CuseCubFan69

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything. The supposed high upside is the ERA+'s of 134, 130, 107, and 129 that Miller put up from 2001 to 2004. The guy put up a 101 in his 5 starts last year, so it's not so outrageous to believe that with some additional rehab and strength-building (not to mention the year-2 effect after TJS), he could improve upon that 101, and regain his status as a well above-average, #2 or #3 starter. That's the supposed high upside. A guy with that level of production gets paid something like $12M/yr (or more) on the open market. Say you think Miller's got a 25% chance of meeting that ceiling. You should be willing to pay him $3M (12x0.25). The Cubs are paying half that. That's smart business. It isn't bad business when you look at the cost and you can afford to make a gamble like that but you have to add who's spot is he taking away. IMO when you add it up it isn't worth the cost.

I wish Sammy well but if he hits a home run off me I'd whistle one by his head the next time up and see how he reacts to that.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does. What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet. You're right, they are different but the result was basically the same; he missed, at least, 7 starts in 2002 due to surgery and all of the 2003 season so it was definitely a risk to sign him. The Tigers have to take those gambles (so did the Royals with Sisco). On the other hand, if the Cardinals had been willing to keep Mateo they would have had someone else to fill out their rotation. Either way it's a gamble. Teams choose the option that makes them most comfortable. The option I would rather take is to keep those players and develop them. Honestly 98n....if I have 3 million to spend I'm going in a different with it than you are. I'm not going to take the chance of losing a Meteo or Campusano and use that cash for adding the amount of money I'd use to get a better overall player to help the team. I do understand your point and you just have a different philosophy than I do regarding this issue and I respect that.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball. Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value. He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him. What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher. It isn't always black and white like that. IMO his game was nibbling and hitting spots and with that goes walking more guys than you'd like too. If he gets too much plate it's a hard hit ball so he has to locate and he hasn't ever proved he can do that.

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. I disagree. You have to look at each case and determine if it's worth it. Williamson hasn't done anything that a guy from the minors couldn't do with less cost. There are also other guys the Cubs have gone this route with that haven't panned out to do anything other than costing money and taking a roster spot away.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. TJS is different than shoulder injuries. The Tigers semed to be willing to make that gamble and I didn't see them offer Miller more money to play for them. Also, their mechanics are a big piece of my decision along with past success. I was never really that thrilled with Miller when he was healthy so that's a big reason why I wouldn't have spent the money for him as a project. I just wouldn't do it nearly as often as Hendry does. What makes Miller a better player throwing 85 than a young guy throwing 93+ and is able to change speeds? We differ on how we'd approach acquiring players because again, I'd allocate money differently than you would. I do understand whyyou feel this way it's just that I think the gamble on a young guy with talent is better than gambling on a severly injured talented vet.

I was wondering if there was a system to evaluate players according to their defensive/hitting skills? Let me use an example. If Izturis is hitting 240 but playing slightly better than average defense how much of an effect would it be to have Murton play SS? Yeah it's extreme but I'm curious what the effect would be. Would the poor defense be worth the additional offense? Would the balls that Izturis could get to and Murton can't be worth the defense along with the normal easy grounders that Izturis would field better than Murton? What are the barameters that could be used to determine this? I'm not that big on the zone rating thing on defense but it might be one of the best ways to do this. Todd Walker was a really good example of this.

I see Barrett being very apt to do this sort of thing. I'm not sure why, he just seems to love it here enough to try and make things work out. (at least i hope so :D ) I've seen many videos where Barret says he loves being a cub, more than anything else. And this is not typical derrek lee or carlos zambrano stuff. Barret gets gushy. They got him out of Montreal. They got him out of Oakland. Oakland got him out of Montreal. That was for Miller, right?

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil: I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller?

