TheDude

Do you have the quote? The is a strong distinction between saying "he will be traded" and "we'll explore our options". The 'desperation' associated with trading Jones should be attributed 100% to reporters unless someone can put up an exact quote from Hendry demonstrating otherwise.

Where was Jim Hendry quoted? If that rumor is true, and Hendry is shopping him to everyone, and it's leaking, then how much leverage can he possibly have? Right, so we should ding Hendry for a three-clause conditional rumor? Let's add a few more clauses, as well, "if it's a full moon, and Steinbrenner has a hemroid, and Mickey Mouse assists the deal as a 'special assistant'". How do we know this isn't simply a case of Hendry talking to all teams, looking for a deal? The sense of despeartion seems to be added by the reporter, and nothing else.

I have no interest whatsoever in Baldelli. He's one of Felix Pie's top comparables in multiple projection systems, for one thing. Why trade for a guy when we already have a similar player in the system. Because Pie won't do it 2007. It's that simple. Baldelli's contract is such that he could be moved in 2008 clearing the way for Pie.

This thread shows that Cubs fans continue to overvalue Cubs prospects. I think Tim has the right idea, trade Jones and Marmol for Jennings, with one year in mind. Only one of the Cubs propsects besides Hill is going to see the rotation in 2008 or beyond, in all likelihood. There is no point in keeping them all. This lets the remaining kids develop one more year. Groom a replacement for Jennings. Then let Jennings walk and receive an "A" prospect for him from whatever team signs him. The long-term cost is Jones for Jennings, as the prospect value washes out. I like Marmol, but he is not going to get his shot in Chicago again.

I don't know, but if the Cubs trade JJ they will need to get a slugger or a high OBP guy for SS or CF. The angle I'm seeing is that they'll trade Jones for some pitching, then turnaround and sign Lofton and Trot Nixon (Mr. Miles' pick). Soriano will play RF, Lofton in CF and Nixon and Murton platoon in LF. That would be a terrible, terrible offensive team. No it wouldn't. No lineup that features Lee, Ramirez, and Soriano is "terrible". It may not be number 1 in the NL, but it would be a far, far cry from terrible.

I don't think folks understand the market accurately for 28 year old innings eaters. Jennings will command more than one unproven prospect, or a MLB tested young player.

but Schmidt was never as good as Clemens, Morris, Wynn, Gibson, Carlton, or Seaver to begin with... These lists of comparables are based on performance, so how can you make this claim?

I'm as a big a Schmidt fan as anyone, and have promoted him as the top offseason priority for months. But "doing smart things" cannot be limited to strictly signing one pitcher, who might be a tough sell from the beginning. That's not smart, that narrow.

Of course you'd like to look at it like that, because it's the only way to make your case. But in reality he's bee inconsistent. He's got a fairly high walk rate, his ERA+ has been up and down and he's highly susceptible to the HR. I liked him as a guy who you'd slot at the end of your rotation and hope for 180 mediocre innings. But he's nowhere near a #3 pitcher, and clearly not consistent. We have different interpretations of a number 3 starter. If Lilly is your version of a back of the rotation starter, then you must be describing top 5 pitching staff in baseball, or a definitive playoff calibur team, and not with consideration of the entire league. Lilly's 2006, 3-year splits, and career numbers paint him as slightly above average in most standard pitcher measurements. Being average, or a little above average is what a team should expect from a number 3 starter. As an illustration, how many teams had 3 starters with a better 2006 than Lilly? Detroit, San Diego, Houston, Oakland, and the Angels would probably use Lilly as a 4th starter. And maybe Minnesota (although Radke and Lilly are probably interchangeable as 3s). For the rest of the league (from 2006), he would project as a likely 3rd starter. If you view innings pitched as your measure of reliable, then yes, he hasn't hit 200 IP. If you use Games Started as the measure, Lilly has only missed 9-10 starts in 4 years (depending on how you round the fraction). He's not reliable for 7 innings, but he is consistent for taking his turn in the rotation.

$9.375MM/yr...... yeah, that's malarky. If that is true, and the Cubs are actually trying to get Schmidt, they're dooming themselves by driving up his price on their own by giving Lilly a contract like this. It's not malarky - it's market value. If Lilly wanted 12+ then he would be overvalued. But as is, 7 million a year nets you a reliable #4 veteran starter, and 9-10 million a reliable #3 veteran starter in the current market. How is Lilly a reliable #3? He's an inconsistent, one year up, one year down, type of pitcher. He was atrocious as recently as 2005. I think that's an exaggeration. Lilly's 2006, his 3-year splits, and career numbers are all similar and don't show great variation. That shows reliability when you're describing a guy with over 900 Innings pitched. To your point, he had a bad year in 2005 and a slow start as a bullpen pitcher breaking into the league (1999-2001), but otherwise 2002-2004 and 2006 are all very consistent. It is also worth noting that bad year in 2005 was an injury-shortened season, so perhaps the injury was affecting performance. I would rather judge 2005 an anamoly than to say Lilly is an up-and-down or inconcsistent pitcher.

