They couldn't possibly trade ICON Greg Maddux for someone the fans hadn't heard of and probably wasn't going to be very good. Plus that would "disrespect" Maddux. Much better to get some good PR out of the move.

But Walt, they very easily could have held onto Maddux and said there was no deal good enough to warrant getting rid of our future and beloved Hall of Fame pitcher. Wouldn't that have been a much easier PR thing to do? Who in the world would have come down on the Cubs or Jim Hendry for keeping Maddux so he could retire in a Cubs uniform rather than trading him for nuttin'.

I don't think this was a PR move. I think Hendry buys into the best that Izturis can be -- and lights up over that prospect. Calling Izturis "a great player" at this point is typicial of Hendry and the way this Cubs organization over-hypes players that have not warranted such accolades. But unlike his other mediocre acquisitions that he has propped up on a Cooperstown pedestal, I find this player's potential upside a bit more intriguing.

Come on now, we all know what Hendry is going to do. After Neifi's season last year, did he deserve the contract he got? Was anybody shocked that he got it?

No...I wasn't shocked. Just annoyed as all get out. That was a bad signing and too typical of how the Cubs have operated...although I think being Dusty's guy contributed to Perez coming back. Izturis won't be the Dusty guy Perez has always been.

I guess my point though was that I find it difficult to say this was a bad trade because of future bad things that Hendry might do should Izturis prove mediocre and nowhere near his two-year-ago level. Another Neifi-type signing is a possibility and I'll join the critics should that happen. But I'm not so certain that Izturis gets signed to a contract the likes of which were described by djf should he not perform significantly better than he has over the last year.

That spot wasn't open. They just bumped Cedeno with someone who isn't clearly better.

I simply disagree. Izturis is likely to be more consistent at SS, a fielder with a more accurate arm. And I think Cedeno's defense will benefit from a change to 2nd. These are points that have been disagreed with by some here. We shall see. But to me, I see this trade as resulting in defensive upgrades to varying degrees at two important positions. That's not an insignificant plus in my eyes.

And apparently, the great majority here feel the very same way about Izturis. But the small minority here -- OK, very small -- believes there still could be upside to Izturis thereby making the trade a low-risk and acceptable gamble.

I am in the majority that feel this is another no OBP veteran guy. I think this could be considered low risk if:
1. Cedeno was not there, an even lower risk.
2. Theriot and Patterson were not pretty much ready. Now either they are trading chits, done, or Cedeno/Neifi is just holding a place for them.
3. I believe this makes the middle infield Izturis/Neifi which is low risk/low reward when that is your middle infield.

Can Izturis turn it around and make me wrong? I really hope so, but I think this trade will just end up making a bigger hole at second. If I had a crystal ball and saw the middle infield of Izturis-Cedeno/Patterson/Theriot/any one not named Neifi or Neifi Jr. then I would not be as upset. I do not see this happening and so my thoughts on this trade today are we now have a 6+ million dollar infield that is less than replacement level.

Izturis won't be the Dusty guy Perez has always been.

What makes you so sure of that?

I simply disagree. Izturis is likely to be more consistent at SS, a fielder with a more accurate arm. And I think Cedeno's defense will benefit from a change to 2nd.

Cedeno's had half a season in the bigs, with a coaching staff that none of us are fond of. Why can't he become that player? Why shouldn't he be given the opportunity to prove himself the rest of the season? He's young as is, and is still learning SS. Why will he take to 2b so much quicker?

Basically it boils down to the risk/reward here. I think Cedeno has a higher upside than Izturis, while at the same time costing 1/10 as much. Izturis is also a gamble, but a costlier one.

Hypothetical question here: If both Izturis and Cedeno reach their potential, which one will be better? Which one is less likely to reach that potential?

For the first question, I'd say they both probably have the same ceiling (around a .300 hitter, minimal power, but good defense. Something like .300/.330/.420). But because Cedeno is younger and doesn't have the injury history, I think he's much more likely to be that player in the future.

