BBTF's Gonfalon Cubs Discussion :: Lessons to Be Learned…

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

101. H. Vaughn Posted: October 27, 2005 at 01:42 PM (#1707676)

I'm not saying it's any better to go to the opposite extreme and sign someone like Jose Macias who can play multiple positions and not hit, but flexibility is an issue.

I didn't mean to imply that I saw Hill, Choi and Murton as utility players. I'd prefer that they start. I don't see that the Cubs have gained anything by all the thrashing around at 2B vs. where they would have been if they simply plugged Hill in and let him play, warts and all, and turned their attention elsewhere. It's hard to argue against the Choi-Lee deal, but wasn't Vlad available the same off-season? Why not just commit to promising internal options at a couple positions and improve where you have no options?

And look at Florida. They gave up Lee, a product of their farm system, to save costs. Within a year, they go out and get an older, higher cost player to play 1B, and he underperforms Lee.

I guess in a nutshell, I'm saying if you just put Rey Sanchez at SS circa '92 and leave him there for six years, he doesn't drive your team to a championship, but he still makes a positive contribution, and more importantly, you don't end up with Jeff Blauser.

102. Moses Taylor loves a good maim Posted: October 27, 2005 at 01:44 PM (#1707682)

It's hard to argue against the Choi-Lee deal, but wasn't Vlad available the same off-season?

Ya, and I kinda wish the Cubs found a way to make that work. Of course, having Sosa and Alou signed was all the reason they needed not to get involved.

103. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 27, 2005 at 02:04 PM (#1707718)

Ya, and I kinda wish the Cubs found a way to make that work. Of course, having Sosa and Alou signed was all the reason they needed not to get involved.

Let's also not forget the fact that at the time of Vlad's deal, (a) teams were very afraid of Vlad's back problems, (b) he was looking for a long-term deal, and (c) he took what many feel was a large discount to come to the Latino-owned Angels.

It would have been very foreseeable that he wouldn't have come to the Cubs without demanding much more than he's getting from LAA, much less immediately missing most of the last two seasons with injuries.

I don't really begrudge the Cubs for missing on the Vlad sweepstakes.

As for "I didn't mean to imply that I saw Hill, Choi and Murton as utility players. I'd prefer that they start," let me just say that as things stand now, I agree that Murton should be given a legit chance, but I don't have problems with the Cubs choosing Lee over Choi or choosing the Walker/Grudzielanek tandem over Hill.

104. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 27, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1707856)

As for "I didn't mean to imply that I saw Hill, Choi and Murton as utility players. I'd prefer that they start," let me just say that as things stand now, I agree that Murton should be given a legit chance, but I don't have problems with the Cubs choosing Lee over Choi or choosing the Walker/Grudzielanek tandem over Hill.

I didn't have any problem with Lee over Choi (though, at the time, I figured that their production for the next few years would be more or less similar in terms of overall OPS but the Cubs had just tied up $7M in extra salary to get there, which seemed fairly daft - however, given that Choi had landed in Dusty's doghouse and wasn't going to get a chance to play, this was probably the best possible outcome for the situation). But when Hill was bypassed in ST 2003, it wasn't Grudz/Walker - it was just Grudz, coming off a terrible year in Los Angeles that basically got him banished in the "players no one wants" trade with Karros and Hundley.

At the time, Grudz looked like someone who was heading downhill and who had picked up the reputation as a bit of a malcontent in his last year in LA, and Hill looked like someone who was going to put up .350+ OBPs for the Cubs. Which made the decision to give Grudz the starting nod about a week into spring training pretty perplexing (well, until you remembered who the new Cub manager was). It turned out to be the right decision because Grudz rebounded to have a good 2003 and then the Cubs brought in Walker on the cheap for 2004 and 2005, but at the time it certainly looked like the Cubs were giving up on Hill awfully fast.

105. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 27, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1707873)

It would have been very foreseeable that he wouldn't have come to the Cubs without demanding much more than he's getting from LAA, much less immediately missing most of the last two seasons with injuries.

Vlad missed a total of 27 games in 2004-05.

We'll never know what it would have taken to make Vlad a Cub, because no effort was made. This is the kind of thing you have to make happen, rather than think of all the reasons you can't make it happen. Everyone was blind-sided when he signed with Anaheim.

I don't really begrudge the Cubs for missing on the Vlad sweepstakes.

I did, and still do.

106. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 27, 2005 at 10:34 PM (#1708663)

But when Hill was bypassed in ST 2003, it wasn't Grudz/Walker - it was just Grudz, coming off a terrible year in Los Angeles that basically got him banished in the "players no one wants" trade with Karros and Hundley.

At the time, Grudz looked like someone who was heading downhill and who had picked up the reputation as a bit of a malcontent in his last year in LA, and Hill looked like someone who was going to put up .350+ OBPs for the Cubs. Which made the decision to give Grudz the starting nod about a week into spring training pretty perplexing (well, until you remembered who the new Cub manager was).

I understand your point, but to expect anything other than Grudz starting in 2003 is a bit much -- no matter who the manager is. Yes, Grudz looked like he was on the downside of his career and we got him as a salary dump from the Dodgers. I also agree that Hill looked promising -- like everyone else, I had good hopes for him too.

But let's be realistic: At the start of 2003, Hill had seen 200 ABs in AA (301/397/392), 350 ABs in AAA (280/382/429), and 200 ABs with the Cubs (253/327/374). These are good OBP numbers, but the power certainly wasn't there and, as a 24 year old, it isn't like he was still a kid either.

There was reason for optimism, but it certainly wasn't risk-free (which, in retrospect, proved true). Yes, Hill could've had a .350 OBP in 2003, but I also think it's likely he could have hit .240/.310/.350 as well. To expect the Cubs to hand him the job in spring training, over the $5 million player who was putting up something in the neighborhood of 275/320/380 in a pitchers park, is just not realistic.

This isn't to say that Hill shouldn't have gotten a chance to see significant time as a backup and hope to grow into the position for 2004, but when I think about the Cubs big mistakes over the last few years, choosing Grudzielanek over Hill isn't gonna be one of them.

107. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 27, 2005 at 10:36 PM (#1708666)

Vlad missed a total of 27 games in 2004-05.

We'll never know what it would have taken to make Vlad a Cub, because no effort was made. This is the kind of thing you have to make happen, rather than think of all the reasons you can't make it happen. Everyone was blind-sided when he signed with Anaheim.

The Angels beat everyone to the punch, that's true, but I'm not making up the fact that there was a general nervousness around MLB about his back. Am I?

108. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: October 27, 2005 at 10:43 PM (#1708675)

I'm not making up the fact that there was a general nervousness around MLB about his back. Am I?

The Cubs did give Moises Alou a three year deal. Was Vlad more of a health concern?

Games played (before he became a Cub):

115
136
107
93
143
150
159
126
136

109. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 27, 2005 at 10:57 PM (#1708687)

The Cubs did give Moises Alou a three year deal. Was Vlad more of a health concern?

Vlad was looking for more than 3 years, at a greater salary. He got 5 years/$70mm from the Angels, who by most accounts got him at a bargain.

110. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 02:11 AM (#1708882)

The Angels beat everyone to the punch, that's true, but I'm not making up the fact that there was a general nervousness around MLB about his back. Am I?

It was something of an issue, but I don't think it was that huge of a deal. He had several teams interested and as you said, was considered a bargain at $14 million/yr.

He missed 50 games in 2003, right in the middle of the season, but he was fantastic after coming back.

111. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 28, 2005 at 01:59 PM (#1709235)

Amidst a bunch of nonsense about whether Dusty feels "more pressure" after the White Sox win (he doesn't), Paul Sullivan comes out today with more useful rumors:

The Cubs will hold organizational meetings in Arizona next week to discuss the plan for what figures to be a busy off-season. With a dearth of big names on the free-agent market, they may have to work out some deals to fill their holes.

And the Cubs will not pick up Jeromy Burnitz's $7 million option, making him a free agent. Burnitz, 36, may be considering retirement. Hendry has three more days to decide on infielder Todd Walker's $2.5 million option, while multi-purpose pitcher Glendon Rusch mulls over whether to exercise his own option for '06.

One of the most interesting decisions facing Hendry is whether to bring back center fielder Corey Patterson, who regressed at the plate and in the field in '05. Texas is rumored to be interested in making a deal for Patterson, and Hendry is expected to get other feelers if he decides to trade the enigmatic outfielder.

112. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 02:13 PM (#1709258)

One of the most interesting decisions facing Hendry is whether to bring back center fielder Corey Patterson, who regressed at the plate and in the field in '05. Texas is rumored to be interested in making a deal for Patterson, and Hendry is expected to get other feelers if he decides to trade the enigmatic outfielder.

