CubsWin

Absurd. Anyway, like Vance, I've predicted Walker will play 2B as the primary if he is retained. I think he'll be somewhere between a regular and a platoon. If healthy maybe 110-120 games. That's certainly a possibility with Baker at the helm, but I think the only way Neifi sees that much playing time is if Walker is traded and no other 2B is brought in or there are major injuries again at SS and 2B. Injuries are the only reason why he has seen as much playing time as he has thus far, and I don't see any reasons why that should change.

Why would Pie have to have a career OPS over .900 in order to have a higher ceiling than Dunn? I think Pie's ability to play CF ups his value a lot. If he could have an OPS above .850, have gold glove caliber range and play a shut down defensive CF with a great arm and great speed on the bases, he definitely surpasses Dunn's ceiling. True, but baseball players do more than hit. I agree that production at the plate has more of an impact on a player's ability to help a team win games, but it seems like OPS is the only consideration in this comparison and Pie's other abilities are not being acknowledged. But since we are talking OPS, at age 20, Pie had an OPS over .900 at AA, albeit in an injury shortened sample size. Dunn was in High-A at age 20 and his OPS was 6 points lower in a full season of ABs. I use this comparison not to say that Pie will be a better offensive player, only to show that it is very possible that he could come close. I was a huge proponent of signing Giles myself, but saying that Hendry passed is a bit presumptive. There is a lot more evidence that Giles passed on leaving San Diego. My only purpose in bring up Abreu was to provide an example of a complete player. I wrote in my original post that I would want Abreu at 25 or 26 years old. Could you tell me where I can read up on the composition of stats like runs created and win shares? I need to learn more about them. It most certainly does matter what a prospect's ceiling is. If you are a GM and you are trading for or giving up prospects in a deal, you'd better be evaluating what those player's ceilings are as well as their chances of reaching them. Was 8th round pick Dontrelle Willis considered a can't miss, a-level prospect? What about Lou Brock? I think you are ignoring the possibilities of one or two of these guys fulfilling on their promise. Pie was 20 last year. When Dunn was 20, he hit .281 with an OPS of .897 against High-A pitching. Was he a can't miss prospect?

To my knowledge, Lee hasn't signed an extension yet. And even if he had, that is no reason to include Dopirak in a trade unnecessarily especially when Dope's trade value is at its lowest. I think you are undervaluing Williams quite a bit. Since joining the Cubs, he put up an ERA of 3.91 and a WHIP of 1.35. Now both of those numbers are pretty average, but then you have to take into account that the guy was 23 last season and pitching his 3rd season in the majors so he should improve. And he is only a 5th starter on the Cubs. There are several teams that would place him as their 3rd starter right now. Look how many starters had ERAs well over 4 last season. Williams is better than almost all of them not to mention that he is at or near the league minimum in salary. That's value.

I'm not saying that he is "can't miss" only that if he fulfills his potential, his ceiling is higher than Dunn's given his speed, incredible range in the OF, great arm, base stealing potential, etc. Those are all things that Dunn lacks. I agree completely that Pie's OPS will likely never be as good as Dunn's, but it could come close. At age 20, in 240 ABs, Pie put an OPS of .903 at AA West Tenn. When Dunn was 20, his OPS was .897 in 420 ABs at High-A Dayton. If Dunn continues to produce OPSs around .930-.950 like he has the last couple of seasons and Pie is producing around .870-.900 with the speed, shut down CF defense and great arm, who would you rather have? The thing is, Pie hasn't done it yet. So that is the trade off. Dunn who is a great power hitter but not much else for a kid who could be almost that and more. That's why I think it is a risky but basically fair trade. You have just listed both players floors without balancing it out with their ceilings. Williams is only a fifth starter on the Cubs. He has a career ERA under 4 which he compiled as a very young man in the major leagues. If you put him on most other teams he is a third or fourth right now, and he is only 24. I agree with your Guzman statement, but you have to balance it out with if Angel ever does stay on the field, look out. The only way Dunn costs the Cubs Prior or Z is if Cincinnati is prepared to pay Dunn his price before he hits the open market. The premise this thread put forth assumed that the new Reds GM would be looking to move him because he knows he likely won't be able to afford him. So...

