dew1679666265

Maybe this will help Kosuke. Sasaki helped him this past offseason and he came back with a terrific start to the year.

If your problem is with Hendry re-signing Bell next year, I can't argue either way there. I can't predict what Hendry will do. I can say that making this trade upgrades our team in an area of weakness now, though, and I'm in favor of upgrading the team - at a reasonable cost. A pitcher who wasn't a top 30 prospect in a (then) bad system who is currently pitching well above his head and is likely to regress sooner than later is a reasonable cost for a very good reliever. And what are the chances that Wells keeps up this performance all year and into future seasons? He could, but his stuff and the expectations surrounding him entering this season don't favor him continuing to be a dominant starter. I'm not saying don't trade him, I'm saying don't trade him for another freaking reliever. And I don't know what there is to say about a potential resigning. He's not free agent eligible, and Hendry is not going to non-tender him. He'll get a deal. If Wells' value is higher than Heath Bell, then I'm all for getting more for him. I just doubt his value has skyrocketed from Mitch Atkins level to worth a significant value. At worst if Hendry tenders him and he returns, he is a reliever who is more productive than Gregg at a slightly cheaper price. And Gregg is gone after the year as well. I don't care what his 1 for 1 value is, don't trade him for a reliever. Include him in a package for somebody that will make a difference. A team that cannot score runs needs bats, not an 8th reliever. If there's a deal out there that we can do, fine. The likelihood is that we can't afford a major difference maker this season, so if we're going to improve, we have to do it with cheap, productive players (like Bell). And Bell wouldn't be an 8th reliever. He'd be our closer and one of Hart or Patton would be gone. We're probably looking at only improving one or both of our bench or bullpen this deadline. The only spot in the starting lineup that can be improved upon realistically is 2nd base, but Hendry may not be done giving Fontenot a shot there. If we can't add more offense to score more runs, then the logical next step is to try to secure the few leads we get now. The way to do that is to improve on Gregg in the closer's role. Bell would do that - as long as we don't overpay.

How valuable was the perceived value of Josh Hamilton before we drafted and traded him to Cincinnati? Not every star player in the major leagues had an elite prospect following. Albert Pujols was only a 13th round draft pick. Hamilton, like Kazmir, was an elite prospect before struggling with drugs. Had they traded him when his value was high, he would have garnered more in return because he was an elite propect. A prospect's perceived value makes a lot of difference in how other teams evaluate them. I'm not tossing those numbers in the trash. He probably had value similar to what Mitch Atkins and Kevin Hart currently do before he started pitching this well. Now he's upped that value, but I doubt to the point that he could bring in a major impact player. I don't know why he's this successful either, but if he does return to what he was originally expected to be, he'll be a 1 inning pitcher who isn't as good as Heath Bell. Maybe he continues this production, but it's unlikely given that his stuff isn't all that impressive. If he regresses, it very well could be to a player less valuable than Bell is now. Again, you can't compare a guy who was not even a top 30 prospect in a (then) bad system to top prospects. Nathan, Liriano and Bonser were all top prospects when dealt. They all had the stuff to make it likely they would have success in the majors long term. Wells is not an elite prospect. He's succeeding right now despite average stuff.

That's definitely a possibility. It's also, though, why I think it would take us more than just Wells to get a Bell deal done. And I wouldn't be in favor of giving more than Wells.

If your problem is with Hendry re-signing Bell next year, I can't argue either way there. I can't predict what Hendry will do. I can say that making this trade upgrades our team in an area of weakness now, though, and I'm in favor of upgrading the team - at a reasonable cost. A pitcher who wasn't a top 30 prospect in a (then) bad system who is currently pitching well above his head and is likely to regress sooner than later is a reasonable cost for a very good reliever. And what are the chances that Wells keeps up this performance all year and into future seasons? He could, but his stuff and the expectations surrounding him entering this season don't favor him continuing to be a dominant starter. I'm not saying don't trade him, I'm saying don't trade him for another freaking reliever. And I don't know what there is to say about a potential resigning. He's not free agent eligible, and Hendry is not going to non-tender him. He'll get a deal. If Wells' value is higher than Heath Bell, then I'm all for getting more for him. I just doubt his value has skyrocketed from Mitch Atkins level to worth a significant value. At worst if Hendry tenders him and he returns, he is a reliever who is more productive than Gregg at a slightly cheaper price. And Gregg is gone after the year as well.