Hard to imagine what the return would be from Texas. You could perhaps package Patterson and pitching for someone like Blalock, who is arb-eligible, but the price is likely to be steep.

113. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 28, 2005 at 02:15 PM (#1709261)

The Cubs would be crazy not to pick up that option on Walker. Even if they don't want him, he's got trade value and that's a below-market salary.

Of course, there were also rumors of a "gentleman's agreement" between Walker and the team that if they weren't planning on bringing him back as the starter they would let him go so he could pick his own new team. But it's awfully early in the offseason to be making that kind of decision for 2006. If Walker isn't going to start, what does that mean - either the Cubs are committed to Cedeno at 2nd and a hard push for Furcal, or Cedeno at SS and ? at second? Or (shudder) Cedeno at 2nd and Neifi back at SS? Or even Furcal at SS and Neifi at 2B? And I guess Hairston should figure into the mix here as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing Walker back. I think a Furcal/Walker combo would be my first choice (with Cedeno and Hairston backing them up), and then Furcal/Cedeno (with Hairston and maybe Fontenot as the utility guys).

114. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 28, 2005 at 02:18 PM (#1709267)

Hard to imagine what the return would be from Texas. You could perhaps package Patterson and pitching for someone like Blalock, who is arb-eligible, but the price is likely to be steep.

And the Cubs would have no place to play him. If we're going to make a package deal to Texas, let's shoot for Michael Young (also arb-eligible, also steep).

115. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 28, 2005 at 02:19 PM (#1709269)

But it's awfully early in the offseason to be making that kind of decision for 2006.

I don't buy that -- the Cubs have had at least three weeks to think about this (not to mention the regular season), and if they come out and say "we didn't have enough time," I'm gonna be ticked off.

116. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 28, 2005 at 03:15 PM (#1709340)

I don't buy that -- the Cubs have had at least three weeks to think about this (not to mention the regular season), and if they come out and say "we didn't have enough time," I'm gonna be ticked off.

I didn't mean they didn't have time to make the decision. What I meant was they probably have no way of judging the interest of a guy like Furcal in coming to Chicago yet (unless they're working behind the scenes, which I thought was verboten at this point in the process). To cut Walker loose would be a pretty big step, because there's no guarantee that they'll end up with something as good or better going another way. If they start letting people go and then Furcal goes elsewhere, losing Walker opened up an unnecessary hole.

The safe move would be to keep him around, definitely. And I certainly wouldn't mind Furcal/Walker, with Cedeno getting 20-30 starts between the two positions and some defensive replacement time at 2B in the late innings.

117. Cabbage Posted: October 28, 2005 at 03:35 PM (#1709370)

Hard to imagine what the return would be from Texas. You could perhaps package Patterson and pitching for someone like Blalock, who is arb-eligible, but the price is likely to be steep.

Why on earth would Texas trade Blalock? There is no way i can see this happening. Texas would not trade for Patterson and plan for him to be the starter, nor would any other team.

This is a team that shows more holes as you look closer. I only hope that Hendry plays to his strength and hits the trade market fairly hard.

118. Cabbage Posted: October 28, 2005 at 03:38 PM (#1709377)

Walker's numbers can be a little decieving. He has been in a platoon or a Bakerian pseudo-platoon most of the time he's been with the Cubs. His playing time vs. LHP has been somewhat limited. If they keep him, sign Furcal, and let Cedeno hang around, then I expect Cedeno will also be used for platooning purposes.

119. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 04:09 PM (#1709430)

Why on earth would Texas trade Blalock? There is no way i can see this happening. Texas would not trade for Patterson and plan for him to be the starter, nor would any other team.

Pitching. Not that he's a particularly good match for the Cubs, but I can easily see Texas trading Blalock for pitching -- good pitching.

120. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 04:55 PM (#1709501)

I'd expect to see Soriano come to the Cubs in any trade with Texas. Not that I'd be happy about it, mind you, but Hendry has made his interest known several times in the past.

I'd pick up Walker's option. The guy can hit, plus he can play LF in a pinch (satisfying Dusty's need to spell Murton against tough righties). I've said that I'd like to see the triumverate of Nomar/Cedeno/Walker fill the middle infield positions while providing insurance at LF and 3B, and I'll stick with that.

121. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 05:03 PM (#1709510)

I'd expect to see Soriano come to the Cubs in any trade with Texas. Not that I'd be happy about it, mind you, but Hendry has made his interest known several times in the past.

Yeah, that's the kind of trade Hendry likes to make. In effect, trading for a free agent. Talent-wise, Soriano is basically the player Patterson should be right now. Soriano's anti-sabermetric but a very good player.

I'd rather re-sign Walker, keep Patterson, and spend the money elsewhere.

122. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 05:19 PM (#1709531)

Also, for the purposes of off-season discussion, can we make a list of Cubs 2006 salary commitments?

Lee: $8
Ramirez: $10.5
Wood: $11
Maddux: $10

123. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 05:32 PM (#1709550)

I made a list a few months back. It's somewhere on this site. I'll look around.

124. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 05:44 PM (#1709565)

Hm. No luck. And I really must get to work. I'll continue to check as time allows.

125. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 28, 2005 at 08:00 PM (#1709767)

Same in the end but Wood is 12M and Maddux is 9. Lee's is 8.67

126. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 08:29 PM (#1709826)

I thought Wood was $11 and Lee was $8, but using SSR's numbers and rounding a bit:

Wood - $12m
Ramirez - $10.5m
Maddux - $9m
Lee - $8.5m
Dempster - $5m
Zambrano - $4.5m (arb. est.)
Barrett - $4m
Prior - $2.5m
Patterson - $2.5m (arb. est.)
Walker - $2.5m (team option)
Rusch - $2m (player option)
Blanco - $1.5m
Burnitz - $500K (buyout)
Williams - $400K (est.)
Wuertz - $350K (lg. min.)
Novoa - $350K (lg. min.)
Ohman - $350K (lg. min.)
Cedeno - $350K (lg. min.)
Murton - $350K (lg. min.)
Bartosh - $350K (lg. min.; out of options)

TOTAL: $67.5m

***

Obviously, this total will rise if Hendry signs Lee (as I expect him to), Zambrano, and/or Prior to long-term deals. If, say, two of those get done during the offseason, that will probably increase the team's salary commitments to around $75 million, leaving approximately $25 million to spend (assuming last year's payroll).

127. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 08:32 PM (#1709831)

Should have made clear that, with the exception of Burnitz and probably Bartosh, those are the guys I firmly expect to be on the 25-man roster on Opening Day. There are certainly others -- Hill, Wellemeyer, Fontenot, etc. -- who might be there as well.

128. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 08:33 PM (#1709832)

OK, so maybe Patterson won't be there either. Who knows?

129. Bunny Vincennes Posted: October 28, 2005 at 08:53 PM (#1709866)

I would have to think that signing Z is a priority. He's been the staff ace for two or three years now. To me, he's the sould of the franchise.

130. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 28, 2005 at 09:24 PM (#1709920)

131. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 09:34 PM (#1709932)

I heard on the Score today that the Cubs exercised theor option on Walker, intending for him to be the staring 2Bman next year, and are one fo four teams who have expressed an interest in Furcal. (The station didn't say who are the other teams.)

That's great if it's true, because it potentially marginalizes Neifi. Not that there aren't a million Neifis out there floating around, but this one has starter cachet that is particularly dangerous.

I thought Wood was $11 and Lee was $8, but using SSR's numbers and rounding a bit:

Thanks, Sweet. What is SSR?

132. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 28, 2005 at 09:36 PM (#1709937)

133. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 28, 2005 at 09:39 PM (#1709940)

Thanks, Sweet. What is SSR?

SSR posted those salary numbers in this thread. Dusty makes his eyes bleed.

134. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 09:44 PM (#1709949)

SSR posted those salary numbers in this thread. Dusty makes his eyes bleed.

Oh, Duh. Thanks to SSR then.

I looked up old news reports to get the numbers I had there. I assume Lee is 8.67 instead of 8 because his signing bonus is spread over three years. Same with the discrepancy for Wood. I simply typo'd Maddux.

135. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 09:47 PM (#1709952)

Anyway, I think Ramirez is going to make a lot more than $4.5 million in arbitration. More like $8 million, I think. I expect the Cubs to sign him long-term, but no matter what I would expect something along the lines of $8 million for 2006.

136. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 28, 2005 at 10:10 PM (#1709975)

I don't know about 8M, but I'd expect more than 4.5 considering he was 3.8 this year. I'd say around 7M. Hopefully his lack of wins will depress his value.

