CubColtPacer

tommy hanson turned 23 in august last year and had 2 years of full-season ball under his belt, including spending most of the previous year at AA. starlin castro just turned 20 a month ago and has played only 1 year of full-season ball, most of which was spent in A ball. hanson starting the year in AAA was in large part a financial decision; starting castro in AA has a lot more to do with not rushing the player and hurting his development. Yes but it seems to be that Castro is ready to join the big leagues. He showed it in ST and has shown it in the minors. I don't think he can really develop any more down there. He has maxed out the development he could get in the minors. Please explain how he's maxed out in development in the minors. That's ridiculous. The point is that having Castro in the big leages makes the Cubs better. Is he just one game better? Maybe, but it is the GMs responsibility to make every move that he can to bring a team closer to a World Series (within financial reason). That isn't really true. There are lots of things that could make the team better this year. Hendry could trade prospects for improvements on the offense/bullpen. He could bring up players like Cashner/Jackson for the bullpen. He could bring up Castro. All of those would likely improve the 2010 team. But a GM has to balance this year versus future years. For example, is Castro going to perform enough in May to be worth paying millions of extra dollars to him in a couple years when he is a Super 2? Will the Cubs be so concerned about 2010 that they'll stop giving him at-bats if he struggles? Is Castro likely to be overwhelmed by the jump in leagues? (which this one is more likely to be no with his history). Does Castro provide enough of a boost this year to overcome these questions? It's just not as simple as deciding if he's better than somebody currently on the major league roster. Maybe it would be that simple for a future bench/bullpen guy, but not somebody who you hope to be an important part of your team for years to come. There are financial and developmental ramifications that make it that the team needs to be absolutely sure before they make that move.

Offutt will likely not be available until 2nd semester. And yes, he would only have 1 1/2 years left. Negedu is definitely a nervewracking situation. On one hand, it would be nice to be the school to not keep him from what he wants to do just because of liability issues when the doctors have cleared him. On the other hand, you don't want to be seen as so desperate for a player that you'll risk somebody's life either. From what I've heard, my guess is he would get a waiver since it wasn't really his choice to transfer. On Uthoff, I also know next to nothing about him. His high school coach said that college coaches are saying that he reminds them of Kyle Korver. I also wonder if he's worth the fuss to be worth a scholarship for those years. He apparently can shoot the 3 well even though he's playing the post in high school. At 6 foot 8, if he's a shooter both Butler and Indiana will want him because he fits both their systems so well. As for the wanting to play at Indiana, at least for Offutt it was apparently the coaching uncertainty that caused him to not go to Indiana originally. I'm not sure about Negedu.

It looks like Walter Offutt is coming to IU as long as the financial aid situation works out. He was just barely a top 100 guy coming out of high school. I have no idea what he might have after all this time, but considering that he's walking on (because he already played at Ohio State and so cannot take a scholarship) it's pretty much a no risk situation. Between this and the Negedu situation, this is definitely not the normal recruiting process so far this spring. That doesn't even begin to mention the other 8-10 players that have also been possibilities in the last month.

I don't think that would have worked. Capps was interested in closing and the Cubs couldn't offer that.

I'm not a fan of the extra roster spot as there already is a lot of pressure and substitutions to try to get everybody in the game. The DH rule is absolutely fine. It will make substitutions easier for the managers. The injured position player rule is a good one because now managers don't have to keep an extra guy on their bench. The starting pitching rule is also good as it has left some imbalances in number of pitchers in the past. Will that player still count as that one club's All Star if they aren't permitted to pitch though? My guess is yes. And I'm in between the two camps on the AS game issue. I think it is an upgrade the way they do it now from the way it was before so if those are the only two options I want the ASG to decide HFA. However, if options like team records, overall interleague record, or other performance based options are on the table I'd rather have those.

Before today the Cubs were .267/.340/.426 overall, and .264/.346/.451 with runners in scoring position. Today will probably make those numbers pretty close to equal. Obviously 1-20 in the last 2 days really hurts (along with only 1 extra base hit in those 2 games) but that hasn't really been an issue in the season so far.

