jersey cubs fan

Heilman isn't a young player, nor is he an unpredictable prospect. He's been in the league for several years and has shown what he's capable of.

I don't really think its Lou prefering "proven veterans" as much as it is Lou choosing his favorites and stubbornly sticking with his first impression. When the Cubs won the division in 2008, Lou was lauded for winning with players from the farm system who weren't exactly regarded highly. Theriot, Soto, Fontenot, Marmol, Samardzija, even Gallagher all played key roles. He just traded his .860+ OPS second baseman to make more ABs for Fontenot. However, the other side of the coin is players that he seems to not favor from the start for whatever reason. Players like Pie, Hill and Murton for whatever reason were out of favor from the start and Lou just never gave them the chance they deserved. Lou gave Hill every shot possible, including letting him start in the playoffs. For some reason or another Hill just completely lost it. I seem to recall Lou liking Pie very much his first year, but you are right his leash was very short and eventually Pie got into Lou's doghouse. Gallagher had a couple of rough outings, but Lou continued to give him chances. Overall, Lou plays whoever is producing. He wasn't shy about giving Hill the start over Marquis in the playoffs, simply because Marquis was a "proven veteran." He wasn't shy about benching Kendall for Soto. He wasn't shy about benching Izturis for Theriot. He wasn't shy about benching Fukudome at the end of last year. Lou is nowhere near as bad as Dusty used to be in regard to veterans. I agree, for the most part. But it's much more about first impressions with Lou than proven veteran. Also, yes, he was shy, and almost apologetic about starting Soto over Kendall. He had every intention of sticking with Kendall down the stretch until Soto made that option virtually impossible with a huge breakout. It's troubling that people have to be great from the outset in order to unseat such mediocre players as Kendall. I guess to hurt my first point, starting Tracshel over Marshall down the stretch in 2007 was pretty inexcusable, but then again so was even have Steve Trachsel to begin with. But he won a game.

I don't really think its Lou prefering "proven veterans" as much as it is Lou choosing his favorites and stubbornly sticking with his first impression. When the Cubs won the division in 2008, Lou was lauded for winning with players from the farm system who weren't exactly regarded highly. Theriot, Soto, Fontenot, Marmol, Samardzija, even Gallagher all played key roles. He just traded his .860+ OPS second baseman to make more ABs for Fontenot. However, the other side of the coin is players that he seems to not favor from the start for whatever reason. Players like Pie, Hill and Murton for whatever reason were out of favor from the start and Lou just never gave them the chance they deserved. Lou gave Hill every shot possible, including letting him start in the playoffs. For some reason or another Hill just completely lost it. I seem to recall Lou liking Pie very much his first year, but you are right his leash was very short and eventually Pie got into Lou's doghouse. Gallagher had a couple of rough outings, but Lou continued to give him chances. Overall, Lou plays whoever is producing. He wasn't shy about giving Hill the start over Marquis in the playoffs, simply because Marquis was a "proven veteran." He wasn't shy about benching Kendall for Soto. He wasn't shy about benching Izturis for Theriot. He wasn't shy about benching Fukudome at the end of last year. Lou is nowhere near as bad as Dusty used to be in regard to veterans. I agree, for the most part. But it's much more about first impressions with Lou than proven veteran. Also, yes, he was shy, and almost apologetic about starting Soto over Kendall. He had every intention of sticking with Kendall down the stretch until Soto made that option virtually impossible with a huge breakout. It's troubling that people have to be great from the outset in order to unseat such mediocre players as Kendall.

What do you do if you have to replace Ramirez and a 2B in the same game? Lou makes a heck of a lot of switches, but he, like most managers, waits to use the backup catcher so he's not potentially stuck with nobody to back him up. I cannot see Lou being comfortable with only one guy who can backup 3B, SS and 2B in any one game, let alone starting on opening day, when cold weather can lead to a lot of muscle tweaks. It really doesn't make any sense to have Johnson, Gathwright and Hoffpauir on the same bench.

How is he more than adequate? He was pretty disappointing for the Cubs last year, his career has been underwhelming. He's had a 6.5k/9 and 4.1bb/9 in his career, with a 1.52 WHIP. He did alright last year in a handful of starts. But to suggesting he's anything more than adequate is unnecessarily praising mediocrity. He's probably going to be adequate if he has to start a couple games. Hopefully they don't have to go with Heilman, Marshall and Gaudin starting in the same rotation though.

That's been said before. If he's going to have any sort of impact in the big leagues, it's probably going to be as a reliever. He can't be counted on to throw 5 innings in a row, and he can't be counted on to make multiple starts in a row. If he pitches twice a week and throws 50 big league innings, that would be a huge win. But even that is a reach.

i also think there should be an exception for guys traded within the last year - the brewers should not get compensation for losing sabathia IMO. I disagree. That allows small market teams the opportunity to contend now, while rebuilding for the future as well. It's a fairly large incentive for those teams to make the "go for it" trades that can excite the team and keep fan interest high in what is otherwise a non-entity. It needs to be adjusted, but taking away such an important thing for teams like Oakland, Milwaukee, Minnesota etc, that can't justify spending $100m on individual players, or trading away prospects for superstars, would be a big mistake.

I think it's a huge reach. The guy is 27, he's been horrible in limited major league innings and his health means there's no way you can count on him for more than 50 innings. Hes been horrible while being used out of the bullpen. Hes never been in a 5 man rotation at the ML level that I can think of. Also like I said durability is his biggest issue, but if healthy Guzman has good stuff. But that's a huge reach.