I still hold out hope that Cedeno can develop into an average offensive SS with a really good glove. But I also have always thought it was reasonable to suspect that he might not. Take a look at the free part of Cedeno's PECOTA card. His 2003 and 2004 seasons gave reason to suspect that the great leap forward Cedeno took last season might not be sustainable. A quick three year average would project a .248 Eqa in 2006. I'd take that in a heartbeat, so long as Cedeno's providing good defense at SS. After this season, I'd imagine his projection would more closely resemble Izturis.

That said, I agree with Moses that Cedeno has more upside than Izturis. Looking at Cesar's career, 2004 looks to be the outlier. Izturis still has some upside, since he's proven he can do it at the ML level.I'd peg Cesar's offensive upside at 280/320/400 or so. Ronny's upside is probably a bit higher. His major league equivalency for AAA last year was 318/361/460. That's probably a bit higher than his upside, so I'd temper it a bit, more in the 300/340/420 range...essentially what Moses said.

It really depends upon your opinion of Cedeno and Izturis' defense.

So this is not the same to me as hiring another Neifi Perez.

Well, I don't think that. I think that, and this would be optimistic, it's hiring another Royce Clayton. There's nothing wrong with having a guy like that on your team; the problem is that if you have a team full of guys like that you don't have a very good one.

And then there's Moses' point: the Cubs have Cedeno. I don't know what sort of player Cedeno is going to be, but there's a reasonable chance that he's going to be as good or better than Izturis, and it's worth the money to see that through. Well, at least it should be if he weren't anointed with the curse of the Cubs' position prospect. Ignoring that, Cedeno had a great reputation as a defensive player which seems to have faded this season, and that potential should still be there.

It really depends upon your opinion of Cedeno and Izturis' defense.

And Cedeno's defensive reputation has taken a 180 degree turn this season. Hendry didn't add him to the 40-man roster back in '03 because of his bat, that's for sure.

I know John [Kruk] was addressing them as a team that should have done something at the break because their run production is among the lowest

Good lord, the Cubs are tapping John Kruk for analysis.

There's so much here to which to respond, but let me present a few things on which to stew, starting with Izturis's recent injury history:

June 11, 2005 -- Strained Hamstring, played once over the following week before returning to the lineup until June 29, before being placed on the DL and sidelined for another two weeks in July. Returned July 15.

August 12, 2005 -- Lower Back Stiffness, played until August 22 before going back on the DL.

September 7, 2005 -- Elbow (and eventually Tommy John surgery), incurred while on the DL for his back stiffness. Returned June 20, 2006.

Let me present the following splits:

Opening Day 2004 - June 11, 2005 (the hamstring): .294/.337/.381 in 992 PAs
Opening Day 2005 - June 11, 2005 (the hamstring): .310/.358/.380 in 235 PAs

June 11, 2005 - August 2, 2006 (post injury): .214/.258/.291 in 332 PAs

There are several issues at play here which make me believe that Mike is placing far too much reliance on Izturis's 2004 numbers, as well as his early 2005 figures.

First, there is the injury factor. I'm willing to believe that the elbow issue is something that can be remedied and have a player return to full strength, particularly as a hitter. OTOH, we've also seen a hamstring problem that affected Izturis for at least a month, and a back problem that impacted him for longer than this. These are the type of injuries that linger on and recur, and even though Izturis is 26, it is entirely possible -- perhaps even likely -- that they will continue to affect Izturis for the rest of his career. (They already have, of course.)

Second, the 2004-early 2005 numbers are too attenuated upon which to place great reliance. Let's put it this way: In 2004, Jason Dubois hit .316/.389/.630 in Iowa, translating to MLEs of .268/.336/.513. How many of us are confident that he would put up those numbers in a Cubs uniform today -- even considering that Dubois has been healthy?

Third, Mike assumes that the 2004-early 2005 numbers reflect his true talent level. Considering that these numbers were done in 992 PAs, just 39% of his career numbers, I'm not so sure of this.

