Lefty

Do you really see Wood's arm as resilient enough to close?

Please no. Zito is not going to be worth nearly what he will end up getting paid. Do you think Schmidt is worth over 15mil? I personally don't think so especially considering he already has lost velocity and has age concerns. If Lilly is "worth" $10-11m, Schmidt is worth more than $15m. This just puts it into perspective. Do you really want to commit 10% of your payroll to Ted Lilly? We all know that Hendry is clueless when it comes to resource utilization. But has he no confidence in his organization that he will pay $10 million for maybe an extra win or two? I.e., if you do not think you can cobble out 180 innings with a less than 5 ERA from some combination of Marshall, Guzman or Mateo, you will never be able to compete. The Cubs are beginning to remind me of the Mo Vaughn Mets.

Unfortunately Hendry is on a one-year plan. He could care less that the Cubs will lose 100 games in 2010.

Say no to Lilly. His mechanics are so bad. Maybe that is why he is always seemingly injured. Lilly's mechanics seem OK to me since he smoothed them out a few years ago. That he is an undistinguished pitcher is another matter.

If you read the accounts of Patterson's AFL stint at The Cub Reporter, Arizona Phil says that Patterson looked MLB ready on offense but totally lost at Second Base. He suggested moving Patterson to the OF and he made some convincing arguments.

If I had wheels I'd be a bus.

He didn't say the first half. All he implies is that Prior will miss some time next year... not necessarily the beginning of it. Actually, Carroll responded to an e-mail in which he wrote that he would miss time based on what he hears about the shoulder now. This implies a first-half problem with no guarantees. I would like to know how many degrees of separation there are between UK and Tom House. UK?

Will Carroll just mentioned matter of factly in a BP chat that Prior will miss the first half of next season. Has anyone heard anything else?

I posted this in another thread, but it's flatlined. Always interested in a broad discussion. Most people (not on this board of course) misunderstood the message of Moneyball. It was about efficient use of resources, getting value for your money. With the amount of money going to some very pedestrian starting pitchers, I wonder what an appropriate response by a smart team would be. First of all, spend your money on offense. J.D. Drew at 3/45 is preferable to Zito at 6/90. They're both are around 40-60 VORP. This includes Drew's tendency to miss some games. Pitchers have greater injury issues in general than position players and their performances are more highly variable. So who pitches? Let's look at the Cubs. We mention all the guys who might help; Miller, Marshall, Cotts, Prior etc. But if creativity is required, what would be a totally new approach? Wood says he can't start, but is relieving 2 out of 3 days really better? How about tandem starting Marshall and Wood every 4 or 5 days. Hard throwing righty for 60 pitches, then soft-tossing lefty for a few innings. I suspect that the 100 innings Wood pitches in this scenario is easier on the arm than the 80 IP he might get in the bullpen. If Prior is healthy, great. Same goes for Miller though I am not a believer. But we have good bullpen arms. If Wood/Marshall goes nine, how about reliever day before a day off or before Zambrano. I can hear the whining about "roles," but you could plan it a week in advance so every starter, and even a couple of relievers would know when they were going and what was expected of them. And pitchers are usually more effective as relievers. So all the marginal guys we'd be trotting out might be slightly more effective. Finally, our replacement pitchers of last year were costing us 1 to 1.3 runs per game. The problem was that we had 3 or 4 such pitchers in the rotation all year. For each slot that's about 2 or 3 wins a year. But better utilization might shave a few runs off of that. If we have 2 such spots, and that's probably where we are now, Lugo over Cedeno/Izturis/Perez makes that up. So if the Cubs continue to add bats strategically, and Floyd over Murton probably does not qualify, not signing any pitchers appears to be a rational response. As such, expect Jason Schmidt to sign next week.

Most people (not on this board of course) misunderstood the message of Moneyball. It was about efficient use of resources, getting value for your money. With the amount of money going to some very pedestrian starting pitchers, I wonder what an appropriate response by a smart team would be. First of all, spend your money on offense. J.D. Drew at 3/45 is preferable to Zito at 6/90. They're both are around 40-60 VORP. This includes Drew's tendency to miss some games. Pitchers have greater injury issues in general than position players and their performances are more highly variable. So who pitches? Let's look at the Cubs. We mention all the guys who might help; Miller, Marshall, Cotts, Prior etc. But if creativity is required, what would be a totally new approach? Wood says he can't start, but is relieving 2 out of 3 days really better? How about tandem starting Marshall and Wood every 4 or 5 days. Hard throwing righty for 60 pitches, then soft-tossing lefty for a few innings. I suspect that the 100 innings Wood pitches in this scenario is easier on the arm than the 80 IP he might get in the bullpen. If Prior is healthy, great. Same goes for Miller though I am not a believer. But we have good bullpen arms. If Wood/Marshall goes nine, how about reliever day before a day off or before Zambrano. I can hear the whining about "roles," but you could plan it a week in advance so every starter, and even a couple of relievers would know when they were going and what was expected of them. Finally, our replacement pitchers of last year were costing us 1 to 1.3 runs per game. The problem was that we had 3 or 4 such pitchers in the rotation all year. For each slot that's about 2 or 3 wins a year. If we have 2 such spots, and that's probably where we are now, Lugo over Cedeno/Izturis/Perez makes that up. So if the Cubs continue to add bats strategically, and Floyd over Murton probably does not qualify, not signing any pitchers appears to be a rational response. As such, expect Jason Schmidt to sign next week.

