Brett

As a good move or a bad one...?

Gillick is what, 74? How long is he really going to want to oversee an organizational revamp? And, given that it will be a true revamp, from top to bottom, wouldn't the Cubs want someone who can be in the position (if successful) for 5 to 10 years, at least?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

At 66% success rate? you have to figure that's attainable with a little commitment (bunting practice!), but more practically, he's 56% career on his bunts - still a .402 wOBA - quite a vast improvement upon his .358 line when just swinging away. Arguably, he's achieved a 56% success rate largely because he doesn't do it very often.

And it's a fastball that he can't even throw for strikes anymore (that's not just last night, mind you).

I don't know where the Red Sox would put Pena, unless they DH him or Gonzalez. He wouldn't go to Philly unless Ryan Howard would get some sort of season-ending injury. David Ortiz is like the best hitter in baseball right now. I have no idea why I forgot him. So no, barring injury Pena is not going either of those places. I hear the Red Sox are going to play A Gon in the outfield so Ortiz can play 1st for interleague. Why not play A Gon in the outfield for a bit more if it works and trade for Pena? That was a very temporary solution.

I like a lot of this, but trading Dempster and Byrd just isn't a good idea unless a team is offering amazing deals for them. I'm not saying they're untouchable, but the Cubs don't have to and shouldn't frag their team for 2012, and moving those guys just creates big holes that likely can't be filled adequately that quickly. So, the 2012 outfield would be Soriano, Byrd, and Jackson? Yikes. What's yikes about that? That's average offensively and defensively with some upside. Soriano and Byrd a year older - after being slightly above average and barely average offensively in 2011, and who offer zero upside in 2012 - and then a rookie whose transition to the bigs could be of debatable success given his extreme strikeout rate? Seriously? That's not "yikes" to you?

Reed's become a poor center field defender (-5.1 UZR this year), while Campana's only really good attribute is his very strong defense (+3.4 UZR). Reed's much better in left, but most of his innings this year have been accumulated in center, where he's no longer a good defender. Campana, on the other hand, is a good defender in center. Setting aside the viability of UZR (which varies wildly from year to year, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what it's supposed to be measuring), I guess I could buy that Campana covers more ground than Johnson. It just looks to me like Campana takes poor routes (which he often overcomes with his speed, a la Juan Pierre), and has no arm at all (also a la Juan Pierre). In other words, he reminds me of Juan Pierre defensively. And I hated Juan Pierre defensively. Maybe I'm just jaded.

All teams should be willing to listen to offers for all players. It's silly to say, "I will absolutely not listen to any offer you make for this awesome player, even if the offer is so insanely over the top that it would be criminal not to make the trade." That said, you've got to be a little nervous when a guy who's cheaply under team control for a few years, is just 27, and has been massively successful, is made available after his velocity drops. It would be like the Cubs making Carlos Marmol available... :blush:

I like a lot of this, but trading Dempster and Byrd just isn't a good idea unless a team is offering amazing deals for them. I'm not saying they're untouchable, but the Cubs don't have to and shouldn't frag their team for 2012, and moving those guys just creates big holes that likely can't be filled adequately that quickly. So, the 2012 outfield would be Soriano, Byrd, and Jackson? Yikes.

I think bunting is becoming much more acceptable - which is why I pointed out that there are beneficial times to use it. I'm also much more open to players like Pierre, Campana, etc., laying down drag bunts and the like since they have very realistic chances to reach base that way. It shouldn't be done all the time, but as a strategic weapon it can be useful. Sure, if you suck like Campana you have to bunt. But we're talking about actual major league caliber hitters. "Gritty" players bunt, "real" players swing.

And Morris still hasn't even pitched this year, has he?

I don't think he's wrong either way. It's admirable to want to represent team and country, but it's also more admirable to want to spend time with your family - especially when you had already previously committed to it. In all honesty, I wouldn't blame him in the least if he felt disrespected enough not to go. Three to four clearly inferior players are put in the all star game (including the horrendous choice of Scott Rolen) before they finally get around to one of the best third basemen in the game? Declining out of the principle of the ASG selection process being a sham wouldn't be a bad thing, I don't think. I would have liked to have seen another Cub in the game, but, because of how it played out - and the timing - I can't blame Ramirez for his decision. That said, I have my doubts that, if he'd been asked last week, he would have said yes.

