CubColtPacer

I would be hard pressed to come up with 50 programs better than A&M (30 possibly but not 50) and it is a big rivalry game which makes it more important that everything but the marquee matchups. I bet Texas fans will grumble if Texas A&M is replaced by a Houston but there should still be enough Texas fans for it to not really affect their attendance. Comparable or better, I said. Houston wasn't one of the teams I had on mind. I only said Houston because they are one of the names rumored to be a possible replacement in the Big 12. If A&M got replaced with a California for example, I doubt the fans would be nearly as excited. They may be a comparable team but they are not that rival with the huge history behind it. For many Texas fans OU has become a bigger rival than Texas A&M, but the rivalry is still pretty big. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The schedule isn't going to turn great bc of any 1 game. So add one of the other good programs to replace A&M and it makes no difference to Texas. They still are going to recruit the same and they're still going to have their season largely depend on the OU game. If a few fans are annoyed, big deal. After this little tantrums by A&M, you think Texas fans want to see the aggies on the schedule? I think Texas fans would definitely want the Aggies on the schedule after this. Are you saying that as an ND fan if USC did something like this that you would no longer want them on the schedule? To say the A&M game is the linchpin to Texas's season is really silly. To say that it makes no difference to Texas or their fans whether they play A&M is IMO also silly. That's all I'm saying. I mean, they each reference the other team in their fight songs! The history makes it a big game for many.

I would be hard pressed to come up with 50 programs better than A&M (30 possibly but not 50) and it is a big rivalry game which makes it more important that everything but the marquee matchups. I bet Texas fans will grumble if Texas A&M is replaced by a Houston but there should still be enough Texas fans for it to not really affect their attendance. Comparable or better, I said. Houston wasn't one of the teams I had on mind. I only said Houston because they are one of the names rumored to be a possible replacement in the Big 12. If A&M got replaced with a California for example, I doubt the fans would be nearly as excited. They may be a comparable team but they are not that rival with the huge history behind it. For many Texas fans OU has become a bigger rival than Texas A&M, but the rivalry is still pretty big.

I would be hard pressed to come up with 50 programs better than A&M (30 possibly but not 50) and it is a big rivalry game which makes it more important that everything but the marquee matchups. I bet Texas fans will grumble if Texas A&M is replaced by a Houston but there should still be enough Texas fans for it to not really affect their attendance.

Why this guy of all people? Because he's just an organizational guy. So there's no harm in promoting him to get some innings when another club needs them and then immediately demoting him. Teams are much more careful normally about promoting/demoting their prospects.

Wouldn't it be the difference of an option year? Probably not a big deal considering his age, but if he winds up a utility guy, then the flexibility may matter. No option year difference. Options are only used when you get sent to the minors and that wouldn't happen for Flaherty until next year spring training.

Vitters has walked a second time and Ha has walked also. The interesting that about that trio (Vitters, Ha, Lake) is that Vitters is the oldest and he turns 22 in a couple of days. IMO, Ha and Lake have to be considered better prospects at this point than Vitters, but they're all intriguing. I'd take Vitters over both as a prospect, but just barely. All three have very interesting, possibly underrated upsides. I realized I overrated Lake a little after putting them side by side and edited my post. Ha I think is definitely better though. He's almost as good of a hitter, he's over a year younger, and he plays good defense at all the outfield positions while Vitters is very, very questionable to stay at 3rd base. Lake meanwhile offers speed (his basestealing has taken a huge step forward this year both in attempts and percentage) and power with a better chance of staying at SS than Vitters does at 3rd IMO. He is also younger, but his BB/K percentage is a lot scarier than it is for Vitters. These are their minor league career numbers: Vitters: .278/.318/.437 Lake: .267/.315/.402 Ha: .280/.306/.408 All have climbed the ladder at a young age. Ha's career numbers are the worst but that is mostly because of the terrible year at Boise after coming to the States. I just don't see Vitters with a big enough edge hitting wise to overcome the positional/defense question.

Vitters has walked a second time and Ha has walked also. The interesting that about that trio (Vitters, Ha, Lake) is that Vitters is the oldest and he turns 22 in a couple of days. IMO, Ha has to be considered a better prospect than Vitters and Lake is about the same level, but they're all intriguing.

7 now. 7 for 9 on the season.

