CubsWin

I hope agents and GMs can finally put to rest the whole "surprise team" ploy. It was obvious to me that the Cubs were pulling a Boras. And it seems like it was obvious to the other GMs, too.

Regardless of whether he was a clubhouse cancer or not. How dumb was it to air out the dirty laundry in public, suspend him, and tell everyone what a cancer he was. The season was over. The Cubs were done. They should have made nice and traded him to another unsuspecting team. Now, we are going to get fleeced and pay another team so he can play for them. And he'll probably have a career year. Thanks Hendry. Thanks Cubs. It's not like Bradley insulted Hendry in the clubhouse and Jim told the papers. Bradley mouthed off to reporters. His comments weren't kept a secret until Jim Hendry threw back the curtain. They made Sportscenter all on their own. The suspension was necessary and I'm glad it happened. It didn't out Bradley as a potential clubhouse problem. Teams were well aware of what he was capable of years ago. He had been well-behaved for a couple years prior to signing with the Cubs and clearly Hendry thought he was worth the gamble. Turns out he was dead wrong. And even after Bradley behaved the way he did, Hendry could have kept his mouth shut, but the moment he starts making calls to other GMs inquiring if they're interested in him, it's going to have the same effect. Let's get real, it's Bradley's poor performance last season, his continued injuries and his poor behavior in front of the press that is making it difficult to deal him.

Awesome.

the MARINERS shot it down??? that means hendry was clearly going to do it but the mariners didn't want to. RICKETTS FIRE THIS BUM NOW. Yep, that's clearly what that means. There's no escaping sound logical deduction.

I read one report that Morla had a good slider as well. Any confirmation on that?

I agree. The title of this thread should be Roberts/Peavy/Granderson - The Tradition Continues. Bets on how many pages this one gets up to?

I think there's a strong argument to be made that Hendry's biggest mistake in this fiasco was suspending Bradley for the last couple of weeks. The back and forth in the press was obviously out there for everyone to see, but by sending Bradley home early the message was sent loud and clear, THIS GUY'S SUCH A CLUBHOUSE HEADACHE THAT WE'D RATHER HE JUST BE GONE. If there were teams that might've been on the fence about trading for this guy, you can bet they hopped down off the fence after that. Now having said that, Hendry was in a tough spot, because doing nothing or sweeping stuff under the rug would've caused problems of other sorts. I agree...to an extent. Hendry's move at the end of the season was necessary for the integrity of the team's boundaries of player behavior. It could have been handled less publicly and he could've just ordered Lou to sit him for the last couple of weeks, but that would have been noticed and reported on, too. Either way Bradley's perceived trade value was going to drop. But that was then. This is now. What matters more is what he is saying about him to GMs now. Things change in a short amount of time in this game. This quote is in an article from December 2nd... The signing of Jaramillo can easily be spun as a sign that the Cubs are okay with not dealing him and, whether true or not, can serve to restore some of the leverage that may have been lost. Also, the fact that Hendry hasn't bit on any offers currently being discussed (if indeed there have been any) is another factor that can go a long way to counteracting the perception other GMs may have had due to Hendry's previous statements. Will GMs test him because of what went down? They probably already have. But what will likely call the shots in the end is whether there's a match between what Hendry is willing to do/take and what other GMs are willing to give. And that comes down to how other GMs value his skill set/attitude/et al. Now if Hendry truly is desperate to move him, what he is willing to do/take may be pretty low...

I have been intrigued with Thomas as well since becoming a 3rd round selection in '07. Following his season last year and the year before, he seems to be a real streaky hitter. Short spurts of great offensive output where it looks like he might have it figured out, but then long stretches when he struggles mightily. He had great numbers in short season his first year, but his bat has been overmatched ever since. Personally, I've lost faith in him after this last season, but I could be wrong to give up on him so soon and I hope I am. As far as there being a lack of middle infielders on the big league roster in order for Thomas to have a chance, that doesn't seem likely. We'll have to see who the Cubs bring back, but with Miles, Baker, Fontenot, Theriot and Blanco there last year, there was a glut not a lack. Darwin Barney at AAA is way ahead of Thomas in the line to get the call and coming up fast behind him are Castro, Flaherty and LeMaheiu with Lee and Watkins lurking in Low A, so it doesn't appear that there will be a lack of middle infielders at any point in the near future for the Cubs. Looks to me like Thomas is the odd man out at 2B for the Cubs and, unless he figures out how to hit higher level pitching, he will deserve to be...

