dew1679666265

I wonder if a team with a strong back end of the bullpen, but a weakness in the rotation would be interested. I have no idea what team (if any) that might describe, but that would probably be our best option in trading Gorzo, I think.

Again, I don't disagree that you shouldn't sign those players to deals, but teams do it all the time. Just because it's not smart doesn't mean a team won't give Soriano 4/40 – especially at the trading deadline if he's OPSing .900+. Didn't realize his power had jumped that much in New York. I still don't think I'd call an outfielder who's career high in homers is 24 and has never slugged .500 a power hitter, though.

You listed Johnny Damon and he's not exactly a power hitter. Your words were "older player" and that's what I responded to. Do you think an aging power hitter is less likely to get a big deal than an aging basestealer? Bad signings are always regretted by the team signing the player. That doesn't mean other bad deals won't be signed. I'm not saying that giving Soriano 4/40 right now would be a good move, just that it's completely realistic that somebody would do it.

Chone Figgins (32) got 4/36 from the Mariners. Tim Hudson (34) got 3/28 from the Braves. Randy Wolf (33) got 3/29 from the Brewers. Brian Roberts (32) got 4/40 from the Orioles. John Lackey (31) got 5/82 from the Red Sox. Also, Matt Holliday at 30 got a 7-year deal. And that's just deals starting in 2010, not counting players signed before the 2009 season. If Soriano were a free agent available to be signed in the offseason, he wouldn't get more than 4/40 and may not get four years. However, if he's still OPSing .900+ by the deadline and a team feels that it really needs a good bat, one may bite on Soriano for that price.

If he stays hot until the trading deadline and we were pretty significantly out of it, I could actually see Hendry offering him up. I don't know what interest there would be, but it could be there if we footed some of the bill. I'm pretty sure I remember that Hendry was trying to deal him in the offseason, but there was no interest in him. I'm not sure there would be much interest in him even if the Cubs paid 75-80% of his contract because of the years involved. Yeah, but I don't think that'll keep Hendry from offering him up. It'd have to be a pure salary dump, but somebody might bite if we paid half or more.

If he stays hot until the trading deadline and we were pretty significantly out of it, I could actually see Hendry offering him up. I don't know what interest there would be, but it could be there if we footed some of the bill. I'm pretty sure I remember that Hendry was trying to deal him in the offseason, but there was no interest in him.

2007 and 2008 were 2 of our better years despite Howry's awfulness (mostly in 08) Wait, are you serious? You think Howry was "awful?" in 2007? How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? I said "mostly in 08"... I guess "solely in 08" would have been better. Yeah, he was pretty fantastic in 06 and 07. In hindsight, it's too bad we didn't trade him in that offseason because that was a terrific signing up to that point.

You disagreed with the idea of a hard throwing starter being able to make the transition, though, didn't you? I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that. I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently. My view is that pitchers with the stuff to be a closer could make that transition well because their stuff would be magnified by not having to pitch as much per outing. I wouldn't move most of those pitchers to the pen, however, because most (especially top of the line starters) are more valuable throwing 7+ innings per outing. However, with a strong enough rotation, I'd be open to the idea of a somewhat average starter shifting to the pen (like when the Cubs tried Dempster in the pen, for instance).

Much as I like Gorzo and Wells, I still fall on the conservative side with them. I still consider them over the long run as 3-4 starters more than top of the line type guys. I think they're pitching a bit over their heads right now, but that they still can be valuable members of the rotation. That said, they probably weren't the best of examples. A better example is a guy like Jason Marquis. A very average pitcher who can fluctuate to above average and below average. He's a back end of the rotation type of guy, but I wouldn't consider moving him to the bullpen. Partly because I don't think his stuff would be magnified that much and partly because getting as many innings as he can eat at an average level of production is pretty valuable.

I see what you're saying, but would you turn Gorzelanny into a closer? Or Randy Wells? Those guys are much more valuable as starters because, even though neither is a top of the line type starter, both will put up quality numbers for their team. I'd probably only look at guys who can't cut it in a major league rotation (Gagne, potentially Shark, etc.) to move to a closer's role rather than significantly decrease the number of innings a quality starter will throw. I don't see either guy as having the sort of stuff to be all that much better in short outings. I don't see the point of having either in the pen. That was my point. Both are more back-end of the rotation guys, but shouldn't be turned into relievers because of that. They're more valuable as starters than as relievers.

Are the innings only high leverage because they're in the ninth inning? Otherwise, there are a decent amount of three-run lead (or even two-run), one inning saves with the bases clear. It does depend on the difference between the pitcher as a starter and reliever. If a pitcher is average in the rotation, but his stuff will allow him to be dominant in the pen, I'd be much more open to him going to the bullpen.

I see what you're saying, but would you turn Gorzelanny into a closer? Or Randy Wells? Those guys are much more valuable as starters because, even though neither is a top of the line type starter, both will put up quality numbers for their team. I'd probably only look at guys who can't cut it in a major league rotation (Gagne, potentially Shark, etc.) to move to a closer's role rather than significantly decrease the number of innings a quality starter will throw.

And the top 12 starters (by salary) average $17 million this year. Jason Marquis makes nearly as much as the average salary of the best closers. There's more money to be made as a #4-5 starter than there is as a closer - unless maybe you're in the truly elite closer ranks (Rivera). Some guys move to the bullpen because they don't have the stamina to go more than 2-3 innings at a time. Others move to the pen because they just weren't good enough as a starter to cut it and they were able to magnify their stuff in the pen (Gagne). However, if you've got a good, quality starter, he should stay in the rotation ideally. With Marmol, his stuff has looked much better to me in the pen than in his short (MLB) stint as a starter. It's pretty clear to me he's dialing it up a little extra knowing he's only throwing, at most, 25-30 pitches.

