UK1679666180

They only way I think he'd be a possibility at this stage would be if Walker was traded and Hairston was the starting 2B. They'd need a RH'ed bat off the bench who could become a utility infielder as well as spot start.

For that to happen more things have to happen. Baker and Rothschild have to do a better job of monitoring their workload as the season wears on. Wood has to make adjustments w/his delivery and there are things Prior has to avoid doing that he did last year, that he did not do previously (media reports state that Prior has corrected some flaws, which is encouraging).

Sure, the potential is there, I'd rather see probability at this stage rather than possibility. They're counting on players who haven't been healthy recently becoming healthy and players rebounding from poor seasons. Those two circumstances are also surrounded by hoping certain players won't regress much.

Yep. Hardest to pick was the NL West.

Players can get the maximum amount of bat speed in a smaller zone. The shorter the look, the greater the bat speed can be generated. Hitters shorten their "strike zone" to about the size of an 8X10 picture and only swing at a pitch in that zone. If the pitch does not enter that zone, let it go, even if it goes beyond that zone and is still a strike, unless there is already two strikes in the count where you go back to the original strike zone.

Strikeouts are never of value, but avoiding strikeouts for the sake of avoiding of strikeouts isn't good either, which is what Goony was getting at. Someone who sacrifices the ability to hit for average and/or power to avoid K's isn't helping the team by doing so, except in specific(and ultimately rare) situations. Strikeouts can also be an indication of a hitter who works the count and is not afraid of hitting w/two strikes. Hitters can be equally productive with a higher K ratio, it all depends on the hitter. Ideally, you want as few as Ks as possible, but if he is productive with an approach that includes having a high K rate, I wouldn't change it. If you've been taught zone-hitting, you're typically going to have a higher BB/K ratio. I am a proponent of zone-hitting, btw.

Even though I lean towards tools, I would still have not put Cedeno on the 40 man roster and exposed him to the Rule 5. I would've kept Sisco, though.

Division Winners: STL ATL SF (AZ is still a couple of years away) WC-NYM AL: CWS Bos Oak WC-LAA

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&yr=2006&sTeamofInterestNodeIds=741 As much as I've been down on Brooks and his staff, he did have a top 40 class, which is huge for UK. He'll likely give the next coach more to work with than he had during his 4 years.

In your opinion, is he getting squeezed sometimes and overcorrecting by coming back to much over the plate, or has he just lost some of the touch? I ask because many games last year were a battle of wills between him and the ump. If Maddux could keep nipping at the outside (to a right hander) and get the ump to give it to him early it seemed like he would be in for a good outing. I don't think Maddux was squeezed more than any other pitcher. He just had too much of the plate on pitches that were meant for the corners. When that happens, you'll see higher HR ratios as well as H/IP. Hey UK, I agree with your assesment. I've only seen Maddux's conditioning mentioned once though. Greg pitched like a 40 year old when he was just getting his start, power pitching hasn't ever been a part of his game. Saying that, I personally feel Maddux could pitch into his mid 40's with success. If Maddux has truley worked hard on his conditioning, I think he could suprise a lot of us. With Maddux, I'm not sure how of an improvement you'll see, rather if he'll be able to throw 90+ pitches more often. Is working himself into better shape to try and improve his velocity/movement? Or, is he trying to improve his ability to stay fresh longer? I'm not sure how much someone his age can improve his velocity or movement compared to trying to stretch his outings. I don't think the decline of Maddux has been b/c lack of conditioning.

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/ChooseChartPlayer.py

Well Derrek Lee is much the same type of player, and if i recall the only time he hasn't played is when he had little injuries and the end of blowouts (we've never really had a true backup 1B in that time though). And that bugged me too. I think Lee is a wonderful player that can play almost every game but IMO he needs a couple of days off. Agreed, if you have a player that has been fortunate enough not to land on the DL at any point of the year; a manager can bench him when he's not in a slump although many won't.

In your opinion, is he getting squeezed sometimes and overcorrecting by coming back to much over the plate, or has he just lost some of the touch? I ask because many games last year were a battle of wills between him and the ump. If Maddux could keep nipping at the outside (to a right hander) and get the ump to give it to him early it seemed like he would be in for a good outing. I don't think Maddux was squeezed more than any other pitcher. He just had too much of the plate on pitches that were meant for the corners. When that happens, you'll see higher HR ratios as well as H/IP.

Maddux has similar control as he always has had, he doesn't have the same command as he did. When pitching on the outside corner and you miss by 6 inches, it's better to throw it 6 inches further outside than 6 towards the heart of the plate. Many of his HRs last year were caused by missing his spots in the zone, same with Prior.

I'd have no problem with a Walker/Hairston platoon at 2B, I feel that would likely be the best bet.

I think so, everything surrounding a potential lineup change compared to last year has been 2B. Neifi is the possible replacement and he's being considered as the starting 2B, not SS. Fwiw, the Cubs brought Hollandsworth back last year to start in LF and it backfired, there wasn't any indication that Dubois would be replace Alou in LF, even with Hollandsworth being a 4th OF'er. That was more health related, IIRC. I think it's a different scenario and the circumstances surrounding it.