Fourth, and finally, the other thing to keep in mind is that even if Izturis returns to his 2004-early 2005 level (.294/.337/.381), this still does not make his hitting good. Indeed, these numbers would give him an OBP and OPS that would place him 10th among NL shortstops. IOW, to be the shortstop we'd all like to see, Izturis doesn't just need to return to his 2004 form; he needs to surpass it.

Is this possible? Sure, but I'm not holding my breath.

Basically it boils down to the risk/reward here. I think Cedeno has a higher upside than Izturis, while at the same time costing 1/10 as much. Izturis is also a gamble, but a costlier one.

See, I don't think it boils down to that at all. We're not getting rid of Cedeno (yet); we're just moving him to another position.

The problem is that what the Cubs are doing is effectively locking themselves into two OBP challenged hitters, neither of whom put up the defense for which they get their reputation and both with serious doubts on whether they will become productive offensive forces to the lineup.

One of the worst parts about adding Izturis, IMO, is that it essentially forecloses the possibility of the Cubs improving in the middle infield, at least for the next year or two. It locks us into mediocrity. The only way this can change would be if Eric Patterson becomes such an offensive force at West Tenn or Iowa that it forces Hendry to make a move. If that happens, who do you think will leave the Cubs?

The more I read all of these comments, the more baffled I become about this trade, and the clearer it becomes to me that the Cubs are going to do just what they tried to do in '05 and '06, and try to patch together a winning team through making bad trades and/or overvalued free agents. A few points that I don't think I've seen yet (I apologize if I'm repeating anyone's points):

- I'm not a betting man, but I'd be willing to bet that a middle infield of Ronny Cedeno and Mike Fontenot (26, .311/.391/.475 at Iowa this year) would be offensively superior to a middle infield of Cesar Izturis and Ronny Cedeno. I don't think Fontenot is a long-term solution at 2B, but he will be 27 next year and likely in one of his best (if not his best overall) seasons. As I said in this thread yesterday, the defense has not been the Cubs' problem this year; acquiring a slick-fielding no-hit shortstop is totally redundant when we already have (more than) one.
- Fontenot would be a perfectly serviceable (and cheap) one or two year holdover until Eric Patterson was ready for the majors. And he'd be a lot better than suck-ass irrational organizational favorite number 5875371984561A, Ryan Theriot, who the Cubs have called up about 10 times this year in spite of the fact that he's very obviously never going to hit at the major league level. Theriot has "utility man" written all over him, and the Cubs love him. Fontenot has "free talent" written all over him and the Cubs can't recognize it. The Cubs could have used the money they saved by not paying Izturis on some free agents this winter. Not that they would have spent that money wisely, as the Cubs are addicted to middling free agents, but that's another thread.

Third, Mike assumes that the 2004-early 2005 numbers reflect his true talent level. Considering that these numbers were done in 992 PAs, just 39% of his career numbers, I'm not so sure of this.

Well, that and his minor league numbers, which look an awful lot like his major-league numbers. Maybe, in the absolutely best-case scenario, you have an Omar Vizquel type player here, but you have to be unreasonably optimistic to come to that. Realistically, we're looking at someone between Neifi, Rey Sanchez, and as I mentioned earlier, Royce Clayton if we're lucky.

Forgive my rambling responses below on what now can be called "The Izturis Debate" or "One Man Against the World." They're still debating the title before they release it in movie theaters this fall.:-)

Some of the well-argued responses to my position would make a bit more sense to me if I had maintained that the Izturis trade was a great move by Hendry that will turn this Poseidon of a team right side up. Or if the Cubs had a 2Bman or SS ready to burst onto the Major League scene next year with very high-ceiling potential. Or this trade blocked the Cubs from getting an infielder like Miguel Tejada or A-Rod or a younger Jeff Kent. None of that seems true to me. And the few names that have been mentioned as alternatives -- whether it's middling or aging talent like Grudzielanek and Walker or unproven minor league talent like Fontenot -- doesn't seem like a much better option.

