98navigator

I think there are services that provide for relettering/renumbering of jerseys. If money is an issue you might want to investigate that option.

Welcome! You can always call the Cubs and they will mail you one (or two).

Me too. He's Bruce Miles' comments about Cotts as an early standout:

I think a lot of the media is trying to stir the pot on the Prior story by raising fears with fans. It sells papers. I like this from Bruce Miles When asked about early standouts in camp Bruce writes this about Prior:

Not really... http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060224&content_id=1321928&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc yeah, but that article had a picture of Wood throwing...and just a "Rothschild said" when speaking of Prior..... just trying to be positive....someties its hard. Just have low expectations and you'll keep your sanity. I honestly feel if he does make it back he won't be in the 2003-04 form nor will he last the entire year. Just a feeling and I pray and hope I'm wrong. 2005 Prior was also good. Last year is the only truly horrible season he's had.

Here's some update info from the Suntimes on the rotation as well as the other scheduled pitchers:

There is no single link, they are complied from BP's subscription projection pages. For an idea of what a single page tells you... click here. Ok, thanks!

There's no reason to doubt them unless he misses his start on March 7 or 8.

Wow, they see the White Sox falling off the map. It wouldn't surprise me. Is this a subscription service or do you have a link that's available to the public? I'd love to share these projections with friends (not that I believe in them but it would be good for converstional purposes)...

What if 1.5 is the difference between scouting an area like Asia? Is it worth it then? maybe the money is alocated differently but it has to be included in the overall budget. I'm hitting what you are pitching. I'd take the money Hendry has spent on all the washed up players over the years and put it into scouting and player development. Remember Chad Fox? Every team takes gambles and the costs can be measured in many ways. Using the Campusano example brought up earlier, the Tigers have committed to having him on their 25 man roster (for better or worse). If he doesn't pan out they would have lost a year of paying him ML minimum as well as a year of probably not grooming one of their own prospects. Additionally, if their gamble doesn't pay off, they may be seeking another bullpen arm next year anyway... Both, the Cubs example and Tiger example, are gambles and the relative dollar amounts are in proportion with each team's revenue. To your point, I don't think that the money allocated for payroll has much bearing on what the team does in the way of scouting. The Cubs just hired Tim Wilken so they have committed themselves to improve scouting. I doubt Wilken would have put his good reputation on the line without getting some assurances from the Cubs about their committment to he and his staff going forward.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does. What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet. You're right, they are different but the result was basically the same; he missed, at least, 7 starts in 2002 due to surgery and all of the 2003 season so it was definitely a risk to sign him. The Tigers have to take those gambles (so did the Royals with Sisco). On the other hand, if the Cardinals had been willing to keep Mateo they would have had someone else to fill out their rotation. Either way it's a gamble. Teams choose the option that makes them most comfortable. The option I would rather take is to keep those players and develop them. Honestly 98n....if I have 3 million to spend I'm going in a different with it than you are. I'm not going to take the chance of losing a Meteo or Campusano and use that cash for adding the amount of money I'd use to get a better overall player to help the team. I do understand your point and you just have a different philosophy than I do regarding this issue and I respect that. We agree to respectfully disagree.

Wade Miller isn't going to do this. He might not but it's still too early to say so definitively. He still has the ability to get out ML hitters. There's no reason to believe that he won't continue to improve with rehab... That's not to say that it will work out with he and the Cubs because I don't see a spot for him.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does. What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet. You're right, they are different but the result was basically the same; he missed, at least, 7 starts in 2002 due to surgery and all of the 2003 season so it was definitely a risk to sign him. The Tigers have to take those gambles (so did the Royals with Sisco). On the other hand, if the Cardinals had been willing to keep Mateo they would have had someone else to fill out their rotation. Either way it's a gamble. Teams choose the option that makes them most comfortable.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball. Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value. He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him. He was decently effective at the end of that season and he never hit 90mph. I think it was reasonable for the Cubs to think he would continue to gain velocity (and he still might). Again, conventional wisdom is that pitchers are better two seasons removed from TJS. That's why they resigned him.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster.