In an effort to get this thread back on track... Does anyone else think giving up Pie, Dope and two pitchers who could be Williams and Guzman or Marshall is overpaying? Dunn is a great power hitter who hits from the left side and he gets on base a lot, but he isn't Bobby Abreu at age 25. Abreu was/is the complete package that Pie could be. Dunn's OPS is elite, but the rest of his game is average or slightly above average. Is OPS such an all-determining statistic? Pie's ceiling is higher than Dunn's though Dunn is realizing his potential at the moment while Pie is still somewhat of a risk. So Pie for Dunn straight up might be fair if both GMs feel like rolling the dice. Or Dunn for a solid starter like Williams and a top pitching prospect like Hill/Guzman/Marshall would be fair, but not both of those offers combined plus Dopirak. What do the rest of you think?

IMO, this statement is rather extreme. To say when a team gets to within 5 outs of going to the World Series that that outcome is not good is an unsupportable position to me. I would also call their record good. Certainly not very good or great. But 88-74, 14 games over .500 and the 4th best record in the NL is good in my book, as was 89-73 (16 games over .500) in 2004 when they were 6th best. I am interested to hear why you disagree. Maybe I'll learn something. Just curious if you would respond to this, CubinNY.

The Hundley trade was an offseason trade, wasn't it? I don't recall. If not, then it certainly merits making the "fleecing" list. Yeah, I was thinking about the Hundley trade, too. It was an offseason deal. His first off season after taking the reigns. That was an incredible fleecing.

Why does everyone keep saying we have Jones for 3 years. Because he has a three-year contract. While it is likely that he'll be traded, we still have him signed for three years, and we aren't going to go out and get someone else as long as he's under contract to the Cubs, barring injury or piss-poor play. So the Cubs won't improve themselves given the opportunity? It is clear that the Cubs were going after player's like Abreu, Tejada, Wilkerson, Huff, Kearns, Floyd (if he became available) etc. It's not like they targeted Jones as their number one option. I wanted Hendry to go after Giles really bad, but either Hendry had his reasons not to go after him or Giles had no interest in leaving his family in San Diego. But regardless, Jones was a fallback and was only chosen because JH felt the price for the other better OFers was too high. Since Jones was their 4th or 5th option, I don't see why they wouldn't trade for someone better if the opportunity to came along and the price was right. Murton is very attractive to a lot of teams. If the right player came along and the other GM wanted Murton in return, then JH has LF covered in Jones. Signing Jacque was a CYA move. He didn't want to be caught having to overpay for someone like Huff or wind up with someone even worse than Jones. It wasn't the result I wanted either, but it could have been worse.

Okay, thank you for clearing that up. That question being, "why are some fans afraid to admit that Cubs management might get some things wrong"? First off, that is not a very good rhetorical question because it misrepresents those you are arguing with. But that aside, my answer is that they aren't afraid. I bet you won't find one Cubs fan on this or any other site that isn't willing to list off things that Cubs management as done over the last decade that they aren't happy with. So your question speaks more to your point of view than it does to anyone else's. Rightly or wrongly, you consider more of the moves that Hendry has made to be mistakes than some others do. That is fine by me, you have every right to do so and if you've got really well thought out reasons for that position even better. But the same holds true for those you disagree with. Its simply a difference of perspective. A different way to interpret the same events. I believe the more perspectives we have balancing out and informing our opinions, the more accurate our interpretation or opinion becomes. We should welcome another person's strong argument and incorporate it into our own, allowing it to alter our opinion. Again, this is a matter of holding our version of reality a little too tightly as the truth. When someone disagrees with our version of reality, if I'm convinced that my version is the right one, then those that disagree are simply delusional and living in denial. What if the accurate version of the events we are interpreting is somewhere in the middle? We can create a strong argument for why our interpretation is closer to reality, but thats about as good as we can do. In most cases, no one can say with any amount of certainty that they are catagorically right, and the other guy is flat-out wrong. IMO, this statement is rather extreme. To say when a team gets to within 5 outs of going to the World Series that that outcome is not good is an unsupportable position to me. I would also call their record good. Certainly not very good or great. But 88-74, 14 games over .500 and the 4th best record in the NL is good in my book, as was 89-73 (16 games over .500) in 2004 when they were 6th best. I am interested to hear why you disagree. Maybe I'll learn something. I agree completely that the Cedeno rostering by itself proves absolutely nothing in the context of whether Cubs management is doing a good job or not. It is the totality of their actions that should determine how well they are doing their jobs, not one transaction. Some conclusions that can be drawn from the Cedeno rostering are: 1. They were needlessly worried about Cedeno being taken and rostered him too early, and that was a mistake even though it may have had very little consequence. 2. They accurately predicted Cedeno's worthiness of being protected. 3. Even knowing the risk was small, they were so convinced of Cedeno's worth that it was logical to assume that other GMs were equally convinced and the rostering was justified. 4. Hendry does a poor job of managing the 40-man roster. Each of these conclusions can be reasonably supported by an argument. It would be great to have a discussion/debate about which one has the strongest argument and why, but most often threads like these deteriorate into back-and-forths where very few people are actually listening and there is very little give and take.

