NoDak

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole. I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion. I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact. I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this."

Jacque Jones and Michael Barrett/Henry Blanco say hi. I assume Theriot doesn't count as having significant playing time, but 150 ABs ain't too shabby. All of them signifncantly exceeded expectations. Actually, Jacques and Barrett were the two I had in mind as exceptions to my comment. Guess I should have pointed it out, but I thought my post was long enough as it was :wink:. Also, Theriot was solid, but 150 ABs is about a months 6 weeks worth for an everyday player. Edit: Besides, looking at Cedenos first 150 ABs he would have been close to an all-star! :shock:

I think some people are making the mistake of comparing players to last year and saying that there is not an expectation for improvement as if last year was a "normal" year. Last year just about everyone with significant playing time pretty well hit their "low" expectation. Almost no one "overperformed." I think that just through normal statistical variations we will likely improve simply because it would be difficult to match last year's poor performance. I am a proponent of rather than paying to add to the top we should wisely cut from the bottom. Roughly 30% of our innings pitched by starters had a cumulative ERA of 7.15. I used players I consider unlikely to be in the starting rotation out of Spring Training: Marshall, O'Malley, Mateo, Marmol, Guzman, Ryu, Walrond. They threw, by my count, 264 innings last year as starting pitchers, or 30% of the 877 total innings thrown by starters. If we replace those innings with Marquis and Lilly, even if they have the same production as last year or we even them out to an average of 5.50 (a very achievable average for both of them combined) we will have a much better staff than last year. Only Z had more than 25 starts last year (Marshall had 24). I think it is very likely that the team will improve just by limiting (if not eliminating) the number of innings thrown so poorly by the young starters CHC was forced to use last year. They used 15 starters last year. Most of them no where near ready to pitch in the big leagues. This, put on top of the likely improvements outlined in previous posts, indicates that while CHC may not be a world beater they will likely improve simply because it would be very difficult to get worse (or even the same) production. Most players who "overperformed" last year did so with limited playing time and those that "underperformed" got the lion's share of playing time. Edit: Add Rusch and Williams on there and we get 309 IP with a cumulative ERA of 7.40 and that is over 35% of the innings pitched! If Lilly and Marquis even match last year's totals (and that is with Lilly not facing NYY and BOS and Marquis matching his worst production of his career) we will have 376 IP and an ERA of 5.19. Even if we add Maddux to the mix (and say that Lilly replaces Maddux) CHC still comes out money ahead on the ERA leg and Lilly is much more likely to repeat last year's "success" than Maddux considering the age difference of 10 years.

I don't want Loretta because he really doesn't give us anything that we don't already get from Ryan Theriot at a better cost and a much younger player (27 rather than 35!).

A healthy, or even 80% Mark Prior could win 15-20 games and have an ERA in the low 3's upper 2's. I think that would move CHC to top rotation in the league (Prior, Z, Hill, Lilly, Marquis/Miller...) Of course, that is assuming a healthy Prior. Big assumption

I agree, Soul. While it is dangerous to just look at innings pitched alone to judge a player, most managers don't have pitchers who are at least somewhat effective throwing that many innings. They tend to get demoted to the pen, or sent down, or traded for unsalted peanuts.

none. These are all facts. These were not what I was talking about. These are the declarative statements you make well which I referred to. What you said after each one, the "comments" were opinion, or, at least not verifiable facts in my opinion. Let's look at what seems to be your premise. That Rich Hill's production improved in the "second half" was due to him getting more experience. Maybe a "critical mass" of innings? Maybe not. Here is my question. Looking at his game log at http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=hillri01&year=2006&t=p , http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=hillri01&year=2005&t=p he had a single quality start in 2005 and none in the first half of 2006 (but May 14 against SDP was close). After being send down to the minors for about a 6 weeks he came up and was less than impressive in his first start back, then had 2 outstanding starts, a rocky one against COL and mop up duty vs HOU in a marathon game, then came one out away from a stretch of 6 quality starts in a row. While I will harp on sample size as much as the next guy, the fact is that virtually all of his good games came after his last time being sent down. That seems to me to be too sudden of a turn around to just be chalked up to "major league experience." While I agree we can't do a lot of generalizing based on his earlier failures the turn around is dramatic enough that I would say that something changed for him because if it was merely experience then the improvement would have been far more gradual. There were 5 consecutive non-quality starts in just 2006 (and not even close most of the time) to being 4 outs away (over 2 nonconsecutive starts) from 9 consecutive quality starts that is what I call an about face. Now, if it was more gradual I would be inclined to agree with you. If he still had 1/3 (or more) of his starts be reversions back to the former Rich Hill then I would be more inclined to think of it as him gaining experience. But that dramatic of a turn around tells me that he actually did something in the minors, even if it was as intangible as "confidence in his fastball" something changed beyond "more major league innings" in my opinion.

