NoDak

Does someone have an explanation for this one? Gretzky was probably not destined to be an all-star, but he could have been a throw in to get a slightly better prospect from someone. I don't see much beyond "roster filler" for Sciocia (unless CHC has a lead that he can be "flipped" for someone or is a great defender or something).

To me this looks like an ultimate low risk signing. He can hold the fort for 2-3 years and by then we will have a better idea what we have for CF (Szczur, Almora, et al.). If someone is ready and he is having a solid season he could be flipped for prospects. Then again, if he is having a good year even of there isn't someone ready I wouldn't put it past Hoyer to trade him anyway and fill in with "junk" if needed. This is a VERY tradable contract for a serviceable utility outfielder.

This piece by Jesse Rogers (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/20608/the-case-against-signing-jacoby-ellsbury) is far better written and more in line with what the FO's strategy seems to be: Pile up young prospects. Even if they don't pan out they can be used as sweeteners in trades and players who rely on speed tend to fall of cliffs production wise. I can't help but think some wizard at ESPN said, "Hey, this Rogers piece makes a lot of sense. We better put a counterpoint out there to appease those who just want to sign a "big name""

That is true and I agree. However I believe the two are strongly correlated. Players with lots of ability but can't perform are not of much interest to me other than aesthetics. Given my choice I would prefer someone with performance over someone with ability. The scouting reports I read focus on players ability. If it doesn't come through in performance I have marginal interest in it. They can have the ugliest/slowest swing or the least graceful delivery they want but if their performance is good I will make that sacrifice.

It sounds like there is concensus this can be valuable. Most OPS+ and ERA+ include "park factor" but I can't find the formula used to calculate that. It is what allows us to compare a player whose home park is Coors Field with someone whose home park is Dodger Stadium. I think some even take into account the pitching staffs. In other words, I think that ATL was seen as a "pitcher's park" because teams tended to have worse offensive performances there. But they also had to face one of the best pitching staffs in baseball so it would have to be corroborated by a dip in ATL offensive production before they would consider it a park factor. I thought googling it would work but they all say: League averaged adjusted for park. My guess is that it is a calculation that is still a work in progress and while there are some formulas that are considered more authoritative than others the fact is that there are differences significant enough that it hasn't been considered settled. My personal opinion would be that it would be valuable and that the "good" players would, over a large sample size, come through and shine and those that just have "pretty swings" or "ball explodes out of his hand" and other such jargon phrases that mean nothing can be sorted through. I am also toying with the idea of including an "age factor." For instance, let's say that I can determine that a "normal" age for a player at AA is 23-24 then if someone is successful at AA at age 21 he would get a "boost" of 10% or something like that to correct for age. Conversely, a 27 year old at AA would probably see a downgrade of his numbers to account for the fact that he is "old for his league." It would take A LOT of work and sorting through data, probably some of it historical, but it seems intuitive that it should work (though the numbers I am throwing out here are purely speculative at this point). I just wanted the opinions of those on this site because I have found that some of the more intelligent

2 questions. One technical, one more philosophical: 1. Does anyone here know where I can find "ERA+" and/or OPS+ statistics for MINOR leagues? 2. Can anything valuable be derived from this information? I was involved in a discussion on another Message board and some there said it wouldn't be very relevant because "the goal isn't necessarily winning" and who is in the league at any given time is so fluid that it would skew the numbers. For instance, if a young stud pitching prospect is learning a 4th pitch he may artificially struggle for a while as he learns to control it, or if a team is using an inordinate number of major league stars on "rehab" assignments. My gut feeling is that these will be mere exceptions and would come out in the wash similar to a player hitting a "slump" occasionally, but I am interested in hearing what others here are thinking.

What, you mean we didn't get Verlander? [sarcasm] We weren't going to get much for Byrd's .070/.149/.070/.219 line. We got out of it a relief pitcher and a flyer (as well as a roster spot for Tony Campana who has been doing OK--and certainly better than Byrd). While this wasn't a "steal" of a deal, it was probably about what we should expect.

OK, if we are rebuilding, would it be wise to trade Soto? What about Marmol? Dempster at the deadline? Byrd is as good as gone (final year of contract...I see him going at the deadline for a couple of mid-level prospects). Some team will be looking for a utility outfielder or short term replacement for an injury. If I remember right it is a very tradeable contract.

My original draft read more like a dissertation that would have taken 20 minutes to read. I decided to do a cliffs notes version!

