, and probably more than that. The front office is certainly listening on most of them, but I just don't see that many deals getting done.

i don't love this. i also feel like we need more of an adjustment for who the baserunners are than i am seeing. all that said,the suggestion that the hit and run isn't a disaster now that we've cut it down to only to most ideal situations isn't a shocking one. i still don't want to see my team using it. Yeah, that's pretty silly. I don't think he's trying to cut it down to ideal situations. He's trying to define what is a called hit and run and what isn't from the data. He acknowledges he will miss a few hit and run situations from limiting the data like he has, but he's removing a lot more noise from the data than he is part of his sample. And what exactly is this study replacing? Conjecture. The "Well, when the hit and run works, it gets a free base hit and moves a runner up so it must be good" or "The team runs into outs when it uses the hit and run so it must be bad". If there's been a better, more detailed study on the hit and run I'd love to see it. As for now, I would say this study is like defensive metrics. It isn't perfect, it may not even be good, but it's the closest we have to objective statistical analysis on the subject. And since analyzing the effects of the hit and run with your eyes is much harder than analyzing a player's defense, the statistical analysis has to be given a little more weight.

Mike Fast from Baseball Prospectus takes a look at how effective hit and runs really are. He looks at data from 2003-2011 As you see from his research, there is a lot of noise in the data so it is hard to pin down exactly. But after taking a hard look at the data, here is his conclusion: Here is the long article explaining the reasoning and the math behind that: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713 Also interesting to note that the Cubs had the 7th fewest hit and runs in baseball over that time period (which comprises the whole tenures of Baker,Piniella, and Quade). The hit and run was completely neutral for them over that time period-no runs gained or lost. Thoughts? I've always thought the hit and run got a little bit of a bad rap, but I'm surprised to see that it actually is a positive play overall the way it's been used.

Probably (and I'm not suggesting that Boston is bad), but I doubt Boston's going to be so much better than Indiana that it's laughable that West would choose to sign there instead. That doesn't even go into that Boston was trying to force NO into taking O'Neal for West in order to make the deal work. Even if Boston was supposed to be a lot better than Indiana, it's pretty classless to talk about another player (who wasn't even on your team to begin with) like that. The fact that Boston is probably not going to be much better if better at all than Indiana makes it classless and hilarious.