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors. So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways. Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance. It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective. Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well. I hope Ronny makes Hendry look like Shurhholtz. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that he is not. Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might do some things wrong? As one of my professors use to say, "the proof of the process is in the product." Since MacPhail and Hendry took over the Cubs a decade ago they have had three medicore seasons and one decent season and still haven't cracked 90 wins with an escalating payroll every year. Did you read the post you responded to? In it, I wrote that there is evidence on both sides of the argument. That Cubs management has made some poor decisions and some excellent ones. So who is afraid to admit that "Cubs mgmt. might do some things wrong"? Who is claiming that Hendry is as good as Schuerholtz? Who is even comparing the two? My post was about how the reality of the situation is probably somewhere in the middle of many of the perspectives on this board. I readily acknowledge the mistakes made by Cubs management. I also see a lot of things that they have done to improve the organization. I don't think that you are afraid to admit that they have done a lot of things right, are you? So why are you accusing me/people of being afraid to admit that they do some things poorly? Maybe we can lose the extremism and the division of Cubs fans into one faction or the other. Maybe we can realize that our perspective isn't the only valid perspective out there, and we can allow for someone who disagrees with my take on things to actually have some valid points. Maybe its time we start recognizing our common ground in threads like these. Nah, what fun would that be...

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors. So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways. Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance. It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective. Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well.

you mean the Cardinals had a player come up with an uncharacteristically good performance at a position and time in which they were desperate and had no real viable options, and the good performance can only be explained by luck? that's unfathomable. Haven't you heard? Dave Duncan is a miracle worker. Wait...no, I don't recall Simontacchi hat being covered in pine tar, so maybe it was luck.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-cub03.html Living down here in Cardinal country - I can tell you that the uncomfortable man-love for Jason was just insane back in 2002-2003. If he can regain some of his old form, then JH might just have found a pretty good sleeper for the pen! This is certainly a Hendry move. Take a guy who was good before surgery who is currently a FA, sign him to a low base offer and hope for the best. Low risk, high reward. I can't say I'm against it. If he is good, you have a very good arm in the pen. If he stinks, you're not out all that much. Simontacchi was good? I seem to remember a guy with an ERA over 5 who got lucky to be pitching for a team with a tremendous offense. I agree it's low risk, but it's nowhere near high reward. If he returns, he'll never be very good. He might become a mediocre 5th starter if healthy. Yeah, I definitely agree. The difference between Dempster/Williamson and Simontacchi was pretty noticeable. Maybe he'll improve after a move to the bullpen like Dempster did, but I definitely see this move as a low risk/moderate reward type move. Probably still worth it, but not as exciting at the onset as Dempster and Williamson were.

True that, but, for the purposes of this discussion, his performances at AA, AAA and the majors following the decision to place him on the 40-man have already justified his roster spot. He certainly would have been selected after his year at AA, so... The only thing that performance justifies is keeping him on the roster, and giving him a chance to win the job. Isn't that what we have been talking about in this thread, the decision to put Cedeno on the 40-man roster? His performance since then showed that whoever judged Cedeno's ability and projected him to be worthy of protection on the 40-man roster got it right. Didn't they? About the only way they could have been wrong would be if someone could guarantee that not one other GM besides Hendry judged Cedeno in the same way the Cubs did. All it would take would be one GM having a similar opinion of Cedeno, that he had a good shot at becoming a good major league SS, and that GM's team be in a position, like Tampa or KC is in now, to keep him. Why take that chance if you don't have to. Was someone not kept that year because Cedeno was on the 40-man? From where I sit, that would be the only way to call protecting him a mistake. Wouldn't it?