You may have just picked out the wrong post to quote, but I was talking about Darwin Barney, not Soto. On the topic of Soto, however, I pretty much agree with TT. There's not a very high offensive threshold for catchers to reach to be good and even with his dips in production, Geo is one of the better offensive catchers out there. He will have some nagging injury issues, but he's never missed extended time and, as TT said, that 1/3 of his games stat is misleading. The thing a lot of people are missing, however, is that if injuries are a concern for Soto it's not a reason to get rid of him, but instead it's a reason to have a better backup catcher than Koyie Hill. I'm not sure I'd give Soto a long term deal at this point, but I also am not the least bit anxious to trade him either. Perfectly put. If the Cubs can get a good return, great. Make it happen. If not, that's just fine, too.

I do agree that teams would put too much focus on his mediocre ERA and not enough on how well he was actually pitching. If the rumors are true, however, that the Red Sox have an interest in him then they probably are looking beyond the ERA and realize he's been a very good pitcher. That said, I do agree that he almost certainly won't bring back at least what we gave up in prospects so it doesn't make sense to trade him. The biggest reason, I think, is that we gave up so much to get him that it'd be hard for any team to be willing to match it, no matter how well he was pitching. The mediocre ERA does make them less likely to even try, though. His career H/9 is 8.6 while it's 8.9 this year. Not much of an increase at all. And like I pointed out previously, his BB/9 is still better than it was in 2009 and still very close to his career BB/9. His LD% is up over previous years (23% this year vs 19.1% in previous years) so when he's getting hit he's getting hit a little harder. He's not giving up many more hits, though, meaning he's less hittable overall this season. Most of that can be explained by the poor Cubs' defense. It's not a coincidence that the Cubs have had three OFs who have been poor this year (Soriano, Reed, Kosuke) in the outfield for a number of Garza's starts. Campana has helped, but even still he's stuck between two guys who have struggled defensively this season. I know it wasn't your main point, but I have a hard time believing Campana is better defensively than Johnson.

As a matter of fact it was written by a NSBBer... And thanks for posting it.

Which is, of course, typical of Law. Vitters is a 21-year-old in AA ball. His stock is down, and he's got a long way to go before he can be considered a "good" prospect again. But to say he's not a prospect is lazily awful.

for 50 points of slugging and like 5 points of obp? not really. What is the equivalent value of SLG points and OBP points? I know they're weighted in the wOBA figures, but is it like 2:1? 5:1? Surely it's not 10:1.

It's technically not the only option, but it's by far the most likely one. What is to stop Crane Kenney from handling things until the new guy is hired? Isn't that what happened last time? After Lynch was fired, MacPhail (team president) served as gm until Hendry was hired. Kenney would have no idea what to do as GM. He's a businessman and handles those aspects of the Cubs well, but he has no qualifications for the GM role. I don't even think he would want to try.

Tall? Isn't he like 5'10? I can't tell if there was some joking going on in that post, or if he really does think Easterling bleeds diamonds.

Grieve had a hell of a Cubs career.

So you're getting the same output for the same amount next year, and you're more and more likely to have better output for the the same money the following years. And it's realistic to think that the Cubs *could* find someone at $8 to $10 million whose total value - offensively and defensively - in LF exceeds Soriano's.

Pawn the $5 million he's owed next year off on another team and nab a decent prospect in the process and call it a day.

I see that Vitters has still been out. Has anyone heard anything more about him? Concussion? Precaution?

That is not a given. Then prove me wrong. I've asked both you and CubInNY to prove me wrong and neither of you have given any tangible benefits to firing Hendry midseason and promoting Randy Bush. Unless the Cubs can immediately install the guy they want to be the GM for the next four/five years, there is no benefit to firing Hendry now - and that's coming from a guy who wants Hendry fired. There may not be a benefit to firing him now, but I'm not sure there's a drawback, either.