CubColtPacer

He has much better power potential than Theriot. Between the minors and majors, Dewitt has hit a home run every 34.6 AB's. Theriot has hit a home run in the minors/majors every 206 AB's.

Dodgers' AA roster Aaron Miller, plz. They might have soured on Winthrow with his struggles this year. And it seems like somebody the Cubs would go after with good stuff, high strikeouts, and high walk totals.

Jesus, that's even worse. If they traded Z for just Perez, without throwing in any money? I think I'd take that. You would trade a pitcher with an era under 4 when starting for a guy who's era has been in the 6's most of his career starting at roughly the same age? One pitches in a hitters park (Wrigley), and the other pitches in a pitchers park (New York). I realize that people want to blow the team up, but blowing the team up and gaining less productive players at the same age is not going to end well. If that trade were to happen, it would be more about saving 43 mil then aquiring a crappy pitcher. The Cubs wouldn't really be saving 43 million. It would be probably somewhere between 20-30 million depending on how the deal shakes out. But that's still a nice chunk of money to have.

Indeed. We're talking about a guy that would fly through waivers unclaimed. Trading for Perez is worse than just Z going through waivers though. That's pretty close to even for both sides. The Mets take on Z for basically 2 1/2 years and 27 million (the difference between the salary of Perez and the one for Z). The Cubs get salary relief but probably would have to cut Perez at the beginning of the next year. Castillo being added on also makes some sense to give the Mets slightly more relief. They could probably meet in the middle and trade Castillo and Perez+3 million for Z. The Mets would have Z then for 2 1/2 years and around 22 million and the Cubs would have the salaries off the books a year early.

Isn't one position CF and the other 3B? Yes. The last couple years they haven't been too far apart on what is asked for offensively from the position. But after looking over it again 3B has always required slightly more offense so that's another point in Jackson's favor.

I just have a hard time seeing how to put Vitters above Jackson. Jackson has better numbers at the same level as Vitters. He is considered much better defensively than Vitters is and their positions are comparable. His patience also is much better than Vitters. The advantages for Vitters are that he is a year younger, doesn't have a problem with strikeouts like Jackson does, and has a little more power potential. Vitters probably has a little higher ceiling but that would require everything going perfectly. Jackson will be better if Vitters has to move from third or if the power for Vitters doesn't develop as it should or if the lack of walks hurts Vitters. I outlined my reasoning in more detail in one of the daily threads about a week or so ago, but it boils down to what I view as roughly equivalent performance at AA this year once luck is factored out, with Vitters being a year younger and with higher upside. Hmm..I remember you mentioning this but forget which thread it was in. I would agree that their performances in AA aren't that much different offensively. I just don't think their defensive differences can be that understated though. Jackson is going to provide value defensively in CF while Vitters is going to struggle to be passable at 3B. IMO, that's worth more than the little better upside Vitters has. Jackson has a much higher potential of being a ML regular.

I just have a hard time seeing how to put Vitters above Jackson. Jackson has better numbers at the same level as Vitters. He is considered much better defensively than Vitters is and their positions are comparable. His patience also is much better than Vitters. The advantages for Vitters are that he is a year younger, doesn't have a problem with strikeouts like Jackson does, and has a little more power potential. Vitters probably has a little higher ceiling but that would require everything going perfectly. Jackson will be better if Vitters has to move from third or if the power for Vitters doesn't develop as it should or if the lack of walks hurts Vitters.

The most disappointing part of a DeWitt acquisition would be that he is not that much different from somebody like Fontenot. While it would be helpful to have another backup 3B/2nd base option on the roster and DeWitt isn't a bad player to have, Fontenot's presence makes him a lot less valuable to the Cubs. It would be an ok trade but not a very exciting one unless the minor league pitcher ending up being good.

