dew1679666265

I shouldn't have said, "of late", but yes, he has been used all that heavily. In June he threw 15.6 innings, a pace of 93.6 innings over a full season. That's a hell of a lot for a reliever. In July he only needs 2.6 more innings to match that rate, and with 7 games remaining, it's hard to imagine him not reaching that pace again. He may be getting some rest between appearances, but he has thrown over an inning in 14 games so far. Hopefully the return of Dempster will slow it down a bit. But the way he was used from June 10 to July 19 was really risky, 40 days, 17 outings, 24 innings. And that was with the ASB. That's a pace of 77 appearances and 110 innings pitched over a full season. A young guy with relatively little pitching history may be at greater risk during a stretch like that. A positive note is that Lou seems to put stock in not throwing a young pitcher too much over the course of a season. As an example, I don't think anyone in the rotation has thrown 120+ pitches this year except Z (maybe Marquis too) and guys like Hill and Marshall haven't had that many significantly over 100. He's even mentioned that he's going to try to rest Marmol for a while, so hopefully with the return of Dempster and Howry's move to the eighth, he'll be able to do so.

Buck is the local play-by-play guy for the Cardinals. Much like Chip did when with the Cubs, Buck does all Cardinals games except Saturday when he does the Fox national game. That's actually not the case anymore. Buck only does about 10 local Cards broadcasts a year. The rest of the time Dan McLaughlin does PBP with Hrabosky. Other than his FOX commitments, not sure what else Buck does all season. Interesting, I hadn't heard he wasn't doing Cards broadcasts all the time anymore. Makes sense though, doesn't seem like he'd need the work what with inexplicably being the lead Fox broadcaster on every sport known to mankind.

The fact that he's 33 and hasn't had a good season since 2004 features prominently in my assessment of the trade. In fairness, he had a good OBP (.360 range) last year, a .345 the year before and .399 the two years before that. He hasn't had a good OPS because his slugging has been terrible, but that's always been an issue. I'm pretty down on Kendall right now too, but he's had on-base success as recently as last season, so I'm still hoping he can turn it around. It's looking like we won't have a good catching situation no matter what happens.

The Cube still lists his position as catcher. BTW, note who's sponsoring his page on the Cube. :D Very nice, but you spelled relief wrong. :D

Buck is the local play-by-play guy for the Cardinals. Much like Chip did when with the Cubs, Buck does all Cardinals games except Saturday when he does the Fox national game.

Performance-wise, Lilly is right there with those guys. OK...performance wise in the weak NL. Who would you rather have going in Game 2 of a series? Give me those AL guys who can have no-hit stuff on any given night. That's the thing though, Lilly is perfectly capable of having no-hit stuff any night. Escobar is actually the only pitcher who's had better numbers consistently than Lilly the past four years, while Ted's been better this year than Daisuke and better than Bonderman two of the last four years (judging by ERA+ alone). Now would I want Lilly long term over Bonderman or Daisuke? No, but I feel very good about having him down this year's stretch run.

Though he's less consistent than Z, Lilly is more than capable of being unhittable any given day. He's a very good #2 pitcher right now.

:shock: Marmol's been cheating, never knew that. Sorry, I tried but couldn't resist. :D

no way. i'd rather ride him to the playoffs and risk losing him than trade him and miss the playoffs entirely It's a hard proposition either way you slice it. If in the end he's going to be gone, I'd rather trade him and get high value for him right now. The problem is, no one is going to trade for him when you can sign him in the offseason right? Also, I doubt highly they'd trade their ace when in a division race in a winable division. I hate to think Z will be gone, but can we compete on the open FA market with LA, NY, Boston, whoever, if we do have an owner? At least they are all in the AL. Unless by LA he means the Dodgers. :)

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-). I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners. To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees. So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important. but your 3rd starter doesn't always start Game 3. If you didn't clinch the playoff spot until the final day of the season, it may have been your ace who pitched on that Sunday, meaning your ace would be pitching Game 3 And for a team like the Padres this year, it would behoove them to start Maddux in game 2 (assuming the first two at home) rather than game 3 on the road, thus putting Chris Young in a game 3 mismatch. Not sure how many instances of that we can find, but it's at least a small consideration.