Even if he did try to bunt, teams aren't going to immediately go back to playing normal, and the trade off of Dunn trying to make an attempt at a bunt(which Im sure he hasnt done much of) and him hitting the ball 400 feet, Id take every day. It would take him going up there pretty much every at bat for multiple games before teams would consider changing their defense, and if he wants to do it 3 or 4 times a game, well Ill gladly take it opposed to the alternative. Well, I would certainly want him to practice bunting before he brought it to a game. But the margin for error is so much higher than a normal bunt because you don't have to try to deaden the ball. A Dunn who bunts on 6 out of 7 times he is at the plate is more productive than the current version. Eventually other teams would have to adjust (just like when teams tried to intentionally walk Pujols or Bonds a bunch had to stop) because that jump in OBP ends up being more dangerous than just letting him swing. That's especially true for a player like Dunn who is a great but not elite offensive player under normal circumstances.

Brenly's exactly right on the bunting thing. It's basically a chance at an intentional walk. That's almost always a good thing to have. And if the defense ends up going back to their normal positions because they're tired of him standing on 1st base every at-bat, then that helps his other at-bats.

A few post above yours says that he was not released on Friday and would not be available until today. I don't know if this is right or not but could also explain why he has not been picked up. Right. Quite a few teams ahead of the Cubs on the waiver wire, I would imagine. Not sure if Cruz makes it that far. It's possible KC wanted someone to pick up way more of his contract in order to work out a trade, thus he'll be free to go to the first team that wants him. Considering his history and his age, I'm guessing he gets snatched up pretty quickly for league minimum. Nobody's going to claim Cruz off of waivers because they'd definitely wind up paying his entire contract. Yup. And from what Bruce said on his blog yesterday, it doesn't look like the Cubs are interested in him at all:

I feel a little crazy for being mildly intrigued by Shafer at this point. He was basically written off after his horrible start to last year and reports of poor stuff which I completely understood. However, after his first start in August last year he turned it around and had a strong last 30 innings. Then he's come out this year and all his peripherals look great so far: 16 IP, 11 H, 2 R, 0 ER, 0 HR, 2 BB, 16 K I guess I'm intrigued because I don't know what's causing it. Is his stuff finally reappearing from the elbow problems? Does he just have enough pitches to overcome a little less on his fastball and it took a while to learn how to adjust? Or is it just random variance? I fully admit that with high picks I'm always looking for signs of what made them that high in the first place. I still probably wouldn't put him in the top 25/30, but I can't help but keep an eye on what he's doing.

Hmm..hopefully it's more Lou changing his mind than a setback for Nady.

Isn't that 70/125 over 500 AB's? I'd be positively euphoric if he could keep that up. or was that a green font thing? No green font thing intended. What ratio of BB/K is considered acceptable? Obviously more BBs than Ks is what every player would like to have but I always assumed a ratio around 50/50 is acceptable. League average for an outfielder is around 2 strikeouts for every walk. If Colvin stays around that average number he'd probably be a fantastic player as he has good average potential and good power potential. His struggle is always going to be to try to keep that strikeout to walk ratio from being horrible in order to maximize that ability to hit for average and power.

Xavier Nady is starting tonight. Looking who has had off days recently, it will probably be for Soriano.

I think Minny is taking Clausen if hes there. I thought so originally when they just traded down behind teams who didn't need a QB. But why would they give quarterback desperate teams almost 24 hours to make a deal with the Rams? Unless they like Clausen and McCoy equally and so traded back because they don't care which one they get, it doesn't make sense for them to trade back if they were interested in Clausen.

I almost picked him in the first mock draft that NSBB did. Like Mathis, he's too small to be a 3 down DE consistently. But he'll be a fantastic 3rd pass rusher for their scheme and that really hurt them in the SB. I definitely think it's a good pick.