I think Granderson would be a great get. If Marmol must go, I'm fine with that. Marmol and some prospects, great. But what options are out there at closer to replace him?

I don't really care about Vitters because he hasn't done crap outside of one hot month as a pro. Doesn't look at all like he's going to be a solid replacement at 3B for when Ramirez leaves. While I feel much the same way, right now, as you do about Vitters, to describe him the way you did is pretty inaccurate.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4675810 Two spots left open. Hmmm, let's see... one for Roy Halladay and one for... aww, heck give both spots to Halladay.

Right, but that's Harden. Harden is not Halladay. Take his injury history out of it and there's still no comparison. If I'm Tom Ricketts and this comes across my desk, I'm not dismissing it out of hand just because of the price tag. And as far as the other players, I might be willing to put up with Sam Fuld in CF if it allows me to have Doc Halladay at the top of the rotation. His acquisition alone should lock up the Central Division crown. And if they're in first place come the deadline, players can be gotten for the stretch run. Once you get into the playoffs, other teams are looking at quite the rotation. And, you know, it's been a while since...well, I don't really need to say it, do I? I understand all the arguments against and they're valid, but you've got to at least see this thing through... The Harden thing was just an example. The point is, all indications so far have been that they have much less than 16 million to spend on next season. I don't really think it matters how good he is or how bad Hendry might want him. BTW, I wouldn't say adding Halladay locks up anything. The offense and bullpen would be highly questionable going into next season. Look, if the money's not there to spend then discussion over, but if it's a matter of value and spending wisely, the Doc is worth the money. I couldn't think of a better way to introduce yourself as the new owner of the Cubs than by landing Roy Halladay.

By rule, we cannot trade anybody from the most recent draft, which includes Brett Jackson. Good. In that case, I'd hang on to Trey McNutt, too. Oh, and Glenn Cook! :wink:

I know, right? Hopefully now that they've filled their Remlinger quota, there won't be any more of that.

Right, but that's Harden. Harden is not Halladay. Take his injury history out of it and there's still no comparison. If I'm Tom Ricketts and this comes across my desk, I'm not dismissing it out of hand just because of the price tag. And as far as the other players, I might be willing to put up with Sam Fuld in CF if it allows me to have Doc Halladay at the top of the rotation. His acquisition alone should lock up the Central Division crown. And if they're in first place come the deadline, players can be gotten for the stretch run. Once you get into the playoffs, other teams are looking at quite the rotation. And, you know, it's been a while since...well, I don't really need to say it, do I? I understand all the arguments against and they're valid, but you've got to at least see this thing through...

In a heartbeat. I'd want to keep Castro and Brett Jackson and I'd try to keep Cashner, but anyone else in a 5-for-1 deal with Halladay coming back, absolutely. As far as the money goes, assuming the Ricketts group isn't completely strapped for cash after acquiring the Cubs, I think they'd see it as an investment and a really smart one at that. Players can always be traded in money swallowing deals (where you save some by eating some) if need be. When it comes to Halladay, money-wise, you do what it takes. Halladay Zambrano Lilly Dempster Whoever If the Ricketts family is serious about winning a World Series (and isn't that why they bought the team?), how can they not explore this possibility, expense and all, to the fullest? Are there some lines I wouldn't be willing to cross to get this guy, yeah. But let's at least find out what lines the Cubs are being asked to cross.

MLB Network will broadcast the AFL's Rising Stars Game tonight at 7pm central time. We will certainly see Vitters and Castro play. There's a good chance of seeing Cashner and other Cubs as well, not to mention all the other top prospects. For those of you who don't get the MLB Network, there is a live stream provided at mlb.com.

I think all but a select few coaching or managing are. but with lou it seems much more exaggerated. Like, your first at bat determines what he thinks of you. You're exaggerating intentionally, right?

Originally, they were only comparing the way the ball jumped off of both their bats. If that comp is accurate, I'll take it...big time. By most accounts, Castro is close to or already a major league ready SS defensively. He's demonstrating an advanced ability to make contact consistently and to hit for average. The one thing that was missing was power. As a 19-year-old, I was willing to wait on that. When I heard that some scouts felt that the ball jumped off his bat the same way it jumped off of Soriano's, that was encouraging to say the least. If anyone else has extrapolated that comment into making other comparisons to Soriano, then I agree with you. I don't see much similar between them.