I don't understand why you feel the need to degrade everyone that disagrees with one of your statements? I'm not illiterate just because I don't take your word as the gospel. !) Hill was not ready the first few times he was up and he showed it by his performances early on. You seem to feel that Hill had an entitlement to innings when he was first called up. There is nothing wrong with making him earn his playing time. 2) You have absolutely nothing to back that up. Hill played poorly so he got sent down. He kept doing well in the minors, he got called back up. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that. When Hill finally showed what he was capable of they gave him extended playing time and even included him in their plans for 2007. sorry, but i have to question your reading ability because you still seem to have a problem grasping what i'm saying. i never said baker/hendry wanted hill to fail, i never said there was a conspiracy theory, and i never said hill was treated unfairly. here is my argument, please look at it closely...maybe read it aloud to yourself: HENDRY DOES NOT HAVE A "THING" FOR HILL. HE IS NOT HIS PET, HE IS NOT HIS FAVORITE PLAYER. HE DOES NOT TREAT HIM WITH ANY EXTRA FAVORITISM. NOTE: MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HILL HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. REPEAT: MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HILL HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. AGAIN, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HENDRY DOES NOT HAVE A "THING" FOR HILL. HE DOES NOT VALUE HIM AT AN UNREALISTICALLY HIGH LEVEL. THE EVIDENCE FOR MY ARGUMENT IS AS FOLLOWS (available in powerpoint format upon request): 1. HILL WAS NOT USED/DEMOTED AFTER A GREAT RELIEF OUTING IN 2005. NOTE: AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS WAS UNFAIR OR THAT HILL SHOULD BE INDUCTED INTO THE HALL OF FAME AFTER THIS OUTING. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY TRULY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEMOTED. 2. HILL WAS PASSED OVER FOR STARTS AT THE EXPENSE OF GLENDON RUSCH. HILL WAS THE BEST PITCHER IN THE MINORS AT THIS TIME, AND GLENDON RUSCH WAS, WELL, GLENDON RUSCH. NOTE: AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS WAS UNFAIR OR THAT HILL SHOULD HAVE REPLACED RUSCH (though i do believe that). MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY REALLY DID HAVE A BOY CRUSH ON HILL, HE WOULD HAVE KICKED RUSCH TO THE CURB AND CALLED UP HILL. 3. HILL DID NOT MAKE THE ROTATION OUT OF SPRING TRAINING. RUSCH AND MARSHALL DID. NOTE: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT HILL DESERVED A SPOT, SO DON'T THROW HIS SPRING NUMBERS AT ME. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY REALLY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD HAVE PUT HIM IN THE ROTATION. 4. HILL WAS TRASHED ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR AFTER THE WHITE SOX GAME. NOTE: PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, DON'T TELL ME THAT HILL SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED HIS MOUTH OR THAT HE DESERVED WHAT HE GOT. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TRASHED HIM LIKE HE DID. HE WOULD HAVE MADE EXCUSES FOR HIM AND TALKED HIM UP ANYWAY. the only argument i've seen supporting the idea that hendry is head over heels for hill is rumored trades that hendry has turned down involving hill. of course, none of those have any kind of confirmation. Abuck, I think that what cubs win is looking for is for you to make a declarative statement (which you did very well here) and then back it up with evidence that is verifiable. Each of your statements is backed up with an opinion. I have to say that Cubs win's point that saying that he was basically the same pitcher in AAA each time he was sent down doesn't really prove that he was just "lacking experience" at the big league level. His point that it would be statistically very difficult to "improve" on his prior dominant numbers. So, the fact that his numbers stayed stable doesn't really mean he wasn't improving as a pitcher. He very well could have been working at setting up pitches (something more valuable statistically in the majors than AAA), or "spotting" his fastball, or "taking something off" a pitch. A batter is just as struck out, but that is what I would hope that Hill would do. Hill's quote sums this up well, and, absent any evidence to the contrary I am inclined to believe that. That is what I hoped Patterson would do when he was sent to AAA. Also, "if" Z, Marquis, Miller, Lilly are all healthy CHC will not play Hill may be accurate but I would be surprised if that will be the state of affairs comeing out of ST. My grandpa always said, "'if' is a little word but it means a lot!"

