dew1679666265

I liked Verner a lot going into the draft. Thought he would be a good Cover 2 fit for the Bears. Raisin will be happy to hear he is doing well. I liked him in college and have gotten a bit infatuated after the Nick Harper comparisons. is he named after princess leia's destroyed homeworld or is it just me? Alterraun . . . Alderon. Possible. Dagobah would be cooler, though.

Wow, hadn't seen the pitch counts. I couldn't imagine he had pitched 43 innings in five starts for the Rangers and wasn't overworked.

I liked Verner a lot going into the draft. Thought he would be a good Cover 2 fit for the Bears. Raisin will be happy to hear he is doing well. I liked him in college and have gotten a bit infatuated after the Nick Harper comparisons.

If the Cubs go after any starting pitching this offseason, I hope it's Webb on a reclamation project. I could see Dempster-like results for Webb (ineffective for different reasons, but both become highly effective pitchers).

I tend to think it has more to do with both situations being teams that are desperate to try to win, know they won't have the pitcher beyond the half a season and figure they might as well get as much out of him as they can. Though it is worth noting that Ryan has emphasized pitchers going deeper into games throughout the organization. I don't know what the thinking is on pitch counts, however.

If there's one area the Cubs can afford to trade value at, it's starting pitching. If the Padres would take a couple of starting pitchers and Vitters for Gonzalez, you're losing value in those starters but it's replaceable value. It's the perfect situation to trade from a strength and add to a weakness. We have a very large abundance of quality, cheap pitching in the minors and currently no long term options at first base. If the question is do you fill that void at first with an overpaid aging slugger or do you deal from your biggest strength to acquire a still fairly young 7 WAR player who will be very expensive, I have to go with the younger, better player who will cost more. Basically, Dunn is a band-aid where you hope you can find a player through the draft who will develop quickly. Or you'll have to trade more resources after the first couple of years and still be stuck with a big contract. Gonzalez will cost more, but is a legitimate long term fix at first base and will give us time to more properly develop a young first baseman in the minors.

Yeah, the 4/40 thing was based on what Tim was saying and is probably the minimalest of minimal amounts you'd pay him. He's probably getting $15 mil as a minimum after the year. And with the way the Rangers are probably going to ride him down the stretch, I'd start thinking about arm issues.

I'm also not sure I'm a big fan of giving Cliff Lee even a 4/40 deal when he's 32 years old this month. He's very well worth it now, but I wonder if he'll stay good to very good through his age 36 season, much less 37-38.

I don't think Lee gets a six year deal, either. I'm also not expecting the dollars to work out in years 1-3, as I explained above. You think Gonzalez is likely to go for one 6 year deal instead of a 4 year deal with thoughts of a second huge contract? At 29 years old as of May 2011, I could see him signing a 4 year deal that runs through his age 33 year, then going for another 3-4 year deal with hopes that the economy rebounds by then. I also don't know how likely Gonzo is to get a full $25 million. If a team is willing to go 6/150 for Gonzo, the loser of those sweepstakes will probably be willing to go 4/60 for Dunn. If we can get Dunn at 3/45, I'd be more open to signing him over Gonzo, especially if the Gonzalez sweepstakes get above about 4-5 years. I just think the only issue teams seemed to have the last time Dunn was a free agent is now nearly a non-issue (OF defense). I think teams will be a lot more interested in him now.

Apparently Sen'Derrick Marks and Alterraun Verner are looking very good early in camp. It probably doesn't mean a thing, but it still makes me happy.

Elvis Dumervil out 4 months.

More Bears hype:

Yeah, I think it was in the very low 4s and would have been below Ohman's. The poor outing launched it almost to 5.0. He hasn't been great this year no doubt, but hopefully this will be a good experience.

You're right, I did misread it. That makes Rob's comment make sense now. Thanks.

Ok, my initial glance at his numbers sucked. He's been really, really good in the minors. I don't know that I'd give as much as you used as an example, but if we could pry him from Moore, that'd be really good. That said, I much prefer baseball-reference to Fangraphs when looking at the minor leagues.