The 4-8 week diagnosis is all we have to go on. We don't know how Aramis is feeling, we haven't looked at test results, all we can do is consider the news we've received and evaluate from there. Word from the Cubs has been for a while now that Aramis was likely to be back around the ASB. That could mean a little before or a little after, but I haven't seen their stance change much. Maybe they are rushing him back, but I don't see the evidence that they are.

If your problem is with Hendry re-signing Bell next year, I can't argue either way there. I can't predict what Hendry will do. I can say that making this trade upgrades our team in an area of weakness now, though, and I'm in favor of upgrading the team - at a reasonable cost. A pitcher who wasn't a top 30 prospect in a (then) bad system who is currently pitching well above his head and is likely to regress sooner than later is a reasonable cost for a very good reliever. And what are the chances that Wells keeps up this performance all year and into future seasons? He could, but his stuff and the expectations surrounding him entering this season don't favor him continuing to be a dominant starter.

Going the other way is not a bad philosophy, but you have to take what the pitcher gives you. You shouldn't slap a pitch weakly somewhere just to go the other way. Hitting a pitch with authority will generally get you better results, if the pitch is in a spot where you can go the other way - all the better.

Regardless of if our offense returns to form or not, I still have major issues with the offensive philosophy of this team. It starts with Soriano, continues with the total lack of speed/aggression/intelligence on the basepaths, and ends with moronic plays like Soto getting thrown out by a mile at 3B the other day. This year's philosophy is no different than last year's. And last year's scored 5 runs a game and was the best offense in the league. When guys aren't performing at all any offensive philosophy is going to look bad. Over the course of a 162 game season, most players are going to do dumb things. It happens. These same exactly players (Soto, Soriano, etc) were not called dumb players or stupid or lazy last year when they were producing, but I'm sure they made some mistakes last year as well. I know it's no different than last year. I had problems with it last year too, we just had a lot of amazing single seasons from players (Soto, Edmonds, etc). It's no surprise to me that when that offensive prowess regressed, it would do so in a major way. I'd be surprised if anybody predicted a .730 OPS from Bradley, a .722 OPS from Soto or a .718 OPS for Soriano this year. Those numbers are all down hundreds of points from where they were last year or their career numbers. A dropoff could have been expected, but not to this degree. Who do you want stealing bases? There aren't very many players in the league who are a net positive in SB% anyway and the Cubs don't have any of them. And players shouldn't drastically change their approach from at bat to at bat. If your normal approach is to work the count, find a pitch to hit hard or take a walk, then you should keep that approach. Shortening swings and trying to bloop balls around will likely only result in weakly hit outs for most players. I'd much rather a hitter wait for a pitch he can drive and drive it than to try to force a bloop single somewhere. The players right now are not hitting - in any situation. The worst thing they could do is to start giving away more outs by sac bunting, hitting the ball weakly somewhere or having guys who are not great basestealers try to steal a bunch of bases.

As of a few days ago they still had no idea when he'd return. Now all of a sudden it's definitely Monday against Atlanta, a week before the All Star break. Why not give him another week and a half of recovery time and start after the ASB? We know it was going to be a time thing, and that he had to work on getting it as strong as possible. I have to think another week and a half would help. The latest news I saw had him returning "by the All-Star break." Then the word came out that he was going to take some BP and then have 4-5 days of minor league rehab. The only other news I saw that countered that was Will Carroll saying he thought an ASB return was optimistic.

Agreed. I'm of course happy to see him coming back, but given the limited number of games before the ASB he'd be able to play in and the nature of his injury I'd prefer if they just waited until after the break. As long as he is as fully healed as he'll get (sounds like this injury may linger either way), I don't think they're rushing him back. Keener made the point that we're toward the end of the 8-week time frame anyway, so I don't see how they're rushing him. Plus, if he's not being rushed, having a few games to see some live ML pitches and get some ABs might help him to be more productive coming out of the break.

Regardless of if our offense returns to form or not, I still have major issues with the offensive philosophy of this team. It starts with Soriano, continues with the total lack of speed/aggression/intelligence on the basepaths, and ends with moronic plays like Soto getting thrown out by a mile at 3B the other day. This year's philosophy is no different than last year's. And last year's scored 5 runs a game and was the best offense in the league. When guys aren't performing at all any offensive philosophy is going to look bad. Over the course of a 162 game season, most players are going to do dumb things. It happens. These same exactly players (Soto, Soriano, etc) were not called dumb players or stupid or lazy last year when they were producing, but I'm sure they made some mistakes last year as well.