$9.375MM/yr...... yeah, that's malarky. If that is true, and the Cubs are actually trying to get Schmidt, they're dooming themselves by driving up his price on their own by giving Lilly a contract like this. It's not malarky - it's market value. If Lilly wanted 12+ then he would be overvalued. But as is, 7 million a year nets you a reliable #4 veteran starter, and 9-10 million a reliable #3 veteran starter in the current market.

If I had a choice between two middle of the pack starters, I'd take Padilla over Lilly. Padilla and Westbrook would likely create one of the better rotations in the NL. If Hill shows the same glimpses as last year as well as Prior showing somewhat of his '03 form, it could be the best. Of course the one advantage Lilly has over the others is that he's a lefty. GMs think a mediocre lefty is better than a mediocre righty. I'd take Lilly over Padilla. Their 3-year splits are virtually identical, but Lilly has faced 3 straight years of the Red Sox and Yankees, with an astounding 26 starts against those two teams (out of 89 total starts in 3 years, 29%), while Padilla never faced any given team more than 6 times for his 80 starts over 3 years. I just feel like Lilly has been through the grinder more than Padilla and has a slight advantage in 3-year splits for core numbers and durability.

Murton most likely, who I would not want to part with. Beane probably looks at our farm system and laughs. If you're talking about hitting prospects sure. The Cubs don't have much worth parting with. But Beane or any GM would value some of the Cubs younger, long-range pitching prospects. Why would Beane laugh at the best young arms lower in the farm?

Is it too early to file the Schmidt DL jokes? I'm sure sick of them. The guy has averaged 30 starts for 5 consecutive years. Hell, he's only pitched 10 fewer games than Zambrano over the last five years.

It's quite obvious to those paying attention. But it's still something that needs to be plainly written out. There's still a large contingent bewildered about Pierre not returning. Many people think the Cubs problem is a lack of small ball and poor defense. It's not saying a lot, but it appears to be an answer to a chat question, and it's a 100% accurate statement. I agree. I liked Neyer's answer; it said a lot by saying a little. By making a point to not acknowledge the details in the question, he's saying look, let's not miss the forest for the trees. I didn't get that at all. I saw someone ask, "why do bananas ripen?" and the answer was, "bananas are yellow".

Well, if that was the intent of the question, it was poorly worded. Neyer doesn't talk about that end of the business, and really, how the heck would he know? He talks about the productivity of players, and their relative value against one another. Asking Neyer want kind of pressure Hendry has to win, or whether the team is for sale is pretty silly. I understood the question, and it looks like most of the people in this thread did as well. Neyer's answer was very plainly a bad one, because it didn't even come close to addressing the question. It really doesn't matter if Neyer is right or wrong on the OBP issue, his answer was completely useless considering the question.

I wouldn't. I seriously doubt Ryu, in an environment where learning curve leash is shrinking, would put up Batistas numbers for 200 innings. In fact, I doubt very much Ryu could give you more than 150 IP, which means the other 50 IP are starts going to an even lower prospect.

But AGon had the reputation of being a stellar fielder, didn't he? If anything, that incident says to me that even a slick fielding, no-hit SS can screw up in a huge situation, but if your team is up by 8 runs then it wouldn't matter. I want an offensive juggernaut. I want Tejada. Lugo would be ok at SS, but not so much a difference maker like Miggy. Anyone but Izturis. Gonzalez was not a stellar fielder. He had a good year that year (maybe his best), but by no means equalled the defensive skills of Izturis. I'd like to see an offensive improvement myself, but won't be spinning out of control if Izturis is there on opening day.

That's not very insightful.

Or he still has that Gonzalez booted ball on his mind that cost the team a World Series appearance. Not saying it's right, but you never know. Izturis doesn't bother me nearly as much as most of this board, mainly because I think at age 26 his offense isn't a lost cause, and because he won't bat anywhere but 8th in a non-Dusty world.

Already a thread in this forum.

That's assuming the market for position players has gone up while the market for frontline pitchers has been stagnant. The only thing that we can say for sure has increased, in this market, is the cost for players in terms of dollars. The relative cost of a big hitting SS and a starting pitcher has not been clearly alterted. I understand your point. I should have been more specific - Baltimore has continually asked for a young frontline starter, at least a few years from free agency (Santana, Prior, etc). That's a market that is very difficult to put a dollar value to - so while I don't mean to suggest it's stagnant, I do think it is more difficult to quantify in dollars, and could therefore be under/over-valued. But Tejada's value has very clearly risen, much the same way Manny Ramirez's value has risen. So I think Baltimore has more leverage this year than they did last year with regards to trading Tejada for a young starter.

I think the window may have passed. This market has increased Tejeda's value considerably IMO and he is now worth that front-line starter the Orioles have been holding out for, when he may not have been last year.

If the cost is Dempster and the prospects do not include Pie or a selection of true minor league pitchers (Paw, Veal, Gallagher, Sam) then this is a no-brainer IMO. Ideally Atalanta would want some of the more MLB ready "prospects" (or at least AAA) the Cubs schowcased last year, such as Marshall, Mateo, Guzman, etc.

I don't see how this eliminates them from Schmidt talks. I wouldn't put anything past the Yankees, but for what it is worth, Olney in his blog today states: Thought it was worth mentioning the opinion is out there.