I still believe the potential for an improved defense has received little acknowledgment among major critics of the trade. And I'm not sure why -- whether you believe Izturis is a terrific fielder or just a pretty good one. Where is the flaw in my argument that this infield could be one of the best in the National League defensively? Is it not true that Cedeno's biggest flaw as an infielder -- inconsistent tosses from SS at times -- could be removed and he could blossom into a steady and pretty far-ranging everyday 2Bman? (Once he gets the right glove and gets his footwork down, that is). I still see no reason why my position that this Cubs infield could be one of the best defensively in ages is so wrong.

The position that this matters not because statistics show it's offense and not defense that the Cubs lack has some merit to me -- but only some. Even though I agree this is true, an air-tight infield is still a significant plus and a good boost for the next Cubs'pitching staff. It will help keep pitch count down and runners off base, the latter because range up the middle should improve.

Since the majority position suggests that this is a bad trade because of what Hendry might do in the future -- locking up a bad or mediocre Izturis to a long-term contract -- then my position has the right to suggest what Hendry might have done had they not signed Izturis. Fair play, right? And that something is keeping Cedeno at short and going after a veteran second baseman like Grudzielanek (or fill in name of choice) or keeping Walker.

I was asked how can I believe that Hendry will go out and make good choices and buy productive free agents with the money he has left to spend. I'm not sure I do. But it's easy to turn the question around, too: How can you believe that Hendry would have taken money not spent on Izturis and bring over the more worthwhile free agents he never has before?

The Cubs were never going to go with a middle infield of Cedeno and Fontenot or some other unproven minor leaguer. If the First Pitch Express were a betting man, I might have taken his bet. Despite Fontenot's offensive numbers in Iowa, you'd be making him a starting 2Bman at the Major League level for the first time in his career. Yes, I believe Izturis will post better numbers over a full year despite the Iowa numbers of Fontenot. Several years earlier had we had this conversation, you might have made the same point about Bobby Hill only with more optimism about him. I, too, don't think Fontenot is the answer at second, and I think a full year starting in the Bigs at that posititon would expose that sooner rather than later.

Given that, let's examine the money question that's been raised several times. How much money is Izturis really taking away from getting those stud pitchers and hitters the Cubs otherwise would have pursued? Walker makes roughly $700,000 less than Izturis. I'm not convinced that means much of anything. The Cubs were never going to go with a cheap Iowa prospect so they would have filled that position with one kind of veteran or another. As to the detailed post challenging whether there's all that much money left for other free agents, the post assumes that the Cubs will spend no more than their current level of 2006. That current level is less than the 2005 payroll. I believe the Cubs counted on paying lots of money to Furcal. When they got burned, they went out and overpaid for Jones, but still ended up with a payroll of less than what they intended. And I believe next year's payroll will be higher than this one. There should be money for free agents. Whether it's spent wisely is another question.

A convincing case can and has been made that a Walker and his decent OBP will help the Cubs more than an Izturis and his historically impaired OBP. Perhaps. That why the trade is somewhat of a gamble. But even if that's true, the Cubs will not die on the ivy vines because they took a chance with Izturis in 2007 instead of another year of Todd Walker. Whether the Cubs win or lose next year will be based on deals still to be made, IMHO, as well as on the durability of the starting staff. If Izturis performs poorly, continues to be over-hyped and then is signed to a long-term deal, we can all agree we have a problem. But I'm not there yet.

A few responses to the well-argued points raised by the always formidible djf.

There certainly is a possibility that the numbers posted by Izturis a couple of years ago represent too small of a sample size and he's truly the ho-hum utility player most seem to think. And it's a reasonable concern regarding his continuing health. The combination of his age when he had the injuries and reports I've read that he's as healthy as he's been in a long time make this gamble OK to me...given that I still don't see the same high stakes as others seem to.