Oh, you mean a manager who is aggressive and plays smart baseball? That's a problem? :scratch: Lots of sac bunts, steals, and hits and runs is not smart baseball. It's usually dumb baseball. I just caught this comment. What a stupid viewpoint. No offense, but seriously, that's stupid. I'm sick and tired of people deferring ONLY to sabr and totally discounting things like bunts, steals, the small things in the game. The 2009 Cubs are one of the laziest, stupidest, most fundamentally [expletive] teams I've ever witnessed. How in the blue hell could things get any worse by steering the offense away from the K or 3R HR mentality? Seriously, I get so pissed off reading comments like this. I don't understand it. Help me understand. You guys realize we play in the NL right? There is huge value to all those "dumb baseball" strategies like steals, bunting, etc. Have you watched the Dodgers this year? Did you watch the Rays this year or last? Have you watched the Cubs this year? Yea. A SMART baseball mind would combine both sabremetrics with old school philosophies. Taking one side completely and dismissing the other as "stupid" IS stupid. Can't you rationalize anything? I think the word "lots" in his post is the key. Some small ball elements in an offense is fine, but basing your entire offensive philosophy on small ball (like Dusty did and, it appears, Brenly did as well) is detrimental to scoring runs consistently. The Cubs last season didn't do much small ball stuff and yet scored 5 runs a game. Their offense was based off of patience with a focus on OBP and being able to slug the ball. This year, the offense is not struggling because they're not doing enough small ball or because they're "stupid, lazy" or bad fundamentally. The offense is bad because the cornerstone guys (Bradley, Soriano, Soto for the first couple months, etc) are not hitting or getting on base. If they start getting patient, drawing walks and hitting for power again the offense will improve.

Fair? Probably. But useful? Not really. The Cubs waste too much money on relievers every year, and they keep spending valuable resources replacing the guys that were going to be the solution when they figure out how terribly inconsistent relief pitchers can be. SD would be selling high on Bell as well, seeing as how he's a 31 year old reliever entering his most profitable arbitration seasons with the benefit of playing all his home games in cavernous pitcher's parks. He's a reliever. And now that he has spent a few months racking up saves, he's got "proven closer" label attached to his name, driving up his price, if not his real value. They can't just offer him arby and hope somebody else signs him as a free agent, thus netting draft picks, like when the Cubs signing Latroy Hawkins as a gift to Minnesota. How is a very good back of the bullpen reliever not useful? Especially when our pen is struggling? I can understand not wanting to overpay for one, but arguing that a very good reliever is not useful? I don't understand that at all. Bell has not been helped that much by his home park two of the past three years. His numbers have been very good both at home and on the road. I agree that he will likely cost too much in terms of prospects in a trade, but if the Padres were willing to offer him at a reasonable cost, I'd be interested. We need offensive help first and foremost, but if we can address both the pen and the offense while not trading away the entire farm, I'm in favor of it. I just don't think Bell will come cheaply enough.

Be the team that trades Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir, not the other way around. Scott Kazmir was always an elite prospect. He had terrific stuff and an extremely bright future. Wells has pretty good control and average or so stuff. There's a world of difference between Kazmir and Wells. The Mets traded a guy that had the potential to be a top of the line, elite ace. The Cubs would be trading a guy that might be a decent fifth starter throughout his career, unless he's able to dominate with average stuff. Why is it either 5th starter or dominant? What about being a decent 3rd-4th starter, those guys are valuable. They get $10m+ contracts. But yes, Kazmir and Wells are not similar. That's the likely upside of those two pitchers. Kazmir was ticketed as an elite ace, Wells likely had the upside of a bottom of the rotation starter. If Wells had better upside, I suspect he would have been ranked somewhere in the top 30 of a (then) bad Cubs minor league system. Maybe Wells can be a decent 3rd-4th starter. But I don't think a few very good ML starts are going to completely erase from GMs minds that Wells wasn't a top 30 prospect before this season. Thus, his perceived value before the year will be used in trade negotiations and will likely drop the return we can expect.