OK, Hoff makes some sense, but why the [expletive] would you replace him with Barney, Fuld or Snyder? Snyder makes some sense. Former 1st round pick, had a good season in Iowa last year who is having a hot start this year. Barney contributes so little until Fontenot shows he cannot handle backup SS. Hoffpauir isn't really an option as he has started just like he played all of last year and Fuld is redundant and off to a bad start. As for Tracy, I know he's looked bad. It's only been 8 at-bats though. If there was somebody really knocking on that roster spot it would be one thing but right now there's no real need to not wait a little longer.

So he's a freshman now? I don't mean to be naive, and I know junior high kids or younger are drawing attention now. But it still makes me uncomfortable. If he's in the 2012 class, then he's finishing up his sophomore year right now.

The play-in games have to also be fair to the high seeds. Why should certain 5 seeds get to play teams who are tired and have had very little preparation for them while 4 seeds play very similar rested teams? That's the problem that hasn't been solved with having the last at-larges play each other.

i want to know where the notion that hill was a good defensive catcher came from. back in high school, there was a kid on our basketball team that was a horrible shooter/offensive player. so he was deemed our defensive stopper even though his defense was no better than anyone else's. i think that's the situation with hill. Hill benefits from a couple of things. One is his caught stealing percentage the last two years when his defensive reputation really sprouted. He caught 33.75% of runners in 08 between the minors and majors, and then caught 40% of runners in the majors in 09. Those are impressive numbers. The other is the flawed stat of the Cubs great winning percentage when he starts. That obviously means very little but it's a popular stat among fans/analysts. And since those wins are not coming from his offense, they must be coming from his defense. Hill is probably slightly better defensively than Soto just because of a slightly better arm (I am uncertain who is better at blocking balls in the dirt). Soto is still a very good defensive catcher though and shouldn't be subbed out for defensive purposes unless elite basestealers are in the other lineup and even then it should be questionable.

Let me start off with saying this is a definite downgrade to the rotation. The notion that Z is being demoted for being worse than everyone else is going to be a popular one among fans and it's simply not true. However, I do not see this move as quite as horrible as many do. You have several factors in play here. How do you feel Gorzelanny/Silva are going to do? Do you think Zambrano will be better per inning as a reliever than he is as a starter? Is the new workload going to cause less injury to Z? If Gorzelanny/Silva were pushed to the pen, would they be better pitchers in the pen than in the rotation? How would Lou use them in the pen? First, the issue of Gorzelanny and Silva's performance. Obviously they are not going to do like they have so far. Personally, I'm expecting somewhere around a 9 ERA from them combined at the end of the year (neither one higher than a 5 ERA). Is that great? No, but that's about two league average starters put together (and while I feel Gorzelanny is the better bet to be good, it really could be either one of them). Will Z be better as a reliever than a starter? Again, I would say it's likely to be yes. He's a very good starter, but he could end up being an excellent reliever. This will help him add a couple miles to his fastball that he's lost over the years as a starter. His high strikeout rate will be huge for a bullpen that frequently needs a strikeout at a very certain time. And he'll also hopefully face less left-handers in the bullpen especially with Marshall/Grabow as the other setup men which will also boost his numbers. Is the new workload going to cause less injury to Z? Uncertain. The biggest problem is the possible changing of mechanics. At the same time, Z's value as an innings eating workhorse is starting to erode both from injury that makes him miss starts and injuries that shorten starts. Plus, he isn't exactly the most efficient pitcher in the world (16-17 pitches per inning) so to get those high inning totals the Cubs would have to continue to put 110-120 pitch outings on his arm on a consistent basis. As TT pointed out, how much longer can that continue? If Gorzelanny/Silva were pushed to the bullpen, would they be better in the pen than in the rotation? And how would Lou use them? Gorzelanny would likely be a little better in the pen than he is in the rotation. But he also would be behind both Marshall and Grabow down there. So Gorzelanny would be pushed to the swing role and those low leverage innings would be worth a lot less than Z's high leverage innings. And Silva is the exact type of pitcher who you do not want in the bullpen. His biggest strength is his efficiency which isn't that helpful in the bullpen. You don't want to put him in with runners on because he's so hittable. He also gives up a lot of home runs which is not an ideal bullpen candidate when protecting slim leads. He'd also get pushed to the swing role before long and there goes any value he might have provided. There are other cons to this move. Z's bat is a big loss. Another is what the Cubs plan is if they have an injury in their starting rotation with nobody likely to be stretched out on the team (a long-term injury I would assume that Z would slowly get stretched out, but I don't know what they'll do if somebody's gone for 15-20 days). And the other is Z's long term future. Do you really plan to keep him there for years? Unless he's absolutely dominant down there, I don't see that. So have the Cubs planned the time for him to transition back to the rotation? Probably not. This is a highly creative move. Unfortunately, to get the most value out of it the Cubs would have to continue to be creative. The way for this move to work out would be to keep building either Gorzelanny or Silva's trade value until the deadline and then flip them for something of value. By then, another reliever in the pen would have likely stepped up and the Cubs can transition Z back to starter and slide the other pitcher into the setup role. The second best move would be to do the exact same thing but wait until the offseason to trade one of those two pitchers. Then you could have Z take that spot and have one of the minor leaguers (Cashner/Jackson/Coleman) take Lilly's spot. They also have to make sure Z is used in high leverage situations. But IMO this isn't a horrible move. It's certainly not playing it safe and it definitely could blow up in their faces. I don't think it was necessarily needed as a bullpen strengthening move (as the Cubs have options there). But it will strengthen the bullpen. Will it strengthen it as much as downgrading the rotation? Maybe. Will it hurt Z's value? Almost certainly. Will it upgrade others value? Yes. Will it help the Cubs in trade negotiations when they have to get rid of some of their starting pitching options to make room for the pitchers that are coming fast? Probably. So if you are much more pessimistic about the combo of Gorzelanny/Silva, I can understand why you would think it is a horrible move. And it certainly flies in the face of normal thinking (which is why I can only remember the Phillies division winner of 07 doing this). I think it probably won't put a big dent in the Cubs season and this decision might help them out in future years in multiple ways.

