CubColtPacer

Didn't Silva strike out 11 Pirates in a game? No. Silva only struck out 5 Pirates. His 11 strikeout game was against the Cardinals.

What does especially in the Cubs system mean? The Cubs top 6-7 was one of the best in baseball (it will obviously drop if both Castro and Cashner graduate). And Jackson is widely considered one of the best picks of the 09 draft so far which is why he was 74th on BA's top 100 list. Vitters is probably the most questionable pick so far from Wilken considering he was drafted 3rd. Cashner is one of the best pitching prosepcts in all of baseball at this point. Jackson is an excellent prospect. Colvin still has huge question marks attached to him but it has been nice to see that he apparently has at least one huge tool (his immense power potential). The biggest concern with him is if he can keep hitting line drives at the rate he has with his huge strikeout rate.

Yeah. That's how I feel - I didn't like Colvin or Jackson and a lot of guys didn't like Cashner and all 3 of those first rounders have had success to this point. I did want Sale or Castellanos. Yeah, but those guys had pretty consistent 1st round grades. When everyone in the business is in agreement on a guy, they're right 9 times out of 10. I thought Colvin had a lower round grade. He was ranked 170th by BA at the time.

This has been Wilken's MO his entire career to draft some strange picks in the first round. They've usually ended up working out though in both Toronto and they're starting to in Chicago. So I'm not worried that this pitcher doesn't have 1st round talent although I wish they had gambled and tried to get him in the 2nd.

I thought people would want to know that Ryne Sandberg has been speculated as a possible option for the Orioles managerial position. He was on the radio show Inside Pitch earlier today and apparently he said that if the Orioles came calling he would listen. I don't think there has been anything official from the Orioles that they would be interested in Sandberg and I'm not sure if he'd leave even if they were interested with the Cubs managerial situation in flux, but I thought I'd pass it along.

Without the recent rule changes, Silva would probably be considered but left off the team. This has been a pretty banner year for NL pitching so far. There are 13 slots on the roster. Jiminez, Halladay, and Wainwright are locks. Carpenter and Santana between reputation and having very good years are probably in. Bell, Broxton, and probably Marmol have good shots from the closer role. That leaves 6 spots left. Garcia, Pelfrey, Cain are likely the first 3 up. One of the Houston pitchers probably makes it as their only representative. And that leaves Silva fighting with about 8-10 other pitchers for 2 spots. But with Sunday starters not getting to pitch in the All-Star game, Silva has a much better chance of making it when they get replaced. The other way he has a chance of making it is if he stays undefeated between now and then and adds a couple of wins.

In Silva's case, I think that is only a small part of the reason. Silva's major difference has been what the fangraphs article pointed out earlier in the season. He has completely changed how he pitches against left-handers by relying on a changeup instead of his two seam fastball. That has turned what was previously his main weakness into a strength for him. His numbers against right-handers are about the same as they have always been. That might mean that he could have an improvement that lasts. Looking at his peripherals, his strikeout rate is easily the best its ever been and he's maintained his other numbers. Obviously he's not sub 3 ERA good (very few pitchers are and Silva has definitely had luck) but his numbers suggest he could be transitioning from average to well above average.

I have not heard him emphatically refuse to waive his NTC. And I doubt very much now it's about being close to home. He's a big boy, and he's a couple states away from home playing many of his games out west. I'm sure being local mattered at the time, but getting a NTC is a great negotiating power for any player. He knew Hendry was desperate to get him to give up the NFL, so he got the NTC. But I'm sure his biggest desire is to be pitching in the major leagues instead of Des Moines. He hasn't said it himself, but his agent said there was no chance. And he only has less than a year before he has to either stick in the major leagues or have every team pass on him anyway.

In all seriousness, I wonder of Jeff Samardzjia for Alex Gordon is a possibility. Much like Gordon, Shark is a former top prospect whose team has pretty much given up on him, and maybe a change of scenery would do him good. Of course, Shark would have to waive the NTC that he never should have had to begin with, but I suppose he would considering hes much more likely to get a shot with KC than with us. Maybe throw in one of our AAAA guys like Fuld, Hoffpauir, or Snyder. Maybe Theriot if it gets the job done. Samardzjia was supposedly willing to waive his NTC to go to the O's in the infamous Brian Roberts deal so I don't see why he wouldn't do the same for KC. Right now he's probably behind Jackson, Schlitter and Parker in terms of possibly being promoted. You could also probably add Coleman to that list and there's always Gray and Berg. Where did you see that he was willing? All I've seen Samardzjia do is emphatically refuse to waive his no trade clause. He's come out and said that the reason he chose baseball over football was so that he could stay close to home and pitch for the Cubs which is why he demanded the no trade clause in the first place.