Yes. I will admit I don't know what Wells' value would be around the league. He wasn't in the top 30 prospects for the Cubs before the year - no value at all there - but has been pretty dominant in the majors this year. He was basically Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins before the season, but has definitely improved the stock significantly. It really doesn't matter what someone's perceived value was prior to the start of the season. It's what someone's value is currently that matters, and Randy Wells' value is currently worth more than a bullpen arm on a last place team in the NL. Perceived value before the season is very important in a player's current value. Teams aren't likely to look at Wells and see a dominant starter. They're more likely to see a rookie who was never well thought of, was a fringe prospect at best and now is dominating in the majors. They're going to question whether he can keep it up long term because he's doing this without great stuff. In order for him to be extremely valuable to another team, they'd have to completely overlook that he wasn't highly touted at all throughout his minor league career and that he doesn't have the kind of stuff that makes you think he can continue this success throughout his career. I'm not sure what his value is right now, but I find it hard to believe a pitcher with average stuff can go from off the radar to worth a significant package all because of a few very good ML starts.

Be the team that trades Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir, not the other way around. Scott Kazmir was always an elite prospect. He had terrific stuff and an extremely bright future. Wells has pretty good control and average or so stuff. There's a world of difference between Kazmir and Wells. The Mets traded a guy that had the potential to be a top of the line, elite ace. The Cubs would be trading a guy that might be a decent fifth starter throughout his career, unless he's able to dominate with average stuff.

More to an extreme with Brenly, I think.

Yes. I will admit I don't know what Wells' value would be around the league. He wasn't in the top 30 prospects for the Cubs before the year - no value at all there - but has been pretty dominant in the majors this year. He was basically Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins before the season, but has definitely improved the stock significantly.

Before the season was there a chance Wells was worth even a major league reliever? His stock is sky high for him, but I don't think he's got immense value to most teams. He wasn't much of a prospect before this season and isn't likely to keep up his current pace. If I believed he would keep this pace up or even close to it, I'd agree with you that we should keep him. But the likelihood is that he'll regress at some point and be a fringe starter/bullpen arm as was expected. If he's worth more now, then fantastic. Or if the Cubs truly believe he can keep this up, great, let's keep him. He wasn't a top 30 prospect in the Cubs system before the season, keep in mind. And the Cubs system was terrible entering the year.

To be fair, that's Eric Berry's little brother. Kiffin hasn't (and can't) pursue him.

Won't bring him back, right. I sure as heck don't think you waste resources on another freaking reliever when the team can't score a damn run. The team is also struggling to hold the few leads the offense can get. If you can shore up the pen with a shutdown reliever for a reasonable price (a guy pitching way above his head is a reasonable price), I don't see why you don't do it. If all we gave up was Wells, we'd still have the prospects and the money (if the money's there now) to upgrade the offense as well. I don't think Bell would cost just Wells, hence why I don't think we should make the trade, but if the hypothetical is Wells for Bell, I'd do it.

It's possible. I don't think the Trib would add the salary though. He's signed through 2010 with a 2011 option (that would be voided after a trade). Even if they could even out the money this season, the Trib likely wouldn't commit to paying him money next year.

I hope not. It would be nice if they traded for something that mattered, like a person who can hit the ball, instead of a post 30 year old reliever who is nothing special away from cavernous pitcher's parks. This season he's got a better WHIP and K:BB ratio on the road than at home. His ERA is higher, but that's only because he gave up 3 runs in 13 innings (road) instead of 2 runs in 20 innings (home). He was much worse on the road last year, but in 2007 he was only slightly worse on the road than he was at home (better ERA on the road, .150 points worse WHIP on the road). Two out of his three years in San Diego he's been something special on the road. Why does it only matter what he's doing most recently? He's a reliever. He's not going to consistently put up solid numbers. This obsession with getting guys who are doing well in the last year or two is mind boggling. A one or two year trend does not define a player, especially a reliever. We're not signing him to a 3-year $30 million deal here. We're acquiring him for the stretch run - this season. He's been excellent this year and, given his last two of three years, it's likely he will continue it throughout the remainder of the year. Then, we likely don't bring him back. If we were giving him a long-term deal, I would agree. But we're adding a player to a team weakness in order to improve ourselves for the next 2-3 months. Are you arguing that relievers should never be acquired for the stretch run?

Hence the Dusty comparison.