Having Murton hit behind them doesn't ensure that at all. If a pitcher knows he can get Jones to chase bad pitches, he's going to continue to throw him bad pitches in most situations. Having Murton hitting behind him doesn't magically make Jones a more selective hitter. Nope, it means Jones gets more fastballs, which he can hit. You don't pitch Jones outside the zone (with offspeed stuff) when you have a guy behind him that can hurt you. Murton has pop and XBH potential. In most situations, a pitcher with any confidence in his stuff isn't going to care whether it's Murton or Barrett or Izturis hitting behind Jones. He's going to have a plan of attack and stick to it. If he knows he can get Jones to chase a certain offspeed pitch, having Murton hitting behind him instead of Jones isn't going to make the pitcher too scared to throw that pitch. That's the difference between theory and practice. Watch decent hitters without lineup protection behind them. "Pitching around" someone isn't a made up concept. Sounds stupid, but it's done all the time. I like Murton as much as the next guy, but I don't think that he would be considered "protection" in the same sense that Pujols/Lee would be considered "protection." Batting ARam after Lee may provide Lee with "protection" (may), but at this point in his career I don't think that Murton really provides "protection." Given that, why would a pitcher, knowing that Jones can hit fastballs and struggles with everything else, is not going to "cave in" and throw fastballs because MIGHTY MURTON is on deck.

so why do people crap their pants over Bynum/Neifi/Blanco/Pagan? Well, Ward brings at least a threat for productivity, those others are practically guaranteed outs with no side benefits. Exactly, so if we're going to freak out over those guys, we should applaud Hendry for getting somebody worthwhile for a cheaper price than at least two of those players. As we all know, the alternatives could clearly be worse. And chances are, with pinch hitting, spot starts and injury replacements, Ward will probably get at least 150 PAs, which makes his contribution non-negligible. Also Hendry traded Perez for slightly more than a dixie cup of used tobacco juice and, with his contract guaranteed for this year, cannot sign him back (until next winter)!

I am not too terribly concerned when I think about the money as $17M per season if it were for 4-5 seasons. Eight is what worries me. Then there is the fact that Hendry fell into the trap of handcuffing himself with a contract whose cost will go up as the players abilities likely deteriorate preventing him from being able to make financial signings or able to trade him without picking up most of his contract.

That SLG isn't right is it? No. Here's what ESPN's 3 year splits say: vs LHP (176 AB): 216/262/301/563 vs RHP (654 AB): 277/340/492/832 So, he's God-awful against LHP but is very solid and has good power against RHP. From what I understand, they paid $1M per year or slightly over that figure. Good signing by Hendry. So, he is...Jacques Jones? 3 year splits for Jones: LHP 446 ABs 226/280/370/650 RHP 1165 ABs 276/.339/.487/.826 This does not bode well for the "trade Jones as a cheap left handed bat" trade rumors if Ward can be had for $4M less. Granted there are defensive considerations, but it doesn't help. Besides, I want a right handed platoon guy for Jones because those numbers are awful! Even considering the change in leagues for Jones.

absolutely, a pinchhitter, spells guys at 3 positions and DH. Makes a lot of sense to me. If this is how he's used, I'm ok with it. If he takes playing time away from Murton (aside from the rare day off), I'll want to storm Tribune Tower with a pitchfork and torch. I don't think he is going to take huge playing time away from Murton. 1) Hendry is quoted as saying he likes Murton and isn't looking for a replacement for him. I think it even said he isn't looking for a platoon partner for him. 2) JH seems to like batting average to eval offense ("we were one of the top BA in baseball last year so we didn't have trouble getting people on base") and Murton had one of the top if not the top BA on the team. Murton's biggest problem is he seems to get better as the season wears on so if he struggles again at the beginning we will see how Lou handles it. My guess is Murton is going to be the LF. At least I hope I am reading JH correctly.

