CubColtPacer

Sounds like something that mostly went out the window when Quade took over. They said that Colvin would continue to take grounders but that he would be played only sparingly at first for the rest of the year.

If you are that player, why not make sure that you work on other parts of your game though. That's what Pujols, Sandberg and Dawson all did. Instead, these other guys, while valuable in some ways, don't improve themselves in the other parts of baseball. A player like Dunn has been working on his defense for years. He wants to play the field (as evidenced by the fact that he's said he'd rather not be a DH). His lack of defense cost him a lot of money in free agency a couple of years ago. So he's definitely trying but some players don't just have the talent level to play average defense on a major league playing field. As for at the plate, players like Howard and Dunn might not have the ability to cut down on their strikeouts without severely hurting the skills they have. It doesn't help to become a somewhat better hitter for average with less strikeouts if you lose a lot of power and walks in the process. Obviously if they could cut down on their strikeouts and keep everything else they could become elite level players but it's probably not feasible for them. They've reached their ceilings with their skillsets. Now it's just a question of if you let them do what they do and be very good to great players or try to completely overhaul them which might ruin the good things they give you in the process.

For the season now the bullpen has had a much bigger impact on run differential. The Cubs offense is 12 runs worse than average for the NL (18 runs worse than median). The Cubs starting pitching has been 5 runs worse than average (4 runs worse than median). The Cubs bullpen has been 41 runs worse than average (49.5 worse than median). Even though the bullpen is much less important than the offense or the starting pitching, the Cubs bullpen has been so much worse relative to the league in that area than the other two that it has overcomed that relative unimportance to still be worse. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Cubs should focus on the bullpen in the offseason since there has so much variability there and almost everything has been absolutely awful there this year. But the bullpen has definitely been the biggest cause for the Cubs having such a bad run differential. To examine how run differential translates to wins/losses this season would require a much more detailed analysis.

Completely agreed. Even if the Cubs wanted to go with a Soto/Soriano/Dewitt/Castro/Ramirez/Fukudome/Byrd/Colvin lineup to save money, of those 8 players Soriano would only be 3rd to 5th on that list to play 1st. The Cubs could create many better defensive lineups by shifting other players around than Soriano. And that doesn't even address all the free agents, and the Cubs wouldn't have to find a very good one at all to be better than moving Soriano to 1st. Someone said that players with defensive deficiencies move to 1st all the time. Most players deficiencies are not like Soriano though. Players who move to 1st tend to either be too slow to play anywhere else or have a bad shoulder and cannot throw as much anymore. I can't think of an example of a player who moved to 1st only because he had poor hands at another position (one might be out there, but they probably are few). You would not be hiding Soriano at 1st at all. And while a lot of people can play acceptable first base defense which makes it less important as a whole, at the margins first base defense can be very important. And while Lee probably qualified as one guy who could actually help his team defensively at 1B, Soriano would almost certainly hurt the team badly there. While I recognize there are some advantages to moving him, moving an average defender at LF to become a terrible defender at 1B which also happens to require slightly more offense over the last 5-6 years is almost certainly a very bad move.

He's not horrible in the OF. I've seen him play horribly many many times and make very few catches that were not routine. On a scale from 1-10(10 being the best) he would come in around a 4 IMO and he is only that high b/c he has a great arm. He is better than Dunn out there but is well below average. Soriano's speed also makes some plays look routine that drop well in front of other LF's. He isn't the bumbling LF that you see on a lot of teams. For example: Manny, Ibanez, Burrell, Gomes, Carlos Lee, etc. Then there are the LF's who have similar range to Soriano at this point but no arm: Podsednik, Pierre, etc. Soriano's defense is sort of like a .750 OPS shortstop is on offense. He's still probably the worst defender on the field for the Cubs. But the bar for LF's in MLB is so low (just like the bar for SS's for offense is so low) that he's probably a little above average out there. There are very few LF's that posess his combination of speed and arm out there and while he definitely makes more bad plays out there than most, that still doesn't drag him down below the guys who can't get to balls unless it's hit right at them.

I don't think you're crazy on that one. Hendry likes him. There's a major hole at 1st base. The offense is considered the major reason why this season went down. Hendry will want to make a splash. Dunn is the best free agent at 1st base and is left-handed. And Dunn might still want to come to Chicago. I wouldn't call getting Dunn likely. But if I had to bet on who will be the Cubs first baseman next season, Dunn would easily be my first choice over the myriad of other options they have for the position. Dunn seems to fit what the Cubs are looking for and they have the money to go get him if they decide to go that way.

