dew1679666265

They've been pretty similar this year. Bako: .214/.290/.250/.540 Hill: .204/.283/.296/.580

Because Lou has a lot of illogical tendencies. Somehow he thinks that we are better off keeping our best players out of the lineup as often as possible. You're joking, right? Is it really difficult to grasp why the valuable starting catcher gets extra days off? It makes a lot more sense with a catcher. With other players, though, I think Lou goes a little overboard. One game in particular stands out, the one where he rested the entire lineup on the same day (can't recall who it was against). Where does he expect runs to come from? He routinely rests multiple key players on the same day, when I feel it would be a better idea to rest them one at a time (and less often), so that our offense doesn't suffer more than it has to. Not to mention the fact that we have huge offensive issues anyway. The thinking behind that is that it's better to get the days off out of the way all at once and have one weak lineup instead of missing a bat or two for 7-8 straight games. That way only one game is affected by the days off instead of a weeks worth or more.

Aramis is the only one of those 3 that would get you anything remotely "juicy" Lilly might garner a very good prospect or two if he keeps up this performance the rest of this year and half of next year. Especially if a team was desperate for pitching at next year's deadline.

They're both pretty iffy deals. Obviously, the Phillies are loving theirs right now a LOT more, but it's a long shot that Ibanez keeps playing at or near this level for the duration of his contract. I think the correct answer over both is "Adam Dunn." Yeah, I would have been more in favor of Ibanez in the offseason, but he'll be 40 by the time his contract ends. He could continue to produce at a high level throughout it, but it's certainly no sure thing.

I really wish I could say the same. I'm fearful of some asinine extension in Theriot's last arb year. If none of the SS prospects are ready by then, that may happen. Hendry may pass on re-signing Theriot if Barney or someone else is ready to produce by then.

So a couple years of not giving out new deals means' he's done? He still gave a $10m contract to Samardzija who's being used out of the pen, he traded for a "proven closer" just before the end of his arbitration years and could very easily feel the need to extend. He let Kerry Wood walk due to injuries and the fear of future injuries. But there's plenty of examples of him handing out big money deals to free agent relievers to justify including them into the potential future payroll. Your issue appears to be more that you dislike Hendry than anything. My original point was that contracts currently committed will not bog us down by 2012 because we'll have plenty of money to spend for that season and most of the huge contracts (save for Soriano) will have expired. Contracts that may be signed in the next 2 years are a completely different conversation. My issue is how ridiculous it is for you to pretend $54 million in 2012 is next to nothing. It's a HUGE number. You ignore it and pretend it's small, but it's HUGE. Baseball teams don't generally operate with that much money committed that far out in the future. This team is in trouble for the next 3-5 years, unless the owner significantly increases payroll. A) Because $54m committed is huge. B) And their GM has not shown any ability to maneuver around financial constraints to build a good baseball team. $54 million is not next to nothing and I'm not trying to say it is. I'm saying that because we are a high payroll team, we will have the opportunity to work around that commitment and be competitive by then. Whether our GM makes good decisions is another issue entirely - I'm just arguing that the opportunity is there because of the $80-$120 million we'll have to spend by then.

New deals will be signed. Cripplingly large deals don't have to be signed, though. Z and Dempster are part of that $54 million committed to 2012 right now. That will give us $80-$120 million to fill holes on the team (of which there will be quite a few). Obviously a large number will come through free agency and trades, but there will be money available to fill those holes. I don't know if the management will make good decisions between now and 2012. I'm only commenting that the opportunity to compete will most certainly be there by 2012 and that money currently committed will not hold us back. And there's a decent chance that we could get more help from the minors outside of just Vitters. Guys like Jay Jackson, Chris Carpenter, Tony Thomas, Darwin Barney, John Gaub, Chris Archer, Wellington Castillo, Tyler Colvin, Andrew Cashner, etc., could be ready for the majors in the next three years and could be at least moderately productive by then. I don't think for a second that all of them will be up, or even a majority, but if even 2-3 of those guys can give us decent, cheap production by then (perhaps optimistic, but still realistic, I think) that will help us fill holes as well.

