CubColtPacer

Dempster's been pretty awesome for nearly 3 months now. Those numbers took a pretty big hit today. I hate those sorts of arguments, because all starting pitchers are capable of looking pretty good for long stretches between their bad outings. Looking at it again, Since April: 91 1/3 IP, 89 H, 37 R, 35 ER, 5 HR, 27 BB, 87 K, 3.45 ERA, 8.57 K/9, 2.66 BB/9, 0.49 HR/9 The ERA was the only thing that was incredibly affected by today. The peripherals didn't change much (K rate went a little up, BB rate went a little up, K/BB rate is a little worse now, but HR rate continued to to go down). This was not a disaster outing for peripherals because he didn't give up a HR and he struck out 5 batters in 3 innings.

It's no more foolish to assume payroll will remain the same than to assume it will go down. A big market team isn't going to respond to reduced attendance by slashing payroll, especially after raising ticket prices. If the team retains Ramirez, that leaves two, maybe three holes to fill. And we're probably looking at at least 40MM to fill those 2-3 holes. Retaining Ramirez next year won't handcuff the Cubs in any significant way. Trading him would create a hole even harder to fill than the others. The Cubs won't have that much money. If they retain Aramis, they will have 86.6 million tied up in 7 players. That does leave about 47 million from this year's payroll. But that doesn't take into account arbitration guys. Garza, Soto, and Baker alone I would guess would command at least 15 million combined. So that's 32 million left with 10 players paid for. I have no idea what a guy like Wells would make and DeWitt probably will only get a small raise. For Ramirez and a guy like Pujols to fit into the payroll, they'll have to cut just about everything else. No Samardzija, probably no Wood, no veteran bench or bullpen players. It's a tough decision. Aramis is a great hitter still who is a poor defender at 3B (the defensive metrics are split on him this year but they are pretty clear from the previous few years that he is definitely well below average there, which also correlates with how he looks). He also gives away some of his value on the bases. If he continues on his 2011 pace so far for the rest of the season he'll probably have been worth about his contract this year, which anytime you can say that about a player with a contract that high is a really good thing. But he only has downside risk with no real upside to that contract. I'd probably pick up his option at the end of the season, but if I could get a decent amount of value for him in a trade that would be my preferred option (unless he would take a lesser contract which I doubt he would do until after his 2012 year was done).

I would disagree that center is the least important position on the line because of the responsibility that many centers have before the play even starts, but I have no idea if Kreutz is any good or not anymore. From what I've seen of the many line mixups and bad blitz pickups the Bears have had Kreutz is probably not doing his job well.

I would call Cashner, Flaherty, and Russell solid bets to be league average for their positions. There's a couple others who still have reasonable chances to be that good.

He was an everyday player at the top of the lineup when he sucked. Well, I get the top of the lineup thing. I would agree that's the one big blemish they had with Theriot. Theriot deserved to be an everyday player though. For the 4 years the Cubs played him (from August 2006 to July 2010) BR has him as a 1.3 win player per year and fangraphs has him at a 2.2 win player per year. That's really nice value for a cheap everyday player. Then the Cubs managed to upgrade right as Theriot was starting to become more expensive.

Something like 16 million for the US-England game (which was at like 5 in the morning) but maybe that was ABC. I don't recall. The US-England game last year? It was on ABC at 2:30-4:30 on a Saturday afternoon.