Let's see what they end up doing with him next year first. Breaking SPs into MLB as relievers has been done effectively many times before. If they make him a starter after this year, but have to limit his innings in 2011 because they got him some MLB experience in 2010 rather than keeping him starting in AAA, that won't be terrible. Right now though they have to severely limit his innings in 2011 and then limit his innings again in 2012. He'll be close to arbitration by the time the Cubs can use him for a full year. I have no problems breaking a guy in as a reliever, but they should have at least one 140-150 inning season under their belt first. It's a long way to progress in the majors as a starter if they've never made it to 120 before.

the cubs have had only 1 1-0 loss this season, and 4 2-1 losses Last night was the only 1-0 loss? Wow, good to know. Felt like it had happened before. crazy as it is to believe, i saw on some cubs twitter feed that yesterday was the 1st cubs 1-0 loss in 3 years. Len also said that last night. The last one was also against the Padres. It was the game where Derrek Lee fought Chris Young.

I guess I don't understand the Soriano to 1st idea. He has had trouble on defense ever since he started in the majors because he has terrible hands. He can't consistently pick up a ball bouncing towards him and has minor troubles catching the ball at times as well. But he does have some huge positives to his game as well with good speed and a strong, accurate throwing arm. I'm not sure why you would want to move him to a position that forces him to use his weakness constantly and gives him no chance to show off his range or arm. It's an awful fit. If he were to be moved to the infield, back to 2nd would be a much better fit even though we know he would be terrible defensively there.

He probably won't actually reach last year's total with last year's AFL included (I believe he had 119 innings and change total last year). This year he's only on pace for about 110. If the Cubs could push that number to about 140-145, then they could get a nice solid season of 160-180 innings next year from him. Right now he probably would be limited to 150 next year at most.

Wouldn't that be true regardless of this possible trade? Or would Lee have returned on a short-term (cheap) deal? I think there's a chance Lee could have come back on a shorter and/or cheaper deal, but you're right that the basic point holds true regardless of whether or not he's dealt. If he is traded though, he's probably not coming back, and that's one less option and leaves them completely barren at the position heading into the offseason. Why would he not come back (assuming we want him back)? I thought he said he didn't want to uproot his family. Well he can go play for the Braves for a few months and have a shot at another ring and then come back to the Cubs next year. That way his family doesn't have to go anywhere. Well, there's a very real chance that the Cubs don't want him back. Trading a guy away for a 6 weeks just to bring him back isn't really Hendry's MO. Considering how much of a "player's GM" he is, coming back to Lee for a waiver deal after he's already rejected one sends the message that he's not part of the team's plans going forward. Bruce said a few days ago that he would be very surprised if Lee came back. He said that some Cubs officials apparently prefer a left-handed hitter at first base.

You're not recalling correctly. It was really close. I believe the negotiations went on past midnight (which meant the deadline did pass) but the contract was signed either late that night or that next morning. But there was a report that the Angels were going to give Aramis a 100 million dollar offer as soon as the deadline passed. Hendry also was quoted that Aramis turned down 20 to 30 million dollars extra by signing his deal. Edit: Looks like I was a bit off on the time as well. It was reported that he signed at about 3:15 in the afternoon on that first day after the Cubs lost exclusive rights. It's uncertain when the contract was actually worked out but there certainly would have been some time for others to make offers.

His club option does for after 2011, but that's only if he exercises his player option after this year. He could still opt out if he wants to.

http://www.bryantdaily.com/post/Bryants-Wells-signs-contract-with-Cubs.aspx Would be ridiculous to give a 3rd round value an MLB deal. You'd think 100,000 extra would have been a wiser investment than a big league deal for a HS kid. Wouldn't a big league deal put him on the 40 man roster right now? It just says that he would get put on the 40 man 2 years from now. I'm not sure how you guarantee that in a minor league contract but from my limited understanding that would point away from it being a big league deal.

I only show Nady starting 5 of the last 10. Did I miss one ?? Sorry for the late response Fred. Baseball Reference has Nady starting at RF on Sunday 8/8. He played LF on 8/15. And he's played 1B on 8/9, 8/11, 8/12, and tonight. That's actually 6 out of the last 9.

Suddenly Fukudome is the starter in RF again. And Nady has started 6 out of the last 10.

