Backtobanks

"Lillibridge isn't the 25th man" really shows how bad this team must be.

This makes no [expletive] sense If you have a good team, the discussion is about the players that actually contribute on a daily basis. We're discussing which of 4-5 candidates ought to sitting on the end of the bench or DFAd. The fact that you are discussing who is the best fit for the end of the bench in no way shape for form indicates your team is bad. If your team was good and the starters were mostly settled then it would make perfect sense to focus on bench spots, seeing as how that is the way you can find the marginal improvement that matters to teams in contention. "Bench spots" is different from the 25th guy on a roster. If a team is a good team and in contention with settled starters, then 2-3 of the non-pitching bench players might play a serious role making a marginal improvement in helping the team. The 25th player is emergency filler for most teams.

This makes no [expletive] sense If you have a good team, the discussion is about the players that actually contribute on a daily basis. We're discussing which of 4-5 candidates ought to sitting on the end of the bench or DFAd.

You know your team isn't very good when there's discussion about who the 25th man on the roster should be. Unfortunately the Cubs have far too many candidates.

In the meantime we can feel good about all of the real estate transactions that we're making.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-spt-0407-haugh-chicago-20130407,0,7103172.column Was that the David Haugh column? I saw it off his twitter link and boy oh boy was that the most transparent attempt at ass kissing a local owner as I've seen in the Chicago market. I like Ricketts, but all of this talk makes him sound like Mother Teresa. He's a businessman who's in this to make as much money as possible. All of that Rosemont stuff was bullcrap because he wasn't going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Wrigleyville real estate to move the team to Rosemont and watch all of his property devalue by 90%.

I usually go to one game in early April and it's usually cold and rainy. I have tickets for Thursday, so it looks like the tradition continues.

Meanwhile the Cubs hit .121 over the 3 games and won 2. The Cubs and Pittsburgh have the best pitching in baseball, duh Yeah, nothing like temperatures in the 30s to make a pitching staff look great.

Meanwhile the Cubs hit .121 over the 3 games and won 2.

First, I can't believe we will be a .500 team on July 1st. That being said, I don't think the FO strays from it's plan to sell off assets and aim at being respectable in 2014 and contending in 2015.

Maybe he needs warmer weather to get his grip on the ball and to really get loose. He never was the epitome of consistency, but when he's "on" he's very good and I think other teams that might be trade partners know that.

It's difficult to compare pitching prospects until they make it to the ML level. Also, it's hard to compare the Hendry era to this FO because the situations are so different. Hendry was ordered to build a winning team at the ML level and used many of his minor league pitching prospects to acquire ML players. Theo and Hoyer are sacrificing the ML level and acquiring prospects by trading ML players. The strength of our minor league system is now offensive players and some of them will probably be used in trades to acquire ML pitching at some point. I disagree with your initial sentence. To say it's difficult to compare pitching prospects until they reach the big leagues is a total cop out. You can judge stuff, stats, scouting reports, eyewitness reports and injury history before they reach the big leagues. You've changed the goal posts with the bolded portion of your post. You initially only said this, which is what I responded to: You were only talking about the quality of the prospects previously, never about the constraints the two regimes were operating under. I stand by my original statement that our pitching prospects now aren't any better than the ones under Hendry. Looking at the "stuff, stats, scouting reports, eyewitness reports and injury history before they reach the big leagues" of this year's prospects shows a few injury reports, problems with mechanics and command, and mediocre-to-fair scouting reports in most cases. Again, the FO has emphasized offense (with good reason) for their draft picks and signings. Under much of Hendry's reign the better prospects were pitching prospects with very little in the way of offense.

It's difficult to compare pitching prospects until they make it to the ML level. Also, it's hard to compare the Hendry era to this FO because the situations are so different. Hendry was ordered to build a winning team at the ML level and used many of his minor league pitching prospects to acquire ML players. Theo and Hoyer are sacrificing the ML level and acquiring prospects by trading ML players. The strength of our minor league system is now offensive players and some of them will probably be used in trades to acquire ML pitching at some point.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if any of them develop into solid ML pitchers, but there certainly was more anticipation in 2011 with Cashner, McNutt, Carpenter, Dolis, Maples, Jackson, etc.