Yeah, it's really tough to decide what to do with the offense. They haven't hit well at all but that's in large part to the two regulars with the most at-bats being absolutely awful (Theriot, Ramirez) with nobody really being hot to counterbalance. Everyone else is close to their normal ranges (Kosuke is probably the next closest to underperforming while the catcher position is overperforming so far). Really the only thing that can be done is if the Cubs want to suddenly pull the plug on Theriot and call up Castro (which I'm not recommending). Otherwise there isn't much to be done because the expected problem areas have not been problems so far. Normally, at least 1-2 players are really hot every single month which really helps carry an offense through the slumps. It's rare that there isn't at least one random .900-1.000 OPS regular player so far. In the last 2 years, one good year and one bad offensive year, the Cubs averaged between 2 and 3 .900 OPS players per month each year (requiring 50 at-bats in the month). Is that a bad sign of things to come or random statistical variation? It could be either.

Ceda for a year of Gregg is one off the top of my head (at least in terms of how Ceda was regarded in comparison to Gregg at the time...I haven't really followed him since). Ceda was a guy who nobody knew the trade value of though because he had significant flaws that could derail his career quickly. Since the trade, Ceda accidentally shot someone in the DR and was on house arrest for a short time which he never informed Florida of. He then missed all last year after torn labrum surgery and so far this year only pitched in one Spring Training game. He's apparently slimmed down to 273.

If the Cubs had a left-handed starter that was even passable against left-handers then I am sure Lou would consider starting them. Fukudome and Fontenot both struggle quite a bit against left-handers and it doesn't make sense to put in a 650 OPS hitter instead of an 800+ OPS hitter just for the sake of balance. Plus it gives rest to the two players and gives Nady and Baker at-bats.

Didn't Dusty do that to Harang a year or two ago? I believe Harang was on 2 days rest that night (which is more normal to throw a side session). But they left Harang out there for something like 63 pitches. I doubt the Mets will leave Pelfrey out there that long even if the game goes back to being tied again.

Pelfrey threw 109 pitches on Thursday and now is back out there tonight. His next start of course was supposed to be against the Cubs next week.