That's a very interesting idea. Though honestly, I don't know that overpaying for a guy like Cliff Lee is necessary in that scenario. We have enough good pitching that we could hold off on that and not take the chance of paying a guy for very unproductive years. That said, I'm not sure I want to give that much for a guy like Butler. He looks to have a ton of potential, but it appears his value is hurt by lackluster fielding and his minor league numbers look pretty up and down at a quick glance.

There's likely to be a difference between his demands and what he gets, but reports are Dunn wants 4 years. I'd guess Gonzalez will re-up for 6-7 years tops. That's not all that significant. Especially if Gonzo goes 4-5 years with the idea of getting one more big contract after this one. I don't want to talk down our prospects first off. I'd hate to give up any of those players, but there are significant questions about each of them, save for Wells. However, Gonzalez has 6-7 WAR upside. Dunn hasn't been more than a 3.4 WAR player since 2004. Granted, Dunn and Wells together equal the same number of wins as Gonzalez's upside, but Dunn is likely to regress and perhaps quickly from here. Gonzalez is likely to get better. While Wells will likely also get better, we have an abundance of high quality pitchers ready for the majors and could take the hit of losing a couple of them in this trade. I don't think Dunn turning 31-34 during his contract while Gonzo will be less than 30 for the first two years of the deal can be understated. Gonzo is also, I'd say, more likely to age well than Dunn (better walk and K rates for Gonzalez). Dunn is asking for $15 mil a year and might get close to that with first base now being a proven position for him – he certainly will if he relents and becomes willing to go to an AL team to DH. The absolute max I could see Gonzalez getting is $25 mil a year and probably less in this economy. There's now way I can see us getting a Cliff Lee for no more than $10 mil a year. I can understand not wanting to give up a lot of talent for one player, but with our farm system having nobody on the horizon at first base, we pretty much have to make a move for one. As much as I like Adam Dunn, I just don't see him being productive enough into his mid-30s to warrant the kind of money he's asking for and may very well get.

Yeah, but not by a ton. Marmol and Marshall both have an xFIP of 2.60 and 2.57, respectively. Ohman's xFIP is 4.37 and then Russell's is 4.64 and Cashner's is 4.97. in other words, our bullpen is terrible. Yep, though Cashner was pitching better until he got slapped around a few days ago. Russell was also doing much better earlier in the year (when, I believe, Tim was promoting him).

Alright, thanks. We're getting closer, but that still doesn't address the combo of Pujols 2/pitcher 8. In fact, Tango says only in extreme situations (Adam Everett, Tony Pena Jr) should you hit your pitcher 8th. I may have misread his post, but it appeared to me that Rob was putting importance on the combo of moving the pitcher to the 8 spot and Pujols (or the best hitter in the lineup, I would assume) to the 2 spot. I don't see the connection.

maybe so, but i don't think they'd do it. It would at least get us in the ballpark and could be enough, depending on what other teams offered.

It might be a bit too much, but any trade for Gonzalez is likely to be overpaying. This deal overpays in the Cubs' strength (starting pitching), though, and that helps us absorb it better. If the deal were similar in talent given up, but that talent was offensive, I'd be a whole lot less inclined to do it.

Well, he couldn't hit anything at the major league level this year in a tiny sample – .607 OPS in 120 PAs. He's not hit much in the minors this year either – .746 OPS in only 11 games. He was hurt much of the year and is having TJS, I believe. Ah, ok. I didn't realize that. I thought it was weird that he only had about 131 PAs between the majors and minors this year.

Well, he couldn't hit anything at the major league level this year in a tiny sample – .607 OPS in 120 PAs. He's not hit much in the minors this year either – .746 OPS in only 11 games.

It increases the team's run expectancy. Why? If nothing else, 30 extra PA's for Pujols over the course of a season. I understand that in the most general of senses, but Rob said moving the pitcher to 8 and Pujols to 2 at the same time will be a significant benefit. I don't understand the thinking in making both those moves.

It increases the team's run expectancy. Why? http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/is-larussa-right-to-bat-his-pitcher-in-the-eight-slot/ That doesn't explain why moving the pitcher to eight and then moving Pujols to second improves run expectancy. It doesn't even address moving Pujols and it says batting the pitcher 7th (for the Cardinals in 2007) is optimal. It really doesn't explain my question, unless I missed something.