Is it possible we have a front office with a strategy likely to lead to success in the next 3-5 years? Going on some of their big moves this seems to be a simplified version of their strategy: 1. This is not a championship team. Therefore, there is no point in "keeping the nucleus together." There are very few pieces in place that are likely to lead to a championship team. Everyone is available for the right price (with the possible exception of Starlin Castro--21 year old hit leaders are hard to get "equal value for"). 2. Focus on acquiring high ceiling prospects. They need not contribute to this years team, or the team in 2013. If we do this, we will likely have some very good players entering their prime, under team control with VERY favorable contracts for several years allowing us to have plenty of funds available to sign free agents to fill any gaps that appear. 3. Be aware when you are trading from a position of strength or a position of weakness. If from a position of weakness decide if you should just get what you can and run OR if you should simply keep the player. If in a position of strength make sure that you are going to get prospects likely to be of equal value in the future. 4. Pay for the future, not the past. Stay away from elite players on the wrong side of 30 who have proven themselves to be winners. They are likely to sign HUGE contracts that will result in disappointment in about 5-6 years (e.g. Soriano). 5. Because this team if several years away from strong contention be VERY sparing in the signing of major league free agents. You are better off waiting until you see which of your prospects pan out and fill in spots later when you know what they can do.

While this doesn't necessarily give any insight into this potential signing I thought it was unusual. On baseballreference.com the similarity scores for Coco Crisp are: David DeJesus (960) Marlon Byrd (952) Both are already on the cubs roster. Again, no real insight, but kind of funny.

I think all this talk about Aramis not taking his player option is pretty far-fetched. I am pretty sure his agent would say something like: "Aramis, you cannot 'opt out' of your contract if you know what's good for you. You are a 32-year old 3B whose reputation (deserved or not) is of a marginal defensive 3B. You missed half of last season with a separated shoulder. Your OPS+ has dropped by over 35% since last year. This is not the time to 'see what your value is on the open market.' I assure you it will be disappointed. Sit tight. Play your best and collect your pay-check. Given the chance take a trade which would GUARANTEE your club option is picked up. Not to mention a much greater chance to play in the post-season."

If only Pujols batted left handed. Damnit. What would we do with Pujols? Just another right hand hitting 1B. What this line-up needs is a left-handed bat more than it needs Pujols. LOL. Why do I have a feeling this would be roughly the sentiments of some GMs? I do have this irrational feeling we will wind up getting a "veteran" (read: aging) 1B who is of decent but not unbelievable talent. That's right: Lyle Overbay: Chicago Cub.

Not an earth shattering trade, but not the worst in the world either. 1. DeWitt is at least as good as Theriot (and possibly more versatile). OPS+ of 99 (league average). We will also have him CHEAP for several seasons. He could also be decent trade bait in the future if we need someone to "throw in" on a deal to bring in someone of greater consequence. 2. Hendy likes doing things "for players." He traded Maddux to give him another chance at a pennant. He traded Lilly on the same rationale. CHC isn't going to make the playoffs this year and we might as well get something for him. 3. The young guys we got could develop into something. We weren't going to get much for Lilly or Theriot. If we got a top 20 prospect for them along with DeWitt and another marginal player I would be OK with that. 4. I think this trade marks the end of the "Mike Fontenot: Chicago Cub" era. DeWitt is a younger, more consistent and cheaper.

To me that would, absolutely, be organizational suicide. While I would love to get Bedard the addition of Roberts would make the price tag just plain too high. It would be a big accomplishment for the Orioles, though.

Marshall was solid last year. He had an ERA+ of 119. ALL of his numbers improved as far as I can tell (or stayed the same). He is 24 and a lefty (not that CHC is short of them). While I have some conditioning issues with him, overall, I think he is ready to jump up to 145-155 IP this year (I can take that from a #4 guy). He is the #4 in my book. I also would not mind Marquis as the #5 if necessary. I think the #5 spot is still up for grabs with some players who may surprise. I don't think that Lou is that enamored of Dempster in the starting rotation (remember it was rumored for about 5 minutes last May after the Met implosion). Rotation: Same as last year or better Z, Lilly, Hill, Marshall, Marquis

While it is a great honor for Fuld I have a hard time getting excited over AFL MVP since the last "cub" to win it was Kevin Orie (remember him?).

Given my choice I would say having a young 20-something CF who struggles against lefties is about the least alarming problem. Think about it, most teams have only 2-3 lefty relievers and 1-2 lefty starters (except for the cubs who seem to collect left handed starters and middle-infielders like some kids collect baseball cards with mustaches). They will run out of them eventually and most of his ABs will be against right handed pitchers. Also, as has already been pointed out, it is a problem that can be fixed. I think the main thing he and Cedeno need is to feel that they belong in the major leagues. Both have had success in the minors.

i'd hate to sound like i'm lying, but i'd like to think that i'd try to be loyal to the team that drafted/scouted me. OK, Chicago DID NOT OFFER A CONTRACT to Mark. He was non-tendered. So, he should just not sign any contracts on the off chance that Chicago would re-sign him. Both sides need to agree to the contract and CHC did not offer him one. I, for one, do not blame Prior one bit and wish him the best of luck (outside of Cubs games). I don't think this has anything to do with "loyalty." In fact, I could argue that the Cubs gave up their loyalty to him by not offering a contract.

