hawkeyecub

Last year he was just awful in his time with the Orioles and Rockies, but with the A's he had an .810 OPS. In '04 he hit .283/.347/.467 and was 17/18 in stolen bases. This year he's hitting.291/.351/.521 with the Diamondbacks and 13/14 in stolen bases. From what I can find he just signed a 1-year $2.25M contract with the Diamondbacks this year. They may not want to make a commitment to him with Young on the way. He's not a great on-base guy but does provide some pop and has adequate patience at least for what we're used to. I'm not sure how his defense has been as a full-time CF this year though. Is he primed for a decline the rest of this season? Is this just a fluke season during a contract year? If you can get the production he had in '04 and this season in CF at a reasonable cost, he may be a decent option. Looking at the free agents there just aren't many options. Torii Hunter will likely be overpaid and doesn't fit in very well here.

I posted similar thoughts yesterday. As much as I dislike the deal and think it was a very poor decision, there are a few things that could mean light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to hope the odds of that happening are higher than they appear. The fact that he's 26 and will be in a contract year next season is good news. That's the kind of scenario that can sometimes spark a breakout year (or he might stay the same). Also scouts apparently felt his bat was continuing to improve from '04 into '05 until he had those injuries.

Not any good teams have two bats as weak as those in their middle infield. I think Izturis and Cedeno could out-produce Ellis and Crosby in Oakland this year. I know it's the exception rather than the norm, but it is possible. I think there are multiple contenders who are in the neighborhood of a .700 OPS and it's really not a huge difference in the long haul if you're at .650 instead. Of course we need a major upgrade in the outfield spots to be able to hide that at all. OBP is the more important of the two components of OPS, and these guys are both sub .300 OBP guys. Oakland really isn't a good team, they are just the best of a bad division. They are only on pace for 85 wins. Good teams, teams that want to win 90+ games a year and be real contenders, don't go into the season with the ineptitude at both middle infield spots that the Cubs currently have. What matters is how many spots in the lineup have a weak bat. There have been plenty of 90-win teams that have two weak spots in the offense, so whether it's at SS and 2B or SS and C is irrelevant. The key is that Barrett continues to produce and we improve the outfield. If I were confident that we could substantially improve the outfield I would feel better about this move.

Not any good teams have two bats as weak as those in their middle infield. I think Izturis and Cedeno could out-produce Ellis and Crosby in Oakland this year. I know it's the exception rather than the norm, but it is possible. I think there are multiple contenders who are in the neighborhood of a .700 OPS and it's really not a huge difference in the long haul if you're at .650 instead. Of course we need a major upgrade in the outfield spots to be able to hide that at all.

And probably the year after that... Izturis has to be thrilled. He's almost guaranteed to have his club option picked up for '08, when there is no chance the Dodgers would have taken it. Yes there was. The Dodgers loved him. I don't like the move at all and wish we didn't have him. But people are acting like he has the same rep or value in the league as Neifi when he doesn't. Like I said yesterday, ML teams love 26 year old shortstops who have had 193 hits in a season, won two gold gloves and have an all-star appearance under their belt. It's the way it is.

Well he just did it again. Down 8-6, bottom of the 9th and he hit a 3-run walk-off homer. It just blows me away how many opportunities he seems to get to win the game in the 9th or extra innings and how often he comes through.

The answer is yes. Major League teams value 26 year old shortstops who have won 2 gold gloves, had 193 hits in a season and an All-Star appearance. At $4.5M there are multiple teams who would have picked him up.

I agree. However I do give him a bit of a free pass because we don't know if we would have waived his no-trade to come here. The rumors were that he only would waive it for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Angels (?). IF that's the case I can't pin any blame on Hendry.

Is there anything supporting that with Izturis? When I've seen him he has the ability to look spectacular but I know that doesn't translate to being a sound defensive SS. He definitely passes the eye test though. I'd be interested to see where he's ranked defensively, although I'm skeptical of most defensive statistics.