It is a dumb thing to say, but no different then when Lou got kicked out of the game a few years ago and the Cubs went on a huge run. The media and all the fans were saying Lou getting upset light a fire under the Cubs, but it had more to do with the Cubs being more talented then any team in the Central Division that year. No, not all the fans. Really, not even close to all of them. The Cubs didn't really take off until Aramis's walk-off against Milwaukee almost four weeks later. I don't think that's really true either. Aramis's walkoff was the Cubs 7th win in a row and their 17th in the last 25 gmaes. And the June record could have even been better if not for the fights (Lilly getting kicked out in the first inning in Atlanta and Lee getting kicked out of the Padres game almost a week later). And after that Aramis homerun, they were only 5-4 in their next 9 before getting hot again. Lou's tirade didn't change the season but that timing did happen to be when the Cubs starting playing better. The rest of June and July were both excellent and Aramis's walkoff was right in the middle of that long good stretch of play.

Seattle's at #4 right now and the Cubs are 5.5 games in front of them. I think Seattle is 3. Arizona's 4 and they are 4.5 games behind the Cubs.

I'm still not a big fan of the move. If Castro develops as he is supposed to, the Cubs cost themselves 7-10 million dollars by bringing him up one month early. That's a tough pill to swallow especially when knowing the 1 month they sacrificed it for came in a meaningless season. I don't think Castro should have been held down for development reasons but the financial difference was too much to ignore.

If Aramis doesn't opt out, the Cubs have a club option on him after 2011 or a 2 million buyout if they decline. So 2 years at maximum or maybe only 1 year. It makes sense to keep Ramirez. He has easily the highest upside if they want to compete next year. He's not blocking anybody in the system at the moment. If he has a good year next year and the Cubs are not in contention, he could possibly provide useful pieces back. Unless the Cubs are going out to get somebody like Alex Gordon, Ramirez makes more sense than a veteran stopgap even if the other player is cheaper. If the Cubs are competing, then Ramirez is key. If the Cubs decide not to compete, then they should have easily enough financial flexibility to make other moves without needing the money from Ramirez (since the Cubs are not going to go on a free agent spree if they decide to make 2011 a transitional year).

I'm sure that no other team will emply the old "get him" strategy. ;) Well, the only two teams that get a say before the Cubs are Pittsburgh and Arizona, and I can't really see either of them putting in a claim. Then again, I don't see the Cubs putting in a claim either. I do think the Giants should jump all over this if no one claims Dunn before them. My point really wasn't about waiver order. The Nats aren't just letting Dunn go...they're going to want something for him. Exactly. Better to trade any over-valued prospects we have than losing draft picks by signing him in the off-season. I'm delusional in thinking the Cubs will make Dunn a priority to replace Lee, but it's a happy world in which I live. But in terms of prospects, the Cubs would be better off waiting. Right now the Nats are going to demand more compensation then they will receive after the season. So they'll want value that exceeds a first rounder and a sandwich pick. But if the Cubs sign him in the offseason, the only thing they'll lose is a second round pick. That's a lot less value then what the Nats will likely be demanding and then the Cubs also don't have the Lee problem to contend with.

I'm not sure I have it completely correct but I think it finished at .568. 22 singles seems like an absurd number.

It's very strange to see one team with 22 hits and the other one with 4 and yet both teams have the exact same number of extra base hits.

We already have too many outfielders. And I like Hermida. DFA Nady. Problem solved This. DFA Nady (31) and replace with Hermida (26) Hermida would probably have to be non-tendered at the end of the year anyway (I'm not sure about that when there's a release in the middle, but I still don't think he can get less than 2.68 million next year without being non-tendered first). And the Cubs don't have enough at-bats for Fukudome right now. Where are they going to find at-bats for another left-handed outfielder? Hermida probably wouldn't be any worse for the Cubs but there isn't really any realistic upside because he wouldn't have any chance to show anything. So it becomes a pretty pointless move.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling? Making a point that you know others will disagree with = trolling? Not in my book. Saying something with the express purpose of "getting a rise out of some of you folks" = trolling. That wasn't the express purpose. I think he's saying that if you had used a softer phrase than hocus pocus you would have gotten your point across without making people upset. That choice of words wasn't needed to make your point that converting numbers like that is an inexact science. If you knew that specific phrase was going to cause problems, it might have been good to change it so people can focus on your argument.