You don't consider Prince Fielder to be close to Lee's production? Or did I (and Cot's) miss an extension he signed? The Brewers control Fielder through 2011. This is not his walk year. He is slated to hit FA at the same time as Adrian Gonzalez. Cot's: At the end of that two year deal he still won't have enough service time to be a free agent. That deal covered his first two arbitration years and 2011 will be his 3rd arbitration year.

I don't mind a sale but a Marlins type firesale is too much IMO. At most, you trade the players whose contract is up after the year (Lee, Lilly) and the players who may be blocking players (Fukudome, Silva). You shouldn't be opposed to trading anybody, but for example let's take a look at Ramirez. He would be traded in a Marlins type firesale at the worst time for value and would be replaced by no worthwhile prospect. There's no reason to trade him this year other than an emotional one. This season is also likely one of the worst times to try to trade Zambrano. I can understand the desire to want to do a big firesale, but it would end up being pretty shortsighted IMO with all the dead money. The Cubs should do a transition year next year where they let Cashner and Jackson get long looks in the rotation, Colvin getting PT in the OF, etc. That gives all the benefits of a firesale and gives the Cubs a chance to contend or trade players like Ramirez or Z when they have a little more value. They don't need to look to contend but there's no reason to save money just to have roster filler play either. By the start of 2012, the Cubs only have 54 million committed. If they're willing, they could easily have 3 pre free agency pitchers in the rotation (Wells, Cashner, and either Gorzelanny, Jackson, or Coleman). They could have 3 pre free agency starting position players (Soto, Castro, Colvin (or maybe Brett Jackson). And they'd have 75 million to fill in 5 position players, bench, and bullpen. And that's assuming none of the prospects that the Cubs get for their current players work and the Cubs haven't found deals for Z or Soriano during that time frame. So I just don't see why you would do a big firesale. Why would you commit to losing until at least 2013 when the team could accomplish it faster using a less drastic but still just as disciplined approach? A Marlins type firesale is rarely the best approach for a big market team.

If I'm remembering right, wasn't the Nady deal done before the ownership change? The later reports make a lot more sense that Dempster deferred his contract during the offseason when the money was likely frozen during the last portion of the sale.

Gorzelanny has no options left.

So you're OK with increasing his workload from about 95 innings to 150? That seems like a pretty big jump. It's not really that bad. 150 is not a lot of innings overall. If Cashner's max was 95, I'd be more worried, but with his 120 last year he should be able to do 150 next year even with going to the bullpen. Other pitchers have made similar sorts of jumps. I think the big question becomes then, why now and why Cashner? The bullpen has been pitching better lately. It's about to get another decent to good pitcher when somebody leaves the rotation next week. Stevens has pitched just fine in his two outings so far and he'd likely be the one sent down for Cashner. If the Cubs felt they needed more help, they already had Jackson waiting in the AAA bullpen. So why the sudden reversal to want Cashner in the majors? How is that better than the other options especially when Cashner could have had his innings he needed by being called up into the bullpen around the All-Star break? They are sacrificing 30 potential innings next year to get 10-15 innings this year. That's an awfully hard choice to make when he's not even going to be the primary setup man. Putting him in the bullpen this year was almost inevitable to keep his innings down and it will have benefits to him of being able to see major league hitters who will challenge him more. That's not a problem. It's just too early.