I would be surprised if Nevin wasn't involved in a deal this month. It shouldn't be difficult to pass him through waivers to make a deal. Of course we won't get anything of value from him.

Alright there has to be some light at the end of this tunnel doesn't there? Okay, probably not but I'll try to spin this into the best case scenario. Let me preface this by saying I absolutely hate the deal. Izturis will be 27 next year and playing in a contract year. As we all know age 27 is often a breakout or peak year and we know that players sometimes tend to play over their career norms in a contract year. In '04 Izturis hit .288/.330/.381. Pre AS break '05 he hit .275/.322/.338 when he was healthy. So as horrible as he's been offensively in his career if he gets back to '04 levels he's at least average as a SS. There's a slight possiblity that he could exceed that given his age and contract status. I know, it stinks. Let's just hope it works out for the best somehow or he suddenly has a Barrett-like resurgance.

Alright there has to be some light at the end of this tunnel doesn't there? Okay, probably not but I'll try to spin this into the best case scenario. Let me preface this by saying I absolutely hate the deal. Izturis will be 27 next year and playing in a contract year. As we all know age 27 is often a breakout or peak year and we know that players sometimes tend to play over their career norms in a contract year. In '04 Izturis hit .288/.330/.381. Pre AS break '05 he hit .275/.322/.338 when he was healthy. So as horrible as he's been offensively in his career if he gets back to '04 levels he's at least average as a SS. There's a slight possiblity that he could exceed that given his age and contract status. I know, it stinks. Let's just hope it works out for the best somehow or he suddenly has a Barrett-like resurgance.

What a joke. Hendry couldn't give this guy away for the last year, and you're griping about who he got in return? I'm just happy he's gone and Dusty will play Theriot! (Or at least, he [expletive] better...) Then why in the hell won't you keep him? What's so wrong with Walker anyways? He bats almost 300 and we're going to play Perez at 2nd. Give me a break. No wonder why we're going to lose ninety games this year. Because he was going to walk away at the end of the year for nothing. This kid sounds like he could have some nice upside and as others have said is probably market value for Walker. I'm glad to see Hendry go this route rather than trade him for some toolsy 24-year old SS who has never produced.

We get it abuck. You want Maddux gone at all costs. You hate sentimentality in baseball, you think Maddux has no impact on the other pitchers and that keeping him will only hurt the team. You've made that all very clear. But for crying out loud in this entire discussion you've continued to twist and exaggerate what other people are actually saying repeatedly.

I'm not so sure. There's never been much interest in Walker, even when he was coming off better offensive seasons and at a younger age than this year.

Is that because you mistakenly believe the young pitcher could get only 5 starts out of that open slot? You're right, I exaggerated and someone called up now would likely get twice that many starts IF they were inserted in the rotation immediately and were left in there for the remainder of the season.

That's my point. Allowing emotions to determine personel moves is a great way to ruin a franchise. The smart thing is to look for 2007, and keeping Maddux around stifles 2007. Correct but I'm not a GM and don't have the responsibility of making that decision. Again, all sentimentality goes out the window if we can get a solid prospect in return for Maddux. I have no problems with that whatsoever and really hope that we can make something happen with LA. I just don't think there is as much to be gained from opening up a slot in the rotation as others do.

