TheDude

I don't think the Cubs can. The problem for the Cubs is that the players that teams want in these deals the Cubs can't afford to give. This is what I have been saying all off-season as people bash Hendry for not getting that stud bat. In addition to not being able to give up the best pitching, the Cubs don't actually have the asked for value on the roster. That's just an indictment of Hendry's work as farm director and earlier work as GM. If they don't have anything that people want on the roster now, it's Hendry's fault. This is his roster, and the farm is mostly his doing. You just isolated text completely out of context from the point. I did not say the Cubs have "don't have anything" - I said the Cubs don't have the specific brand of starter teams are asking for when it cmes to dealing their big bats. I could not have made my point more clear if you re-read the entire post.

I don't think the Cubs can. The problem for the Cubs is that the players that teams want in these deals the Cubs can't afford to give. This is what I have been saying all off-season as people bash Hendry for not getting that stud bat. In addition to not being able to give up the best pitching, the Cubs don't actually have the asked for value on the roster. The Cubs pitchers range from superior to prospects with no healthy above-average proven MLB starters inbetween (besides Maddux - who isn't going to be traded). Wood would qualify without the health concerns. The Cubs simply don't have what teams want. The Cubs have two Cy Young potential aces, a reclamation ace potenital, a wily veteran intent on retiring a Cub, and a boatload of unproven prospects. So teams ask for more than they might from other teams (Prior, Zambrano) and the Cubs say no.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the pitching predictions are in the Bill James abstract but i don't believe he endorsed them. I believe he said it couldn't be done so other members of his staff did them. You're right, it was the abstract. Whether he explicitly endorsed them I don't know, but in my world, when your name is on the product, then you endorse it by default.

Dusty hit Walker in the 2-hole 254 times last year, and he has been primarily a 2-hole hitter in his 3-year splits (780 ABs, next highest AB total at lead-off, 234 ABs) and throughout his career. If we act on the assumption that Walker is a Cub to start the season, he is above both Perez and Hairston on the depth chart (yes, even Dusty's depth chart), and there is no reason to assume he won't hit where he is comfortable, produces, and where his current manager has hit him the most.

I can say Maddux's control is still there because the walk total is the same and he still gets a healthy number of strikeouts his way. By the way, the HR total is too high (as I already stated), but I don't attribute it all to loss of control - umps have taken back some of the generous zone he had in the 90's and the division has been/is full of sluggers and small/hitters ball parks. And ERA is the least of the critical pitching stats that matter. There isn't statistical evidence to support the claim that Williams is better unless you predict Williams growth and Maddux decline. Maddux has been steady at his declined value from career norms for three years now. It suddenly won't just fall apart. So Williams will have to get significantly better, particularly with regards to k/walk ratio. I hope you're right, but I wouldn't put money on it.

You are a marxist. :wink: While I find your opinions insightful, based largely in fact, and most often correct, they are still opinions. Requiring someone to be indoctrinated before posting is ridiculous. And elitist. On topic - As of today's 40-man, I see Dusty's lineup looking like: CF Pierre 2B Walker 1B Lee 3B Ramirez RF Jones C Barret LF Murton SS Cedeno My preferred "tryout" lineup is this however: CF Pierre LF Murton 1B Lee 3B Ramirez 2B Walker RF Jones C Barret SS Cedeno I really want to see what Murton can provide in the 2-hole. And that allows Jones to slide down to the 6-hole where he is better suited. If Walker gets traded, half the lineup changes in order. So I'm just assuming he plays everyday for now, and I'm sure we'll have another three or four lineup threads before opening day, so I can shift it up then if he gets traded.

I think that sources prediction was a bit unrealistic, expecting improvement out of a pitcher Maddux's age. But he's going to have a better year if only because he'll be given a spot all year long, while Williams will have to unfairly battle with Rusch for time. The key for Maddux is to keep that HR total down. The control is still there, but that HR total doubled from career norms in the 2003-2005 timespan. [edit - I mean doubled per year, not doubled the career total] BTW - Didn't the Bill James endorsed pitching prediction give Maddux a similar 2006 line?

Those are certainly the staff numbers we've been looking for since 2003. Those are staff numbers capable of taking any division in baseball. I'm holding firm to my assertion that this team has to win the one-run games, likely 4-3 or 5-4, to have any chance this year. Also, I've argued in several other threads that Maddux is better than Williams and will have a better year in 2006 than Williams (with much dispute from others), and it is nice to see several "professional" sources make the same prediction.

I read that Rodgers article, and numerous things just made me shake my head. But the one that really got me was... So Javy Lopez, at age 35, has more upside than Ramon Hernandez, age 29? You could argue that Lopez might outproduce Herndandez, but upside? Come on.

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games. Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games. The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down. That's not selective memory. I didn't just arbitrarily assign 6 runs to a blowup. First, you said a lot of 4-3 games. Maddux had 9 games last year where he allowed more than 4, Zambrano had 6 (Rusch had 5 in a lot fewer starts). In 2004 Maddux had 9 and Zambrano had 5. Another thing to look at for blowup games are games when you give up as many runs as innings pitched, what Tim labeled as disaster starts a few years back. Because there is a big difference between giving up 4 in 4 innings and 5 in 9 innings. In 2004 Maddux had 7, Zambrano had 2, in 2005 Maddux had 5 Zambrano had 3. Rusch had 5 and 4. Ok, so if I use your definition of blowup game, since it was your term introduced n the conversation, where are the 10 Maddux blowups in the past? Where is the trend that sets 10 as the 2006 predictor? 10 was your stated number. All I'm asking is that you recognize it was an exaggerated comment that isn't nearly as bad as made out to be. If Maddux clocks in at 5 "disaster games" in 2006 (the same as 2005), it'll be just a few more than the aces, and probably league average.