When asked recently when he would first break a major league roster Starlin Castro replied, "next year" with a knowing smile. That I can understand. You want your star prospects confident. But when Cubs minor league hitting instructor Dave Keller said the same thing, I thought I would post a link to the article on cubs.com. Is he really this good? Is this rushing him? If he performs well at AAA for the first three months next season, should he not be brought up? What would be the harm? Discuss.

I think people are a lot more miffed at the 2 that pushed Vitters down to 3 rather than his ranking alone. It's an arbitrary ranking of prospects in Low A ball. He had one good month there. I don't get the uproar. To be accurate, he had one good month (April) and one ridiculously awesome month (May) and he did so as a 19-year-old. But I agree with those that are saying it has more to do with who was ranked ahead of Vitters than where he was ranked.

The announcers from the San Fransisco radio broadcast couldn't stop talking about Caridad's stuff, specifically his mid-90s velocity. The Miller Park gun may have added a tick or two, but he's fast, no doubt, and with better control than I expected. The move to the pen seems to have enabled him to let it fly. You expect he will stick next season? I do. I wouldn't mind seeing Grabow come back either...

All I know is that I love following the Cubs minor leaguers, pay very close attention and certainly have an opinion as to who I like, but after reading craig's posts and some other's on this subject, I clearly lack the expertise to have any top ten list I might produce matter one hill of beans.

Yeah, I have that as a likelihood as well, though IMO, there would be nothing wrong with starting Flaherty at Daytona and promoting him when he shows he's ready. He did follow a similar pattern in his two pro seasons. Starts out hot the first short month. Then a pretty bad slump (this year that slump was two months long, last year it was one) and then he adjusts and kills it. I would like to see him prove himself at Daytona because of that pattern, but, obviously if he's hitting AA pitchers next Feb. and March, then he should go to Tennessee. Also, it would have Daytona rock that much more if he started the season there... :) Ryan Flaherty's slump in Boise coincided with a time when he had a wrist injury that hampered his play. Good to know, thanks. Maybe there isn't a pattern there after all.

Your take on the K's is different from mine. Your hope is that the strikeouts come from aggressiveness more so than from bad plate discipline. I don't get the impression that either of these is the source. My understanding is that he is very patient and extremely good plate discipline. I don't think that he's hacking too much, or hacking at junk. My hope is that some of the K's are exactly becuase he's as patient as he is. He gets called out on marginal 3rd strikes, because he's patient. He gets struck out on good 2-strike pitches, because he's patient enough to go deep in counts and allow himself to get into 2-strike counts not infrequently. Perhaps his inordinate success (probably unsustainable, but perhaps there's something real going on?) when he does contact the ball reflects that he's very disciplined, and swings selectively at strikes he can mash, but is willing to take some strikes if they aren't ones he can hit hard? My fear is that the K's are because he just can't hit pitches all that well. As Wilken termed it, that he's "a misser". He's not swinging at unhittable bad balls, he's not swinging too aggressively. There are just a lot of pitches that he should be swinging at, but that he misses. As you say, if that's the deal, there will be more and more hard-to-hit pitches as he moves up, and fewer and fewer easy-to-hit pitches. So if he's just a "misser", that could get exposed more fully in time. But I agree with the main points of your post. He's been a wonderful and unexpected surprise. Other than the scary K's, early feedback on all other questions has been uniformly fabulous. Does he really have any power? Favorable results. Is he really a CFer, or will he soon move to corner like so many other amateur CFers? Super favorable feedback. Will he be able to sustain any average with all the K's? So far so good. Will he still be able to be patient and walk in the pros? So far so good. Thanks, Craig. Yeah, I don't really have a "take" on his strikeouts. It was more of a hope. You're the one (and some others on this board) who have the expertise and access to stats. (I don't know where you got your info on Brett's Ks coming from taken third strikes, but it's great stuff.) I can look at stats and splits and get a feel for a guy and then pepper in other people's scouting reports or opinions and fill out that picture, but you're able to watch a guy's swing and know something about him. I don't have that capability. All I know is I'm grateful for his current success and hopeful for his future.