I think it's a huge reach. The guy is 27, he's been horrible in limited major league innings and his health means there's no way you can count on him for more than 50 innings.

He only threw 31 innings in MMP. He threw 65 in Petco.

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less. There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman. Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5 Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen. Soto, Bako are the catchers. Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders. Miles backing them up. Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield. Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up. There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield. The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year. They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

A utility man and a relief pitcher, both have limited value.

On that note, keep track of how many times the Cubs make an out on the basepaths. That's also a very good idea. Obviously CS is already a stat, but there's no stat for getting thrown out at a base for being way too aggressive (either trying to take extra bases or trying to take 3rd on a ball hit to the left side). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=421535 Care to translate? Each stat in the middle corresponds to a different part of baserunning. One deals with stolen base attempts, another one deals with advancing on groundouts, another one deals with advancing on flyouts, another one on advancing on base hits, and finally advancing on things like wild pitches. The value of the extra base is compared to how many outs are recorded and then it's calculated how many runs were created or lost in each category compared to an average runner. Each is factored into the stat on the very right, which is how efficient the player was on the bases overall. Is there a category for outs made on the basepaths? It's not its own separate category, no. But tracking outs by itself is just as worthless as simply seeing how many extra bases a player takes without taking into account the risk. What it does is factor those outs into each of the other categories similar to how outs are factored into stolen base percentage, which based on that percentage and run expectancy charts we can figure out if trying for extra bases was worth it or not. All the outs that a player like Theriot made on the basepaths are counted against him in one of those categories, depending on what type of out it was. But it breaks it down into several different kinds of situations, so it is easier to see if a player is too risky in one area but provides reward in another baserunning area. its factored in there, but it's not explicitly listed there. Well, then it sounds like my man REAL can help me out here.

In my experiences, it's really difficult to overslide a bag in softball. this dude is extremely fast, always takes the extra base and always slides headfirst.

Dumb play, mistake, flaw in judgment, like I said its all a matter of the adjective you want to use. I think the people that could best gauge his aptitude would be the people that he spent the most time with, mainly Lou, Hendry, other coaches, his teammates, beat writers, etc. Bruce is pretty reserved in his criticism of players, so I would tend to think that if Bruce was insinuating that Cedeno was viewed as not very bright, that would be closer to the truth than any of us posters on a message board. Where did I say anything about Cedeno and his intelligence or lack of? To try and insinuate that a player oversliding a base is somehow part of a mental flaw, I doubt that person has really spent much running the bases in a live game but if they don't overslide it while playing The show then it must not occur in real life. We have a guy on our softball team who routinely overslides the bag, and he's definitely an idiot.

80 wins? Sure, by the middle of September. You don't think they can do it?

He may have okay stuff, but it's nothing special, and his numbers after many years, games and innings pitched are unimpressive. And no, people don't think it's the worst move ever.

I think it does make sense.

I'm not lamenting the loss of Olson, but what you described is what they got for him, only older, more expensive and closer to free agency. Despite last year, Heilman still has a plus FB, he just lost all command of it as well as his splitter, espec. against lefties. If Olson had that FB and that 3rd pitch, he would still in Baltimore's rotation. That's nice and all, but he's a long-reliever who might sneak into a 5th starter role.

Are people talking about the team collapsing? I haven't seen that. The Cubs have made a million moves without getting any better or positioning themselves to be better in the future. That's frustrating. There were some posts a few pages back saying that Hendry is going to be surprised that his team is a couple games over .500 halfway through the season. I agree its frustrating though. I do recall that. However, that's not exactly a collapse; even if it is an exaggeration, you're talking about a 41-39 record, which is better than they were in 2007.

I'm not lamenting the loss of Olson, but what you described is what they got for him, only older, more expensive and closer to free agency.

Are people talking about the team collapsing? I haven't seen that. The Cubs have made a million moves without getting any better or positioning themselves to be better in the future. That's frustrating.

Thank you. After reading the posts after the trade was announced, people made i sound like the Cubs traded Stephen Drew and Jon Lester for Kent Bottenfield. The simple reality is the Cubs traded a ultilty player and a back end of the rotation pitcher (whose career MLB ERA is over 6, and I know that will come down as he gets more experience) for a reliever who is more likely to help the Cubs in 2009 then Cedeno/Olson COMBINED. I know trading chips should be more valued, but apparently Olson was overrated by the O's seeing as they moved him with another prospect for Pie. And the Cubs clearly wasn't going to keep him, and the Padres clearly was not as interested in him as some thought. The truth is of all the moves this offseason this one rates a meh more female dog and groaning. This move doesn't warrant the garbage that has been posed in this thread. FRUSTRATED sure, but the garbage that I read should be deleted. Olson simply isn't that good right now, and Cedeno will never any good (he is better then Miles, who I am more upset about getting then this trade). Oh shut up.

How is that funny? They better get better for 2009, because that is the only year they have a chance of getting value out of this deal. I'd find it more valuable to have a guy with upside and options shuttling between AAA and the majors than to have a 30 year old with such a mediocre resume as Heilman and no flexibility to option out if he struggles.

How will those prospects presumably lead to Peavy? As much Peavy talk as we've seen, absolutely nothing has indicated that those are the guys they wanted in order to deal Peavy.