XZero771679666304

Yowza.

It seems like yesterday we thought the Cubs had the best rotation baseball with Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Clement and Maddux just before the 2004 season. Hard to imagine then it would have come to this so soon. It'll be Dusty's legacy.

Link

Does it matter?

This is sarcasm, guys. Bernie is hit and miss. Also, I think it's funny that when he is a Cardinal he is a soft tossing bum who is just lucky to have been dipped in some weird Cardinals magic, but now he is a good target for the Cubs. He doesn't deserve near the money he'll get. Does anyone this offseason?

You'd also be a fool not to like his production against RHP. Isn't that what you'd look for in a platoon player? Yeah, you called him a platoon player at best. He's a good platoon player and you can get 130 games out of him - the reason he played 110 and 89 was because his team didn't always play him against RHP either. 130 games isn't full time, IMO. He'd still need a platoon mate.

The Cubs can't win 100 games this year unless they sign Schmidt, Bonds, Zito, and maybe another bench player. If the Cubs signed Schmidt and Prior came back healthy, they could win 100 with the current offense, IMO. I think the Cubs will be either good or great in 2007, with Prior being the deciding factor between the two.

You'd also be a fool not to like his production against RHP. Thus the platoon player label.

If they went for the best that's out there they wouldn't be looking at Lilly and Meche. I'm not convinced they're not interested in Schmidt, but I wonder about his willingness to come to Chicago. I hope he does, but doubt he will. Zito would be an unmitigated disaster in the NL central. In lieu of Schmidt, Lilly and Meche seem to be the top options.

And you're going to pay an enormous premium for that slight probability. No, but Jim Hendry and the tribune are, and I can understand some of the logic. This is all I am trying to say: I would feel more comfortable with Meche or Lilly, money not withstanding. Lilly and Meche represent a safer bet than our in house options, but will come at a ridiculous premium. Hendry, in all likelihood, is going to pay that ridiculous premium, and rather than have my head explode thinking about the financial ramifications, I am trying to rationalize it as best I can. I definitely see what they are thinking. All I'm saying is they are paying a huge sum in an attempt to guarantee mediocrity. Their goal seems to be to not lose 95 games, as opposed to try and field the best team possible. I'd rather lose 100 in pursuit of 100 wins than win 81 in pursuit of 85 wins. The question is, how can the Cubs reasonably pursue 100 wins with the team they have now? They can't, that's the problem. The best they can do is go after the best that's out there, which unfortunately isn't very good. The Cubs picked a poor offseason to start spending.

And you're going to pay an enormous premium for that slight probability. No, but Jim Hendry and the tribune are, and I can understand some of the logic. This is all I am trying to say: I would feel more comfortable with Meche or Lilly, money not withstanding. Lilly and Meche represent a safer bet than our in house options, but will come at a ridiculous premium. Hendry, in all likelihood, is going to pay that ridiculous premium, and rather than have my head explode thinking about the financial ramifications, I am trying to rationalize it as best I can.

IMO going into the seaon hoping Hill, Marshall, et al. improve is equivalent to going into the seaon hoping Meche and Lilly maintain. Neither option is good. No, neither is good. But I would put Meche and Lilly slightly higher on the probability scale.

He's also been as good as Meche has ever been. And he's much less expensive. Risk is more than the player's ability, but his cost. Ryan Dempster is Meche in 2 years. Live arm, has shown glimpses, but never put it together. The biggest difference is that Dempster put together 3 straight years of 200+ innings, while Meche never did, and Ryan is far less expensive. When was the last time Dempster was as good as Meche has ever been? 2001? 2000? He last pitched 200 innings in 2002, and he was bad. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, but saying Ryan is no bigger a gamble in the rotation than Meche is a real stretch. I'd wager that someone from the group of Dempster, Cotts, Marshall or Guzman could match Meche's numbers next year. I'm not confident of that. Not remotely. meche's era+ the last three years have been 86, 85 and 97. marshall's was 83 last year. you could say that meche is/will be better, but he's not $9.7 mil better. if meche is $9.7 mil better than marshall, zambrano is going to get a $600 mil contract. So we'd be better off not signing guys like Lilly and Meche, and just slot Marshall and company into the empty slots and pray we can get the needed innings out of them? The market is freaky crazy, and we need guys likely to give us innings. I don't like it, but it's something that we need to reconcile with. Counting on our mediocre and unproven kids because top talent is unavailable would be a poor way to go about things if we want any chance in 2007. Nothing I saw in the performance or numbers of Marshall, Guzman, Mateo or Marmol gave me any kind of confidence that they will get appreciably better, or be able to pitch a full season. Gil Meche and Ted Lilly were at least decent last year, which is more than can be said for most of our in house options. Holding out for Schmidt could prove to be a disaster if doesn't sign with the Cubs. Hendry is going to have to get a couple of starters, even if it's guys like Meche and Lilly. I would hope he could get Schmidt as well. But if the Cubs go into the season with Zambrano, Hill and Prior, Miller, Marshall, Guzman, Mateo, Dempster, Cotts and Marmol as the options for the rotation, you can kiss 2007 goodbye. We could do that and load up for 2008, which may be the smartest thing, but we all know that isn't going to happen. If you don't like the idea of signing guys like Lilly and Meche for 2-3X what they're worth, you had better avert your eyes.

That's because of his 2.61 ERA in day games in 2004. He's gone 4.59 in 2005 and 4.12 in 2006 in day games. Maybe "horrible" isn't the right word. But he's not good. I honestly believe the Cubs have in-house options that are better then Meche. If you can honestly look at the numbers that Marshall, Gooz and company posted and Dempster posted when he last was a starter and say that, you must see something I don't.

He's also been as good as Meche has ever been. And he's much less expensive. Risk is more than the player's ability, but his cost. Ryan Dempster is Meche in 2 years. Live arm, has shown glimpses, but never put it together. The biggest difference is that Dempster put together 3 straight years of 200+ innings, while Meche never did, and Ryan is far less expensive. When was the last time Dempster was as good as Meche has ever been? 2001? 2000? He last pitched 200 innings in 2002, and he was bad. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, but saying Ryan is no bigger a gamble in the rotation than Meche is a real stretch. I'd wager that someone from the group of Dempster, Cotts, Marshall or Guzman could match Meche's numbers next year. I'm not confident of that. Not remotely.

He's also been as good as Meche has ever been. And he's much less expensive. Risk is more than the player's ability, but his cost. Ryan Dempster is Meche in 2 years. Live arm, has shown glimpses, but never put it together. The biggest difference is that Dempster put together 3 straight years of 200+ innings, while Meche never did, and Ryan is far less expensive. When was the last time Dempster was as good as Meche has ever been? 2001? 2000? He last pitched 200 innings in 2002, and he was bad. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, but saying Ryan is no bigger a gamble in the rotation than Meche is a real stretch. The last time either of them was any good was in 2000, with the difference in their seasons being Meche had 15 starts and Dempster had 33. How is it a stretch? Meche can't stay healthy/pitch a full season, and he hasn't been an effective pitcher in several years. Dempster's risks are that he's got health/durability issues, and hasn't been an effective starter in years. The difference is Dempster is far less expensive. The cost alone makes Dempster less of a risk. He might be less likely to give you 180 quality innings (neither is going to do it), but at least he'll only cost you $5m while trying. Dempster hasn't started a full season since 2002, when he was awful. He has had major surgery and pitched primarily out of the bullpen for the past 3 years. This isn't John Smoltz, and I don't think Dempster can start anymore. Meche, who has been mediocre-bad, is far more likely to give a team 150 or more inning because he has averaged 150+ over the past 4 years. His numbers have been bad, but actually right around Dempster's career numbers. If Dempster posted Meche's 2006 numbers, it would be his second best season as a starter. I am not advocating Meche, but he would be a safer bet than Dempter. The 5 million dollar difference is immaterial to me, because IMO, Dempster is probably incapable of being even a medicore starter. I would rather pay Meche his 10 million than watch Dempster flame out at 50-60IP with an ERA of 5.50-6.00.

He's also been as good as Meche has ever been. And he's much less expensive. Risk is more than the player's ability, but his cost. Ryan Dempster is Meche in 2 years. Live arm, has shown glimpses, but never put it together. The biggest difference is that Dempster put together 3 straight years of 200+ innings, while Meche never did, and Ryan is far less expensive. When was the last time Dempster was as good as Meche has ever been? 2001? 2000? He last pitched 200 innings in 2002, and he was bad. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, but saying Ryan is no bigger a gamble in the rotation than Meche is a real stretch.

I have zero problem with signing Hidalgo a minor league deal. Seems like a low risk/potentially high reward proposition.

Why not just have Dempster start, you'd get the same thing Meche can give you, for half the price and no longterm committment. not saying its logical to get all three, just saying maybe he's thinking that way- As far as Demp goes, maybe he could be a solid starter again but thats a big gamble to take when your job is on the line- It's no bigger gamble than Meche. I'm not sure that's true. Dempster has only started a handful of games in the past few years, and was worse then Meche has ever been.

I like Drew, but no way in hell would I have given him 5/70 guaranteed.

More news on Meche and Lilly Sun-Times Daily Herald

It continues Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092002093.html Interesting isn't the word I'd use.

With as much downtime as there is in division 1 in December, I can't fathom why a two week, 4-team playoff wouldn't be more than reasonable. I don't recall any teams ranked 5th ore below having a gripe, so I think a 4 team playoff would be adequate as well. The fact that all the lower divisions have playoffs negates any argument against them anyway, IMO.

Because high strikeout and low BA don't matter if you have a good OBP/SLG. Strikeout totals are meaningless. BA doesn't tell you much of everything. Unlike Mark Bellhorn, Dunn actually has a long history of putting up good numbers. He's not a perfect player, far from it. But I don't think anybody is claiming such a thing. He is, however, a perfect matchup with the Cubs biggest needs (LH power bat with OBP ability) offensively. Well, the high strikeout/low BA does negate some of his OBP and SLG. No, it doesn't actually. Explain. By striking out as much as he does, he has to have an ungodly BABIP to maintain any kind of batting average. The high strikeouts directly contribute to his low BA. The low BA drags down his OBP and the lack of hits from not putting balls in play (even if they are just singles) affect his SLG. If a guy has a .325 AVG and .380 OBP, does he contribute more than the guy with the .240 AVG and .380 OBP? No, especially when that guy hits 40+ HR, and over half of his hits are XBH. As long as Dunn's OBP remains high, the strikeouts are a moot point.

It is a concern. Then again, lots of guys have down years. When a down year still results in solid production, I'm not going to freak out about it. No, but his flaws become harder to ignore at a .855 OPS than the .957 he posted in 2004. If that .855 becomes, say, .825, then he is nearing the point of be a liability rather than an asset.