Glad to see that Cedeno will likely be the starting SS, not much of a surprise there. He's definitely earned the right to go into this year as the starting SS. Interesting as far as an open competition for 2B with Walker as the early fav. and how they'll judge each of them. Will they need to see Walker make strides defensively? Regardless of what was said, Walker did not improve defensively over '04 and has to be factored. Will they judge Perez on his bat? Regardless of what was said, Neifi had a very good year defensively, but a poor year offensively. His poor year offensively has to be factored into the decision How will they judge Hairston? Hairston is almost in-between Walker and Perez, not as good offensively as Walker, but better defensively and the vice versa for Perez. He has slightly better speed than Perez and Walker, but lacks the instincts of Perez. For me, I have no problem with competition and it would be Walker's job to lose heading into ST.

Somewhere, Uncle Sterling is smiling with his new car.

Much of the speed advantage Cedeno has over Walker is negated by the fact Walker gets out of the box on the left side rather than the right. Cedeno has decent speed, but not great speed, better than Walker's but not significantly better.

I did overstate the value of Marshall, although sematical, he is gifted, just doesn't have the velocity to be "very" gifted.

Didn't Teixiera's value dip a bit due to a broken leg? Without the broken leg, Tex may have been the Cubs #1 pick. He was certainly being talked up as the Cubs #1 pick. Or did he break his leg the previous year and he elected to stay in school? Years start blending together as you get older I guess. Tex broke his leg the same year, but I don't think it would've impacted the Cubs not taking Prior. Prior's ceiling would've likely still been higher if Teixiera had not fractured his ankle/leg at Tech. He slipped to Texas, b/c of his contract demands as TB and Philly selected Brazelton and Floyd respectively.

Talent and makeup... Pie is #1, he has the highest ceiling in the system be far, but his approach to the game is just as special. Fuld is a sleeper, he's not the most talented, but he's a hard worker. Marshall is another one, very gifted, done well to add some bulk to his frame. Gallagher (biased), he's has done very well and is a hard worker and a good teammate. Players like Greenberg and Theriot as welll as Bacon, might not have as much talent as they need, but are great teammates.

I'll tackle this... 1)It does distract the pitcher, who is more likely to throw FBs (easier on the hitter) and rush his delivery throwing from the stretch. It could change how the defense is positioned and the pitcher's approach to the AB. 2)I don't think speed distracts the C, his focus will be more shifted towards the runner, but the only thing different is pitch selection. Maybe he'll get out of his stance prematurely and rush a throw. 3)Speed is an asset, it's adds value to the offense. You don't need speed at the top, but if it's there and the hitter has the other qualities needed to be an effective leadoff hitter (good hitter, works the count, draws BBs, etc.) it completes the puzzle moreso than someone w/out speed. 4)Like any offensive plan, small can win. Like the 3-run HR brigade of Weaver, it requires execution to be effective. If you execute enough, you can score w/small ball. But, you need pitching and defense as well to win. 5)You need a team to be fundamentally sound, every player that has been to the majors has been fundamentally sound. Some are more than others, but if your team is more sound fundamentally, you have an advantage. But, talent still outweighs fundamentals. But, players w/out speed can have more value than players with a great amount of speed. Players w/out speed can be very good leadoff hitters. Small can be ineffective. Teams can win w/out being the best fundamentally (Boston '04).

If you look at players like Ben Christensen, Sisco, & Ryu you'll find players with questionable make-up. Now, if you're talking about a pitcher's skill-set as far as his makeup, every team loves a mid 90s heavy FB and the ability to spin a breaking pitch.

If the primary thing you got from "Scout's Honor" was that its purpose was anti-Moneyball, I don't think you got everything from the book that you should've. I thought it was a mistake by Shanks to keep mentioning "Moneyball" and how it differs from the Braves' perspective. This is separate than how Schuerholz feels, who has been quoted as saying that teams who rely more data analysis are closer to teams that are weighted more by skills analysis than most think they are. In the same boat, I think Lewis (not Beane) incorrectly tried to devalue scouts in general. To me, scouts are the lifeline of baseball. Don't let the writers dictate the story of the success for the Braves and A's, Lewis wrote Moneyball, Shanks wrote Scout's Honor. The A's rely heavily on scouts and the Braves rely heavily on data analysis. As far as why the Cubs haven't been successful at developing position players, they have been very pitcher heavy in the early rounds. With Reed and Harvey, they are probably the two more toolsy players drafted out of HS recently, you can throw Johnston into the mix as well. I think the instructors down at Mesa and Boise have to prepare the hitters better for what's going to happen at Peoria and give Zisk and Joshua a solid foundation from which to work with. Of course, the Cubs have to get better at signing players Internationally again. Right now, their top prospects are mostly coming from the draft and they're drafting from a short stack w/picks being spent on FA. To answer your question, it's probably a combo. Quoting Tom House on a pitcher's mechanics "You're only as strong as your weakest link". If they're doing a good job of drafting high ceiling position players and not able to develop them, you can never tell that they're drafting the right guy and vice versa.