The biggest waste is when a lead off hitter ground out/fly out on the first pitch. The reasons I say this are: 1. If a batter can see 9 pitches then the pitcher will run up a pitch count earlier and we will get into their pen (usually not a strength for most teams) earlier. 2. Scouting reports are good but every night different pitchers have different things working so if the lead-off hitter can see 9 pitches he probably has a good idea of what the pitcher has/does not have that night. As the lead off man walks back to the the dugout other hitters are asking how much the breaking ball is breaking, how much movement is on the fastball, etc. Even though what a pitcher's "stuff" is can change over the course of the game usually the best indicator is what the lead off hitter can give if he is able to see most of what the pitcher has to offer. 3. Every pitch thrown can be a "mistake" by the pitcher. The odds of something good happening for the batter in 9 pitches is much greater than 1-2 pitches. Especially with someone like Soriano who can turn a "mistake" into a 400' HR. 4. If there are runners on base then there are 9 pitches steal bases, past balls, balks, etc. possible without having to absorb "outs" on sacrifices. 5. Often long at bats lead to walks as most pitchers are not able to avoid throwing 4 balls in that many pitches (presuming the batter can lay off of them). The "disadvantages" of taking 9 pitches are (technically): 1. That is 9 pitches that could hit the batters head/hands 2. Usually there are at least 1-2 visits to the mound by the catcher which wastes time In short, I would LOVE for Soriano to see 9 pitches per AB. Think about it, that is 36 pitches in 4 ABs. At that rate the pitcher is not going to be around for long before he is tired.

While I am not a good judge of "stuff" for a pitcher here are my thoughts: 200+ IP seasons: Z-5 Bedard-0 (however he has 2 over 185) 200+ K seasons: Z-2 Bedard-1 75+ BB seasons: Z-5 Bedard-0 While Z is more volatile as a pitcher, he can be dominant in a way that Bedard cannot. Z is the better pitcher in my opinion.

AMEN TO THAT! Come on, guys. I loved Prior in 2003 but he has yet to have a fully healthy season (including 2003) and has had an ERA around 4.50 since then! As for Prior being a "jerk" as many on here are implying, what exactly should he do. Simply refuse to sign with any other team? The Cubs have not tendered a contract to him (he is not turning his back on CHC as much as they are closing the book on him). If they offer him a contract it is considered, also, an offer of arbitration. Since his pay cut could be no more than 20% the Cubs are not willing to do this. It was a budget move, plain and simple. Other teams can sign him for league minimum but CHC cannot expect to sign him for that.

It is confirmed. It is being posted as a done deal on Cubs.com (I have yet to see them post it as done when it was not...they basically wait for the press release). The report here says 4 years at $48M!! If people are pleased about 4 years $50M then $48M is that much better! http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jspymd=20071211&content_id=2323241&vkey=hotstove2007&fext=.jsp

Thank you for a well reasoned post. You make good points. Here is my response/ideas: 1. I would rather have guys closer to average. I believe more is accomplished by a team with a higher bottom, even at the cost of lowering the "top." While you make a good point about bad players possibly giving "productive outs" or other such things, I would rather not have to worry about having to go through several weak hitters late in the game. 2. Improving long term. For this you make an very good case. With a team with a wider range it is easier to find something on which to focus for improvement. 3. Pitching. I agree with you that I would rather have 2-3 really good starters and 1-3 mediocre ones for the reason you listed (playoffs tend to favor teams with 1-2 dominant starters) AND if all the pitchers are about average they will lose a lot of games where they go up against clearly superior pitchers. Even though something will be "made up" by the people at the bottom of the rotation being more effective because pitching has, in my opinion, more effect by a single player than batting I would rather have a few really great starter and tolerate having a less than stellar bottom of the rotation (They will still win some games!).

The answer is it doesn't matter, a team with a 110 on both sides is going to be very good. So it doesn't matter how you get there. Yes, it can matter how you get there. OPS+ and ERA+ are not "TEAM" statistics. They are individual statistics. My point was to give a rough idea of what quality of team would be on the field and providing a common means of establishing equality to see what people's philosophy of putting a team together will be. I agree that a team with an ERA+/OPS+ of 110 will be a very good team. Fine, substitute whatever number you want there. How would you put your team together? My point was: "Do you want a wide range of abilities" or "Do you want everyone relatively equal in their ability."