TheDude

Theriot is an ideal 8-hitter. When he gets on base, it's likely a single or walk, so he is on first. This allows the weak hitting pitchers an easy sacrifice opportunity, or you might see Theriot swipe second to get in scoring position for someone like Zambrano who can actually drive him in. Plus you have a high OBP somewhat in front Soriano.

Then you aren't getting him.

Sabathia is still only guaranteed to be a 2-month rental. The Cubs should be willing to give up quality, but all the quality they possess. Now, someone that still has years left might warrant the entire farm, but Cleveland, a team likely ready to compete again next year, is better off asking for one or two quality, MLB ready or close guys for Sabathia rather than deep reaches into a farm, like Vitters.

This message board has a history of freaking out over any top 50 guy in the farm getting traded, so I'll wait and see if I believe all these comments about lack of attachment. You would think Matt Murton was Jay Bruce based on the dozens of pages of posts on his mistreatment and lack of opportunity by the Cubs. Anyway, I'm all for the Cubs going out and getting upgrades. This team is too good not to risk all in this year.

It's a difficult argument to make because of two factors: injury during 2006 and 2007, and full time play. I don't know that anyone get accurately measure the impact on his numbers of his injury laden seasons playing full-time versus a fully healthy, part-time maximized split. His age should dictate decline, no question. The real question is can you off-set age decline with part-time play and ideal hitting circumstances to yield .800+ OPS? With Edmonds I think so, as .800 OPS would still be .100 below his career average, still a marked decline.

I think that's rather absurd. 140 innings of starting every 5th day is not the same as 100 innings of relief work every other day. I think you could say that the latter is significantly easier, as it pertains to injury prevention. When it comes to overuse, what's the cause of the injury? Fatigue leading to poor mechanics. When you've thrown more innings than that prior to the usage, and the usage isn't long enough to fatigue the arm and cause mechanical breakdown, then I don't think it's a particularly large risk(while noting the all pitchers are risks because pitching is unnatural, etc.). In your theory, any pitcher who has ever thrown 150+ innings as a starter could throw 140 innings as a reliever and suffer no consequences. I do not know where the danger zone lies, but there has to be one. Being on the very edge of usage patterns compared to all relievers has to be risky. If there's no risk in relieving there would be no relievers that get hurt throwing. I wasn't trying to theorize anything. I'm just stating that Marmol's style and movement is conducive to a high pitch count pitcher. It doesn't matter what role he fills (starter or reliever), trying to get him to be a more efficient pitcher is probably a waste of time, and possibly reduces his effectiveness breaking out of the zone. So for Lou, plugging him in with a 4 run lead to get sharp isn't likely to do anything for him. To protect him from injury, he just needs to be free to throw his game with fewer appearances.

He and Johnson make up the classic platoon. When used correctly, we can expect an .850 OPS from them. Pie is still the future, and I'm hoping these guys move on after this year. But they are producing now and hopefully get this team into the playoffs this year, so I'm happy.

Lou is insinuating he has to use Marmol frequently to keep him sharp, so he'll throw more strikes and keep his pitch counts down per at bat. The problem is Marmol's lack of sharpness is quite possibly due to the absurd overuse the past year. He's pretending he's got some sort of impossible task of balancing the rest Marmol needs with the frequency he needs. I don't know. Marmol as a starter had major issues with pitch count. I can't recall a time in his pro career he was ever a guy that would be termed efficient. A lot of people around here advocate moving him back into the rotation, but I'd be surprised if could turn out to be more than a 5 inning starter. He's just a high pitch count guy anyway. I don't think he's going to get sharper and Lou's best bet is to just use him less frequently.

I think you've got the right approach. In previous discussions, I 've likewise cited Matsui, and though I don't expect Fukudome to ever climb above 20 HRs, I do expect him to get better. Fukudome is solid and dependable. Not at all unimpressive.

It really doesn't seem to matter how many times people repeat it, this sentiment appears. No they haven't. They have played according to their pythag record, maybe above 1 or 2 games depending on which you use. Individually, there are a handful of players over-performing (Dempster, Theriot, and arguably Soto and Fukudome if you distrust the rookie numbers), but by slim margins overall (not Ludwig margins by any means). There are no players having absurdly disproportionate career years. There are players under-performing as well, namely Lee, Lilly, Hill, and Marquis. It's safe to say that people expected Hill to put up Dempster's numbers, and vice-versa. That doesn't change the bottom line production though. The Cubs are not playing over their heads, certainly not in the way the Cardinals have thus far. The Cubs were almost universally projected as the division winners and were expected to produce big numbers offensively. Is it possible last year's under-performance is influencing this year's perspective? Despite winning the division, last year's team under-performed by many games. That team gave away many wins. It could have been just a few games shy of this year's team offensively.

You're not accounting for the injuries they have. They're missing Carmona and Westbrook from the rotation. They are missing Hafner and Martinez from the lineup. That's the 2 and 3 starters, and the 4 and 5 hitters. Fully healthy, I agree, you don't give up while 5.5 games back. But they are not likely to make up ground while missing that many key guys.

