CubColtPacer

It would be like if Ryno had stayed on and become bench coach. I think everyone is staying. I think we're going to hear some awful stuff about the team having come together and starting to play up to its capability now that people are back from injuries, we're going to hear about how great the draft was (and it was), and that it's going to be Hendry/Quade for 2012. Actually, Ryno as bench coach made sense, and so does Hendry as scout. Olders GMs move into scouting all the time. He's not an up and comer who has been earning promotions. He's been in his position for a decade, he's older, has had health problems and is under contract. If he wants the money he is owed, he will stay on in whatever capacity they want him. Nobody is going to be banging down his down to lead their team. I don't think that part about the money is true. The Cubs can try to reassign him, but Hendry is within his rights to say no and collect his paycheck instead. The contract he signed almost certainly comes with the title of GM and the club would be breaking the contract if the tried to make him something else. The contract says he has to be the GM? It probably doesn't allow for him to get demoted, but I'm sure the contract isn't voided if the Cubs "promote" him. It doesn't seem like it would be difficult for the Cubs to spin a a new title for him as a promotion. Like jersey said, its not like he has another GM job waiting for him as soon as he leaves the Cubs. While he wouldnt be happy about being moved to another position, it would make sense for him to accept the move and jump ship if that opportunity ever comes up again. Or he could say 'screw the Cubs' and look for a similar position (as the one the cubs try to offer him) on a different club. But the chances of him making the same amount of money the Cubs are playing him for a lesser role is slim to none. Edit: Of course this is all based on the premise that the cubs are really planning on doing something like this, which I don't believe is likely. It probably isn't voided with a promotion, but Hendry likely has the right to refuse any promotion as well without penalty. But you're right, it's not likely that the Cubs would ever go down that road.

It would be like if Ryno had stayed on and become bench coach. I think everyone is staying. I think we're going to hear some awful stuff about the team having come together and starting to play up to its capability now that people are back from injuries, we're going to hear about how great the draft was (and it was), and that it's going to be Hendry/Quade for 2012. Actually, Ryno as bench coach made sense, and so does Hendry as scout. Olders GMs move into scouting all the time. He's not an up and comer who has been earning promotions. He's been in his position for a decade, he's older, has had health problems and is under contract. If he wants the money he is owed, he will stay on in whatever capacity they want him. Nobody is going to be banging down his down to lead their team. I don't think that part about the money is true. The Cubs can try to reassign him, but Hendry is within his rights to say no and collect his paycheck instead. The contract he signed almost certainly comes with the title of GM and the club would be breaking the contract if the tried to make him something else.

i really would not count on him leaving philly. they have a $165m payroll this year, and oswalt and blanton will be off their books by 2012 offseason. I agree the Phillies will make him too much of a priority for him to get away. I don't know how they will redo their offense if they sign him though. They have 60 million tied up to the starting rotation this year. If they sign Hamels to a 20 million a year deal, they'll have 65 million in the rotation for 3 pitchers (Worley should end up being a decent option for cheap, but they'll still have to find a 5th starter). But they'll have to deal with that because they have to pay Hamels-he's too important for their future to get away.

If he's so ashamed he should drop his appeal to the players union and accept the ~$3 million loss of income during the next 30 days. For the more statistical inclined, how much is the value of a win? I always forget how that works. $4.5 mil per win? Zambrano is has a 1.0 WAR this year, so in reality he's pitching like a $4.5 million pitcher It depends on who is calculating it and the year. Fangraphs seems to be using a number for this year that is somewhere around 4.5. But remember that WAR is a counting stat. So if Z was pitching the rest of the year and stayed on his current pace, having earned 4.5 million already he'd likely be a 6 million pitcher at the end of the season.

Most of the speculation seemed to assume that he would be a first round pick in 3 years if he went to college, but they figured nobody would want to sign him to that sort of deal until they saw him develop a little more.

