third eye

I know that Durham has put up great numbers offensively this year, but historically, is he that much better than Todd Walker? A mid-teens HR hitter with and OBP in the mid 300s? What concerns me more about him is things like this from his scouting reports: Hitting There's no question about Durham's hitting when he's in the lineup. He hit the most homers since swatting 20 for the White Sox in 2001. Last year, he had a higher batting average from the right side, but more power from the left side. For a leadoff hitter, Durham strikes out too much. He struck out 60 times last year, three more than his walk total. Baserunning & Defense Once a threat to run, Durham's injuries have cut down his stolen-base totals. He is blessed with athletic genes, however, and the Giants once considered moving him to the outfield. That likely won't happen after Durham struggled so much to catch popups at his position last season. He had a horrible season in the field, with 16 errors. Furthermore, he was slow to turn what should have been easy double plays. Would we really be upgrading from where we were at the beginning of this season with Durham? Soriano's defensive issues I could live with, because of the offensive production. But I'm not so sure about Durham overall. Andruw Jones and Loretta on the offense and Scmidt or Zito on the staff would look alot better to me.

Maybe I'm wasted, but I thought GilesBro's line was pretty funny.

I personally don't think something like a stomach flu will keep Prior from being ready for spring training this year. He has way too much to lose in terms of FA dollars if he doesnt pitch a healthy season. Not saying that is his motivation, but it will be an important factor. I do believe he will do whatever he can to be healthy and ready for next year. If it doesnt happen, it will be because he legitimately has shoulder/elbow problems that will linger. Which is why spending the vast majority of our available dollars on a true #2 and a back of the rotation guy is crucial. If he is in a position to take the #5 slot and be replaced by one of our rooks if necessary, then we can be OK. Think of it this way - every game we have been competitive in for the second half has been started by Z or Hill. Thats 40% of your games. If you sign a Schmidt, you move that number up to 60%. If you get a mid-4 ERA type who will take the ball every fifth day, that gets you up to 80%, and any team can find a way to win 40% of the remaining games, even with an average offense. With a healthy Prior in that last slot, you are significantly more likely than not to win any of the games started by the guys in the rotation laid out above. Starting pitchers set the tone for every game. That is why I think the VORP methodology is flawed. In my opinion, it doesnt take into account the effect that being in control of most of your games with a strong rotation has. It doesnt factor in the fact that the offense is more confident when it takes the field. When was the last start by Hill that this offense didnt throw up enough runs to support him? It has alot to do with the overall mindset of the team. That is why when people say we will have to improve by 30 games by getting the appropriate VORP out of our additions, I dont believe it. This is still a team game. Anyway, I've gotten off point here. I agree that Prior is a key, but he doesnt need to be if we focus our FA dollars on pitching. Not that I wouldnt love to see Soriano here. But just think there is a need to focus our offseason dollars on the staff.

While I'm happy to be wrong about thinking he was another Micah Bowie earlier this year, I still have some reservations. I posted on another thread that he looks like he would be a good #3 next year. I only temper my enthusiasm by saying we've seen this before - Jim Bullinger, Mike Harkey, Kevin Foster, Jeremy Gonzales. That is to say they showed great signs early on, but didnt pan out as productive major leaguers. The one thing that gives me more hope about him is that over this stretch he has been so thoroughly dominating, and he did the same in AAA this year, that maybe there really is something to him. Particularly if we throw out the Coors outing (maybe the curve doesnt break at that altitude?), his numbers and consistency have been unreal. More than anything, the K/BB ratio since he came up is amazing. By the way, take a look at his line vs. Z's line since the all-star break. Interesting comparison. On another note, since we've all tired of the MRI twins' saga, what do people think about his mechanics? Just because he doesn't throw as hard as Wood and Prior doesn't mean there is no injury risk. I wonder how his mechanics compare to a Zito, for example.

The thing is that Padilla offers is depth in the rotation. Between Prior/Padilla/Marshall, you should get 60 starts at a 3.8-4.2 ERA. That makes the back of the rotation reliable. The limiting factor with Padilla or an Eaton/Lilly type of pitcher is how much you have to pay for them. The consistency that having a 6 deep rotation would provide is worth the price in my opinion. If you could find a taker for Jones, sign Lee, Schmidt and Padilla, then you have a net increase of payroll of about 25mm (approx 12 Lee/12 Shmidt/7 Padilla less 6 Jones). With about 19mm comming off the payroll net of Wood's buyout, this seems reasonable.

Disgruntled, You are the only person, besides myself, I have seen throw out the name Padilla (though I haven't been on this board long). The way I see it, if you can get Schmidt or Zito for the number 2 - and Zito does seem like a long shot - then having Hill as a number 3 and Padilla as 4 with either Marshall or Prior filling out the rotation, we'd be in great shape. If we could get Durham at 2nd and have a lineup of - Pierre, Durham, Lee, Ramirez, Jones, Murton, Barrett, Izturez, that would be a very competitive team. What do people think of Padilla as the lower priced, innings guy? I am concerned that the current crop of FA pitchers may make him too expensive, though. Especially after the top 3 get taken.