How about keep Pie and have him while he is at least cheap and good and find out if he can be cheap and great. Then, with the money they aren't paying Pie, sign Dunn or someone like him when he becomes a free agent?

True that, but, for the purposes of this discussion, his performances at AA, AAA and the majors following the decision to place him on the 40-man have already justified his roster spot. He certainly would have been selected after his year at AA, so...

Unforunately, that's what we've said for the past two years. I agree and they still have three pretty decent starters. If they add Huff or another RBI guy to go along with Berkman they will be tough. To me, the key for the Cubs is obvious, pitching. Lee will likely regress a little, Aramis hopefully will produce, but the Cubs have to find someone to step up in the five slot and table set in the two slot. Pierre will be fine at the top of the order. Hopefully Walker comes out hot in ST and then produces at career norms, that would go a long way to solidifying the lineup. I am optimistic about Murton and Cedeno but I don't think we should count on either of them to be diffence makers. All and all, I am hopeful but not optimistic. I'd have to agree. I'm hopeful but not optimistic, too. There are ifs contingent to this team's success. If the Cubs stay healthy, they could make the playoffs. If the younger players produce offensively... If pitchers get injured and Hill and/or Guzman perform well... If Hendry is able to add a power hitting, all-star caliber RFer... So, I'm hopeful. It can happen. But I would be optimistic if Giles had been signed.

I don't blame you nor am I asking you too. I wouldn't base an opinion on one Muskat article either. I'll do a search for the articles, but many of them have probably been moved into archives by now. The first one I read that stated Neifi would be used in a reserve role was the day he was signed. I believe it was on both ChicagoSports.com and Sun-Times.com. There have been others since then. Many of them were related to the signing of Furcal but I'll look.

And yet with Cedeno's incredible progress, most of us think that Neifi Perez will get more at bats than Cedeno this year. I know. I find it strange considering the sheer number of articles stating that Cedeno is the starting SS. Another one came out a few days ago on Cubs.com. In it, it is once again reiterated that Neifi will be used primarily as a back-up at SS. It also says that Walker and Hairston will battle it out for the starting job at 2B with a platoon being a possibility and Cedeno will be the starter at SS. But I certainly understand waiting to see it before you believe it. Oh vey, Dusty... I'm going to wait until someone that is not world class journalist Carrie Muskat declares Cedeno the favorite for the SS job. Do horses mouths Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker count?

Have you looked at Cedeno's offensive numbers from his season in Rookie ball? Those should be considered as well. And stats aren't the only criteria that should be used when determining a player's worth, especially if he is still developing. He was advanced through the system aggressively and was young for his league in the years he struggled with the bat. It isn't uncommon for a player who hit well in a lower league to figure it out with the bat after struggling for a couple of years on his way up. Is the early success Dopirak had to be completely ignored because of his struggles last season? What if Dopirak was Cedeno's age at those levels when he struggled? What if he were more athletic and defended well at a key position like SS? There were plenty of reasons to value Cedeno highly at the time he was placed on the 40-man. Just because they weren't readily available to those of us scouring Cubs minor league stats, myself included, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

And yet with Cedeno's incredible progress, most of us think that Neifi Perez will get more at bats than Cedeno this year. I know. I find it strange considering the sheer number of articles stating that Cedeno is the starting SS. Another one came out a few days ago on Cubs.com. In it, it is once again reiterated that Neifi will be used primarily as a back-up at SS. It also says that Walker and Hairston will battle it out for the starting job at 2B with a platoon being a possibility and Cedeno will be the starter at SS. But I certainly understand waiting to see it before you believe it. Oh vey, Dusty...

Well, that looks like 5-6 years of evidence that suggests that Cedeno might not have stuck with a major league team. But, putting the burden of proof back on you, in those 5-6 years, how many examples like Cedeno came along and how many were protected by their teams? I know, I don't feel like doing the research either. :wink: I freely admit that my argument doesn't use much impirical evidence. But it does use sound logic and fundamental human nature. Its simple. If you were a GM and you felt a young player had the chance to be a star SS for you team at the league minimum, wouldn't it be natural to think that other GMs have reached a similar conclusion on the same player? The chance that he would be selected would be decent, not great, but decent. Admittedly, the chance that he would stick with that team through the season would be smaller, but if the team is in a situation like the Devil Rays or the Royals, then the chance gets greater. So it simply comes down to this, if you feel that this kid as got a shot, and you have the room on the 40-man, why take the chance of losing him? Hendry has made some mistakes with the 40-man (Sisco and others) but does protecting a SS the caliber of Cedeno really need to be criticized?