True, but what hurt can it do to claim him and spend a few minutes on the phone? Who knows, with the Mets terrible financial situation, maybe the cost would be a lot less than you would think. Perhaps interested teams spent those few minutes on the phone BEFORE deciding whether to put in a claim, and found out it would be a waste of time. Entirely possible. True but you make the claim and no one else can get him, and you get a .00005% chance that the Mets randomly give him to you because the Madoff crap is worse than previously believed. The only downsides that might be true are: There is a nominal fee to make a claim, correct? Also I asked this yesterday but didn't get a response. It might be true that you lose your waiver priority if you claim someone? So if you are the Astros, and that is true, I don't make that claim for several reasons. But a team like the Yankees can claim anyone they want. The downside is your relationship with other GM's It's courtesy to not claim players that you don't have serious interest in (or in some cases that you are blocking from other teams). Losing that courtesy with another GM hurts both sides with very little upside.

Accounting for all three of your variables and assuming payroll remains the same, the Cubs would have 53.9 million left before arbitration players, deciding on Samardzija's option, and minimum salary players (also depending on how Pena's money is budgeted). The players who will have a chance for arbitration next season made 11.91 million this year. They probably will be somewhere between 15-20 million. So depending on those factors, the Cubs will have somewhere between 21-38 million to spend.

You're being deliberately obtuse, right? You can't see the value in a platoon player? Baker's career numbers against LH pitchers: .317 .364 .536 .900 in 535 PA You really can't see the value in that? Oh,I see it. Its his 1/2 dimension. So your philosophy is that you would rather a bench player be ok in everything than great in one thing and poor in the rest? I can understand that (the former provides better depth while the latter is better to have in any individual game). In the Cubs case, I'm not sure it works though. If Ramirez or Barney go down for any length of time, the Cubs have minor leaguers they can bring up to start at those positions. So why not keep Baker and use him where he's great? If Jackson pushes Reed Johnson off the team next year (which is very possible) then the Cubs are going to be low on guys who can come off the bench and hit left-handed pitching. Baker can fill that void and be used primarily for that purpose. Plus having Baker on the bench means that you can be a little more picky with your other bench players since he can passably play so many positions.

He's been pretty bad this year. Teams taking him on are going to be doing so out of the hope that he rebounds at least somewhat next season. Remembering that he's an emotional roller coaster, he's been bad this year on a horrible team with no offense and pitiful defense. I think Zambrano on a winning team with good defensive and offensive support would be a completely different pitcher. Also, a change of scenary and a move from near the top of the rotation to near the back of the rotation certainly would lower the expectation level. If Z was emotionally upset, wouldn't he be trying to strike everybody out instead of lobbing pitches over the plate? That theory doesn't really fit with the reasons he's struggled this season. And the person who expects the most out of Zambrano is Zambrano-a change of scenery won't change that. He might improve working with an improved defense, but his BABIP isn't high especially compared to his LD percentage. I don't agree that a change of scenary won't change things. Lower expectations, not being "the man" in the clubhouse, not being coddled by the manager and front office, not being stalked daily by the local media, etc. might go a long way to improving his situation. It will help his emotional health and help him stay on the field, but I don't see it really helping his pitching. His pitching woes are for completely different reasons.

He's been pretty bad this year. Teams taking him on are going to be doing so out of the hope that he rebounds at least somewhat next season. Remembering that he's an emotional roller coaster, he's been bad this year on a horrible team with no offense and pitiful defense. I think Zambrano on a winning team with good defensive and offensive support would be a completely different pitcher. Also, a change of scenary and a move from near the top of the rotation to near the back of the rotation certainly would lower the expectation level. If Z was emotionally upset, wouldn't he be trying to strike everybody out instead of lobbing pitches over the plate? That theory doesn't really fit with the reasons he's struggled this season. And the person who expects the most out of Zambrano is Zambrano-a change of scenery won't change that. He might improve working with an improved defense, but his BABIP isn't high especially compared to his LD percentage.