I'm probably out of the ordinary, but I enjoy less-than-stellar games played in rain or snow or wind. It's a very interesting part of the game to see how the teams adjust to the conditions and which team does it better.

Being guaranteed perfect conditions in a dome can favor one team over another as well. It works both ways. Not as much, IMO. A bruising running team can play it's game in just about any conditions. A finesse passing team would be really hampered by cold, wind and rain. And a finesse passing team is aided quite a bit by playing on turf in a dome where the only negative weather condition might be the air conditioner blowing a little too strongly. I understand your point in more extreme weather conditions, but a light flurry or moderate falling of rain shouldn't give a huge advantage to one team over another if both legitimately are Super Bowl caliber.

Being guaranteed perfect conditions in a dome can favor one team over another as well. It works both ways.

Like goony said, there are very few closers in the league in comparison to the number of starters and even fewer closers who make even average starter money. Mariano Rivera is one of the top closers in the history of the game and his salary for this year is $15 million. Derek Lowe is a pretty good pitcher with a strong track record and he's making $15 million this year. There's far, far more money in it for a starter than for a closer. And I'm not saying it's easy to be successful in the pen, just that there's less overall stress on a pitcher's arm when he throws an inning at a time rather than throwing 100+ pitchers an outing. And because of that, the pitcher doesn't have to tone down his stuff at all.

It depends somewhat on how the better team wants to play. The 2000 Ravens were the best team in the NFL (or pretty close to it), were better than the Giants and would have benefitted from poor weather in the Super Bowl. At the same time, playing in the snow in the 99 Super Bowl would have greatly helped the lesser team (the Titans) over the superior team (the Rams). The more high-flying teams are currently aided by only playing in perfect conditions now (to the detriment of the teams that prefer things mucked up). I think the team that was helped the most by poor weather conditions would depend on the types of teams playing in the game. Unless, of course, we're talking about extreme weather conditions like the Bears/49ers (I think) extremely windy game from a couple years ago. That turns more into a game of luck.

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that. I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently. Maybe they struggle early because they are purposefully holding back as they have to pace themselves for 6+ innings and 100+ pitches instead of going balls to the wall for 15-25 pitches. I think that's the thing. A reliever can go all out because he's not throwing as many pitches (obviously). Generally a pitcher who goes from the rotation to the pen will see an improvement in stuff and velocity, but also the bullpen role is less important and impactful.

Much as I like Len and Bob, I may have to listen to some Vin Scully in this series.

You don't think there's more pressure on a leadoff hitter than a guy batting 7th or 8th? It may be too much pressure if it causes him to start trying to do too much or to start pressing. There's also a chance he'll handle that pressure. He doesn't seem to lack confidence or be intimidated by new situations. He's been hitting second a decent amount as well, though. That's the point they're making.

Who cares? Right or wrong, their opinion matters.

I get the general philosophy that a very good veteran is much more sure-fire production than a prospect and generally I'd at least consider a trade like that, but I don't think this team needs to add that kind of payroll if it means giving away potential cheap production that either is helping this year (Castro) or is likely to contribute next year (Cashner). This comment from you: is the reason I wouldn't even consider that type of trade this year. And I'm not arguing that Oswalt is overpaid, just that he's got a large salary – one that would make it difficult to improve in other areas (the offense) in the offseason.

Would you trade Castro for Oswalt straight up? At this point I wouldn't trade Castro for anyone not named Pujols, H. Ramirez, Howard, Lincecum, or Halladay. There are probably a few more, but Oswalt isn't one of them. I'd seriously consider it, especially depending on how willing Houston was to pay part of his contract or kick back another piece or two in exchange for Castro. If the trade was Oswalt for Castro straight up, I'd probably say no. I just don't see why you'd do that. Oswalt is a very good pitcher, but he'll be 33 this year and the most you'd get from him is two more seasons. I just don't think I'd give the potential for 10+ very good to great years of Castro/Cashner/etc for a couple more seasons of very good, but high priced Oswalt. You can never say never. If the Cubs were just one piece away from being a serious World Series contender, and that one piece was an All-Star caliber starting pitcher, then the deal would have to be considered. It would be like the Brewer/Sabathia deal except you would have three cracks at the World Series with Oswalt instead of just one. With the construction of the current Cub squad though, you would have to pass on the deal. Yeah, I meant in consideration of this year's team. Even still, unless I was absolutely certain Castro for Oswalt would bring us a title, I'd struggle to ok the trade.

Would you trade Castro for Oswalt straight up? At this point I wouldn't trade Castro for anyone not named Pujols, H. Ramirez, Howard, Lincecum, or Halladay. There are probably a few more, but Oswalt isn't one of them. I'd seriously consider it, especially depending on how willing Houston was to pay part of his contract or kick back another piece or two in exchange for Castro. If the trade was Oswalt for Castro straight up, I'd probably say no. I just don't see why you'd do that. Oswalt is a very good pitcher, but he'll be 33 this year and the most you'd get from him is two more seasons. I just don't think I'd give the potential for 10+ very good to great years of Castro/Cashner/etc for a couple more seasons of very good, but high priced Oswalt.