And I can well understand the position that I'm attributing too much of Izturis' mediocrity to injury and basing his future on a small chunk of his career. Royce Clayton? Maybe. Or maybe somewhere detween Omar Vizquel and Clayton. Vizquel posted his best OBP season when he was 32 years old. He's had several seasons with very respectable OBP, but none above .340 until he was 29. Vizquel was a very good glove man who learned to become a more patient hitter during and after what are usually considered peak years.

It just doesn't seem like a bad move to learn whether Izturis will show anywhere near the same kind of trajectory. During Vizquel's early years, when he was about the same age as Izturis, the Indians were patient with Vizquel, but made sure that they recognized he was a work in progress and balanced their lineup elsewhere. That's where Hendry's focus should be.

One more thing: We haven't yet talked about the possibility of a trade of Cedeno next year. Does Izturis make this a possibility now if the right deal comes along and the Cubs can acquire a more veteran 2nd baseman? I dunno. And I wouldn't venture to take a position on that until I know the return although I certainly have not given up on the idea that Cedeno will improve. And given the right left fielder and some new pitchers, I don't mind this current DP combination. But I'm back to where we all began...

I've enjoyed the debate. There's a lot of really intelligent baseball people on this blog.

Where is the flaw in my argument that this infield could be one of the best in the National League defensively?

They already did with Cedeno/Neifi

he could blossom into a steady and pretty far-ranging everyday 2Bman?

Second basemen get far fewer chances so his defense will be less of an asset and his bat will need to be better than at SS for him to help the Cubs. Let's also not forget that his arm won't be improving from this posisition. Izturis signals the end of Cedeno's career as a Cub shortstop IMO.

then my position has the right to suggest what Hendry might have done had they not signed Izturis. Fair play, right?

Signed a second baseman who can outhit Izturis? I haven't done the leg work but I think this includes several players already controlled by the team.

The Cubs were never going to go with a middle infield of Cedeno and Fontenot or some other unproven minor leaguer.

I guess I'm unsure what the argument is about. I thought we were being normative.

believe Izturis will post better numbers over a full year despite the Iowa numbers of Fontenot. Several years earlier had we had this conversation, you might have made the same point about Bobby Hill only with more optimism about him.

Bobby Hill has a career EQA of .249 which dwarfs Izturis's .226

Vizquel was a very good glove man who learned to become a more patient hitter during and after what are usually considered peak years.

The most common career path is improvement before a player's peak years. Marginalizing Cedeno will cost the Cubs a chance to see a far more likely upswing in performance.

To elaborate, I think the Cubs have done one of two things. Either:

A) They have closed another position off from any real improvement for 2007 (if Cedeno is at 2B next year) OR

B) The Cubs have replaced Cedeno with a player not significantly better, less likely to improve, more injury prone, and far more expensive - which hamstrings their ability to improve elsewhere on the diamond.

Either way, I see the return in the Maddux trade as making this team less likely to contend in the near future.

They already did with Cedeno/Neifi

This response has been mentioned several times. Baker plays Neifi Perez way too much. That, we all agree. But Perez's role is as a utility infielder, and that's how he was used more often than not earlier in the year. The real comparison is Cedeno/Walker versus Izturis/Cedeno. The latter is a better defensive double play combination day in and day out no matter what you think it does to Cedeno's development. Your comparison with Perez/Cedeno only works if you think Izturis would be no better than Perez if both players played as everyday starters in a season. Many think that. I don't. I see one of these players with a possible upside and the other with a definite down and dead side.

Signed a second baseman who can outhit Izturis? I haven't done the leg work but I think this includes several players already controlled by the team.

No argument the Cubs could have spent money on more of a sure thing at the plate. Walker would have been that. He certainly would be a batter bet to give you higher OBP for 2007. But not with the same potential upside and certainly not with the same defense. The move does move Cedeno out of a more important position and perhaps thwart his development there. Point well taken. But given that he has the potential to be very good at a new -- albeit less key -- position, and given that I think there could be some upgrade at short with his replacement, the move doesn't strike me as being so bad. But I grant you that this move could impact and even end Cedeno's development at the key 6 position, and that that is a fair concern and criticism.