I'd rather the Cubs think about 2007 and beyond, which means finding rotation spots for young guys now to both gauge what they can bring to the table, and let them work through whatever struggles they are inevitably going to encounter. Maddux's last 8 starts with Chicago will be meaningless when all is said and done. None of them will have any playoff implications (for the Cubs). In 2 years nobody is going to look back on Maddux's career and think about how wonderful it was that he got to start another handful of times in August and September 2006, when the team was 20 games under .500 and a pathetic joke across the league. I realize that. At the same time Greg Maddux is perhaps my favorite player of all-time and if we can't get anyone of any quality in return for him, I'd like to see him pitch 6 or 7 more times. I'm not saying it's going to be wonderful or I'll look back at these last two months with the fondest of memories. But I'd rather see him a few more times than seeing J.K. Ryu called up to get bombed. I guess I also think that people are overstating the importance of opening up a rotation slot for a youngster. Who is really knocking down the door to get opportunities to start in the majors right now? Who do we have that we need to evaluate for a starting spot next year other than Hill, Marmol (both getting starts right now) and Marshall? Furthermore, I don't think you gain a ton of information in your evaluation of a young pitcher based on 5 starts in the majors. and i think you're overstating the importance of getting to see your favorite pitcher pitch for your favorite team a few more times. Probably, I fully admit that. It's my opinion, nothing more. But can you answer the questions in my last paragraph? What will be gained by shipping him off just to ship him off and then giving starts to someone who may or may not be ready when you can't really make a good evaluation based off those starts? The only way the Cubs are really helped out in this whole situation is if we can land a quality prospect or more. If he starts for us the rest of the year nothing is gained and if we get C or lower prospects in return nothing is gained. Given that choice, I'd rather see him be the one to get the starts.

I'd rather the Cubs think about 2007 and beyond, which means finding rotation spots for young guys now to both gauge what they can bring to the table, and let them work through whatever struggles they are inevitably going to encounter. Maddux's last 8 starts with Chicago will be meaningless when all is said and done. None of them will have any playoff implications (for the Cubs). In 2 years nobody is going to look back on Maddux's career and think about how wonderful it was that he got to start another handful of times in August and September 2006, when the team was 20 games under .500 and a pathetic joke across the league. I realize that. At the same time Greg Maddux is perhaps my favorite player of all-time and if we can't get anyone of any quality in return for him, I'd like to see him pitch 6 or 7 more times. I'm not saying it's going to be wonderful or I'll look back at these last two months with the fondest of memories. But I'd rather see him a few more times than seeing J.K. Ryu called up to get bombed. I guess I also think that people are overstating the importance of opening up a rotation slot for a youngster. Who is really knocking down the door to get opportunities to start in the majors right now? Who do we have that we need to evaluate for a starting spot next year other than Hill, Marmol (both getting starts right now) and Marshall? Furthermore, I don't think you gain a ton of information in your evaluation of a young pitcher based on 5 starts in the majors.

Look if we can get an impact prospect or any of the rumored Dodgers prospects we've talked about who have upside and could be ML ready very soon, you make the deal and thank your lucky stars. If you can only get C prospects for him, I'd rather just keep him and watch him pitch 6 more times.

:?: I also dont understand. I would think if he was going to be a FA, they would have to give up less because he would be less desirable to trade for and give up too much if they may just loose him at the end of the season Yeah but the flip side is they aren't committed to him next year. That makes him a much less risky option. He's likely going to be an upgrade of the man he'll be replacing in the rotation, maybe enough for 2 wins to earn a spot in the playoffs for a team in the West. Either way they owe him nothing.

God forbid!!! No kidding. If people are blaming him for the problems this season, that's different. But if he doesn't hustle he should be called out for it.

We can match that, but it wouldn't be worthwhile. I really like Tejada and think he could still help this team for the near future, but if Angelos doesn't want to accept Aybar and Santana for him, the kind of package he would accept likely would decimate almost any farm system. Maybe through sheer quantity but not quality. We can't give them a pitcher the caliber of Santana or a position player the caliber of Aybar. Those guys are both very cheap and ready to play immediately (or at least next spring for Aybar).

Are any of you who are complaining aware of what the Orioles are asking for? ESPN has been reporting that they turned down an offer of Ervin Santana and Erick Aybar from the Angels. That's insane. We can't match that. They want ML ready (or near ready) prospects. We have no position players on the level of Aybar and no pitchers on the level of Santana.

Definitely. He could also give us some real versatility in the infield, which we know Dusty and Jim love. He should be easier to pry away than Ethier, but I'm not sure what we'd have to throw in on top of Maddux to land him.