dew1679666265

Jackson is probably the most likely guy not to stick due to ineffectiveness. He's been bad enough long enough to make it somewhat unlikely that any team selects him - and even if they do, it's pretty unlikely he sticks.

I don't know when he'd be selected, but I do find it hard to believe that a team that will trade for Mark Teahen would not select Ryan Flaherty. It's certainly possible, I just don't really see much downside for a team like the Royals/Pirates/Astros to grab him and stash him on the roster.

That was his camp's initial demands. If a team actually meets that and doesn't negotiate it down, then they've done a poor job of negotiating. It would be expected that Wilson and his agent would aim too high (6/120) and an offering team would aim too low (say, 4/60) and then they'll meet somewhere in the middle (5/90 perhaps).

David Patton's highest level was A+ when the Cubs selected him. When he went back to the minors, he went to AA, though. He had big stuff, though, so your he's in line with your intuition. Or they think that Flaherty's issues and lack of upside are enough for another team either to not pick him or not keep him rostered long enough.

That's a really poor use of assets, though. Even if they don't think that highly of Flaherty, Rhee, or Antigua, all three have to have much more trade value than simply giving them away in the Rule 5 or as compensation. It's kind of like the Juan Pierre trade. The only player from that trade that really hurt to lose in the long run was Nolasco, but it doesn't make the trade ok. Theo not liking Flaherty, Rhee, or Antigua is fine, but giving away assets with value for no reason is not.

This is the only argument that really makes any sense that I've seen. After cutting Hill, bringing back Wood and rostering BJackson and Guzman, we'll be at 36 players. I think Theo is willing to take the chance that the questions surrounding Flaherty (lack of upside), Rhee (health, inexperience), and Antigua (reliever) will be enough for teams to not try to stash them so that we can leave 4 spots open to fill major league needs.

If Theo is getting played so badly that he's taking the chance we lose a guy like Flaherty and somebody else if Flaherty is selected in compensation to Boston, then I'm questioning whether our brain trust is as much better than Hendry as I originally thought. That would be a simply awful bit of negotiating by Theo.

He only played 49 games at AAA last year, so it's not like there's a real strong sample size from which to go on. Overall he's a guy with a .469 career minor league slugging percentage, was a first round pick, and has only had 3 years of minor league service time. The upside is there to get better and, at worst, he'd be a cheap bat off the bench for a team like the Royals, Pirates, or Astros looking to find cheap production. He doesn't have to be a big offensive contributor anytime soon to stash him on the bench for cheap production. He only doesn't have to be awful.

Yeah, it's really confusing why any of those three weren't rostered, but I won't believe they're part of the compensation package until I actually see it as an official, done deal. I can't believe Theo would get ripped off like that.

While not the highest upside of the unprotected guys, I think Flaherty is the most likely to be taken. His upside is as a utility infielder and he's basically major league ready right now.

If any of Flaherty, Rhee, or Antigua alone are the compensation for Theo, then we got absolutely hosed. Andy MacPhail came to the Cubs in the exact same scenario as Theo did and the return was a random A-ball pitcher.

Wilson's a rarity in many ways. I can understand being wary about Wilson, but there are really only two negatives to him - age and the jump in workload. The positives are two excellent seasons starting, improved peripherals from year one starting to year two, and very little wear on his arm. Given the very strong positives in his favor and having seen his workload increase under Maddux, I'm willing to take a 5/90 with a vesting option for a 6th risk on him. Any more than that and I lose my interest.

I feel better about them when they come under the watch of Mike Maddux, whose approach is to intelligently stretch out a pitcher's arm.

How long a track record do you require before you consider a guy a star player? I could understand if he had one random breakout year, but he's had two really good seasons and has shown considerable improvements in his peripherals from year one to year two in one of the best hitters parks in the majors. And again, nobody's talking CC/Lee/Halladay money here. A 5/90 deal would be $30 million fewer total dollars than Lee got for having a resume that isn't much better, if any.

He might be, but I happen to believe he is not. I think the things you are holding up as his best attributes are actually fairly scary. A low total of MLB innings while being highly effective in almost all of them and improving peripherals are scary?

It's not just injury concerns, though. When pitchers throw a ton of innings, they tend to lose effectiveness as well, even if they don't get hurt. Look at Z for example. He's thrown over 1,800 innings in his career and just had his worst ML season with peripherals that make him look very questionable going forward. He's also a year younger (30) than Wilson in 2011 (31). He's not had injury issues, but even though he's still young, he's getting ineffective - and it's largely because he's thrown a huge amount of innings. Abusing a pitcher's arm doesn't necessarily simply make them more likely to get hurt, it damages their effectiveness. There are certainly exceptions (CC), but if I'm going to give out a big money deal to a pitcher, I'm going to feel better giving it to a guy who doesn't have a ton of wear on his arm because the chances are better he'll remain effective throughout his contract. Another encouraging sign for Wilson is that while he's only had two excellent seasons (out of 2 total starting), his peripherals have improved from year one to year two. His K/9 went up almost a full strikeout (7.50 to 8.30), his BB/9 dropped more than a walk (4.10 to 2.90) and his WHIP got better (1.25 to 1.19). None of his numbers were boosted by luck, either, as his HR/FB ratio actually went up (5.3% to 8.2%) and his BABIP went up (.266 to .287). Granted he doesn't have the long track record of Prince or Pujols, but I'm not advocating giving him $20+ million over 8-10 years like has been advocated for Prince and Pujols. My limit has been 5/85-90 with the possibility of a 6th year option (vesting, ideally). His camp beginning negotiations at 6/120 backs that hope up, as it's almost a certainty they'll get less than their initial demand. Keep this in mind as well - Cliff Lee had three excellent seasons before signing a 5/120 deal. Wilson has had two before his big deal, however he has not had the complete ineffectiveness Lee had prior to his breakout. Wilson might just be a better gamble at a lesser cost than Lee was.

I think Crawford will rebound from last year and I'm not that concerned about the next couple years or so with him. It's years 4-6 that would make me hesitate - he'll get old fairly early in this deal, the athleticism will erode, and he won't have a solid approach at the plate to fall back on.

I doubt they'll take a worse hitter and fielder for one less year under contract. It's actually 3 fewer years under contract - Soriano is signed through 2014, Crawford through 2017. And I wouldn't have interest in it from the Cubs' perspective. I don't really want to start up the Soriano contract basically from the start again. People worry about Prince or Pujols being albatrosses at the end of their deal, Crawford is far more likely to be an albatross than either Pujols or Prince.

Chin-Feng Chen? Wei-Yin Chen.

I've been in favor of maxing out at 5/85-90 for him. I have no problem paying him like an ace due to the exceptional performance for 2 years and the lack of mileage on his arm, but he's still a pitcher so I wouldn't go past 5 years or above $17-18 AAV.

He's been an elite starter for two seasons now and has just 700 MLB innings on his arm. He's as good a risk as you're going to find on the pitching FA market.

Speculation, but potentially good news nonetheless...... And for the record, I'd take 9/225 for Pujols and feel like I got a really good deal.

Alphabetically, yes. As Erik Bedard cries himself to sleep. And Danys Baez, though he's not a starter so he may not count.

The other Chen would be better.

As an opening price, I actually don't think that's too outlandish. Now there's no way he'll get that, but it's only 1 year and a couple million AAV above what I expect he'll end up at. If his agent started the negotiations at 5/85, he should fire the agent. He'll start at 6/120, interested teams will start at 5/65 and they'll meet somewhere in the middle - 5/90 with a $25 million or so option of some type.