Johnson, Blackburn, Underwood + Paniagua >> "near zero" I agree that those pitching prospects are greater than "near zero", but really are they any better than the pitching prospects left by Hendry that everybody describes as "bottom five", "cupboard is bare", etc. ?

You named 8 guys in that post and 4 of them were either here from Hendry or were acquired from Hendry pieces. I don't know why just because we've chosen to go down this route, people have to change what they were saying 18 months ago about the status of the franchise. I think that the team Theo inherited had bottom 5 talent, top to bottom in MLB. Now, I do think Theo will get slightly more credit for our system than he likely deserves, because most of the talent Hendry left behind was very, very far away. Of course, the development of these guys could be somewhat different as well between the two regimes. But, the talent we had at that point was so far away, most of it was untradeable.(at least for full potential value or even remotely close to it). But, top to bottom, I think we had a roster without a lot of upside and not a lot of tradeable pieces(due to age partially). I think I remember looking rosters up and only seeing the Twins, Indians, and Astros as being definitively in worse shape than us. We have a ton of potential that is still a long way from ML ready offensively and near zero in pitching, so I'm not sure how high our system ought to be rated. As for looking at ML rosters, we are ahead of the Astros and Marlins. As long as everyone believes that our young players will continue to improve, our prospects will reach their full potential, and that the FO will spend enough money wisely when the time comes, we are much better. Of course that depends on lots of conditional statements.

Wells has been traded twice since his contract was labeled "Most Untradeable".

Just make sure you don't come up short and become a mediocre team with a chance to make the playoffs playing in a sterile, suburban ballpark.

Well...no. You certainly have a better idea of what to expect from Keppinger than Stewart/Valbuena/Lillibridge.

How does that have anything to do with not getting Keppinger being a mistake (assuming he was willing to sign here for a reasonable amount). Depends on the reasonable amount. Starlin Castro has SS for the long term, unless he's moved to 3rd by Baez. The organization seems to love Barney, and I can't imagine anyone giving up enough to make him worth moving in their eyes. In the short term, Stewart will still likely be given the opportunity to win or lose the 3rd base job when he's ready. Beyong that, Vitters needs to be given that shot next Spring at the latest, unless they opt to move him to OF. Keppinger would be a utility guy, and while 3/12 was a great price for him, the front office is a frugal one, and they seem just as happy pulling Brent Lillibridges and Luis Valbuenas off the scrap heap to fill those spots. Remember, Jeff keppinger's 31 years old, and his road to the contract he was given is very simlar to that of Aaron Miles. At least you know what you have in Keppinger. He certainly can fill the 3B job (or platoon) until someone is ready to take over permanently. As you mentioned, he's a solid utilty player and even has very limited experience at 1B. Finally, his biggest selling point to this FO is the fact that he might be tradable to a desperate team at the deadline.

Chone Figgins. I still say that one of the biggest mistakes this offseason was not going after Keppinger.

I suppose we would have to throw in Stewart to get Castanellos. :lol:

Marmol could be a good one year fix for them while they give Rondon the year as a set up guy. Perez is injured for awhile, so maybe the Indians might be interested.

With your predictions about Castro, Rizzo, Vitters, and Jackson, it's hard to see how the Cubs end up in 4th place.

From MLBTR: Scott Downs wants to remain with the Angels and the southpaw tells MLB.com's Alden Gonzalez that he would be willing to negotiate an extension during the season. Downs' representatives at CAA have told the Angels' front office about their client's wishes but have yet to get a response. Downs turns 37 in March and has pitched very well in Anaheim, posting a 2.17 ERA over 99 1/3 innings in his first two years of his three-year, $15MM contract. He turns 37 in March, however, and Gonzalez speculates that the Angels may let Downs go since Sean Burnett and Nick Maronde are in the fold as left-handed bullpen options. If the Angels dump him, Downs might be an interesting option as a situational lefty in the bullpen.