I totally agree about Murton - both his ability and the hair. I was at Wrigley last September with my girlfriend and she commented on how she liked his hair too. Though that takes nothing away from her knowledge as a baseball fan. She knows her stuff. Also loved the fact that she yelled an some obnoxious dude a couple of rows in front of us for his abusive/over-the-top heckling of Nomar. He shut up after that. But I digress. Zambrano is an absolute stud. I have a number of friends who are fans of other teams, yet they still say he is their favorite pitcher in baseball. I'm definitely enjoying watching Hill pitch these days. At this point in the year, watching young pitchers is both intriguing and frustrating. But Hill has been remarkably consistent since the most recent call up. DLee is an obvious choice as is Barrett. I'm a fan of Aramis as well. His defense is much improved. And for a power hitter, even when he struggles, he strikes out very infrequently. I'm wondering if the Theriot - Freel comparisons may have some merit. I know it's way too early to tell, but I like the plate discipline. A rarity from a product of this organization.

Based on today's performance, Hill and Murton are certainly making stronger cases for themselves. Ray Durham is an interesting thought at 2nd for the next year or two, though I doubt he can repeat this year's output. Any thoughts on Vincente Padilla for a number 4 starter? Someone mentioned Adam Eaton, who I like as well. Either one might be a decent option at the back of the rotation - only if we can land a strong number 2. I'll admit I'm a little drunk on Rich Hill Koolaid, but he's looking like he might even be a number three. His control has been terrific since the beginning of August. More importantly, he seems to be efficient with his pitch counts allowing him to work deeper into games than any of the other rookies (or vets on this team for that matter). I only hope this does not turn into a case of advance scouting solving him on his next turn through the league. OK, enough of the irrational exhuberance for now.

Soapy, I agree that depth in the lineup would be a serious issue. Another major injury could be as disastrous as this one. In some respects, we've been lucky that aramis and barrett have been healthy this year. My argument was more in terms of allocation of available payroll. If we dump 10-12 million on a big name free agent for LF or 2B, we'll only have about 8-10 million left to fill 2 rotation spots. And if we dont have a legitimate number 2 behind zambrano and another 200 inning guy, I think the season will already be toast. Ideally we could address both the rotation and lineup depth, but I dont know if I see that happening. What I'm most afraid of is the middle ground approach all around - something like Cliff Floyd in LF and two bottom of the rotation guys. That has been the Cubs' track record. The one mitigating factor is that Hendry cannot afford to have that kind of failure in the off season. Oh, and I am one of those that feel that competent lineup management will also yield a much improved offense. Hopefully a certain former Cub catcher can bring that to the dugout next year.

Hi all. This is my first post to this board, but I have been a reader for a while. I thought I'd offer my perspective. First of all, the OBP issue with this team has obviously been a hot topic of conversation. While I agree that it is a problem, and has been for the past several years, there are some counterpoints. I believe someone on this board pointed out that while OBP is a big thing, its not the only thing. The White Sox last year were not a good OBP team. What I found more surprising is that the post-allstar break Cubs of 2003 had an OBP of only .313. Pretty awful, even by this year's standards. Yet that was probably the best stretch of baseball I have seen out of the Cubs over the past 15 years. The reason I highlight this is that I dont have a problem with Pierre as our leadoff man. His .280/.330 line is fine with me and I do believe his speed is a difference maker. Another data point here is that Edgar Renteria was less than a .330 OBP leadoff hitter for the 2004 (105 win) Cardinals. I dont think he is our problem. I also dont want to sacrifice Matt Murton for Carlos Lee. I'm not sure about paying $10-$12 million for him when I think our resources are better spent on pitching. If we could trade Jaque Jones for a prospect or two, I'd be thrilled with signing him (at a net payroll increase of only 6-8 million). My point here is that the offense is not the core of the problem for the Cubs. Since the allstar break, they are a respectable 6th in the NL in offense. With DLee back next year, and with an upgrade at 2nd (I'd love to find a way to trade for Freel), I think the offense would be enough to contend, assuming we could buy better starting pitching on the free agent market. If budget constraints weren't an issue, I'd definitely say go after Lee and play Jones off the bench. But we dont have Steinbrenner opening his wallet here. I'm just trying to be realistic. I think this is the real key to the offseason. We need to get a top-line starting pitcher and a 200+ innings middle rotation guy. I am firmly in the Zito camp. Yes, I know he is a flyball pitcher and that could be tough at Wrigley. But the age and durablility give him the edge over Schmidt in my eyes. The only realistic chance the Cubs have at getting him, though, is if the Yankees become preoccupied with a bidding war for the Japanese pitcher being posted (I forget his name). If we cant get Zito, We have to overpay for Schmidt. Risky since it sounds like he wants to go to Seattle. Some have suggested Gil Meche as the mid-rotation guy. I'm not thrilled with that idea personally. He hasn't crossed the 200 inning mark yet. Honestly, I'd rather give Greg Maddux a 1 year contract at $7 million. Looks like he will end up with better numbers this year than last. For the end of the rotation, Rich Hill really does seem to have become a major league pitcher this year, though I'll say that with guarded optimism. I remember thinking the same thing about Jeremy Gonzalez in the late 90s. In any case, if you look back at the most successful teams over the past several years, you'll see once common thread. All have had at least 3 starters throwing 200+ innings and most have had 4. You can see the effects all of this year's non-quality starts are having on our bullpen now. I think depending on Prior again will be a mistake, but I can live with Hill and Marshall at the back of the rotation. I know this doesnt look drastically different than the team that will lose 95+ games this year, but I think a full year of a much improved Hill and a Zito/Schmidt starting 40% of our games will make a huge differnce. Add a full year of a healthy Lee, and we may have something going here. Add a somewhat productive 2nd baseman (unfortunately, I dont think we'll get Soriano) and the Cubs will look like a real team. Sorry to be so long-winded. I look forward to my first official virtual tongue lashing on this board. Hopefully at least some of you will agree with me. For those of you who dont, be gentle....