I tried to read all of the thread and jubilation but had to stop at this post. Well said and a much better summary than any other blog or writer so far. In the 9 years Hendry was GM, the Cubs became more successful than any other time during my life. He had some colossal successes and some colossal blunders. However, many of those blunders are now seen with hindsight that I suspect even he would agree with. Looking at a "top 5" list of failures on another site, Hendry's mistakes are poor now but put in perspective of the moves at the time, weren't as poor as they seemed. Zambrano's contract was actually a savings from what the market value that year was (although the no trade clauses he always gave were poor management). Soriano was market value as well and despite many prognosticators being right on the number of years becoming an albatross, that deal was not Hendry's fault. The Willis trade for Alfonseca is hardly a bad trade and was pretty even at the time given Clement's success. I think that for all the jubilation about the dismissal (and justifiably so) we should be fair to the last 9 years and look back on the Jim Hendry era with fondness for all that went right as well as all that went wrong. The last 9 years have been some of the highest cubs fans have ever been and some of the lowest. At least it was always this low Soriano was not "market value." It's pretty well known at this point that Hendry blew away the closest offers at the behest of the owners. Yes, he was the biggest FA in that offseason and Hendry was told to spend, but let's not act like that contract was something he was going to get from another team. Yeah. Soriano was looking at a 6/110 deal or 7/115 deal (just slightly over what Carlos Lee got that same offseason who was considered slightly inferior) that turned into an 8/136 deal. Definitely over market value.

If more than one team wants him, then the Cubs aren't over a barrel. If he still has value to other teams, the Cubs can get that value. Relatively speaking, sure. But in the grand scheme of things they're unfortunately over a barrel. They're not going to trade him without either getting a horrible contract back in return, paying for most of Zambrano's 2012 contract or simply getting scraps. Given that he's still 30, his significant past success and his relative offensive value the Cubs shouldn't be in that kind of corner...and yet, here we are. I'm not sure about that. All of Z's deeper numbers are scary this season. His stuff is declining and he has become much more hittable. Line drive percentage is up, HR percentage is up, swinging strike is down, contact against is up, and he throws less fastballs every year. Knowing his arm history that is not a good sign at all. And with the run environment the last two seasons, the bar for pitchers is higher than it used to be. Z can probably put up a few more below average to average type seasons with some decent added value for his bat. Even if he were a model citizen and was on the free agent market this year, I probably wouldn't pay him more than 8 million a year and less if it was an AL team. He's that risky at this point without much upside. Some team will take a chance on him, but I'm not sure how much the Cubs are losing by him having character issues. Apparently rival teams were saying last year that they didn't see him as much more than a #5, and I bet his reduced stuff brings up red flags among scouts.

Castro has never really needed to take a walk though. Growing up with little power and a unbelievably elite hit tool makes it very hard to have any reason to walk. There's no need to wait for a good pitch when you're hitting singles anyway and you can reach out and hit a bad pitch for a single. Hopefully as his power continues to develop he realizes that he will have to wait in order to get the type of pitches that he can hit over the fence. But anybody with that elite of plate coverage is going to have a hard time holding back.

It was a straight steal and Castro swung at the pitch. Cards defenders deked Campana. Bob (who gets hard for hit and runs) blamed Campana for not picking up the third base coach, but if anyone's at fault there, it's Castro. Why? Presumably for swinging at a pitch out of the zone when his teammate was stealing. It wasn't out of the zone though. The video of that play is up on Gameday, and the pitch is a clear strike. In fact, it was a really good pitch to hit. That's on Campana there. Unless there was a take sign (unlikely with a 2-1 count), he has to know Castro is going to swing if he gets a pitch like that and he just has to have more awareness of what's going on there. He had a ton of time to get back.

Running a top 3 baseball market team with a top 5 payroll in a division full of small market teams? I can't imagine how there'd be interest in a position like that. Especially now. A year ago, there might not have been quite as much interest because of the Cubs contract situation. But now, there's an owner who is willing to spend on both the draft and major league talent and plenty of contract flexibility. Any new GM will be able to put his stamp on the franchise within 2 years.

Given how athletic and relatively young he is as a pitcher....hell no. It's just not happening for at least another couple seasons IMO. So how long would it take him to get stretched out again and ready to go? Let's say hypothetically Wells goes down for a long period of time early next year again; how long until Shark could start in place of Wells? It depends on how they pitch him in spring training. If it is completely as a short reliever than probably it would take a while for him to get stretched out.

I believe so yes, but Cots lists him as making 3.3 million this year. If that's true, the least the Cubs could offer would be 2.64 million. It might not be worth it to go through that and lose the potential club option for 2013 for that little savings (and they'd have to drag it to arbitration to go that low or settle with Samardzija for a slightly higher amount anyway).