The Cubs were never going to go with a middle infield of Cedeno and Fontenot or some other unproven minor leaguer.
I guess I'm unsure what the argument is about. I thought we were being normative.

This was simply a direct response to the idea that Fontenot and Cedeno would make a better offensive double play combination next year than Cedeno and Izturis -- a point I don't buy.

However...

Bobby Hill has a career EQA of .249 which dwarfs Izturis's .226

Hill was a pretty bad example on my part. A goof. I even acknowledge that one could actually have made an argument that Hill, when he was in the minors, would have been a better bet than Izturis to contribute offensively at the Major League level the next year. (Which counters the point I was trying to make). Bad move to use Hill as my example. What I was trying to say is that I do not have confidence that Fontenot would perform at his Iowa numbers given a full season in the bigs at 2B right now -- or necessarily match Izturis' offensive output over a long and full season. I was trying to say that although I did so poorly.

Some of the well-argued responses to my position would make a bit more sense to me if I had maintained that the Izturis trade was a great move by Hendry that will turn this Poseidon of a team right side up. Or if the Cubs had a 2Bman or SS ready to burst onto the Major League scene next year with very high-ceiling potential. Or this trade blocked the Cubs from getting an infielder like Miguel Tejada or A-Rod or a younger Jeff Kent. None of that seems true to me. And the few names that have been mentioned as alternatives -- whether it's middling or aging talent like Grudzielanek and Walker or unproven minor league talent like Fontenot -- doesn't seem like a much better option.

A lot of this is a strawman argument. I don't know if anyone here is saying you think this is a great trade. I don't believe that is your position. Instead, all you said is that "I don’t think this is a bad trade." We disagree. Don't accuse us of mischaracterizing things; we haven't. Still, let's get beyond the exaggeration and get to the other issues:

1. The Cubs do have a middle infielder with more upside than Izturis. His name is Eric Patterson. He may not be ready next year, but that doesn't matter because Izturis is with us through 2008, and based on the unbelievable hype he's gotten so far, it probably won't take much for Hendry to want to lock him up beyond that. (Yes, I'm talking about moves that haven't happened yet, but (a) it's not that irrational and (b) when it comes to Dusty Baker, none of us have a difficulty being afraid of lineup moves we haven't yet seen either.)

2. This trade does block the Cubs from trading for (or signing) a more productive infielder. Even if "Miguel Tejada or A-Rod or a younger Jeff Kent" aren't available, there is still a world of difference between Cesar Izturis and these guys.

Frankly, Mike, I'm growing a little tired of you falsely presenting false dichotomies. You've done this in a few ways:

(1) Arguing that "given that the talk here suggested a bag of balls or an unexceptional lower minor league prospect or two would be the Cubs’ best return on Mad Dog, this trade was better than I expected." As I mentioned, although it is true that the Cubs were not going to get one of the Dodgers top prospects, this doesn't mean that they were left to the dregs either. It is entirely possible that they could have sought a prospect with either more risk or a lower ceiling than the Dodgers elite.

Furthermore, if the Dodgers were only willing to give up a "bag of balls" for Maddux, what does that say about Izturis?

(2) Arguing that the deal would makes sense because "the Cubs [don't have] a 2Bman or SS ready to burst onto the Major League scene next year with very high-ceiling potential."

I would say that Eric Patterson's offensive ceiling is higher than Izturis's and even if he's not ready until 2008, that's ok -- Izturis will be here then as well.

(2) Arguing that "My mild support for this trade is based on the idea that . . . I see no better option for the middle of the infield next year." I would say that doing nothing -- i.e., making Neifi the starting 2Bman next year -- would be virtually the same as an Izturis/Cedeno tandem (and wouldn't cost the Cubs $9.6mm and a roster spot over the next 2 seasons), but that's not the point.