I don't think Blanco can be considered insurance against losing Barrett. Blanco is a defensive alternative, nothing more -- he's there to give the primary catcher a game off every once in awhile. Barrett's a top catcher on the offensive side -- something which is rather rare and would command very good dollars on the open market, IMO. Blanco is definitely not an offensive force but I would still say he's the insurance against the loss of Barrett. Having him signed guarantees some stability with the pitching staff and INF should the Cubs lose Barrett. Without Blanco's contract, the team would have been looking at the possibility of complete turnover at catcher.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. Huh? How do you know the Cubs' top offer to Z is $14.5M? They are still in the process of negotiating an extension. Numbers that are leaked to the media are all a part of the process; every team will start low and every agent will start high. Both parties do so to meet so where in the middle. The money given to Miller will not preclude the Cubs from extending Zambrano if they truly want to do so. Hendry has a track record of keeping the players he likes. Hypothetical cost. All right 16.5 then and Z wants 19. Whatever the difference the 2.5+ wasted is a significant amount of money. I agree that Hendry may go out and sign Z then what happens to that 2.5 when it comes to signing another good player? What happens when the Cubs lose out on a guy when they top off at 3 and he signs with another team for 5.5? To that player it's a huge difference and the Cubs do have to follow some kind of budget. This money could also be used for a signing bonus. If I'm operating on a specific budget I'd allocate my money differently than you would. I understand your basic point but I still disagree that $2.5M is ever going to keep a major market team from making a move. If need be, they would expand their budget or get creative with contract terms to make it fit while making sure they sign the player they want. Also, the Cubs have a few revenue streams that are designed to absorb payroll gambles.

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. I think it's kinda funny talking about preventing prospects from dipping their beaks, considering the 2006 Cubs. I wouldn't give up on Wade Miller yet, I am interested in seeing how he adjusts. If he can mix up speeds he can be effective, even with a mid to upper 80's arm. We'll see. If Miller isn't on the 40 man the Cubs still have that pitcher the Tigers took in the draft. There's no guarantee Campusano will amount to anything substantial. Again, the Cubs have gambled that they will be just fine in their bullpen without him. Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player. Campusano wouldn't have cracked the Cubs ML roster. They have three lefties in the 'pen now so this is a moot point. You also have no evidence that Miller's presence, on the 40 man roster, is the direct reason why he was left unprotected. If the Cubs felt strongly about his future with the organization they would have protected him (and exposed someone else). Miller is being scapegoated here.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston. Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes. I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high. The opportunity costs are the price of doing business for many teams. That doesn't mean that it isn't a gamble worth taking. If the Wade Miller experiment doesn't work out the team will not be worse off. When The Cardinals acquired Carpenter, they paid him to sit for a year. He had shoulder surgeries in 2002 & 2003. Sometimes the gambles are fruitful and sometimes they aren't.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. Huh? How do you know the Cubs' top offer to Z is $14.5M? They are still in the process of negotiating an extension. Numbers that are leaked to the media are all a part of the process; every team will start low and every agent will start high. Both parties do so to meet so where in the middle. The money given to Miller will not preclude the Cubs from extending Zambrano if they truly want to do so. Hendry has a track record of keeping the players he likes.

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. I think it's kinda funny talking about preventing prospects from dipping their beaks, considering the 2006 Cubs. I wouldn't give up on Wade Miller yet, I am interested in seeing how he adjusts. If he can mix up speeds he can be effective, even with a mid to upper 80's arm. We'll see. If Miller isn't on the 40 man the Cubs still have that pitcher the Tigers took in the draft. There's no guarantee Campusano will amount to anything substantial. Again, the Cubs have gambled that they will be just fine in their bullpen without him.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case.

Didn't they change from the Mighty 1090 last season? I thought I heard another radio station mentioned when I listened to the Padres/Cubs via Gameday Audio last season... Of course, I have no first hand knowledge because I live in Illinois. Edit: This site says those stations are owned by the same company. I see your gripe. The difference for you is that the AM signal is stronger.

NO, it's not my blog. I believe it has some affiliation with WhiteSox fans.