CubColtPacer

Bruce did say in his blog that Soto would get the start catching Z in the day game tomorrow.

He was ahead of schedule? When it first came out he talked of being ready for opening day. Most reports were in April sometime, and a bunch of people just assumed it would be later. My guess is that he's probably referring to the May 1st timeline that was commonly cited throughout the offseason and into spring training.

Agreed that he wouldn't sign a blockbuster contract. I think he could get back into the sport, but I doubt he would make what he has made so far in baseball (plus with his profile one good year in baseball could earn him a steady stream of money for a while longer). I do think you're right that he wouldn't go through the draft though. This draft profile has him listed as likely to be undrafted because of the baseball contract. That makes me think he likely was at least on the board in 2007 to be drafted. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2007/draft/players/7370.html

I don't know if seniors have to file paperwork for the draft to be eligible like underclassmen do. If they do, and Samardzija never filed, then he still has never been through the draft and would likely have to go through. If they automatically are eligible without paperwork, then nobody took him and he could sign as a free agent.

I don't think anyone is allowed to skip the draft. There have been people who didn't play college football who have been drafted and others who have signed as undrafted free agents. I don't know of anybody who's been able to come right off the street and sign as a free agent though. They could be out there, but I've never heard of it.

The problem is that Samardzija would be 27 by the time he would be able to step onto a football field for the first time after his Cubs contract ends. And he would not be picked high in the draft because of his age and his time away (although he would still be drafted because he did have 1st round talent). That would make him have a small first contract and by the time he could hit free agency he would be 30/31. He'd have a very hard time making 10 million in the NFL unless he became a breakout star very quickly.

I'm not a fan of amortizing signing bonuses in baseball (which is inflating several people's salaries on this analysis), but amortizing the signing bonuses over the life of the contract really falls apart when they also do it for people like Silva. That bonus was paid a long time ago by the Mariners and yet part of the signing bonus has been added on to the contract figure that the Cubs are paying. They're also of course getting paid for part of Silva's regular contract which isn't reflected but that's normal.

I do think Silva's results in ST might be more indicative than most. If he's not locating pitches well, his stuff is not good enough that even minor leaguers could tee off of him. So the fact that he's pitched well a few outings in a row suggests that he is locating his pitches (and the video highlights of his last outing or two seem to confirm that as most of the pitches are in very pitcher friendly parts of the zone). The thing that needs to be waited upon is the walks. Silva has had the excellent control he needs so far this spring that is needed from him to be successful with how hittable he is. Are teams being too aggressive against him because it is Spring Training and hitting his pitches? Can he continue to throw pitcher's strikes if they let a few of them go by and can he keep the walk rate that far down if they are more patient? That's what I'm going to be looking for. I think Spring Training has been an encouraging sign that he's back to where he was in Minnesota, but the possibilities are still wide open with what he'll do in the regular season.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Add those unearned runs back in and you don't get a true picture of how he pitched either. Opponents slugged under .300 against him. Anytime you have that great of a number, you should end up having a very good ERA even with a 1.4 WHIP. Of course, that slugging number is partially because no balls left the ballpark against him that year and is completely unsustainable (how much so is unknown especially since he was much more of a ground ball pitcher in 08 than 09). So there are reasons to explain why he won't be as good in the future, but he was definitely good in 08.

Just curious, CCP, do you have any specific references for these other than the obvious? Oops. That was supposed to add in that is what Arizona Phil had to say when questioned about why those players were released. It came from the comments section of the link about rosters that was in the other thread: http://www.thecubreporter.com/2010/03/31/updated-minor-league-camp-rosters?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TCRfeed+%28The+Cub+Reporter%29 Sorry for the confusion.

I would agree..and out of those names, I guess I'll go with Arenas. The Colts are looking for depth not starters at CB and they want/need a return man (even though the blocking has been the main problem). So even though Arenas would likely remind me a lot of Tim Jennings on the field, he's the pick here.

I see positives and negatives to it. It's scary messing with such a great thing but it has the potential to be even better with this change. I'm with you in not being against it.

Exile, do you have any thoughts here at 94?