The fact is that I would certainly hope the Cubs are capable of doing better than Izturis in 2007-08. It doesn't have to be ARod or Tejada either -- what about Julio Lugo, for instance? Adam Kennedy?

Heck, although Todd Walker would rob the Cubs of some defense, (a) the Cubs are already relatively strong defensively anyway; (b) he would unquestionably provide an offensive boost over Izturis; and (c) the ability to sign him to a one-year deal would not lock the Cubs into him for 2008.

It's just narrow-minded and possibly dishonest to say argue that Izturis is a good option because the Cubs can't get ARod/Tejada/whomever. There are certainly other options.

I'll get to the other points separately.

I still believe the potential for an improved defense has received little acknowledgment among major critics of the trade. And I'm not sure why -- whether you believe Izturis is a terrific fielder or just a pretty good one. Where is the flaw in my argument that this infield could be one of the best in the National League defensively?

There are a few problems with this --

1. The Cubs defense is not a weakness and is already "one of the best in the National League." In fact, BPro rates them 4th in MLB in defensive efficiency, even without Izturis. There is not tremendous room for improvement in the first place.

2. Statistically speaking, Izturis's defense is overrated. One could seriously argue that it is no better -- indeed, worse -- than Neifi's. Range factors, BPro's Rate stat, and I believe UZR figures would support this.

You respond by arguing "Perez's role is as a utility infielder," and that in your opinion, "[t]he real comparison is Cedeno/Walker versus Izturis/Cedeno."

I don't believe that's altogether true. Instead, the real comparison is between where the Cubs were on July 30 (Cedeno at SS, Walker/Perez at 2B) and where they are now (Izturis at SS, Cedeno/Perez at 2B). Yes, the change will improve defense to some extent. Nevertheless, the Walker/Perez combo did contribute to the MLB's 4th best defensive efficiency, so it's not like they have substantial room to improve.

What we do know, though, is that although the Cubs defense may improve to a modest extent, the decision to acquire Izturis *will* (not might) rob the team of offense by guaranteeing the lineup will have two players with OBP < .310.

The team is already starved for offense, and this move will unquestionably impair the offense for at least the next two seasons.

Don't accuse us of mischaracterizing things; we haven't. Still, let's get beyond the exaggeration and get to the other issues:

I don't think this is fair, djf, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. But nowhere did I accuse or at least mean to give the impression of accusing anyone of mischaracterizing my position. What I said -- or at least meant to say -- was that to my perception, the responses here better refute some of the hype we're hearing about this being a great trade or a truly significant one in rebuilding the Cubs, which I acknowledge we all know was not my position.

Or to clarify: I was not making a strawman argument. I fully believe that everyone on the other side of my position fully understands where I stand. Had I been arguing that this was truly a grand trade the way some of the Tribune suck-up pieces did, I think the counter points would have held more weight with me. And that is truly all I meant to say or imply...

Frankly, Mike, I'm growing a little tired of you falsely presenting false dichotomies. You've done this in a few ways:
Arguing that "given that the talk here suggested a bag of balls or an unexceptional lower minor league prospect or two would be the Cubs’ best return on Mad Dog, this trade was better than I expected."

In an earlier post, when I mentioned that I thought the Cubs should aggressively go after trading Maddux, there were a few responders who stated they didn't believe the Cubs would get anything of much value for him. I argued at the time, but later came to think they had a point. That was my reference here...perhaps stated in too flippant of a way. I meant this as only a playful way of saying that I thought the Cubs did better than those posters expected and better than I expected. I certainly didn't mean to paint everyone with the same brush or make any false representation.

It's just narrow-minded and possibly dishonest to say argue that Izturis is a good option because the Cubs can't get ARod/Tejada/whomever. There are certainly other options.

