UK1679666180

Even though I haven't seen Cashner, I would prob. put Lake, Castro, and Thomas ahead of him.

This single sentence was like a brutal dart to the face. For extra bonus pain, I suggest playing a game called "list of relievers the Cubs could have signed for the approximate cost of Aaron Miles". I just wanted to put it on a tee for "BacktoBanks".

It was Bakersfield's 1st year and even though they only had 13 or so wins, 5 of them came against Fresno st. and Nebraska. I'll always have a soft spot for programs that either start or start again a baseball program. I have no idea why schools like UTEP and Wisconsin have no baseball programs.

UC-CS, same thing.

If they have the BPA as a college reliever and they take him, hell why not?

I'm glad UC Bakersfield won today, I'm finding myself rooting for them.

Tracy Smith has done a great job with IU, that 1-2 combo of Arnett and Bashmore is the best in the conference.

Not related to current Cubs, but I saw Piggy throw tonight and it wasn't very good as he got knocked around by an Indy League team struggling to score runs. I also heard that Grant Johnson is healthy again and threw well in his 1st start.

I always found it odd when pitchers can miss so many bats and yet get hit hard like Hatley did. Although I've never seen him, I assume that's a combo of a decent out-pitch combined with suspect control on a medicore FB that often leaves him behind in the count and having to go to that FB.

Fwiw, Delcarmen would likely be the Cubs 2nd best reliever.

For once, I'd like to see the Cubs be patient will a high ceiling position prospect. Hopefully, Vitters can con't to hit and maybe finish the year at Daytona with the poss. of starting '10 in the FSL or maybe SL.

Harrison might make it as a utility type of guy, as he does have a very good knack of centering the ball and has plus speed but I don't know if that'll carry to higher levels. I would say he's also more likely to be 5'6" than 5'8". Beyond his speed, I don't think the rest of his offensive tools will project much beyond the minors.

He could go higher as all it takes is one scout to really like him, usually when there are guesses as to which round a guy will go, unless it's obvious, it's a well kept secret by the scouts.

Kelly and Suiter are projected to go in the middle rounds and Scoma in the later rounds/senior sign. Keefer will likely go to in the early to mid rounds 10-20, although signability might be an issue (UCLA)

Well if you count on Peavy giving you an extra inning per game than Marshall that gives you one less inning from the dregs of the pen. I would think that combined with Peavy's greater run prevention over the (let's say hypothetically) 6 innings that Marshall would've pitched, then yes, I think it's greater than the 1 or 2 ABs or 1 or 2 innings per game difference. (This is all assuming Marshall is part of a hypothetical Peavy trade) To me, the 60 or IP from a quality BP'er over Heilman/Cotts is worth more than the 30 IP as well as the production throughout the 1st 5 IP. That's before factoring that it won't take giving up Vitters as well.

There is another team in the city he could play for. Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench? The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team. You don't trade for bench and bullpen guys in May. You don't give up important prospects for them either. Upgrading the bench/pen has nothing to do with a Peavy trade unless it's a matter of money. I crave Peavy more as a safeguard for injuries to Zambrano or Harden than as a replacement for Sean Marshall. If you can make the Peavy trade without giving up Marshall, you upgrade the pen and rotation all in one move. Sure you don't make those trades in May, but still need the pieces to do so come June/July. The Cubs aren't going to improve the pen and bench properly w/out trading valued prospects (it won't be Vitters, but it won't Chirinos or Dubois either). I'd rather see the Cubs hang onto Vitters, Samardzija, etc. than trade for Peavy, given where the Cubs' window is. You make safeguards with Z and Harden throughout the year by monitoring their workloads better.

There is another team in the city he could play for. Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench? The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team. You either have to improve the run scoring or the run preventing. If they think they can count on Peavy for a bunch of low scoring 7 inning games, bridging the gap over the horrible 5/6 inning relievers, and they don't see an opportunity to improve at the need positions of 3B/2B, they might feel the need to do so. They've spent a ton of money on the outfield in recent years. They've spent on keeping the corner guys. Is it really run prevention though? Is Marshall to Peavy a greater run prevention than less IP from Heilman, Cotts, etc. or greater run production by keeping espec. Miles, Freel, Scales, Johnson (vs. RH'ers) etc with a more capable bat? If the Cubs need a starting pitcher, I'd be for it, heck I was for it when it was being discussed, but I think there are bigger issues than Marshall to Peavy. I don't think they can get Peavy and also improve the bench and pen. It will likely be less expensive as far as what they give up to improve the pen and bench compared to Peavy.

There is another team in the city he could play for. Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench? The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

I don't know why that would factor much, most managers have thrown pitchers under the bus throughout their careers at some point. I don't think Guillen overworks pitchers and they have a very good pitching coach with Cooper.

They have holes all over & with Danks and Floyd not doing well as well as trading Vazquez, they need a top of the rotation guy as well.

As I suspect the Cubs wouldn't part w/Vitters any time soon, the Sox are likely in the same boat with Beckham. Beckham and Poreda would be a raping by SD.

Marshall doesn't have the health or the stuff that Floyd does. Given Floyd's contract, I'd take Marshall but as far as a player/player comparison, I'd take Floyd.

No, it's something I speculated as to what it might be similar to.

This year, sure he does. Over his career, he'll end up as a flaky #3 starter which is more than I expect from Marshall.