CubColtPacer

I think our front office might value the draft pick more than the likely return, assuming he's Type A. I'd be shocked if Z was a type A after next year. His 2011 and especially his suspension will end up killing him in most categories. If he has another year like this year he might not even make type B (although I'm guessing he'll pitch more innings next year which will get him into that type B). And the Cubs won't want to offer him arbitration because he'd get a lot more in arbitration than he would on the free agent market.

Where are you getting this 18 million dollar option with 9 million dollar buyout from? Z has a vesting option in 2013 that almost certainly isn't going to vest. Otherwise his contract ends after next year with no buyout.

Only if two teams played identical SOS. If not, the team that played the weakest schedule would get the first pick. Odds are that'll be St. Louis, since they get to play the other two worst teams in the NFC twice each. That would be really close with the Colts. The rest of the AFC South has actually been slightly worse than the rest of the NFC West so far. They play the same AFC division so that cancels out. St. Louis plays the NFC East, which has been slightly easier than the Colts playing the NFC South so far. As far as the 2 other games, St. Louis has the harder road. They have GB and NO, while the Colts have NE and KC. I think the Colts having KC in that spot might end up giving them the easier schedule at the end of the year. I don't expect any of the 3 teams to go 0-16, although after seeing Miami's remaining schedule I'm really disappointed they blew that lead yesterday.

If the Cubs declined his option, that might be the end of Samardzija's no trade clause. But his contract is confusing enough that I wouldn't say anything for sure.

As long as we keep our payroll around $150+ (which has been rumored the past few days), Pujols would never be close to 25% of our budget. If he were to make $30 million next year and we had a $150 million payroll, he would account for 20% of our payroll. If payroll holds at $130 million next year and Pujols makes $30 million, he would be 23% of our budget. Ricketts has given no indication he'll do anything but raise our payroll, so the percentage that Pujols takes of our budget will either hold consistent at 20% or less or it will drop consistently. And ARod is also heavily front loaded, by the way. He's actually a really good deal right now, I think making less than $20 million/yr. ARod is frontloaded but not that frontloaded. He makes 29, 28, 25, 21, 20, 20 in the last 6 years of his deal.

The system is lackluster and aggressive promotions is a part of the system. And? That's like the sportswriters saying that the Cubs were lackluster, and Garza was a part of the Cubs so therefore he must not have helped. That's very poor logic. There are many things contributing to the system being lackluster, but without specific evidence its hard to say that aggressive promotions is one of them. The players who have been promoted aggressively as a whole haven't done that badly. Now, there could be something to the theory that the Cubs being a large market team need prospects to have less development time in the majors and so should spend more time in the minors. That's especially true of pitchers so that they don't burn up their option years too quickly. I could see that being a pretty good reason to switch to a more patient approach. But that's more about the Cubs specific needs and is not a reason why the Cubs system is mediocre.

It's not just specific people who were hurt by aggressive promotions (although Josh Vitters trade value probably was), but there weren't people helped by it either. Aggressively moving guys along when they didn't need to be and had little to gain from it has contributed to a lackluster minor league system. I'd be fine with the Cubs switching to a more patient approach, but I fail to see where it's contributed to the lackluster system. It's had its high points and low points. It does hurt the trade value of somebody like Vitters, but it also gets Castro to the majors 2-3 years ahead of where he would have been in another system. It's a tradeoff that IMO hasn't really hurt the system overall. If there were guys left and right failing because they were rushed then the trade becomes not worth it, but I don't see that happening in the Cubs system right now.

I'd have a hard time thinking of many examples of people who were really hurt by the aggressive promotions, but maybe they are out there. Fleita is definitely in charge of that though as well as somewhat dictating a minor league philosophy. He probably shouldn't be running the whole player development program although they can probably find a better role for him.

Maybe the end of Tim Wilken's free reign here. CCP would say that epstein has a lot of respect for wilken's work. i would say that mcleod is going to be doing that job, for all intents and purposes. I'm ok with it if he does. But the early reports don't have McLeod becoming the scouting director for the Cubs. I'm sure he will have significant input into the draft either way, but it's left to be seen if he's replacing Wilken or not. i said for all intents and purposes. I sincerely doubt that Wilken is going to stay if he's not the one with the final say. And if he has the final say then McLeod isn't doing his job even for all intents and purposes. So IMO they're either going to have to let Wilken go or continue to let him be the main guy controlling the draft philosophy.