Has there been much talk about how much this can reduce scoring? With no kickoff return TDs, and very little chance for decent field position after a kickoff, teams are going to be forced to move 80 yards for touchdowns. Not much since the rule was actually implemented. That was the reason why they considered moving it to the 25 with a touchback (which is something I bet that will be brought up again). It really shouldn't reduce scoring that much though. It will hurt field position after a kickoff, but that means it will improve the opponents field position after a 3 and out. So it might reduce the number of 38-31 games with lots of kickoffs, but in most normal games with a mixture of kickoffs and punts the field position will balance out. But the 20 provides a nice cushion against the types of punts that set up real good field position. I don't remember the change, is everybody on the kickoff moved up 5 yards? Just the kicker? Everybody can be at the 35 yard line. But the other guys have to start with at least one foot on the 30...no more 15 yard running starts before the ball is kicked. I would agree that the 20 is good for punts, and I don't necessarily think that would need to change even if the kickoff touchback was changed. There are all sorts of different rules for kickoffs and punts anyway.

Has there been much talk about how much this can reduce scoring? With no kickoff return TDs, and very little chance for decent field position after a kickoff, teams are going to be forced to move 80 yards for touchdowns. Not much since the rule was actually implemented. That was the reason why they considered moving it to the 25 with a touchback (which is something I bet that will be brought up again). It really shouldn't reduce scoring that much though. It will hurt field position after a kickoff, but that means it will improve the opponents field position after a 3 and out. So it might reduce the number of 38-31 games with lots of kickoffs, but in most normal games with a mixture of kickoffs and punts the field position will balance out.

I definitely hope the Cubs don't even consider something like that, but I do hope they pencil in Campana for the roster. Even if he has a .550 OPS next season (it's .654 so far this year but that might be a little inflated), he's one of the few players in the league who can be valuable on a bench for his defense/speed alone.

I don't know who in their right mind would want Koyie Hill back, besides Jim Hendry. So, if Hendry is back again next year, this could be a moot point. Regardless, wouldn't you rather Clevenger playing every day down in the minors than backing up Soto? Unless, they traded Soto and had Clevenger and Wellington Castillo battle for the starting job in ST and brought in a better veteran catcher than Koyie to be the backup. The only reason to have him playing in the minors is to improve his trade stock. It's not like Soto is going anywhere for a year or two. Clevenger will be 26 at the start of next season so putting up big minor league numbers isn't going to make him much more of an asset to another team. A backup might be his ceiling anyway, but even if it isn't having him backup in the majors is the best way to make sure to get some value out of him (and the same argument holds true for Castillo as well).

yeah he gets lost in the excitement about jackson and szczur, but to do what he's done as a 20 year old is pretty nice. the boy needs to learn how to steal bases though (9 sb/12 cs). Where do you think Ha will rank in the Top 10 for the end of the year/start of next season? Is it possible he's a top 5? or more of a 7-10 guy? i don't think he'd be top 5 because jackson and szczur will be ahead of him, baez (assuming he signs) will be ahead, mcnutt should probably still be ahead unless his stuff has collapsed, and i'd expect that a guy like vogelbach (again, assuming he signs) would fall ahead. probably back part of the top 10. could even see him being outside the top 10 (behind guys like vitters, lemahieu, flaherty, etc) depending on how much projection the scouts see in him. I'm surprised more people aren't higher on Ha. He plays all 3 OF positions and seems to be good defensively (with an elite arm). His strikeout rate has always been very good which keeps his average pretty high. He hits for a decent amount of power (.151 ISOP in 2010 and .147 this year). He's playing at AA and hasn't even reached his 21st birthday yet. The only thing he doesn't do well at all is walk. He got a pretty decent size bonus to sign so it isn't like he's a no tools type of guy. I don't see any way how he could not make the top 10 and could very well make the top 5.