Samardzija does have an option left. They probably kept him both because he has some success in a major league bullpen and because they feel he has improved over the winter. Atkins was probably never an option after his disaster year in Iowa last year..there's probably 5-6 guys who would be a better long term option at this point. Gray had a groin injury and got started so late in the spring that he only got 1 inning before he was sent down. He'll probably have a good shot of coming up when he's ready as he was considered a favorite to win a bullpen spot before the injury.

Here's the follow up to why Kemp and Hernandez might have been released from Arizona Phil: from this link (also where the previous post came from): http://www.thecubreporter.com/2010/03/31/updated-minor-league-camp-rosters?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TCRfeed+%28The+Cub+Reporter%29

I didn't see this posted...this was from Arizona Phil about who got released last week. I highlighted a couple that I know will be of interest to some: CHUCK: The Grim Reaper tapped slick-fielding 21-year old Dominican SS Robert Bautista, 1B-C (ex-3B) John Contreras, 20-year old Dominican RHP Diego Encarnacion, 21-year old Venezuelan RHP Robert Hernandez (considered a fairly decent prospect a couple of years ago before a PED suspension sidetracked his career), 22-year old 5'8 Dutch 2B Dwayne Kemp, veteran AAA RHP Jeff Kennard (who got an NRI to big league camp but got cut early), RHRP Kevin Kreier (5-4 3.77 ERA at Peoria in 2009), RHP (ex-3B) Josh Lansford (son of ex-MLB 3B Carney Lansford), 21-year old Dominican RHP Dionis Nunez (3-3 2.84 ERA at Boise in 2009), 3B Jordan Petraitis (2009 28th round draft pick out of Miami of Ohio), Iowa Cubs RHP Gregory Reinhard (acquired from TB for RHP Jae-Kuk Ryu in 2007), 21-year old Venezuelan OF Kevin Soto, RHP Josh Whitlock (2008 26th round pick out of the U. of West Virginia), Australian OF Sean Williams, and RHP Hank Williamson (7-4 4.93 ERA with 87 K in 84 IP at Daytona in 2009, one of the two pitchers the Cubs got from Baltimore for Felix Pie prior to the 2009 season). The Cubs then re-signed John Contreras (who was converted to catcher a year ago) and it appears that he will be a player-coach with Peoria.

George Mason, maybe. It wouldn't have an impact on Butler this year or next year. They shouldn't really be mentioned with George Mason. Butler would have had a bye this year into the 64 anyways. As far as Sweet 16's it all depends on who they give the byes to and how they sort it out with the last 64. You're right, Butler is damn good and shouldn't be considered a surprise FF contestant, I was trying to get at the Cinderella factor a 96 team tournament is going to kill it. The Cinderellas will have to get through one more game but there will also be more of them. I don't think too many less will end up surviving to later rounds than currently do. Hopefully this also gives more incentive for Big 6 schools to schedule decent mid-majors as well which should give them more chances to get to those protected seeds.

Since Tracy is willing to go to AAA I voted Hoffpauir in the hopes that last year was just a big slump (since he was bad in both Iowa and Chicago) and that he can get closer to where he was in 2007/2008. I don't think it will really matter who gets it though. I bet Millar will have it at first. As soon as they need a backup 3B though, Tracy will come up. Or they might need a backup SS and Barney will come up. Or they may decide they need another OF if Nady can't play the field much and bring up Fuld. Unless Millar gets off to a hot start, that will likely be at the expense of his roster spot. This choice will really only affect the first few weeks.

From what I heard, when the Sweet 16 started here's what businesses wanted: Midwest: Michigan State or Ohio State (not Northern Iowa) West: Syracuse (not Xavier) South Duke (not Purdue or St. Mary's) East: Kentucky or West Virginia (not Cornell) Butler will hurt the receipts from this year's Final Four but many businesses are still ok with them going. They're hoping that the storyline that is being hammered all week about Butler playing in Indianapolis gives the city a higher profile than it otherwise would have in this process. That may lead to increased dollars in the future.