Maybe the end of Tim Wilken's free reign here. CCP would say that epstein has a lot of respect for wilken's work. i would say that mcleod is going to be doing that job, for all intents and purposes. I'm ok with it if he does. But the early reports don't have McLeod becoming the scouting director for the Cubs. I'm sure he will have significant input into the draft either way, but it's left to be seen if he's replacing Wilken or not.

I suggested he do that a couple days ago, only said Byrnes instead of Hoyer. So I'm really smart. i wonder what tim wilken is thinking right now. The reports were that Epstein has a lot of respect for Wilken so I'm not sure he would have any problem with this string of hires.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/wiki/index.php/Jason_McLeod What would this mean for Wilken? He is reportedly not coming over as a scouting director but will be taking another position with the Cubs.

He really fills up a stat sheet (good and bad). Is there anybody comparable to him who's had success in MLB? That's the only thing that's holding me back. Otherwise, I love that combination of power, speed, and the position he plays. He has that horrible BB/K ratio, but he's good in every single other area.

What would Epstein do in that scenario? He doesn't want to handle the business aspects of the club. He wouldn't be in charge of the baseball part. Why would the Cubs pay all that money for what is basically just an advisor?

For a first rounder too Possibly 2 first rounders. A horrible deal for the Raiders although they might feel desperate to get back in the playoffs. I'm not even sure Palmer is in the top 20 QB's in the league at this point.

I have no problem with players who end up playing better than their draft status or prospect status. Sometimes people get lost in the shuffle and sometimes people improve. It happens. But when you have 2 guys who play a position where a ton of offense is expected, have been terrible before this year, are really old for their league, and have some worrying signs in their numbers for this year it doesn't fill you with that much hope. Could Rohan or Jones be the real deal? Of course they could, but the track record for those types of players is not very good. That's the issue here. It's not that these types of players cannot succeed, but history shows they're not very likely to. And when you have something as scarce as playing time especially at a position like first base, there might be better risks to take than to take a risk on them trying to continue those types of numbers.

What Kevin Goldstein fails to understand is that while refusing to let Epstein go gives Boston the appearance of leverage, it is only real leverage if they truly want to keep him. Clearly, they don't. They let Theo interview, and they will be paying Theo 6.5 to 7 million dollars to be a lame duck GM for one more year all after effectively naming Cherington their new GM. Theo would then leave next season, and presumably take the generous offer from the Cubs, while Boston would be out the 6.5 to 7 mil. So long as Ricketts is willing to wait a year to get his man, the Sox hold none, NONE, of the cards at this poker table. PR wise, it's an easy out for the Cubs. We have to wait a year for our "savior" because the Red Sox are being f*#@wads about this. Instead of mortgaging a decent part of the Cubs future, we'll call their bluff. However, this is a PR nightmare for Boston. They are already looking like an organization in disarray after a bad September collapse, firing their manager, leaks about what was going on in the clubhouse, apparently bad mouthing of Francona and Epstein, and then keeping Epstein around for one pointless season at the expense of 6.5 to 7 million bucks. If Ricketts isn't willing to wait a year to begin rebuilding and for some reason feels the need to get this done, then he will cave, and then and only then, does Boston have any leverage. But if Ricketts is willing to call their bluff, Boston will fold like a piece of origami. Boston's choice is clear. Accept something reasonable in exchange for Theo or pay him big bucks for a very uncomfortable year and then let him walk for nothing. I could easily see Josh Byrnes being named GM this year, and next year having Theo be named President if this does happen. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the plan is now, Theo being named President and hiring Byrnes to be "GM." How many GM's around the league don't actually make the decisions? In most organizations the GM makes the decisions even if there is a president that is over them. Are there ones where the president is the one running things even when they don't also have the GM title? Plus there's the issue in that scenario of asking Byrnes to run things for a year just to ask him to step back after that.