Who are all these top prospect SP that the Rays and Red Sox moved to the pen without having innings as a starter? Price and..... Dude quit while you're behind already. You sound like Dusty with this "that's how they've always done it" logic. Why don't you address the previous post he made? What post was that? He asked for guys that were starters in the minors, broke into the bigleagues as relievers, and then ultimately settled in as starters. Such a list has already been provided. The larger point I was making is that normally dextermorgan and many others here are clamoring for the Cubs to eschew conventional wisdom and be more progressive in their thinking (embrace OBP, ignore pitchers' ERA and W-L, and so on). Two examples commonly cited are the Rays and Red Sox. Those clubs have broken the mold, so to speak, and have been very successful. So why are we clinging to conventional wisdom and standard practice in this instance? It's inherently contradictory. If Cashner throws 40 innings in the pen this year, how many innings would you be willing to let him pitch next year? Is there a max pitching limit you think he should stay under?

Cashner did throw in the fall league last year so those 19 innings probably need to be added to the total. It still is too low of a number to be the highest number he's seen before entering a season where he would be projected to be in the Opening Day rotation.

What "all other practices"? Scenario A, Cashner remains in AAA and throws another 80 IP as a starter in 2010. Scenario B, Cashner comes up to MLB and throws another 40 IP as a reliever in 2010. Why would Scenario A inherently prepare the guy better for the MLB rotation in 2011 and beyond? Getting acclimated to the bigleagues may very well be more valuable longterm than logging more IP in the minors. Meanwhile, he's helping the big club this year. Scenario B is problematic for 2011 because of how much they'll have to baby him next year. He will be a 150-160 inning pitcher before they'll have to shut him down. That's putting a strain on next year's team. There are definitely advantages to Scenario B. But the Cubs could have had their cake and ate it too in this scenario. They could have let Cashner start for another month or two and then brought him up. He would have still been able to be a factor in a possible stretch run while building up that inning count for the year which would allow him to be a possible 175-185 inning pitcher next year. They also would have avoided any possible Super 2 issues. The horrible logic of why Jackson was moved from rotation to bullpen to rotation and now Cashner from the rotation to the bullpen is probably worse than the actual move itself though. It gives the 2010 Cubs possible help in return for a very suboptimal situation coming up in 2011. It hurts Cashner's development of his changeup and his ability to show that he can keep his stuff deep into ballgames a little bit, although I feel those questions have been mostly decided already. Maybe the biggest problem is what happens next. The Cubs haven't given players like Stevens or Parker a chance even after they impressed in the minors (Stevens is in the majors but hasn't really gotten the chance to grab that right-handed setup role yet that the Cubs seem to be looking for and probably won't get that chance if Cashner does come up). Jackson apparently impressed them out of the bullpen but got sent back to the rotation anyway. If Cashner comes up to the major league bullpen, is he in a no win scenario for becoming a starter? Pitch too well and they'll want to keep him there for fear of losing a dominant reliever and pitch badly and he might never really get that chance to start. We know they want Cashner to be a starter, but if they have changed their minds so many times despite getting the results they wanted, then what keeps their mind from changing again? If Cashner comes up and pitches this year, becomes a starter for 150-160 innings next year, then hits 180 the year after that, the move becomes a fine one that was just slightly mistimed from being an ideal situation. Between the risk of what may happen, having the ideal situation being so easy to implement, and that ideal situation still giving most everything the team wants to accomplish with this move, it still makes it a rather poor decision.

His last game prior to last night was great. He kept Philly scoreless in 6.2 and only gave up three hits. Looks like you might be thinking of the game before that. Regardless, I don't like sending him to the pen (should be Silva) but I'm sure you're right that it is going to happen. I think he meant that he had to leave the Philly game because of the line drive off his hand. So between that injury possibility and his bad start, he is almost certainly the candidate to go to the bullpen. There's also been one thing that hasn't been mentioned. I'm not sure changing Silva's role is the best idea for his health. He's had shoulder problems the last couple of years and switching his workload could make him much more likely to be hurt.

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl. A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ. But it was a factor, which you are unhappy with. Are you upset that the conference championships are in potentially bad weather locales and could favor one team or the other? The conference championship games are different because that is an earned advantage. Teams have the privilege at playing at home because of their stellar performance. And while I wouldn't consider the Bears-Colts game bad, it still resulted in a sloppy game with multiple unforced turnovers. That isn't really what I want to see in a Super Bowl. Miami's still a great Super Bowl site because that doesn't happen very often.