You are not allowed to speak such ills. Rhetoric only please when discussing the blatantly abused Pie and Murton. It's not like Patterson is going to play LF or anything and lead-off, thereby filling the exact role as Soriano. Oh wait.

It's pretty simple and a reasonable bottom line. The Cubs are getting to the starter the second and third time through the line-up, particularly when the starter hits the 60-90 pitch count range. And given the number of walks, or even 3-2 counts that result in ball in play, the opposing starters are hitting higher pitch counts against the Cubs than their average.

Regardless your opinion of Eyre, dude is on a roll right now. No Runs in 30 straight appearances is impressive, even if many of those are just one or two batters.

I'm curious how many of those one run game losses are due to shoddy defense (which isn't always noted with box score errors). It seems at least 3 from off-the-top memory. It's really a moot point, as every team has losses from defensive woes. Just seems like the Cubs have a knack for 8th and 9th inning defensive mistakes in close games this year.

Happy to have been in the minority regarding DeRosa. At worst I expected him to be an average offense and defensive 2B, making his contract market value. He's out-produced that low-end expectation. DeRosa isn't the first Hendry signing that was blasted at signing time as an overpay, only to turn out being average contract or even a discounted contract entering the back half of the deal. Jones and Dempster come to mind right away. The most common thing that happens in the Transactions threads is a lack of understanding of the screwy baseball economy, particularly the year-over-year trends of the last decade, and a lack of relevance with respect to that year's market peers. What may seem like an overpay year one, even with top-end production for the player, may not be year three or four. With the exception of bench veterans, Hendry has done a good job reading the market. And even though he accurately read the bullpen market the year leading into the offseason of exploded value, there is a valid debate on whether it's money well spent (as bullpen arms can be cheap and there is no clear evidence that bullpen youth are more unreliable). So bench and (IMO) bullpen allocation are Hendry's dings in budget allocation, but he has done well with every day players and pitchers for the most part.

Sabathia is everything this franchise needs to have a post-season success. The offense and defense is there. The ace is there. Only the #2 is missing. If Hendry is going to be as 'win now' as I think he is (especially if the Cubs still have the best record in the NL come the deadline), he will overpay for a shot at Sabathia. When it comes to Sabathia, I think the hang-up would be with Cleveland's approval of the Cubs available assets, not Chicago's desire or kitchen sink offers.

If the trade deadline rolls around and the Cubs are still at or near the top of MLB win/loss record, you can bet your ass Hendry will overpay for a starter to make what would look like the Cubs best chances at a WS in a long time. I do not think Hendry will hesitate to give away future pieces for the here and now. I would only agree with this type of move if the starter was a proven recent past or present winner, and someone who would fill a 3-man playoff rotation. Sabathia and Burnett are good names for #2 or #3. This Cubs team looks good right now, and if they still look this good 4 weeks from now, I think Hendry has to go all-in for a WS run, even if it means knowingly over-paying in prospect value for a rental. It's what Lou wants, Hendry wants, and all but the safest and most conservative (including the most logical) fans want. Obviously long-term it isn't the right move, but this franchise is so starved for a WS I think it's decision makers have to go for it. The trick is to make sure the name is really worth it. Meche, Wolf, etc do not qualify. It has to be a 3-man rotation candidate.

No, the Cubs don't. They have an Ankiel in Iowa whose potential may yield number 2. Not even close to the same thing.

That's the entire point though...the Cubs aren't going to do that. I'm just curious if this is a way to more closely simulate moving him down.

I'm not a huge fan of hitting the pitcher 8th. It seems like an over-manage kind of move. But, if any team in baseball should be doing this, isn't it the Cubs? Would anyone buy the argument that after the first inning (assuming pitcher hits 8th), Soriano is no longer a lead-off hitter? It's almost like simulating an AL lineup with Soriano at the top. 1 - Soriano 2 - Fukudome 3 - Lee 4 - Ramirez 5 - Soto 6 - Edmonds 7 - DeRosa 8 - Pitcher 9 - Theriot Ignore any player swap arguments (ie Johnson, Cedeno, etc. - that's besides the point). Sort of a nonsensical post considering the team leads baseball in Runs and Wins, so this isn't a complaint on Lou's management. Just a discussion point.

While he is at it, Lou needs to stop trusting that kid Gallagher. It's not right that he trusts some rookie in the rotation, because he never does that.

It's fine to criticize the Cubs, but this is way over the top. This is a message board. There is no such thing as moderation in the general population of a message board. There is only room for extremes and emotes.

Edmonds' Cubs numbers are now : .258 /.303 /.484 /.787, which is quite a bit more power than Johnson. If the CF platoon can put up at least a .750 ops, it'll be respectable.

Murton's offensive skills don't match his position. He'd be in the big leagues if played MIF or CF and better defense, or if the Cubs had unusual power from a non-power spot and could live with Murton's lack of power in LF/RF. But with no speed, minimal power, and average defense at best, you have to bring more than just an OBP to the table for a "win now" team. I recall all the arguments against paying Fukudome when you could get Fukudome-light with Murton on the cheap, but I still just don't see it.