Backtobanks

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.

I'm pretty happy with the way they handled most of the roster. If you set aside the Ian Stewart debate and give them a bit of a pass because there's pretty much nothing out there at 3b, then everything else was handled pretty well. They put together plenty of adequate depth in the rotation, outfield and bullpen. I still wish we had signed Keppinger. Yeah, I posted a long time ago that Keppinger would have been a good signing to fill 3B until Vitters/Lake/Baez could take over. Also, he could provide some backup at SS, 2B, or 1B if needed.

I think it was just Northern California/Giants, due to the potentially cool weather at night which he didn't think would be good for his knees/joints. San Francisco's brutally cool weather at night is worse than Chicago, NY, or Philadelphia?

Yeah, there have been improvements made in most areas, but the offense needs another bat. Stewart and/or Jackson could go a long way to solving that problem for the next one or two years.

He played 2B (80+ games) at the beginning of his career, but basically has only played OF for the rest of his career.

I would expect Soriano or DeJesus might get moved too, but there wouldn't be much Schierholtz could do about be moved to the bench if they weren't.

My first Cub "hero", hence my user name.

Yeah, it seems to me that we were trying to spin a deal around Soriano + $$$ for Porcello not too long ago. If that's the best we can do for Garza, then we need to wait until he proves he's healthy.

Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation". Four coin flips of heads in a row isn't that shocking. 4 heads in a row is a 6% chance. Of course that doesn't figure in 100 years of not winning the WS. LOL I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to say any longer. You seem to be implying that Kyle's entire analysis is flawed because he wrote one sentence saying they MAY have been having bad luck since 2008 (four flips ending with worse than average luck). With 30 MLB teams, a 6% chance means there are better than even odds that at least one team is riding such a streak. What you are trying to imply with your last sentence I can't even begin to guess. Actually I'm agreeing with Kyle about making bad decisions rather than "things not going our way" for the last 4 years. As for the "odds that at least one team is riding such a streak", I'm sure there are many teams' GMs and fans that would use "things not going our way" for the last 4 years as an excuse. I threw in the last sentence (jokingly) as an example of not always trusting chance.

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times. The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes. The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008. Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation". Four coin flips of heads in a row isn't that shocking. 4 heads in a row is a 6% chance. Of course that doesn't figure in 100 years of not winning the WS. LOL

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times. The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes. The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008. Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation".

I'm not sure you would have enough chips left for Felix or Price after trading for Upton.

It's hard to believe we could get him on a decent contract when he's got 5 teams interested in him.