I don't get the Barney hate. Sure I love to see more OBP, maybe some pop but he's making the league minimum, plays good defense and hits .300 I would love to get more production out of 2B but with so many other glaring issues and aging/high priced turds with this club I'm not going to hate this kid. how many times has he hit .300 during the course of a minor or major league season? hint: the answer is not greater than zero. but what SSR was not "hating" barney. utility infielders have value. people hated theriot and wanted him to go away; nobody is sying that we should get barney off the team and replace him with whoever is lying around. I think many (of the most vocal) people here are overcritical of Barney, especially in his rookie season. However, besides his defense (which is already pretty good) the only way he will really be useful as a starter is to be a good on-base guy. If he can't do that he's probably role player. Who are these most vocal people? The thing I've heard the most is essentially they don't want the Cubs to turn Barney into Theriot 2.0. That is, don't hand the guy a starting job based on a short period of competence and then get yourself committed to overpaying him because he's some scrappy fan favorite. Barney is perfectly fine as a role player, just like Theriot was perfectly fine as a role player. Don't count on him to be a dependable top of the order starter at 2B in the future. Do view him as a useful asset. I don't get the Theriot 2.0 reference. The Cubs handled Theriot almost perfectly. They didn't hand him the starting job to start 2007. They squeezed two good seasons out of him in 2008 and 2009. They made it very clear in his arbitration hearing that they didn't feel he was worth a lot of money. When a better SS came up, they moved him off the position, and then quickly traded him after that. Theriot's a great example of how you handle a player like that.

It's really misleading to talk about how much Soriano was worth the past 2.5 years when he obviously was injured for the majority 2009. That and your numbers aren't true. Fangraphs has him with -.1 WAR in his injured '09, 3.0 WAR in '10, and 0.6 WAR in '11. Even including his injured '09 as relevant, AND for some reason averaging that 0.6 as if it's a full season in the average, you still don't get 1 WAR per year. Maybe you meant to quote someone else but I did not at any point post any thing about Wins Above Replacement. I was only talking about dollar value based upon play. So yes my numbers are true. He quoted Truffle and was disputing his numbers.

Nearly any manager should've been able to win with the Cubs in 2003 and 2004. They had a solid lineup 1-8 and the best rotation 1-5 in baseball. Dusty turned what should've been a budding Cub dynasty with a stacked farm system of pitching into crap in just 3 years. At least Piniella can say he managed the Cubs to be easily the best team in the NL in 2008. I don't know if we can call the 2003-2004 team a budding Cubs dynasty. Maybe by 2004 since Lee, Ramirez, and Barrett had shown up, but that 2003 team was going to need almost all the major offensive pieces replaced very quickly. And the farm system was not nearly as stacked as had been thought. Dusty ruined the young pitching which was a huge blow, but the Cubs were still going to have to make a lot of good moves to become elite going forward.

Trading him or signing him? I never understand the Jacque Jones hate. We signed Jacque Jones and we got Jacque Jones. I think some people thought that when moved from the Metrodome to Wrigley, hed become something other than Jacque Jones, but he remained Jacque Jones. After giving us 2 solid years, Im still baffled as to how he completely fell off a cliff after the trade to Detroit. He started falling off the cliff with the Cubs but they were able to get extra value out of him that year due to him playing CF. I don't quite understand the Jones hate either. The Cubs paid him just about what he was worth. He was a mediocre player on a decently small salary.

can you really make that determination before knowing what Hak-Ju Lee becomes? or if it's best 'moves that seemed good at the time', Hawkins for Jerome Williams and Aardsma warrants consideration i can't wait for the 10 worst moves topic The 10 worst moves from Hendry probably wouldn't be that bad of a list. There are 3-4 really bad ones but the list would quickly fall off after that. The problem has been more about what hasn't been done and what moves haven't been made rather than what moves have been spectacularly wrong.

Samardzija's walk rate has been getting better every single month this year though. If he's a 5.8 BB rate type of guy as he has been cumulatively for the season, that's a problem. If he's a 3.5 to 4.5 type BB guy as he's been since early in the year that's a whole lot better. Of course his strikeout rate has been dropping as well, but not nearly as badly.

Because his ERA was still so poor, I didn't realize how good Dempster has been for the last 2 1/2 months, especially with his peripherals. Here's April: 31 IP, 42 H, 34 R, 33 ER, 9 HR, 16 BB, 29 K, 9.58 ERA, 8.41 K/9, 4.65 BB/9, 2.61 HR/9 Since April: 88 1/3 IP, 82 H, 31 R, 29 ER, 5 HR, 24 BB, 82 K, 2.95 ERA, 8.35 K/9, 2.45 BB/9, 0.51 HR/9 That's a wonderful stretch of baseball right there. His peripherals now for the season look to line up right with what he did in both 2009 and 2010. If he exercises that player option as he is expected to, there's no big evidence of decline anymore like there was earlier in the season with him. It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to expect another high 3's/maybe low 4's ERA out of him next season.