I echo those who have stated that Marquis for a 1 yr $3-5M deal I can live with. Marquis for 4yr $40M (and I haven't seen this reported anywhere, so don't worry) would be bad. He is still a young pitcher and has had success in the past. If he can even improve to the point of league average (well within his ability) this could be a decent little signing.

The only one is Jack Wilson, and they still think he's the face of the franchise (which tells you a lot about the body). Bay is the face of that franchise. And, no, Jones for Duke won't happen. If the Reds are offering a power hitting OF, it makes you wonder just it might be. This could be interesting... The Pirates aren't a team that spends 10m on an outfielder. They are usually guilty of trading them away, actually. Jones for Dukes probably won't happen. But, I wouldn't rule out Jones to Pittsburgh for someone. I dont think the bucs have any pieces we need (other than their young pitching). While I do believe Jones is a good match there, I dont think they have anything equivalent to give back to us. A three or four team deal is definitely a possibility. I like the sound of a 3-4 team deal. Could WSH with Church/Kearns be somehow added into this deal?

Thats why we would have to throw in some prospects to sweeten the pot And those prospectS would probably have to be of the Pie/Veal/Paw/Gallagher ilk. Just because the pirates are willing to trade Duke for an OF, doesn't mean they will trade him for ANY OF. Let's say we did have to trade Jones along with one of these prospects for Duke. How bad of a deal would that be? Duke is not much older than them and has pitched 300 innings in the major leagues with an ops+ of 119. I could deal with that. I would rather not trade Pie b/c he seems closer to major league ready, but I would consider any of these other guys.

Or at least one year. I think a lot of it has to do with them wanting to be able to sign or trade for a good starter and not wanting Carp to feel undervalued if the guy makes more than him. maybe that is the case and they know a surgically repaired wing can't last much longer throwing all those curveballs and the majority of the contract will be paid by insurance anyway. I think that this is a good deal by the Cardinals. They are looking at the market this year and saying, "This guy will cost us a fortune when he can be a free agent. By negotiating an extension now we have more leverage because we can walk away from the negotiations and he is still under contract." As for injury concerns, he has thrown approximately 645 innings in the last 3 years. He is in his early thirties so I don't think it is terribly likely that he will suddenly revert back to injury problems. When this contract ends in 6 years (2012) he will be in his upper 30's and while probably not winning Cy Young awards is unlikely to be a "bad" pitcher. While he may be somewhat overpaid for the last 1-2 years, I think this is a very good risk for STL to take. That's why, as a Cub fan, I hate this deal. :cry: The injury concern is that he is one of the very very few pitchers that has come back from the shoulder surgery he had performed on him. He has recently been healthy and pitched very well, but there is no precident to how long his reconstructed shoulder will be able to last. That is a good point and well worth considering. Generally a rule of thumb that I use is that if a player has 3 consecutive years of few or any significant injuries serious enough to go onto the DL for an extended period fo time I take him off of my "injury prone" list. This is far from a perfect way to judge and I am open to discussion on it. I still feel that this was a worthwhile investment for STL. Before his return the the cards a couple of years ago I voiced on the cards message board that he was coming off of major surgery/injury but he has shown over the past 3 seasons to have shown few if any ill effects from it so while history does not predict the future it is an indicator of what is likely to happen. As I said in my original post, if they don't re-negotiated his contract and he does stay healthy when his FA comes along to keep him they would likely have to sign him for even more money (past success, even in the remote past, will up the perceived value of a player) and they would likely have to be paying him the high salary at an older age because otherwise he would possibly jump ship for another team willing to take a high risk on him.