Ideal conditions can just as easily favor one team over another. If a team has to play all year in elements, why should they be forced to adjust their game to a dome to end the season? Pretty much every team plays the majority of its games in decent weather. Every team has to be built to play in decent weather because if they can't play in that sort of weather, they won't make the playoffs. The majority of teams are only going to have a couple under 40 degree games with significant rain/wind/snow. It's potentially introducing something for the Super Bowl that most teams are not seeing much during the year. Or think of it this way. Does a team play as well in elements as they do in normal weather? Hardly ever. So why would you create an environment where the team that wins plays their overall B game and beats their opponent who plays their C or D game? We want to see at least one team and hopefully both teams play at the top of their game and the best way to do that is to have decent weather.

Look, I know Colvin is the "flavor of the year" but who exactly do you want to bench to start Colvin? There's no problem rotating him in a little more often. The dude's hitting over .300 with an on-base of almost .370. Obviously our other 3 outfielders are doing well also, but there's no harm in giving him one of Fukudome's starts here and one of Soriano's starts there. It'll help keep everyone fresh. The problem is that the Cubs are in such a left-handed heavy stretch (4 out of 6, 6 out of 11). So Fukudome really has to play all the other days. Soriano is the best hitter in the lineup right now so he needs to be replaced only sparingly. Today or tomorrow might be a good day to give Byrd a day off but the starts for Colvin are going to be hard to come by right now.

Until the ending, I enjoyed the Colts-Saints game much more than the Colts-Bears game because it was played at such a higher level. I would hate to see the Super Bowl ruined by bad weather. It's fun to watch bad weather games but there is a lot more luck involved than in a normal game. It makes an uninteresting game more interesting but the better team is also less likely to win than normal.

Fine, but you cannot count DLee and Ramirez then, because there is no way that anyone thought that they would be making that cheap of money as soon as they were up to resign. Lee signed a 3 year deal as soon as he got to the Cubs for 22.5 million. While just over the minimum we're talking about (although just by 500,000), that's a move a Royals team could make even when inflating it slightly to indicate today's dollars. Ramirez was still in his arbitration years. The Royals could have picked up his 6 million for 04 then either paid the 9 million or so he would have gotten in arbitration in 05 (the Cubs gave him a long-term extension after arbitration figures were exchanged that year) or they could have traded him after his big year for more talent. That's what lower middle market teams are supposed to do (and that's really what Kansas City is. They aren't a ridiculously small market team anymore). They have lots of playing time to offer so they find undervalued talent, give them time and then either build around them or trade them for even more talent. Ramirez and Lee aren't the strongest examples as they are right on the edge of the contract situation, but the Royals still have plenty of money to sign a player or two like that if they weren't wasting most of their money.

That's just not true. Hendry has made plenty of good moves that would've been possible with any payroll. Moore hasn't made any. when? Off the top of my head: Barrett, Dempster, DeRosa, Byrd, Gorzelanny, trading DeRosa, Karros/Grudzielanek, Lee, and probably Ramirez(although 6M was a little more in 2003) Um, that's ridiculous. No way he could pull those off with "any payroll". How long has Moore been a GM? Hendry has been a GM for 8 years, obviously over time he's going to pull off a favorable deal or two. Moore will have been a GM for 4 years now this summer. And while any payroll might be overstating it, the Royals have a payroll over 70 million now (their payrolls have been 67, 58, 70, and now about 75 since Dayton became GM). They could have handled any of those types of moves that TT mentioned. Instead, they have much more dead money than the Cubs have, they have more invested in the bullpen than the Cubs, and their two big free agent acquisitions are Gil Meche and Jose Guillen. And then on position players, they're giving 10-12 million combined and playing time to the combination of Betancourt, Ankiel, Kendall, Bloomquist, and Podsednik. And when you consider that we're only talking about players who have to have playing time while making less than 7 million a year (players which both teams can afford), Moore should have a lot more chances at that than Hendry. He signs a lot more of those type of contracts. The fact that Hendry has had many more successes at that than Moore even though Moore has many more chances is pretty horrible for Moore.

It looks like Marshall will be a free agent after the 2012 season. So the Cubs still have a long way to go before worrying about that. And if the Cubs keep him in the bullpen, I doubt you'll see many teams wanting to risk converting him to a starter at the age of 30 if he's still being an effective reliever.