His numbers will probably improve coming to the NL. His cost to aquire is a lot more palatable than paying Gil Meche or Greg Maddux. Yea, coming to the NL will help, but you never know - I don't think that's a variable you can count on to come true. Secondly, I would actually rather pay/overpay to acquire Meche. In the playoffs, Westbrook's stuff wont win you a game, neither will Maddux' - at least with Meche you have a chance. Well, he will face a pitcher about 80 times as opposed to a DH, so figure it out yourself. OK I will. That's about 12 baserunners and 20 total bases.

I think in any trade for an established pitcher, we are going to have send a top prospect back. And if they take Dempster, I think they are doing us a favor. So I would say Veal or Gallagher for sure, and then a project like Guzman or Marshall. Remember, Hendry really isn't on our side anymore. He has a one-year time horizon. There's no way we'd give up star potential along with our closer and a young pitcher with decent production and decent potential for an average starter. Oh no? First of all, you can call Dempster your "closer," but he still suc*s and those are guys you want off your team generally. As far as giving up a top prospect, Hendry needs to win this year or he is gone. What would you do to save your job?

I think in any trade for an established pitcher, we are going to have send a top prospect back. And if they take Dempster, I think they are doing us a favor. So I would say Veal or Gallagher for sure, and then a project like Guzman or Marshall. Remember, Hendry really isn't on our side anymore. He has a one-year time horizon.

No.

thanks for the equation. is there a number for runs created that shows that player X is above/below the league average in that department? like how an OBP of .350 is the benchmark (usually) for a good player who gets on base, for example...is there something like that for runs created? you mentioned situational biases for runs scored and RBI...which is better to compare if player A is more of a run-scoring threat than player B? i was thinking about setting up a lineup and, correct me if i'm wrong, one would think that a player with a high run total (100+) should be near the top of the lineup (preferably batting in the 1 or 2 hole) so that the power hitters in the 3, 4 and 5 hole could drive him in. i hope i make sense. :) The beauty of a Runs Created Stat is that it is mostly situationally independent. So its product can be used to compare very different players. Last year Jaun Pierre created about 90 runs and made 532 outs (AB-H+CS+GIDP+SH+SF). So if you figure it like an ERA, Pierre created about 4.6 runs for every 27 outs. Since Earned Runs are about 90% of runs scored, Pierre produced like an NL pitcher with a 4.15 ERA. I am working on something else here, but if you go online and use some of the more advanced formulas and figure the outs made by the various hitters, you will have all you need to compare players. Of course then you have to figure in park effects. Enjoy!

What most people mean by 'Runs Created' is the amount of runs resulting from the sum of a player's offensive contributions. Thus the situational biases of runs scored (for leadoff men) and RBI (for cleanup hitters) is eliminated. There are several complex mathematical formulas out there. For a quick and dirty measurement use OBP X SLG X AB. For great offensive players it's a little high, but you'll get the idea.

No kidding. The more he strikes out, the less they cost. And these are the idiots who tell you that stats are worthless. Meaningful stats are priceless. That's how I make my living.

Not so bold. He only did it in his contract year. Maybe he's the new Adrian Beltre. Wow, same money as Beltran while we have had two years of awful CF play. Beltran will be 34 when his contract is up, Soriano 38. Hendry can't see 5 feet in front of his face. But what does he care. He'll be gone by next year.

Forget the k/bb ratio; Cameron's not a pitcher. He's always had a decent OBP considering the ballparks he's played in. Has power. And is a gold glover. Again, if we keep Pie and he becomes Cameron, it would be a good thing.

I thought Aardsma was outstanding in his last tour with the Cubs. I guess I should check the stats to confirm that. But this isn't the kind of deal that is likely to make or break any of-season.

I read someplace that his defense was terrible... Someone at all-baseball.com who has been watching the AFL says Patterson's offensive approach is fantastic, almost MLB ready, but that he should be moved to the outfiled now.

We should be so lucky.

<7/119 for Beltran. Live & learn.

Revenues are up, salaries are going up. What seemed expensive might not be any longer. What Hendry does not understand is the folly of paying slightly above average veterans huge premiums. Is DeRosa worth $4 million more than Theriot? No way. But Beltran was worth more than the $11 million premium he made over Pierre last year. And the $14 million more he made than Patterson in 2005. How much has Hendry sunk on garbage the last two plus years? As USSoccer says about Hendry, "overpaying for mediocrity." Only about 320 days left for Hendry's reign of error.

Hendry should be fired before he does any more damage.