So a couple years of not giving out new deals means' he's done? He still gave a $10m contract to Samardzija who's being used out of the pen, he traded for a "proven closer" just before the end of his arbitration years and could very easily feel the need to extend. He let Kerry Wood walk due to injuries and the fear of future injuries. But there's plenty of examples of him handing out big money deals to free agent relievers to justify including them into the potential future payroll. Your issue appears to be more that you dislike Hendry than anything. My original point was that contracts currently committed will not bog us down by 2012 because we'll have plenty of money to spend for that season and most of the huge contracts (save for Soriano) will have expired. Contracts that may be signed in the next 2 years are a completely different conversation.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded. In 2012 we'll have, probably, at least $80 million to spend. If Ricketts bumps payroll up to the luxury tax limit ($170 million), then we'll have $120 million to commit to players by 2012. That's more than enough money to put a winning team on the field, especially considering we'll have what should be a productive Zambrano and Soto still on the books and, hopefully, an arbitration Samardzija pitching well. Soriano's contract won't be a good thing at that point, but it also won't keep us from being able to put a good team on the field by then - if not perhaps sooner. Because you keep pretending 2011 is the last year they have big money committed even though they have an enormous amount of money committed to 2012. Sure, they "could" start running things differently in the next couple years, and efficiently improve the team. But the only way that happens is probably canning Hendry. I'm not pretending anything. We have around $100 million committed over the next 2 years (2010 and 2011) to just a few players. That doesn't leave much money to build around those few guys so it's going to be difficult to be highly competitive the next two years. However, by 2012, the vast majority of that money is off the books and the only money we'll have committed to a likely unproductive player will be Soriano. We will have anywhere from $80-$120 million to spend on putting players around what is now a core of Z, Soto, Shark and Soriano by 2012. That is more than enough money to build a good team. There might be more bad contracts to be signed, but that has nothing to do with the situation we are currently in. Good decisions are always the key to being competitive and if we get bogged down by huge contracts, then we won't be competitive. My argument is that - right now - we have enough money available to be highly competitive by 2012 at the latest. If we are not competitive by then, it won't be because we don't have enough money to spend.

You said it much better than I did.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded. In 2012 we'll have, probably, at least $80 million to spend. If Ricketts bumps payroll up to the luxury tax limit ($170 million), then we'll have $120 million to commit to players by 2012. That's more than enough money to put a winning team on the field, especially considering we'll have what should be a productive Zambrano and Soto still on the books and, hopefully, an arbitration Samardzija pitching well. Soriano's contract won't be a good thing at that point, but it also won't keep us from being able to put a good team on the field by then - if not perhaps sooner.

The contracts won't really be a hindrance after, probably, 2011. In 2012, we only have $54 million committed and will likely have a payroll of $130+ million (luxury tax won't kick in that season until $170 million, though, so we could be higher than we are now). That's assuming the Cubs stop giving out big contracts. Soriano's contract is going to be a hindrance regardless of what everybody else's situation is. However, just because Ramirez and Lee may be gone by then, they might by then have resigned Lilly to another deal. It's possible Hendry will have committed to a 30-something Theriot before he reaches full free agency. You also will have Soto in his later arbitration years, plus a need to fill both CF and RF by then. If Ramirez and Lee are both gone they will likely have spent big on at least one of those positions, and then there's the bullpen, where Hendry has showed over and over he's more than happy to hand out 3 year multi million dollar deals. The fact that the Cubs "only" have $54 million commited (really a ridiculous amount of just about any team) doesn't mean payroll issues cease to be an issue in 2011. Of course not, but the comment was concerning contracts that have already been passed out. He said he was concerned about the big contracts already weighing us down keeping us from competing for the next 3-5 years. Those contracts will only really impact the payroll through 2011, though. I have no idea whether Hendry will or will not (or can or cannot) give out huge contracts in the foreseeable future, so I can't comment on that. At this point, there is no real financial strain to keep us from competing any longer than 2011. And I don't think it's out of the question that we could compete in 2010 and 2011. It'll be tougher, but it's possible.

This could be good news. per Rotoworld

The contracts won't really be a hindrance after, probably, 2011. In 2012, we only have $54 million committed and will likely have a payroll of $130+ million (luxury tax won't kick in that season until $170 million, though, so we could be higher than we are now).

Just 8 games in total, but his offensive numbers the past two weeks: .370/.469/.667/1.135

I think he's now pitched 4 innings of no hit ball since he came up. I don't know much about the guy other than that he came over in the DeRosa trade. Anyone know anything about him? We actually got two other guys in the DeRosa trade, along with Stevens. Both are nearly unhittable right now, but both have some weak control. John Gaub has a 2.78 ERA with a 1.206 WHIP between Tennessee (AA) and Iowa (AAA) this year. He's allowed just 19 hits in 32 innings, but has also walked 20. I think he projects to the bullpen and he's currently 24. Chris Archer has a 2.39 ERA and a 1.312 WHIP right now in Peoria (low A). He's allowed 50 hits in 71 innings, but again, 44 walks in that time. He projects to be a starter, I believe, and is 20 right now. All three have good upsides.

Yeah, I can see that. It's similar to the discussions about taking Tiger Woods or the field, I guess. You've got 100 (or whatever) chances of winning by taking the field, but only one chance to be right by taking Tiger. However, Tiger is the heavy favorite if you look at individuals. I just don't see the value in it, I guess.