Or at least one year. I think a lot of it has to do with them wanting to be able to sign or trade for a good starter and not wanting Carp to feel undervalued if the guy makes more than him. maybe that is the case and they know a surgically repaired wing can't last much longer throwing all those curveballs and the majority of the contract will be paid by insurance anyway. I think that this is a good deal by the Cardinals. They are looking at the market this year and saying, "This guy will cost us a fortune when he can be a free agent. By negotiating an extension now we have more leverage because we can walk away from the negotiations and he is still under contract." As for injury concerns, he has thrown approximately 645 innings in the last 3 years. He is in his early thirties so I don't think it is terribly likely that he will suddenly revert back to injury problems. When this contract ends in 6 years (2012) he will be in his upper 30's and while probably not winning Cy Young awards is unlikely to be a "bad" pitcher. While he may be somewhat overpaid for the last 1-2 years, I think this is a very good risk for STL to take. That's why, as a Cub fan, I hate this deal. :cry:

I have a couple of problems with this deal. 1. I think we could get more for Jones. His contract, while decried by many as an albatross last year now looks like bargain basement pricing. Obviously, I don't think he will bring us Pujols, but I think it should give more than Jennings. 2. Suddenly we move from needing 2 starting pitchers to needing a starting pitcher and a corner outfielder. If we trade Jones who takes the CF spot. From what I understand the Cubs don't think that Pie is ready and I don't know who else will be playing out their. Pagan? That being said, I have to admit that I, like many cubs fans, do tend to overrate the cubs prospects. It is a well made point that we should trade players like Marmol et al rather than hoarding them on the off chance that they suddenly become dominant. Sometimes we have to be willing to risk losing big to have the chance to "win" big. Otherwise, all trades become "lateral moves."

I can only answer to one of those, but I'd say Yes. ;) Indeed. But I don't want Hendry to spend unwisely. It may be too late with Fonzie already here. I disagree. it is very wise to look that far into the future. as I mentioned to you in another thread where you predicted the Cubs to be a .500 team should they add Lilly, nobody ever goes into October with the same team they went into April with. that is the primary reason I think it silly to build an alledged 'World Series' team in December. going into the season with a weakness or two, but with full intention of addressing those weaknesses, is not a bad thing. give it a couple months to see exactly where your weaknesses are or where injuries may occur, then make a deal or two to become the complete team we would all like to go into the season with. what is dumb is trying to address every weakness on the club in a bad market. give it a few more months for everything to shake out. I agree. And also we don't know what our weaknesses will be. We anticipate that CF may be a problem or starting pitching may be a problem, but we don't "KNOW" that they will be problems. Funny things happen and if we spend all our resources trying to address all of our anticipated weaknesses during the winter we risk not having anything to put out fires if a major injury happens (such as Derrek Lee getting injured last year) or if one of our young players pans out.

Actually, talk to most athletic trainers or physical therapists and they will tell you that ALL pitchers throw with an unnatural motion. That not withstanding, KW is considered the definition of bad mechanics.

What if CHC had a promo during the last week of Spring training. They could narrow the list down to about 5-6 names of players that are "on the bubble" and have fans vote for "25th man" similar to what MLB does with All-stars. It could increase interest in the Spring training games and result in a player likely to be a "fan favorite." The damage that could be done would be relatively minimal and the upside could be huge. Even if CHC does not do this, it could be done here on this board just for fun and then track how that player does all year.

The problem with Izturis isn't even so much his offensive inability. It is the Cubs tendency last year to maximize the weakness of Izturis/Perez. I am fine with them being on the roster as the 25th man getting 120 PAs during the year and used as a defensive replacement or late game defensive replacement or double switch member. I am fine with that as a solution. I am not fine with these types of players being used for 400+ PAs per year and getting into 120 games. Hopefully Piniella doesn't have the same types of "pets" or has a better choice in them than Baker did.

My wife liked Matt Stairs because he looked like a Viking. While these are interesting tidbits they would only be called analysis in the Joe Morgan school of baseball :wink:

I too really like broad discussions. I remember years ago before NSBB when lots of these people were posting on the cubs.com message board a similar idea came up. The problem I have with the plan of using Wood/Marshall as a "tandem" would be that it would wind up short-changing the bullpen a lot of the time. In a lot of ways it would be like having a 6 man rotation which will mean that that is one less person in the pen or off the bench. If Wood throws 60 pitches he would not be able to do much for at least 2-3 days and I think it would just result in having lots of confusion over who is/is not available. If we could drop it down to 30-40 pitches then it might work because the workload for KW would not be as much, but I can see him having too many times where he would exit in the 2-3 inning with that kind of pitch count. When it was discussed on cubs.com years ago it was more discussed as an option for minor league pitchers and really teach them to limit their number of pitches and make every pitch count.