Caldwell sucks as a HC. I thought he was the MVP for the Jets in last year's playoff victory over the Colts. I can't remember exactly what it was he did though...I just remember at the time I thought "wow, this guy just handed Los Yets the game"...must have been something since I usually hate the whole "lets lay everything bad on the coaches" thing that gets done in football analysis. The Jets were content to try an upper 40's field goal with a kicker who had been inconsistent. Caldwell called a timeout which caused the Jets to try another pass play and gave them a much closer field goal. That was probably the worst example from the playoff game, but finding Caldwell mistakes is pretty easy. I laughed during yesterday's game when they said Caldwell had finally had enough of Lacey and pulled him in the 2nd half. Fans have been mystified about Lacey starting since training camp. With Manning the Colts would still have been 4-2, 5-1. It's a perfect storm without him. The defense is on the field too much and they are getting worn down at the end of games. The offensive line isn't good enough to just line up and run the ball, and for an offense that is a timing passing game the accuracy of Painter and Collins has been awful. Add in the multitude of injuries and there just isn't enough left to win games. Manning would have minimized many of those flaws. They've still had a chance to win each of the last 5 games in the 4th quarter though. This could actually be a really good thing for the Colts especially if they can find a way to get the #1 pick. For years Indy fans have talked about how after Manning leaves it will take a long time to rebuild. Getting the #1 pick and either getting Luck or trading him for a huge haul of draft picks would be a significant step towards their future. I'll gladly take 1 year of horrible play for that.

I'd rather a manager be removed from the dugout when his team is at bat; less chance he'd screw up. The thing I care about is knowing how to handle a pitching staff. Beyond that, just be a in a trance for all I care. Maybe in the first 6 innings. It can be very helpful to have a manager make good decisions in the last 3 innings. Sure it can be. If they make smart moves it feels great. But the problem is the more they try to do in the name of "making things happen", instead of just letting the players play baseball, the more it can hurt the team. I'm just saying that what might be called overmanaging is very useful at the end of close games. Where mangers get into trouble is that they try to apply those principles throughout an entire game. Bunting before the 8th inning for example should pretty much never be done by a non-pitcher. In the 8th or 9th the math would expand the number of potential bunting situations greatly.

I'd rather a manager be removed from the dugout when his team is at bat; less chance he'd screw up. The thing I care about is knowing how to handle a pitching staff. Beyond that, just be a in a trance for all I care. Maybe in the first 6 innings. It can be very helpful to have a manager make good decisions in the last 3 innings.

What the holy hell? I can't believe anyone involved in any of this thinks this is a good idea. Anyway also of note is that the Big East is supposedly going to invite Air Force and Boise State as football-only members and UCF, Houston and SMU as all-sports members, although I don't know how that's affected by this asinine merger. Wow how does that conference deserve a BCS automatic bid with those teams. Big East would be: Rutgers West Virginia Cincinnati Louisville South Florida Connecticut Air Force Boise State Central Florida SMU Which of those teams is going to be able to beat the Big Ten/Big 12/SEC/ACC champ in a bowl game? Hell, which one is going to sell even half their ticket allotment? That's better than the Big East has been since Miami, VT, and BC left.

The question about LaHair is-where did that power come from? That was always his failing as a prospect-he simply didn't hit for enough power as a first baseman to get a long look in the majors. So why suddenly 38 HR? Was it a swing change or was it just an unsustainable hot streak? What does get my attention is that some of the minor league experts have indicated that he's more than just a career minor leaguer, that he has a legit chance, and that scouts are telling them the same thing. That makes me wonder about him. And then his time in the majors showed that he does have some serious power in that frame, but that he also will swing and miss a lot. It's much more likely that he is nothing, but those things do give me pause and wonder if the Cubs should keep him on their bench just in case. He would have enough power and walks combined to probably not be an awful bench player, and then it's just the question if there's a spot for a player with limitations like he has.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range). If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone. The problem becomes that it's much easier to find a starter that can put up a 2.5 WAR than a reliever. Marshall would almost have to put up 4-5 WAR as a starter to match what he does in the bullpen. There's a big roster spot and playing time adjustment to factor in. In a vacuum, Marshall as a decent starter is just as good or better to the Cubs than him as an elite reliever, but I don't think the reality matches that. That's especially true for a market like the Cubs where playing time is a more scarce resource than money.

the self-imposed sanctions are a tad harsh. if the infractions were any greater, IU might have had to force itself to buy the NCAA a coke. Apparently there were 3,041 reported secondary violations last year overall. Unfortunately, this one being committed with Harris is going to make it more of a story.

OK, awful is exaggerating it, but we have substantial money tied up in mediocre to OK players and have a good amount of guys who are overpaid and don't have bright prospects of getting better. Isn't Soriano the only guy signed past this coming season? Marmol is also signed through 2013 but that's it.