I'm not very well versed in sabermetrics, thats for sure, so my opinion won't hold much weight in this discussion, but I'm learning. My comment is for vance. I disagree that there wasn't any reason to believe that Cedeno could have stuck on a major league roster at the time. I certainly found Cedeno's inclusion on the 40-man surprising as well, and I wouldn't have placed him on the roster given the information that I had, which was primarily anecdotal evidence and stats. However, if I had the full scouting reports that Hendry and other GMs had and, based on those reports, I felt there was a reasonably good chance that Cedeno could hit major league pitching in 2-3 years and certainly could defend at a major league or near major league level now, there is a chance that I would have taken him in the Rule 5 draft. Imagine if you are the GM of a team who has in its lower minors someone who possess the tools necessary to be a major league starter at SS. He is still young enough that we can't have a clear idea what his ceiling is so he could be great or just mediocre. Developing even a just a good starting SS who will fill that position for the league minimum is very hard to do and presents a large advantage to your team financially if it happens. Lets say you recognize his potential value to your organization. It is only logical to assume that other GMs might also recognize this player's potential? Given those circumstances, do you still risk exposing him? All the other team has to do is use him as a late-inning replacement for a year and then send him to AA or whatever. I think it is pretty likely that someone in the Cubs organization, if not Hendry himself, felt very strongly about Cedeno's chances to be a quality major league SS. Hendry became convinced enough to protect him on the 40-man roster and, this time, Cubs management was right. Cedeno's subsequent development adds a lot of credence to Hendry's decision to place him on the 40-man when he did. But that's baseball. You get some right and you get some wrong. This one Hendry got right. If we are going to be acutely aware of everytime one of his moves doesn't work out, shouldn't we also be just as aware of when they do work and be just as generous with the credit as we are with the blame?

This puts the Cubs at the top of the list of suitors for Julio Lugo. If they somehow pulled off a trade for Lugo with the intentions of starting him at 2B, I believe the Cubs would be an improved team. They would also have a log jam at 2B and would really have to find a taker for Walker. I doubt they would finalize a deal for Lugo without first finding a taker for Todd. Aquiring Lugo would provide a daily double at the top of the line-up once again. It would improve the defense up the middle. It would give the Cubs insurance at SS if Cedeno got injured meaning Perez would be the 3rd option at SS after both Cedeno and Lugo with Hairston hopefully ahead of him at 2B except for late inning defensive replacement. Pierre - .355 career OBP, 50 or so stolen bases Lugo - .340ish OBP, 20 or so stolen bases Lee - .900+ OPS Ramirez - .900+ OPS Jones - not much to say, .780ish career OPS, bats lefty... Murton - will hopefully produce a .800 OPS or higher but... Barrett - .800+ OPS Cedeno - wildcard offensively, could be really good... That line-up doesn't put the fear of God in you with Jones being the weakest link, but it is younger, healthier, gets on base more often, is more athletic, better defensively and sets the table a lot better than last season's. Depending on the price, I'd like to see Hendry get Lugo and hopefully this signing of AGonzII will help that happen.

Logic suggests it may have something to do with the fact that he has moved around so much in his career. Over the last 5 seasons, he has played for 4 different teams. He also signed for pretty cheap which could indicate a lack of interest in him from most teams. With Walker's ability, one would think GMs would be lining up to trade for him, but that clearly isn't the case. There must be a reason why they're not. There is a lot of information that never makes it into the papers or out to the fans. But there has to be "valid" reasons why a player with his ability to produce offensively would agree to sign for so little and has not played more than two full seasons with any of the five teams he has played for in his 9-year career. Just because that information isn't being released to the fans doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there are "valid" reasons why Hendry would want to trade Walker besides some sort of personal difference between him and Todd. Though the donut joke did bring a chuckle. Mmmm, krispy kremes....