Other than maybe Ramirez, Samardzija could be the most tricky of the Cubs possible free agents this offseason. At the beginning of this year, it was assumed the Cubs wouldn't be picking up his option. In fact, many wanted him released altogether. Has he done enough to change that? Here are his stats by month: April: 15 1/3 IP, 2.93 ERA, 0 HR/9, 9.39 BB/9, 9.98 K/9 May: 14 2/3 IP, 4.91 ERA, 0.61 HR/9, 5.52 BB/9, 11.04 K/9 June: 15 1/3 IP, 4.11 ERA, 1.17 HR/9, 4.70 BB/9, 8.22 K/9 July: 14 IP, 3.21 ERA, 0.64 HR/9, 3.86 BB/9, 7.07 K/9 August: 9 1/3 IP, 0.96 ERA, 0 HR/9, 1.92 BB/9, 9.65 K/9 Totals: 68 2/3 IP, 3.41 ERA, 0.52 HR/9, 5.37 BB/9, 9.17 K/9, 3.69 FIP, 4.33 xFIP, 3.74 SIERA The walk totals are still way too high over the course of the full season, but they have been coming down every single month. The xFIP is high, but Samardzija is an outlier with infield popups which throws that off (15.2% this year and 12.2% over his Cubs career). Fangraphs grades his slider and splitfinger as much better than previous years and he is throwing his slider 10 more percent of the time than he ever has before. His HR rate is much, much better than it was in 2009 or 2010 after not giving up any in 2008 which could either be a severe outlier or an indication of his improved stuff. So is he worth a 3 million club option with a possible 3.5 million club option for 2013? Today, I would say yes. There's enough potential in those numbers to make it worth it. He's a pretty strong pitcher with what he's done this year, and if he truly has figured something out he could be even better next year. But there are certainly reasons to be wary. So has he done enough?

You've gotta think that Carimi will move to LT at some point, barring Webb turning into a total stud that none of us think he'll become. The question is-do you put your best lineman at a position he's probably going to fail at but is still better than the alternatives or a less important position that he'll probably succeed at? The reason Carimi fell in the draft in the first place was because people thought that he was the best right tackle in the draft but probably wouldn't be able to play left tackle in the NFL.

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again. Wow. That's some opinion. I'll join in the throngs of people who disagree 100% with this. To quote Charlie Sheen, "winning". That's what its about. San Francisco obviously had no fans when Barry was carrying the team. Nobody cares too much about character in team sports. They will forgive anything if the bad characters are producing. Sammy was beloved when he was good. And he was hated when he sucked. To think that keeping Zambrano would lose fans is absolutely untrue. And to bring up the Pacers analogy is also wrong. The Pacers have sucked for a long time. Ron Artest had nothing to do with them losing fans. Sorry. So the implication is they care about character in individual sports? Would Tiger Woods have as many fans today if he started dominating again? Especially among women? Multiple people have given testimonies of people leaving because of character concerns some even while their team was still winning. To dismiss that would require calling all of them liars. Is there any proof that they are lying? I've said and will continue to say that winning is by far the biggest factor in attendance in pro sports. That doesn't mean there are not other factors that contribute. To say there's no point of no return (to extend it out to the absurd, would people really support a team full of murderers) is hard for me to swallow. Now, the argument that what Z did is minor enough that it will not break that point for more than a negligible amount of fans, that argument I can buy.

Maybe do something where compensation is at least partially based on contract value? That separates out your superstars from everybody else. It's probably the most objective way of determining market value (although not perfect). It's a fair system for small market teams because it rewards them most for the players they have the toughest time keeping. It helps players out because declining players won't have trouble finding jobs just because their team offered them arbitration. And if you separate out the picks over several rounds, there isn't such a huge gulf between picks for any team.

I thought that too, but the current draft doesn't support that. 17 of the 27 compensatory picks went to teams that were in the bottom 10 of payroll in 2010. That was mostly 3 teams (Tampa Bay, Toronto, and San Diego) who combined for 14 of those. The big gap was in the middle. 5 went to the top 5 payroll teams, 5 went to the next 15, and then 17 to the last 10. I don't know if that's supported by previous years though.