Russell was absolutely amazing against the weaker opponents of LSU this year-the problem is, is that enough of a sample size? This is his first great year, and he still struggled a great deal in 2 of the bigger games of the season for LSU. If he had mutliple years of good performances, or if he had more great performances against great teams, then he would be better in my eyes. He had 5 big games this year-Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, ND Auburn-his numbers look all right, but his team scored 3 points, so he couldn't have been amazing. Florida-he was terrible Tennesee-he continued to let Tennessee back in it in the second half, but then came back with the game-winning TD pass at the end. Arkansas-he played well in leading the way to an LSU victory over a good defense. ND-He played very well against a bad defense in the blowout win. Russell makes for a very interesting case-did he mature into a different QB this year? My big concern about him is his tendency to throw into coverage, which he's going to have to do a lot more in the NFL than in college. not to make excuses for him, but a lot of QBs looked terrible against Florida...also, while I'm by no means comparing the two...I don't think anyone would have considered Jerry Rice fast by today's standards either. Rice is a funny case. You put a ball in his hands and he moves the same but IMO a lot of players slow down a little when they carry a football. Also, cutting is important and players like Rice and Harrison can do it on a dime.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. Huh? How do you know the Cubs' top offer to Z is $14.5M? They are still in the process of negotiating an extension. Numbers that are leaked to the media are all a part of the process; every team will start low and every agent will start high. Both parties do so to meet so where in the middle. The money given to Miller will not preclude the Cubs from extending Zambrano if they truly want to do so. Hendry has a track record of keeping the players he likes. Hypothetical cost. All right 16.5 then and Z wants 19. Whatever the difference the 2.5+ wasted is a significant amount of money. I agree that Hendry may go out and sign Z then what happens to that 2.5 when it comes to signing another good player? What happens when the Cubs lose out on a guy when they top off at 3 and he signs with another team for 5.5? To that player it's a huge difference and the Cubs do have to follow some kind of budget. This money could also be used for a signing bonus. If I'm operating on a specific budget I'd allocate my money differently than you would.

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. I think it's kinda funny talking about preventing prospects from dipping their beaks, considering the 2006 Cubs. I wouldn't give up on Wade Miller yet, I am interested in seeing how he adjusts. If he can mix up speeds he can be effective, even with a mid to upper 80's arm. We'll see. If Miller isn't on the 40 man the Cubs still have that pitcher the Tigers took in the draft. There's no guarantee Campusano will amount to anything substantial. Again, the Cubs have gambled that they will be just fine in their bullpen without him. Who would you rather have? I'll take Campusano. Also, having a Campusano gives the Cubs more options to trade a young player or more for a player that could help the team if they needed to go that route. I just don't see the gamble as being better than the loss of the 40 man roster spot, cash + rehab, work being taken away from a young player.

I think if a person is 18 or older he should have the choice to go to the NBA if he wants to. The are numerous advantages to going to college for these players but there are disadvantages too like injury. One thing I wonder about is if by going to college these one year guys would have better representation and protection from scum by having their college coaches protect them more because they know the business better than their parents would.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with.

Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. I think it's kinda funny talking about preventing prospects from dipping their beaks, considering the 2006 Cubs. I wouldn't give up on Wade Miller yet, I am interested in seeing how he adjusts. If he can mix up speeds he can be effective, even with a mid to upper 80's arm. We'll see. If Miller isn't on the 40 man the Cubs still have that pitcher the Tigers took in the draft.

I think it'll depend on how much and long he wants. What do you think he'd ask for?

Flexibilty is huge. 20 pounds of muscle, if he did it the real way I'm impressed and as you said if he's still flexable he's in for a nice year. I like seeing young players taking the bull by the horns and going after it like this.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong?

I take it OSU pays better than the NBA since you didn't add money?

Of course players need regular PA to be better hitters. Why do you think PH numbers for regulars are almost always such much worse in the aggregate than their normal numbers? What about guys like Martinez that played infield for the Cubs a few years back? There are a lot of guys like that who could fill in and still give some quality while getting minimum playing time. There are players that can do it and you're right, a lot of players need AB's to keep in the groove but Perez as a 25th guy just doesn't help a team as much as I previously thought. You've never seen a guy that hits 300 that doesn't get a lot of playing time? Do you think he would be doing that if he was a starter? There are players out there that struggle when they get a lot of playing time. For some reason or other they don't succeed when they are given the keys to the starting position.

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost.

He's 30 years old right now. So he'll be 31 in 2008. I wonder if he'd go for another 3 year deal like I suggested? I'm curious if he sees all the cash being thrown around and knows this will be his last big one so will want a longer deal. Another thing I would look at is, how well does he work out and keep in condition? I understand that catchers all break down but if you're willing to work out and stay in shape he has that going for him and would be worth a 3 year deal. The difference between Barrett and a lot of other catchers is that he has played other postions so that's to his and the teams benefit too. I wouldn't worry about the young guys coming up. If the young guy is proving he belongs in the minors it's a win win IMO. Yeah, the Cubs have a possible hefty contract to unload but I think they could do it if Barrett is still producing.

The Bears won't pony up the cash for a big time coach like Cowher.

I was against the Miller signing last year and I wasn't thrilled with it this year. Just think, even though he is at minimum cost, take away his salary and the other projects Hendry has wasted money on (not including ex-Cubs) and added that cash to Z's deal instead, the Cubs would have been better off. Add to that the roster spots these guys take up and I still consider this one in a million shot to be lost cash when it could be allocated elsewhere.