One of them could probably put up numbers that are ok at the catcher spot. The problem becomes that you've just taken a spot that is a major strength and turned it into something that is only ok. Having Colvin at first (which is not something I'm advocating) would allow the Cubs to put an extra OF in the lineup who is likely going to be a better hitter than having an extra catcher in the lineup.

Anyone else joining me on the Lake in the top 5 bandwagon yet? I hope there's more than 4 better than him. It really depends on how you view production vs tools in the low minors. Lake almost certainly has the highest ceiling in the Cubs system. He just hasn't put the production together for a long enough time to trust yet on either side of the ball. But he has every tool in the book and as Tim mentioned he seems to start to be figuring it out. And he still has plenty of time to refine his game. I have him somewhere in the 6-8 range myself, but I can see somebody ranking him in the top 5.

And? Just because he was closer to Russell doesn't mean "downright putrid". It's like you have 2 classifications: good and downright putrid. It's really semantics. Cutler was a below average quarterback last season. If you take his 5 best games and 3rd worst game out of the sample (leaving the 10 games that Sponge is talking about) it has to be a pretty bad stretch in order to get him to be below average overall. Of course, QB rating isn't everything. The fact that Cutler only lost 1 fumble should help his numbers and the fact that a much greater percentage than normal of his INT's were in the red zone should hurt his numbers.

Offering arbitration wouldn't work if Lee wants to stay in Chicago this bad. So probably the only way they get something for Lee is if they tell him immediately they're going another direction and he signs in November with another team. Then the Cubs could offer him arbitration with no risk and get a pick back (Lee would be a type B). But I doubt Lee will lower his demands that quickly to get somebody to sign him.

Was he really the most likely candidate for the job? I wouldn't have thought they had him at the head of the line even before this outing. I have no idea who they'll pick. They seem to be following their plan to put Z back in the bullpen. Cashner probably would be determined to not be stretched out either. Marshall's certainly not going to move. It will probably come down to one of Diamond, Jackson, Samardzija, or Atkins.

I never realized it until you asked...but the answer as it relates to pocketing draft picks appears to be no. :-s Oh dear. I was being facetious but yikes. It's not like the Cubs have let a lot of good players go over the years. I was trying to find out who was potentially type A in the past earlier and found that maybe Alou and Wood were the two most high profile that the Cubs declined on? Was there anybody else besides random middle relievers? Weren't Slappy and Harden Type A? Pierre was a type B and the Cubs did get a compensation pick for him. Harden was a type B that the Cubs chose not to offer.

I never realized it until you asked...but the answer as it relates to pocketing draft picks appears to be no. :-s Oh dear. I was being facetious but yikes. It's not like the Cubs have let a lot of good players go over the years. I was trying to find out who was potentially type A in the past earlier and found that maybe Alou and Wood were the two most high profile that the Cubs declined on? Was there anybody else besides random middle relievers?

Probably since the pitcher spot is due up 1st next inning and the Cardinals are at the bottom of the lineup (and did they say Cashner was unavailable tonight?) Risking Schlitter for another inning is probably necessary here instead of using another pitcher for just 1 inning.

Wasn't the correct part of the lineup. They aren't going to take Ramirez, Lee, or Castro out. Colvin was a possibility but that burns a player to only move the pitcher 1 spot. Yea I know it wasnt ideal, but I would have taken Colvin out. That would have given 5 people before Marmols spot, and if you get 5 guys up to bat, you have to figure you would have scored or be very close to scoring. But then instead of Fukudome-Colvin in the 10th you would have Fukudome and either Nady or Baker. So you lose your best lineup and burn one of your last 3 legitimate hitters on the bench to guard against what is only a decent possibility at best. And of course now we see the other reason why Lou didn't do it because apparently he wanted to make sure Marmol was available tomorrow. That is a decision I do not agree with.

Wasn't the correct part of the lineup. They aren't going to take Ramirez, Lee, or Castro out. Colvin was a possibility but that burns a player to only move the pitcher 1 spot.