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games. Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games. The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down.

At this point, I'm over it. Just finish the damn thing already.

I think the Cubs DO have the pitching to win the WS - they have no more question marks than any body else in the division pitching-wise. I'd feel confident taking it a step further than just the division. I've studied the projected SP rotation for all NL teams headed into ST and every single one of them has at least 2 question marks. In fact, the argument should really be just limited to any three known quantities on each staff...because for most teams ST will be the barometer for establishing the complete rotation. That said, I'd throw the Cubs 3 known SP quantities (Zambrano, Prior, Maddux) against any other NL 1-3 and take even or better odds every time. St. Louis and Houston are the only two I'd take even odds on. This Cubs team is built for better success in the post-season than the regular and will live and die in the regular season based upon whoever emerges as the healthy and dependable 4th and 5th starters. We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

Tampa Bay Manatee Clubbers

Ok, so those are the Williams favorable numbers...how about the rest? Like strike-out to walk ratio? WHIP? Williams has to cut down his walk total before he can be considered Maddux's equal, but he has been fortunate with those extra free passes not to have a higher ERA.

We definately have different approaches. I don't see the Cubs window as closing - that passed in 2004 and the cycle begins again. The Cubs can let Wood and Maddux walk away after this year and allow 2 other young pitchers to emerge in 2007 as Zambrano and Prior did in 2003. Continue to give Prior and Zambrano the money they are worth, and lock up Lee for 4 more years. Ramirez is still locked-up. So with that in mind (the core all in place), you move Williams at his current high value for a younger, developing positional player, looking at 2007 as the impact year, not 2006. Cleveland is the model IMO. Moving Crisp while his value is high not for impact player for 2006, but a developing player for 2007, 2008, and 2009 runs.

What is there to disagree with? If you state that Williams is better than Maddux for the 2006 rotation, you are projecting improvement for Williams, not basing it on current levels of production. Maddux's numbers last year were better (particularly in the stats that matter most for pitchers), and unless Williams improves his control, they project to be better this year also. You're also mistaken regarding a gradual decline with Maddux. Maddux's 2003 was a sharp decline from career norms, but he has almost completely leveled off at that declined value. In fact, his 2005 numbers are nearly identical to 2003, except 2003 hid an extra 10 unearned runs that represents the difference in his ERA. He actually allowed fewer runs per inning in 2005 than in 2003. Maddux's pitching style isn't such that he should start declining again. I see no reason for it, and other pitchers of his style have proven in the past that they can plateua production into their early 40s.

As is apparently every othe Cubs prospect unless the deal involves one of the top 5 players in baseball, and even then people around shake their heads. Trying to talk value on this board usually is very difficult. Williams is a very good trading chip for Chicago right now, perhaps the best they have to maximize value.

You'll have to show me proof that the league doesn't value him that much before I'll believe that. And there is no 'truth' to the Rich Hill comment.

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt? Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out. Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked. By trading for Kearns? If you want to trade Williams or the other starters, that's fine, but Kearns isn't very good, and wouldn't help much, especially for the cost. There isn't anything I can tell you to sway you're opinion. All I can tell you is that you are underwriting Kearns prematurely and overvalueing Williams. The league and scouts don't agree with your stated values of these players.

Yeah, actually it does. Stocked has no reference to quality, just quantity. The Cubs have more than 5 starters going into the season, and will have Wood and Miller joining as the season goes on. They have more than one kid who could plug-in a spot start if someone else goes down in April or May. That very easily qualifies as stocked, regardless of whether you think the quality is just mediocre across the board (which it isn't - it's killer at 1-2 and average from 3-5, which incidently makes it better as a whole than 80% of the league). Maddux is the number 3, even with decline. With similar ERAs, but with a vastly superior strike-out to walk ratio and lower WHIP, Maddux is still better than Williams.

I don't think Dunn should net a front-line starter. That said, I don't think he's being shopped. It isn't uncommon for fans to undervalue other team's talent, and overvalue their favorite team's talent. Dunn has top 10 offensive numbers in numerous categories, including the Sabremetric friendly and coveted stats of the current era of baseball. And at age 26, he should continue that peak level performance for at least 3 more years, and not at a price that kills. Dunn's production per dollar is killer. The blinders have to come off at some point. Talent like Dunn's is definately worth a front-line starter, especially considering his top level production level is steady and predictable, a rarity in baseball.

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt? Because he isn't the 3rd best pitcher with Wood hurt. And if even if we get past the personal opinion difference of his talent level, the Cubs have several other young arms that could use a MLB try-out while Wood is out. Folks about complain about the Cubs not seling high. Here is a chance to sell high while the rotation is stocked.

If Dunn is on the table, he easily justifies a front-line starter. A package of prospects will not get the deal done, unless that package includes 2 of the top 10 pitching prospects in all of baseball (Cubs don't have them). Only the A's could get that deal done IMO. For the Cubs, they will have to look at Prior as the only legitimate starting point to get Dunn. Prior + Hill + Wellemeyer might net Dunn + good positional prospect (Denorfia or Perez?) or something similar.

I would trade Williams for Kearns. Williams is surplus. Kearns represents insurance off the bench if Murton falls flat, Jones gets injured, or he is simply a potentially solid first bench option. Having Kearns also insures that any aging spring training invitees hoping to make the club are shown the door. Kearns is in a rare position, which is, he has the talent to be an everyday player, but a team could get away with stashing on the bench for 2006. Not many bench options have that qualification.