Gallardo has a ton of talent, but just for this year I think I like Rich Hill better. He's got a little more major league experience and is a little more proven than Gallardo at this level. I realize there's a general distaste for the term "proven veterans" here, but the fact that he's had success over an extended period of time makes me more comfortable with him than Gallardo right now. Hill is also going to hit the 200 innings mark. His pitch count in each outing has been kept fairly low and he reached 199.1 innings last season combined between Iowa and Chicago. In 05 he pitched 153 innings and before that 109. A full 200 may wear him down a bit, but I'm not terribly worried about it. I would be in favor of giving him a start or two off if possible down the stretch.

Gallardo has a ton of talent, but just for this year I think I like Rich Hill better. He's got a little more major league experience and is a little more proven than Gallardo at this level. I realize there's a general distaste for the term "proven veterans" here, but the fact that he's had success over an extended period of time makes me more comfortable with him than Gallardo right now.

Definitely having a better third starter is important, but what names are out there to acquire? Jon Garland? Jose Contreras? I don't see anyone currently available that would be an upgrade over what we've got. The only way to really improve would be to highly overpay in an attempt to pry somebody away (Javier Vazquez or Dontrelle Willis for instance) and I just don't see that it would be worth doing that.

I thought about that when figuring things up, but I have no idea when he's expected to return and what shape he'll be in when playoff time rolls around. Too many variables to include him right now, in my opinion.

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-). I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners. To put a little perspective to that, in series that were tied at one in 2005 and 2006, the team that won game 3 won the series all seven times. To go back a little farther, since 2000 in series that were tied at one the team that won game 3 went 21-5 in the series. The Marlins in 2003 actually lost game 3's in this situation (series tied at 1) to both the Cubs and Yankees. So yeah, when the series is tied, Game 3 is very important. Intriguing. Guess this means anyone worried about our third starter should hope Z and Lilly blow the other team away in the first two games. :D

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D Research past playoff history on MLB.com. Look at game 3's for the past 5 years, and let us know what % of those who won game 3 won the series ;-). I looked at the last two years out of curiosity. In 2006 the game 3 winner ultimately won 6 of the 7 postseason series (the St. Louis vs. San Diego NLDS was the exception). And in 2005 the game 3 winner won all 7 series. So that's a 13-1 record for game 3 winners. Thanks for the research. I was going to last night, but my internet went down. :x

Good question. I'd try, but have no idea where to start. :D

There's been a lot of concern lately over who will be the Cubs' number three starter come playoff time. People have been concerned over whether we have anybody good enough after Z and Lilly to compete in the short series and there has been interest shown in acquiring a starter to fill that role. So, I decided to take a look at the other third starters we'd likely be facing in the playoffs to see how they stack up to ours. Here's what I found: Braves - Smoltz and Hudson are their 1 and 2. After that, they have Chuck James, Jo-Jo Reyes and Buddy Carlyle. James is likely to be the third starter out of that group and his numbers are 118 ERA+ with an 80:47 K:BB ratio. Mets - Glavine and Oliver Perez are listed as their top two starters, though Perez could be bumped by either of their third starter candidates - Orlando Hernandez and John Maine. Both have been good, but neither is a sure thing to continue. El Duque has a 131 ERA+ and a 77:39 K:BB ratio. The past four seasons, though, he's posted a 106, 78, 95 and 87 ERA+. Maine, a second year major leaguer, has a 134 ERA+ and a 101:45 K:BB ratio. Brewers - Capuano and Suppan are the best they've got. After that, Yovani Gallardo is easily their most talented and I suspect even after a dropoff he'll be better than Dave Bush. Gallardo currently sports a 184 ERA+ and a 31:11 K:BB ratio. He's definitely very talented, but these numbers scream sample size. They also have Sheets, if he can stay healthy. Dodgers - Derek Lowe and Brad Penny are their best and third has to be 22-year-old Chad Billingsley. Thus far this year he's posted a 123 ERA+ and a 64:29 K:BB ratio. Quite good, but I have doubts about his sustainability right now. Padres - This is easily the best top two yet - Jake Peavy and Chris Young. After them, though, the Fathers have Greg Maddux and David Wells. Maddux is easily the better of the two and he's put up a 97 ERA+ with a 66:19 K:BB ratio. D'Backs - Brandon Webb is terrific and Livan Hernandez is serviceable. After that, Doug Davis has a 110 ERA+ and an 80:67 K:BB ratio. So how do the Cubs' options stack up you may ask? Here you go: Rich Hill - 123 ERA+ with a 105:38 K:BB ratio. That's better than everybody but Billingsley (tied), Hernandez, Maine and Gallardo. I'd wager he'll end the year better than Gallardo. Jason Marquis - 113 ERA+ and a 67:45 K:BB ratio. I'd definitely stick him in the pen for the playoffs unless he's on a hot streak entering them. He's better than only Maddux and Davis in ERA+. Sean Marshall - 136 ERA+ and a 45:21 K:BB ratio. Very good numbers, but again sample size might be an issue. Nowhere near as big as Gallardo, but still an issue. Barring an incredible hot streak by either Marshall or Marquis, I'd definitely start Hill behind Z and Lilly and have the other two ready in case he struggles. Compared to the other third starters in the NL though, I think we match up quite favorably.