Barney at 2B is unfortunately not a good alternative option. He has the same flaws as Theriot does because he doesn't walk enough and doesn't hit for much power. He also isn't that good at avoiding strikeouts for the slap hitter that he is. He is a better defender than Theriot but that won't translate as much at 2B as it would at SS. When his batting average probably drops due to better defenses in the majors, he will have trouble. Barney will likely have a role on this team as the backup middle infielder. Hopefully that comes as early as next week when Theriot is potentially traded. But the only position he really has a chance to start at in the majors is SS not 2nd.

Between the sun playing tricks and the wind causing more balls to be near the wall (the two things Soriano struggles at) I think it's a good switch today.

It would be pretty hard to give up less than Hendry has in trades. The list of players who have not fallen apart after leaving the Cubs is pretty small. Hendry's bad trades have usually involved acquiring the wrong player rather than giving up the wrong player. Sosa, Farnsworth, CPatt, Hill, Wuertz, and Pie all had more value (either real or perceived) than what he got back. At least he got value for Hawkins, but it's Sabean, so he can't get too much credit for that. PR moves yes, but Jim proved he could handle those situations with the Hundley deal. What happened with the above? Perceived value is incredibly hard to quantify and that's especially true with damaged players. Sosa for example seemed to not have any more perceived value because the Cubs spent half the offseason looking for a deal for him. Hill ended up being traded for just cash so its hard to argue that his perceived value was higher than that (if anybody had offered anything the Cubs would have taken it). CPatt and Farnsworth were both terribly inconsistent and in Farnsworth's case the Cubs actually did get a decent return back. The Wuertz trade was definitely the worst one of those listed. His only knocks on his perceived value were his frequent arm troubles and the somewhat lucky 2008. And he's certainly provided lots of actual value that the Cubs could have use. So you think the Braves would've traded Miner for Novoa? Farnsworth was having a ridiculously good season (helped out by a lot of luck in the HR department) at that point. His value had changed. And the Cubs did get Moore who had been the #7 prospect the year before for the Tigers. The Cubs did get a little unlucky there to miss his other career year but he was exactly what he was after the Cubs as he was with the Cubs...a relief pitcher starting to get expensive who was too inconsistent to be worth the expense.

It would be pretty hard to give up less than Hendry has in trades. The list of players who have not fallen apart after leaving the Cubs is pretty small. Hendry's bad trades have usually involved acquiring the wrong player rather than giving up the wrong player. Sosa, Farnsworth, CPatt, Hill, Wuertz, and Pie all had more value (either real or perceived) than what he got back. At least he got value for Hawkins, but it's Sabean, so he can't get too much credit for that. PR moves yes, but Jim proved he could handle those situations with the Hundley deal. What happened with the above? Perceived value is incredibly hard to quantify and that's especially true with damaged players. Sosa for example seemed to not have any more perceived value because the Cubs spent half the offseason looking for a deal for him. Hill ended up being traded for just cash so its hard to argue that his perceived value was higher than that (if anybody had offered anything the Cubs would have taken it). CPatt and Farnsworth were both terribly inconsistent and in Farnsworth's case the Cubs actually did get a decent return back. The Wuertz trade was definitely the worst one of those listed. His only knocks on his perceived value were his frequent arm troubles and the somewhat lucky 2008. And he's certainly provided lots of actual value that the Cubs could have use.

It would be pretty hard to give up less than Hendry has in trades. The list of players who have not fallen apart after leaving the Cubs is pretty small. Hendry's bad trades have usually involved acquiring the wrong player rather than giving up the wrong player.

He is out of options.

Lee hit a medium depth fly ball to center. Bourn caught it flatfooted and Castro who had been a couple steps off retreated to the bag right before the catch and took off. Bourn made a quick one bounce throw but it didn't have enough on it and Castro took third. Now Ramirez was intentionally walked, took second because the Astros infielders were playing in, and then Byrd just now took a walk to load the bases.