There's plenty of other sports that fit this category though. Nascar, tennis, boxing... I agree with your first paragraph though. Golf is probably the most wide open of any of those though. In Nascar, your driver is in every race and there's so much variation in the standings that even if your drive struggles throughout the entire race he could still come up with a good finish. Tennis is always dominated by a few so you can pick a favorite and root for them against the other favorites. Boxing is much the same way where people only tend to watch when people they know are on. In golf, you have so many people who could be in contention at the end who you've never heard of, and your particular favorite is not statistically likely to be in contention at the end of a tournament.

My guess is that it has to be some of both to get a 31.6% strikeout rate this season. If that's mostly from going deep into the count then he's being too patient. My guess is he has pretty good strike zone recognition but swings through a decent amount of strikes.

Was Abreu anything special at any point? There must be some reason they chose him in the Kosuke trade. They picked Abreu IMO because of his athleticism. He was rated to have the best outfield arm in the Indians organization last year. He has 6 triples and 19 SB already this year so his speed must be plus. He has some pop in his bat (13 HR this year). He's got some tools-the problem is that he either has to improve his strikeout rate or improve his power significantly to be successful at higher levels (and it will probably have to be the strikeout rate first).

Apparently Campana is the first Cub to have his first home run of his career be an inside the park home run since 1948.

Byrd's been really good over the last month before having a tough last 3 games. I don't see why he would need another day off.

Rollins has had a .719, .694, and .736 OPS the last 3 years. I'm not sure his stolen bases and defense are enough to pay for him when the Cubs have a few 2B options that can do almost as well there.

The Cubs will probably be worse in the walks category than they are in other offensive categories again in 2012 because players like Castro and Byrd are productive players that don't walk much. If Barney is back at 2B next year, he won't hurt the Cubs a great deal overall but doesn't walk much either. Soriano's another player who is mildly productive without walking. If the Cubs add somebody like Fielder, I could see them having an offense that is ranked 5th or 6th while only being around 12th-13th in the NL in walks. But it's definitely going to be hard for them to be much better than they are this year (exactly average 8th-9th in the league) if they continue to be dead last in walks.

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July. Obviously. So it's crappy when the avenues for trading are even more limited by what's arguably an unwise contract. I'm not saying they should only give out reasonable contracts with the idea they might have to trade a guy. I just don't understand how someone can think that trying to trade a player to only 4 teams instead of 24 is the same thing in terms of what you can potentially get back. It's harder to justify trading someone when there's fewer teams you can trade someone to. It means those few teams know that the team doing the trading is over a barrel because of the cost. The only thing that seems even questionable about the contract though is the years. Marmol was going to make more money that that this year in arbitration guaranteed (both arbitration figures were well above what he actually got) and the next two years were likely arbitration awards if not a decent bit more. So the teams trading for him would have had to of been willing to pay that much money regardless if the Cubs gave him the deal or not. The only thing that changed is the team would have to assume more risk due to injury. So I don't see how the contract limited the number of teams because of money concerns.

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July.

They'll also have lost Pujols. Right, but they'll still have Holliday and Wainwright, along with productive cheap players like Jaime Garcia, Jay and Frese and elite prospects in Shelby Miller and that other guy whose name I can't remember offhand. We have Starlin Castro and Brett Jackson. That's pretty much it. And Garza, Dempster and Zambrano. Soto and Ramirez possibly. Forgot about Garza and Soto (although I also forgot Molina). Dempster, Zambrano and Ramirez aren't part of any core going forward, as they could all be gone this year or next year. Well if you count Dempster and Zambrano being gone then the Cubs would have much more money available than the Cardinals will. I'm not sure if the discussion is who can build a better team in 2012 or which team has the better situation for beyond that, but Dempster and Z have to be counted if we're just talking about 2012, and the Cubs have a bigger amount of money to spend if we're talking post 2012.