I hate the Brewers.

I wouldn't complain much.

What do we need another SP for? Every single one has done his job. Looking into a Playoff Rotation are you comfortable with anyone we have as our #3 starter. Zambrano is great, Lilly is solid, but after that I am little uncertain. Hill could easily run away with it with a solid August and September, but right now its anyone guess. I wouldn't pay a lot for another reliever unless the Reds demand Marshall in the Griffey or Dunn trades. Otherwise I'm fine with a Z, Lilly, Hill for the top three and then if Hill shows any sign of struggling, you've got Marquis and Marshall available in the pen. I'd say any of those three would be dependable for three innings or so. If we got a starter handed to us on a silver platter, though, I'd definitely be very interested. :D Won't happen... doesn't look like any good ones are going to be available. Mike Maroth just might be one of the best SP's dealt this year. What we have is better than what's going to be better. Yeah, I haven't heard of any really good starters available. I'm happy enough with the starters we have right now. So long as the offense keeps performing like it's capable, the pitchers won't have to be dominant every time out. Hopefully they'll at least be able to pick up the offense in low scoring games though. Good starters available? scouts have been following contreras and trachsel around for the last two weeks. theres your market ladies and gentleman! I remember thinking steve trachsel was terrible when i was 15, ten years ago. Yeah, when the two top available starters have ERA+'s in the 80s, the starter market is pitiful.

Except Stairs can hit HRs. Historically, when both have gotten a decent amount of playing time they've each hit around the same number of home runs and had similar slugging percentages. Very true, I guess I should've just specified this year. Stairs has 13 I think, and Ward has 0. I can't even recall Ward ever coming close. I love having Ward on the team, he's done a great job, but if we could land a guy who gets on base like him and can hit for some power, I think we'd have to for the right price. That's what I figured you meant, but I was just making sure. :) As for Ward's lack of power this year, it seems like pitchers are avoiding him like the plague. He's got a very good OBP and for the first quarter of the year it seemed like he'd be intentionally walked every time he pinch hit.

Except Stairs can hit HRs. Historically, when both have gotten a decent amount of playing time they've each hit around the same number of home runs and had similar slugging percentages.

My bad--I thought he signed a 2yr. contract. I was thinking he could serve as the CF this yr. and a 4th outfielder next--but a 3yr deal makes a deal for Roberts a real bad idea. No wonder everyone is trying to get Lofton. Texas will get some good prospects for him. For Gagne as well. I'm not sure Texas will be able to get really good prospects for him. He'll be a three month rental for whoever gets him, so that alone will lower his value considerably. It's in Texas' best interest to trade him and there's no reason for them to keep him, so they have little leverage in the matter.

What do we need another SP for? Every single one has done his job. Looking into a Playoff Rotation are you comfortable with anyone we have as our #3 starter. Zambrano is great, Lilly is solid, but after that I am little uncertain. Hill could easily run away with it with a solid August and September, but right now its anyone guess. I wouldn't pay a lot for another reliever unless the Reds demand Marshall in the Griffey or Dunn trades. Otherwise I'm fine with a Z, Lilly, Hill for the top three and then if Hill shows any sign of struggling, you've got Marquis and Marshall available in the pen. I'd say any of those three would be dependable for three innings or so. If we got a starter handed to us on a silver platter, though, I'd definitely be very interested. :D Won't happen... doesn't look like any good ones are going to be available. Mike Maroth just might be one of the best SP's dealt this year. What we have is better than what's going to be better. Yeah, I haven't heard of any really good starters available. I'm happy enough with the starters we have right now. So long as the offense keeps performing like it's capable, the pitchers won't have to be dominant every time out. Hopefully they'll at least be able to pick up the offense in low scoring games though.