I can see an argument that the Ricketts may decide to wait on signing big free agents for a while. I don't think that this is what will happen, but I could see a scenario where they try to keep the major league team afloat with stopgaps while they fix the farm system and let the youth core build up before sticking their toes back into the long-term contracts. But I can't see any scenario where the Ricketts go away from long-term contracts altogether. They said they want to build up through the farm system and supplement through free agents, but the fact that they want to emulate the Red Sox who have definitely been active in free agency shows me that they're certainly willing to make the big splash. Whether they'll do that this offseason or even next is more questionable though, but I think they'll be willing to make one if the situation is right.

I wouldn't assume Ramirez would be too rich for their blood. They are a the only team in a huge market and have built a consistent winner while raising their payroll. There is a significant amount of payroll coming off their books and some of their highest paid players are very replacable. They aren't in any sort of desperation situation, but they are very hungry for offense and are not getting it. I would mostly agree that Philly wouldn't turn their nose up immediately at the contract. After arbitration raises, they'll have around 30 million to play with next year in free agency. But that's with holes in left field, SS, at least one back end bullpen pitcher, and maybe a starter as well if they don't fill Oswalt's spot internally. I don't know if with that many holes they're going to want to spend 16 million on Ramirez with Polanco already under contract. If Ramirez's option doesn't kick in when he's traded, they might be willing to take on some more payroll this year though. Their payroll is already the highest it's ever been (and adding Ramirez would probably make it the highest non-Yankees payroll in the history of baseball), but they might be willing to do that for a few months. I just don't know if they're willing to have Ramirez there in 2012 and sacrifice considerably elsewhere.

Are you sure no Lee? KingCubsfan in the other thread said he had him in his top 10. I'm not surprised about no Cubs-I'm not sure Szczur would make his top 100, and he doesn't think all that highly of Jackson either.

I'm still not convinced on Lee. He has made a major step forward, but thanks to his strikeout binge lately he has an .843 OPS on the season with a .393 BABIP. His speed should help give him an increased BABIP, but probably not that high. I'd put him as the best prospect from the Garza trade at this point and I think he will have a decent major league career especially if his defense becomes less erratic. I'm just don't know yet if he'll be a star.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but that's the best case scenario for the Cubs if they don't adjust. Eventually, one of these power hitters is going to commit to it and whichever person does it his team will benefit greatly from it.

Think of it this way. Defensively, would you want to achieve the scenario where the #4 hitter walks 75% of the time? The only way giving away bunt singles all the time is effective for the defense is if the guy is a Bondsian hitter. Again, I'm not talking about Pena in a vacuum; I'm talking about Pena on the Cubs. And we're talking about a hypothetical scenario that has zero chance of happening. There isn't a breaking point where teams are going to say "gee, maybe the shift isn't such a good idea, let's shift back" because of how many times Carlos Pena bunts his way on base. The Cubs are about as average offensively as you can get in the NL this year. It's not like there's a ton of scrubs behind Pena. And as we've said, if teams don't adjust, then that's just longer the Cubs can benefit from Pena getting on so much. The Cubs could score more runs that way even if Pena doesn't hit a single home run the rest of the year. And if they do adjust and Pena goes back to hitting normally, he'll have better numbers because he won't be hitting into the shift anymore.

Then I would say good luck to them! They aren't valuing OBP correctly if they do that. They would think you'd be crazy if you suggested intentionally walking Pena every time he came to the plate, but they'll let him get on because of a bunt 75-80 percent of the time?