Sure, but it's not like the 4th OF doesn't get plenty of PA. No, he's not starting, but if a guy has talent it's going to show through even in a semi-regular capacity. Colvin did the exact opposite and looked about as bad as an MLB player can be. Then he went to the minors and, outside of a relatively brief blip, sucked some more. If he had shown he was capable of doing ANYTHING this year he would have gotten more than enough playing time, but he didn't. Again, no one is saying that Colvin SHOULD have gotten more opportunity. But 100 PA's, even though they were horrendous, just isn't much to go on when he put up a 111 OPS+ in 400 PA's last year. Not only that, but also because the peripherals aren't nearly as horrendous as his batting line. More than half his hits on the season have gone for extra bases. His overall BB/K ratio is the same as last season (less walks but less strikeouts as well). He clearly still has power capability with both the fact that his home runs have traveled really far, and he's hit at least 2 balls off the wall in addition to his 3 home runs so far. The jury is still out on Colvin right now. Well, no, that's just reinforcing what many were saying last year about how his performance was largely propped up by an unsustainable power display. On the one hand it's impressive when 71% of your hits for the first month of the season are for extra bases. It's worrisome when that means you only had 7 hits total in 57 PA. And yeah, he walked 6 times vs. 13 k's in that month as well. But then in June, the month with the next most PA, he gave us a smaller repeat of April, with only 3 hits in 34 PA and 1 of them being a double, couple with 2 walks and 7 k's. How is Colvin showing that he has anything except flashes of power? That seems to be literally the only thing he has going for him. It shows that a .139 BABIP is ridiculously unsustainable. He's had a max of 9 hits all season that have not hit the wall on the fly that have dropped in. That's ridiculous. I'm not worried about his singles-his singles will come. Last year, he had a .296 BABIP and was constrained by that high strikeout rate.

Sure, but it's not like the 4th OF doesn't get plenty of PA. No, he's not starting, but if a guy has talent it's going to show through even in a semi-regular capacity. Colvin did the exact opposite and looked about as bad as an MLB player can be. Then he went to the minors and, outside of a relatively brief blip, sucked some more. If he had shown he was capable of doing ANYTHING this year he would have gotten more than enough playing time, but he didn't. Again, no one is saying that Colvin SHOULD have gotten more opportunity. But 100 PA's, even though they were horrendous, just isn't much to go on when he put up a 111 OPS+ in 400 PA's last year. Not only that, but also because the peripherals aren't nearly as horrendous as his batting line. More than half his hits on the season have gone for extra bases. His overall BB/K ratio is the same as last season (less walks but less strikeouts as well). He clearly still has power capability with both the fact that his home runs have traveled really far, and he's hit at least 2 balls off the wall in addition to his 3 home runs so far. The jury is still out on Colvin right now.

How do you know Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd? Because a younger, better, more valuable player netted four prospects and the Astros have been roundly criticized for taking too little for him? The Cubs have as much or more money than any other team in baseball available to spend on players this offseason - that's why there's a belief that we can net Fielder and Wilson. Is it a certainty that we will? Of course not, but just because we might not get both doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contend next year. Bourne is younger yes but whether he is better than Byrd (when healthy for a full season) is a point of contention. comparing his last year numbers to bourne this year he has a higher WAR. Plus he is a centerfielder who has some power of which bourn has none. I think he offers more. No one said the cubs shouldn't try to contend next year. The fact of the matter is that without any trades at the deadline to bring in young major league ready talent we are entirely dependent upon free agency to fill our needs at first base/starting pitching. We would have been better off trading from an area of depth and getting back a couple mlb ready pitchers than depending entirely upon free agency which I think is a much bigger crap shoot then most are acknowledging. Someone argued that free agents wouldnt want to come here if we traded guys away. Well why would they want to come here when it looks like this team has no plan except to add two players to a 90 loss team? Bourn's only played 4 months this year. After he plays August and September he'll have a better WAR number than Byrd did last year. And Bourn at that point will have 3 straight higher WAR numbers than Byrd has ever had in his career and is 5 years younger.

Well, sure. But that seems like sort of an unfair scenario you've set up. There's no guarantee that hanging onto prospects, rather than trading them, will make a team "great" for 10-15 years. There's no guarantee that the Phillies will even win one world series either from these moves. It is playing the percentages.