The score apparently reported earlier today that Rusch is being offered a 2Y/3M per deal and Rusch is expected to sign it. That's rather disappointing.

And quibbling with small #s, but I believe the Cubs counted Burnitz's buyout toward the '05 payroll, IIRC based on the talk about Sammy's buyout.

137. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 10:30 PM (#1709992)

Yeah, $4.5m is probably a pipe dream, but $8 million is too high. Oswalt -- who has better stats but isn't a bad comp -- only asked for $7.8 million going into this year. Astros offered $6m. (They eventually agreed on deal that paid Oswalt less than $6m in 2005.)

I'll revise the estimate to $6.5 million, and agree that Hendry, faced with that number, would and probably should sign him to a long-term deal.

138. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 10:39 PM (#1709997)

I don't know about 8M, but I'd expect more than 4.5 considering he was 3.8 this year.

What is wrong with me today? Obviously I meant Zambrano and you picked up on it. Anyway, this is a point where arbitration often doubles a player's salary.

The score apparently reported earlier today that Rusch is being offered a 2Y/3M per deal and Rusch is expected to sign it. That's rather disappointing.

I guess they want to keep him for next year, and are afraid someone else will snap him up. I guess I agree that this is not a bad idea. Rusch is a more flexible version of Shawn Estes. Those who saw him as something between his 2003 and 2004 performances were absolutely right. He walks a DiPS tightrope, and you can expect an ERA somewhere between 3.5 and 6.4. Great. That's helpful. Actually, I'd be fine if he simply exercised his player option, but extending him beyond 2006 strikes me as unnecessary and perhaps quite foolish.

139. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 10:41 PM (#1709998)

140. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 28, 2005 at 10:42 PM (#1709999)

I guess they want to keep him for next year, and are afraid someone else will snap him up. I guess I agree that this is not a bad idea.

Seriously, I'm not operating any heavy machinery tonight. I agree that it IS a bad idea.

141. Sweet Posted: October 28, 2005 at 10:44 PM (#1710003)

I missed the bit about Rusch the first time around. Why the heck would the Cubs make that offer? $2 million for one year versus $6 million for two? Unless they think that he's going to have a breakout year in 2006 that will warrant a greater than $4 million salary in 2007, that's just nonsensical. They can't really be that afraid of losing him, can they? Lefties good for a 4.50 ERA don't exactly grow on trees, but they can be had for a lot less than $3 million per. I mean, Rich Hill will probably a approximately Rusch's performance for a tenth of the cost.

If that goes down, Rusch's agent gets a big gold star. And Hendry proves once again that he has a fetish for middling lefty swingmen types.

142. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 28, 2005 at 11:32 PM (#1710049)

Well it was a player option Sweet, and I'm pretty sure Rusch wasn't picking it up.

143. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 28, 2005 at 11:37 PM (#1710050)

Walker and Willamson options picked up according to cubs.com

144. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 29, 2005 at 04:00 PM (#1710452)

Per the Daily Herald, look for the Cubs on Monday to annnounce Rusch at 2 yrs, $6MM total.

145. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: October 29, 2005 at 06:39 PM (#1710652)

Seriously, I'm not operating any heavy machinery tonight. I agree that it IS a bad idea.

Gle-Don's primary benefit to the team is as a starter. It doesn't say much for the kids that Chicago would prefer to have him hanging around. It's not like they need his LOOGY skills. Rich Hill would be superior in that role IMO.

I don't think it's a good move but I don't think it's that damaging either. It's tough to quibble with a little extra insurance. It is, however, Exhibit R of the organization's veteran fetish.

Walker and Willamson options picked up according to cubs.com

No surprises here. Now what does the bullpen look like for 2006? I assume this is the starting rotation:

Wood
Prior
Z
Maddux
Williams

Bullpen:

Dempster
Rusch
Williamson
Ohman

These guys are set, it gets a little dicier for the next 2 or 3 spots. Here are the candidates ranked in the likelihood of being in the pen as I see it:

Wuertz
Mitre
Guzman (if healthy - HA!)
Novoa (they seem to like him for some reason)
Wellemeyer
Van Buren
Aardsma (he's ready, we'll see if Chicago agrees)
Leicester
Hill (good pitcher but would be the third lefty)
Pinto (not ready yet but I have hopes)

Koronka
Rohlicek

146. Neil M Posted: October 29, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1710701)

it gets a little dicier for the next 2 or 3 spots.