The problem with that, though, is that a team must win the division. The "field" can't win, so the 60% likelihood that it wins means nothing. If the Cubs have a 40% chance to win, the Cards have a 35% chance, the Brewers have a 10% chance, the Astros have a 5% chance, the Reds have a 7% chance and the Pirates have a 3% chance, then the Cubs are still the favorites even though all the other teams combined have a 60% chance of winning. But it doesn't mean nothing. It means that the odds are better that the Cubs don't win the division than the odds that they do, even though looking at the teams individually (as we agree) the Cubs are the favorite to win in the scenario listed above. A team can be favored to win something but still have the odds of them not winning it be better than the odds of them winning it. The two things are not mutually exclusive in three or more team scenarios like this one. It's just a weird way to look at it, I think. A team must win the division. The Cubs have the best chance to win the division out of all the teams in the division. Does that mean they will? No, but they are still the most likely of the six teams to win the division. That's the point.

You got your wish.

He's never had a professional at bat.

The problem with that, though, is that a team must win the division. The "field" can't win, so the 60% likelihood that it wins means nothing. If the Cubs have a 40% chance to win, the Cards have a 35% chance, the Brewers have a 10% chance, the Astros have a 5% chance, the Reds have a 7% chance and the Pirates have a 3% chance, then the Cubs are still the favorites even though all the other teams combined have a 60% chance of winning.

Is last year more indicative of Lohse or the rest of his career (7 years)? He was much better last year, but so far this year he's been right in line with the rest of his career. I'll agree Wellemeyer should be better, but Piniero has been much better this year than he has been since he pitched 17 games in 2002. As for Guzman, like I said even if he is overperforming this year, he cancels out Marmol's underperformance, which leaves the bullpen right around where they should be.

A 27 year old who's battled injuries is washed up? I thought 26-27 was just about the start of prime years - when a player is expected to really improve. If Guzman was 30 years old, then I could understand saying he's washed up, but he's at an age that improvement can be expected. Couple that with him finally staying healthy and you have him living up to expectations. You could say we've been lucky that he hasn't been injured much, but the performance could have been expected from a player who is a top prospect just now hitting his prime. But even if you assume Guzman is significantly better than expected, then he just cancels out Marmol's regression. Then Gregg is a little better now than the last couple years and Heilman has a better ERA and a worse WHIP. The fact that he's walking significantly more than last year and striking out significantly less is just as much a sign of his performance as his ERA+, which is still much worse than it was in 2007. His expected performance shouldn't be based only off of last year, his much better 2005-2007 seasons should be taken into account somehow. I'm not saying the Cubs can't win the division from this point. But in order to play better than they have at this point, I think they need a lot more things to go right than just showing up.

Exactly how far below our ability are we really playing? We are getting better than "expected" performances from almost the entire bullpen. Randy Wells and Rich Harden balance out, Dempster and Zambrano are pretty close to ability, and Lilly is ahead. On the whole, we are pretty far ahead on our pitching. On offense, we've had the Ramirez injury, but it's reasonable to expect at least one major injury per season, and Fox's extra at-bats start to balance that out. So we're left with Lilly+bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b, and Soto. Soto spent a lot of years as an awful-hitting minor-league catcher before putting up two spectacular ones, so I don't know if you can just assume he's going to come back. So while Lilly/bullpen vs. Soriano, Bradley, 2b probably puts us "below expectations," I don't think we're so far below them that it's a sure thing that we'll play better in the second half. Is the bullpen really significantly overperforming? Gregg has similar numbers to his past couple of years, Marmol is significantly worse than he's been since moving to the pen, Guzman has been excellent but he's always been capable of that, Heilman has been similar to last year and much worse than two years ago and Marshall has very similar numbers to the past two years. Maybe Guzman has been better than expected, but that's countered by Marmol being far worse than expected. If anything, I'd say the pen has been right around where it should be to this point. Offensively, Soriano is 140 points of OPS worse this year than last. A dropoff is extremely fair and expected, but after drops of 14 and 21 points the last two years, 140 is quite a huge dropoff and more than could have been expected. Bradley hasn't had an OPS this bad since 2002 and has dropped 258 points since last year. Again, a dropoff is perfectly understandable, but not to this degree. He's also got his worst slugging percentage since the 2001 season. Lilly is much better than expected, but most of the rest of the starting staff - like you said - are either performing at expectations or cancel each other out (Wells/Harden). I don't think it's a sure thing that we'll be better in the second half either, that's why I never said it. But if Aramis produces at all and if Bradley/Soriano improve some, we have a good shot at winning the division. Lilly may regress, but he's not significantly better this year than 2007 and he's proven for two and a half seasons now that he's a better pitcher than he was in Toronto.

Are you saying it would be foolish to assume one of those second rate teams don't get insanely hot? Because I think that's a pretty safe assumption. I would say the likelihood is that one of them don't get incredibly hot, but that the possibility exists. The more likely occurence is that the most talented team in the division (Cubs) start playing closer to their capability.