If the Cubs felt his shoulder was bad enough that they had to move him to 1st I doubt they would pick up his option for 2012. That gives you a lot more options only having to deal with that uncertainty for 1 year. As David said though, I'm not sure repeated throwing is going to cause as much of a problem as hitting with it being his non-throwing shoulder. Do the Cubs have an option? I thought it was Ramirez that had an opt out after this year. Ramirez has the option after this year. The Cubs have the option after 2011.

You can't use an average for a skewed distribution like playing time. Looking at the median is much more informative. Or just look at the number of players who actually reach some given portion of the tail (for instance, the 10 years required for HOF eligibility) and use that to estimate. Around 25 eligible members a year is pretty good though. That means 1/30th of the bare major league rosters are retiring with 10+ years of experience every single year. 1/3 of the overall major leagues on their way to at least 10 years of experience when looking at rosters on any given day is pretty good. I'm sure if you looked at every single player that appears during a season the percentage would be way down because of how many players get just a cup of coffee. But for those who can stick 1-2 years they've got a pretty good shot at staying for 8-10. Or we can take a look at the Cubs roster. Right now 7 have at least 8 years of MLB experience. 3 more have over 6 but less than 8. And then I bet at least 2 of Marmol, Marshall, Theriot, and Soto also make it with the possibility of another random 1-2 making it from the other 11 players.

Before last season, didn't pretty much everyone always say that Bradley was a good teammate and well liked in the clubhouse? Yes, but the media could have spun some of the details of the Jeff Kent-Bradley feud in 05 to make Bradley look pretty bad. Was that mostly Bradley's fault? Probably not, but the media could have made it out to be and many people would have bought it.

Like when Paul Sullivan went on a spring training broadcast and called him a crazy person. That's true (and kind was too strong of a word on my part). However, they still didn't go through his past. Can you imagine if someone had wrote an article just detailing every thing Bradley's been involved in during the last 7-8 years? Most of Chicago would have hated him from day one especially if they played up the possible domestic violence calls. And yet as far as I know an article like that never came out. Why are you making it sound like Bradley had this secret past that needed to be exposed by a writer for people to know about it? Everybody knew/knows about Bradley's past and what he's gotten into. Everyone knows about the bottle incident at Dodger Stadium. Everybody knows about the injury with Bud Black. Everybody knows about him going up to the press box. It probably wasn't written about because everybody was already very familiar with his past. Because most people don't follow other baseball teams that closely. They might remember Bradley's name associated with poor behavior and some of them might remember 1-2 of the more publicized incidents (and you probably mentioned the 3 most famous ones) but the most famous ones are not the most incriminating ones. The most famous incidents show that Bradley has a temper. People are willing to give a guy with a temper second chances. Even the use of crazy person is likely to be interpreted by people as referring to his temper because that's what they know about him. What if the media had tried to paint him as a possible abuser whose clubhouse antics already divided and brought down one team and who fought with managers? People are a lot less likely to forgive things like that. Don't get me wrong. The media could have left him alone and things might have gone a little differently last year. However, they really weren't that bad overall. When Bradley came to Chicago, I expected they would be a lot worse and that he'd have to win over the people who couldn't stand him in the beginning. That didn't happen which is why Bradley was well on his way to being liked in the city even after his long slump.

Like when Paul Sullivan went on a spring training broadcast and called him a crazy person. That's true (and kind was too strong of a word on my part). However, they still didn't go through his past. Can you imagine if someone had wrote an article just detailing every thing Bradley's been involved in during the last 7-8 years? Most of Chicago would have hated him from day one especially if they played up the possible domestic violence calls. And yet as far as I know an article like that never came out. There were plenty of ways to use Bradley's history to do hatchet jobs on him while having a thin layer of fact to go along with it. That would have been an easy thing to do if the job was truly to bury him. Why would they bypass golden opportunities like that?

i know you lovvvve to hate milton bradley, but it was obvious the media was out to get him from day 1. I actually thought it was pretty kind of the media to not bring up the details of many of his past transgressions. That could have poisoned many fans to Bradley right from the start who didn't pay attention to Bradley when he was causing trouble in Cleveland and LA both on and off the field and even at home (since a large percentage of fans care about players being model citizens). In other ways they made it more difficult for Bradley right from the beginning and they certainly didn't make it easy for him, but if they were actively trying to run him out of town they did a very poor job of it.