I don't know. I'd happily take a baserunner from my #4 hitter in many situations (which is also why I'm happy almost all the time when the #4 hitter walks). Sure, you have to pick your spots, but the bunt against the shift is so valuable precisely because of that. Pena can choose to do it when you're leading off an inning, but not when there are baserunners or when you come up with 2 outs/nobody on. Pena can choose to do it when there's a left-hander on the mound. He can choose to do it when he's slumping. It's already useful, but using it when he's less likely to get a hit/the team needs a baserunner makes it a big weapon. I personally think he should do it a little more than he does. No. I agree that if a guy is slumping it can help mix things up, but the last thing I want Pena doing when he's hitting is bunting, especially on a team this bad. Ultimately, however, he's much more valuable and team is probably more likely to score if he's trying to hit than if he's just getting on 1B for Byrd or Soto or Soriano. Well, that would be an interesting question on the value of OBP/SLG. Does Pena having a .750 OBP and .000 SLG (technically, his SLG would also be .750, but we know if he's bunting it's more like walking than a single). worth more than his current .339 OBP and .461 SLG? Most research would say it is. And if bunting every time nobody was on base made teams eventually get out of their shift his numbers would go up even more. (I'm assuming Pena can get a successful bunt down 3 out of 4 times, but from what I've seen from him this year and how much room he has on the left side of the field that seems pretty accurate).

I don't know. I'd happily take a baserunner from my #4 hitter in many situations (which is also why I'm happy almost all the time when the #4 hitter walks). Sure, you have to pick your spots, but the bunt against the shift is so valuable precisely because of that. Pena can choose to do it when you're leading off an inning, but not when there are baserunners or when you come up with 2 outs/nobody on. Pena can choose to do it when there's a left-hander on the mound. He can choose to do it when he's slumping. It's already useful, but using it when he's less likely to get a hit/the team needs a baserunner makes it a big weapon. I personally think he should do it a little more than he does.

Thing is, we have no idea what kind of hitter Josh Vitters might have become had he come up in a system that stressed some semblance of plate discipline. Who is Josh Vitters hitting coach? Mariano Duncan. Everyone here knows who he is. Not an amazing player, but someone who had a 12 year career in the big leagues. Anyone want to take a stab at his career OBP? .300 Plate discipline is based on swinging at pitches that are driveable, or at least in the strike zone. Most hitters will tell you that each at bat might contain one strike that can be driven, or hit hard. I am not understanding the fascination in this thread for WALKS? There are numerous variables within a plate appearance, and they start with a pitcher trying to throw quality strikes to induce a hitter to make a quick out via contact. A hitter can take an approach of drive the ball first and salvage later(aggressive/passive), or remain aggressive or passive throughout the appearance. If the aggressive approach is maintained and a bad count results(hitter missed his pitch), the pitcher usually gets the out on an out-of-zone pitch(slider/high hard one). If the passive approach is taken(work the count), the pitchers command is the main determinant in the outcome. If the pitcher is dealing(in the strike zone), the hitter will be forced to swing at his pitch, and the hitter better be skilled enough to either pull the hands in or go oppo accordingly, or you'll get a rollover or flair. Where do walks fit into this discussion? They only come into play if the pitcher is throwing balls and the hitter ain't biting. Three of the four higher level Cubs farm teams are leading their respective leagues in batting average. You need hits to do that, not walks. These guys are NOT a bunch of bad ball hitters(Vlads), but pretty good ones. Walks are a focus because by the time you come to the major leagues if you aren't walking pitchers will constantly throw you pitcher's pitches knowing that you'll probably chase pitches that are on the corner/close to the corner. It's hard to develop much power without walks. Certain hitters manage to do it, but it's rare. If a hitter is patient enough to take walks, that usually also shows an ability to identify pitches well which makes it more likely that they're not swinging until they get that pitch that you can drive. If you have a guy who doesn't walk much, he's usually either a slap hitter that will be a below average hitter at the major league level (Barney for example), or he's a guy who will be a prime candidate to bust in the majors. It doesn't necessarily have to be a huge walk rate-a high batting average with an average walk rate can be a very good player. But not walking much at all is a big red flag.

Koyie Hill might not be the best candidate of all the backup catcher playing today, let alone all-time. It's hard to tell catcher's defensive ratings very well, but Hill is not particularly close to being the worst offensive catcher in the league.

Del Valle with a strong outing for Peoria: 4 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 5 K