Unfortunately, I think you can be certain that you're talking about 3 spots. The Cubs have gone with a 12-man staff for the last two seasons. The result - not enough work for pitcher #12 and too many late-inning appearances by the woefully inadequate Jose Macias, for lack of alternatives.

147. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 29, 2005 at 07:33 PM (#1710706)

No surprises here. Now what does the bullpen look like for 2006?

I'm kind of expecting Hendry to add a FA reliever (or acquire one by trade), so one of the current guys would be rotated out. At least one.

148. Neil M Posted: October 29, 2005 at 07:42 PM (#1710722)

While I'm pleased that Walker has been re-signed, I don't think that that means he won't be traded.

The talk of a 'gentlemen's agreement' arose from comments Walker made that he hoped that Hendry would not re-up him were he considering moving him. Essentially, Walker was trying to turn the club option into some sort of mutual deal. To the best of my knowledge, the club never OK'd this idea. Quite right too. That should have been negotiated into the original contract, if that was what Walker wanted.

Knowing Hendry's crush on Soriano, and the Rangers' reported interest in Corey, it's worth recalling that they were the underbidders for Walker last year.

I'm thinking Hendry could possibly swing Walker and Patterson for Soriano and present it as fairly close to a salary wash.

149. Neil M Posted: October 29, 2005 at 07:49 PM (#1710728)

WRT relievers:

Wellemeyer, Mitre and Leicester are out of options so they either make the team or, more likely, they're traded.

150. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: October 29, 2005 at 07:59 PM (#1710753)

I'm thinking Hendry could possibly swing Walker and Patterson for Soriano and present it as fairly close to a salary wash.

That wouldn't be a bad trade for either team if the Cubs can figure out what to do with CF. If only Cameron were healthy.

Wellemeyer, Mitre and Leicester are out of options so they either make the team or, more likely, they're traded.

Mitre is the only one who looks remotely interesting to me.

151. dcsmyth1 Posted: October 29, 2005 at 10:37 PM (#1710963)

"I'm thinking Hendry could possibly swing Walker and Patterson for Soriano and present it as fairly close to a salary wash."

And Soriano would play where? He is supposedly a butcher at 2b, and is balking at being shifted to OF. And even if he does OK an OF shift, the only place he would be an asset on a team of mine would be CF. His OBA is too low to be an asset in LF or RF. Soriano runs fast, and has the "look" of a CFer. But I have no idea whether he could/would learn CF quickly, and that is the only scenario under which I might want to pay what I assume is a pretty healthy salary.

152. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 29, 2005 at 10:46 PM (#1710974)

And Soriano would play where? He is supposedly a butcher at 2b, and is balking at being shifted to OF

Well, there is little to recommend his defense at this point, but perhaps Hendry sees something fixable? Who knows.

As an OF, unless he can play CF and do it well, there is no reason to think that's a good option.

153. Sweet Posted: October 29, 2005 at 11:07 PM (#1711003)

Guzman with a nice outing against the best offense team (Surprise Scorpions) in the AFL today:

5 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 3 BB, 3 K

Line so far:

5 G, 20.2 IP, 3.92 ERA, 18 H, 9 R, 1 HR, 10 BB, 19 K

Not too bad for the AFL, although the walks are entirely out of character. I do recall reading somewhere that the pitching coach for the Mesa team didn't like Guzman's tendency to "nibble" (not sure how that comment squares with his historically miniscule walk totals, but whatever). I sure hope they're not trying to change his pitching approach. They might, however, be trying to tweak his mechanics to avoid further injury.

154. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: October 29, 2005 at 11:34 PM (#1711039)

He is supposedly a butcher at 2b

The high strikeout staff in Chicago could diminish this to some extent.

FWIW, BPro's defensive metric rates Soriano and Walker as equal on defense in 2005. Soriano is also younger (less likely to decline significantly) and has a better track record with respect to health.

Todd Walker's games played 129 and 110 games since coming to Chicago. The issue then becomes Scoriano vs. Walker and 40 games of Neifi.

That's a big upgrade at second base. The drawback is that it adds another high slugging, low OBP player to the lineup at the expense of one of the few respectable OBPs on the team.

155. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: October 29, 2005 at 11:35 PM (#1711041)

They might, however, be trying to tweak his mechanics to avoid further injury.

If they weren't it would be pure idiocy.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate