MWV

Rosenbloom apparently watches only TLC and Sox games.

If Hendry is determined to overspend on a reliever, I guess it might as well be Kerry Wood.

Poor New York.

If Wood is willing to take a paycut to come home, then kill the fatted calf and prepare a feast. A) I irrationally love Kerry Wood B) This would likely force Cashner out of the 'pen. That said, the money would have to be right.

Awesome now THIS is awesome. Consider this. Let's say we take players the first three months of the season, minimum 200 PAs. We then split up their PA's into two equal sets, randomly. You can do this with a rand function very easily. If you don't want to do that, just alternate them and throw them into two sets that way. I chose the first method. Then in those two sets, calculate OPS. Keep in mind that these two sets have 100-175 PAs max. Then for the players calculate their true talent level the best you can. A simple way is to weight the three previous years, hence why we wanted to look at the first three months of the season. You can also use a projection system to come up with one. Then take the difference between their "true" OPS and their actual OPS's for each set. If it were truly random like you all (and they) say, then we would expect this correlation to be zero, or very close to it. Since doing well (or poor) in one set of 125 PAs shouldn't have anything to do with the other set of 125 PAs. However, when you look at the data you'll find a correlation that's in the .30-.40 range between the differences. Meaning that the two are certainly related and that high fluctuations in short term true talent level exist. It's even more surprising considering that each set is around 150 PAs. Thus, their hypothesis can be thrown out the window and they are simply wrong. Wouldn't the correlation depend upon how comparable the ~300 PA "sample" OPS is to the "true" talent value? If the difference is great between the "true" value and the overall "sample" value, I would be shocked if there wasn't some correlation between the randomized subsets. Unless the sample is VERY small or the sampling VERY weird, two random subsets of ~300 PA of say, .650 OPS can be expected to be close to .650 as well. If the true OPS is .800, then the difference will be close to .150 for each data set. You should reasonably expect a positive correlation, especially over many iterations, which would statistically suppress outliers. Maybe I'm missing something very important in the analysis, but it seems that the only place a near zero correlation might crop up would be a stretch of PAs where the player produced very near his "true" talent, in which case, what are we all arguing about, again?

http://home.comcast.net/~bcvm22/cubs/ronsaysdumpher.mp3 In the interest of full disclosure, this is an excerpt from track 12, "Heartbreak Dead Ahead", of Welcome to the Friendly Confines of the Pat and Ron Show, the delightful CD of Pat and Ron's best moments they published a few years back. I don't know if it's still in print or not. Thanks. I don't know that I've ever thanked you in the past for your dedication to posting audio, but I've been appreciating it for years.

Bears win 46-10.

One of my favorite Santo memories came during a broadcast from Shea a few years ago; a fan wrote to explain that he was dating a Mets fan who didn't understand his loyalty to the Cubs. He was hoping Ron could give him some advice. Upon Pat's having finished reading the letter, Ron immediately growled "Dump her", and offered little else on the subject.

Additionally, we have far less payroll committed to 2011 than to the present season.

From fangraphs: Garza 2008 4.48 2009 4.21 2010 4.51 Avg. 4.40 Lilly w/Jays 2004 4.60 2005 4.74 2006 4.52 Avg. 4.62 Lilly w/Cubs 2007 4.31 2008 4.14 2009 3.98 Avg. 4.14 Lilly obviously improved upon coming to the NL central, and conventional wisdom may say that Garza should as well, although I don't know that I would expect an average xFIP near 3.92 over his three years of club control.

Does anyone (Cubs org. included) still view Ryan Flaherty as a SS? Or is he a consensus 2B at this point? Both he and Lake seem like longshots, though. It's probably Lee.

I know little of the Ray's system, but are they looking for OF prospects with the departure of Crawford imminent? B. Jackson may be off the table, but Golden or Guyer along with McNutt or another pitcher? Pure speculation, of course.

Whoever first floated the "Wells for Garza" line should get into viral marketing.

More importantly, he made Jim Joyce cry.

If Tom Gorzelanny were right handed and unable to strike people out, he'd pretty much be Armando Galarraga.

is this serious? i hope not. that was one game. wow. I will take the liberty of assuring you, on Treeman's behalf, that this was sarcasm.

I don't see why they wouldn't be interested in a non-arb pitcher who should be decent this year. He's a cheaper replacement. If what they want is a haul of prospects then screw that. I agree that they would probably bite on Wells (or I would, in their position). I was just wondering what package of prospects, since that is apparently their quarry, people thought would be reasonable to get Garza. I'm not worried about a Wells for Garza trade as much as I am a McNutt/Guyer/etc. for Garza trade.

If TB is interested in prospects in return, as Levine states, would they even want Wells? Furthermore, Levine claims neither B. Jackson nor Archer are not involved. What other prospects of ours would net us Garza?

Rosenthal's take on the deal includes this encouraging note: "The Cubs are strongly considering using right-hander Andrew Cashner as a starter next season." He also mentions that the Cubs are pursuing a number of trade options in addition to the Texas rumors.

Do the cubs intend to keep 4 catchers on the 40 man roster? If not his deal, there must be something in the works, no?

Fangraphs PitchFx Data has his fastball at 89.0 in 2007 (34 starts), 88.2 in 2008 (34 starts) and 87.6 in 2009 (a 1 start sample).

Whether a Konerko deal is 3/$45 million or 3/$36 million, the price is probably beyond reach for the cubs (and that is fine with me).

Unless you're talking about a re-tread starter or a journeyman reliever, I'm growing increasingly skeptical that the bolded statement is true. I think we're looking at a Chris Davis/Tyler Colvin level of 1B replacement.

If Gorzelanny is not slated for the rotation, he would have to move to the 'pen. I seem to recall that Gorzelanny would much rather start. Perhaps this is a case of Hendry trying to find a better "fit" for a player that he knows he cannot guarantee a preferred role? I find it difficult to envision any scenario in which the cubs opt to trade him of their own volition. That having been said, this trade would likely be one more in a growing list of bad moves/non-moves the cubs have made this offseason.

The moves--or lack thereof--by the front office thus far (re-signing Quade, passing on Dunn, et al., offering arbitration to Hill) seem to suggest their confidence in the current roster's ability to match the 24-13 record they produced under Quade at the end of the season.