I must say I'm at a bit of a loss regarding the tone of this response. I've simply tried to state my position the best way I know how...not to imply dishonestly that there are not other options. I never said that nor did I say that one could not make a case for those other options. My point was only that had there been a really top-notch high-impact infielder to go after, I would have had more trouble with this trade. I simply believe that the options available -- such that they are -- make this gamble less bothersome for me. Others disagree.

If Eric Patterson were ready in 2006 to be a starting 2Bman, I have more problems with this trade. I just don't think he's there yet, and I'm not convinced that Izturis is ready to block his path when he is.

Finally, and I'm not sure how many times we can say this, I know that you and others believe doing nothing and keeping Neifi and Cedeno would not be a far cry from acquiring Izturis. And I understand that point. It has been well argued and is reasonable. I simply don't agree with it. I am of a mind that there is more of a possible payoff with Izturis and that makes the deal acceptable at this time under these circumstances.

I guess I've said all I can say on this subject. (And then some...) I must say though I'm a bit bothered that I apprently have given the impression of mischaracterizing other points of view or dishonestly arguing certain points. Please know that was certainly not my intention.

I was not making a strawman argument. I fully believe that everyone on the other side of my position fully understands where I stand. Had I been arguing that this was truly a grand trade the way some of the Tribune suck-up pieces did, I think the counter points would have held more weight with me.

I'm sorry for the harsh tone, Mike (someone must have peed in my corn flakes last night), but who here was saying that you believed this was "truly a grand trade"? I don't believe anyone has, which was my point. My post was far too harsh, for which I apologize. Still, just as I don't believe anyone has accused you of giving the deal rave reviews, I also believe that in some ways you can look at this deal from a broader perspective.

I was one of those who didn't think the Cubs would get much for Maddux -- I remember mentioning his 5+ ERA since April. Still, the choices couldn't have been limited to keeping Maddux, getting Izturis, or getting a bag of baseballs. Even I will acknowledge that Izturis is worth more than "a bag of baseballs," so when it became apparent that the Dodgers were seriously considering giving up Izturis, isn't that a sign that they may also be willing to deal prospects in their system who, while not elite, carry roughly the same market value as Izturis?

Furthermore, even if it is true that the Cubs can't get ARod or Tejada (and I don't know that it's impossible to get these guys), that doesn't mean that they are stuck with a choice between Izturis and Fontenot. There are other options, both for 2006 and beyond, and even an average infielder, rather than a "top-notch" one, would be a better choice than Izturis, IMO. Even Walker would be more acceptable to me in 2006, and it's quite possible that Eric Patterson could step in and fill that role in 2008.

Now, unless the Cubs deal Cedeno, the Cubs are locked into an Izturis/Cedeno tandem through 2008, and if the Cubs continue to buy their own hype by then, we may be looking at more of the same beyond then -- with neither guy having an OBP over .310 and all for the chance that they can improve their defensive efficiency beyond 4th in MLB.

IMO, that's too much a price to pay for the chance of a small defensive impact, which leads to the final point -- whether a Cedeno/Perez tandem brings more to the table as an Izturis/Cedeno package. That may just have to be a matter in which we agree to disagree. You have youth, the media, and the Cubs hype machine on your side; I have the available numbers (and their limitations).

My disagreement with Mike can be outlined as follows (and I think I'm of the same mind with dJf and Moses):

I think Mike has a legitimate point but I don't come to the same conclusion. His legitimate point is that Izturis is a legitimate, not old, decent upside major league ballplayer. His conclusion is that, because he came in return for Maddux, the trade is not bad.

The problem is context. On an otherwise strong roster with a hole at shortstop, Izturis would be a fine acquisition. The problem is that the Cubs have no short-term, and while Izturis has potential, he is very unlikely to be a very good ballplayer, ever. And the Cubs don't need more adequate to good ballplayers, they need very good ballplayers or better, even if they come in return for players like Maddux who offer no long-term benefits. In fact, one can credit the lion's share of the Cubs mediocrity over the last 10-15 years to overvaluing players exactly like Cesar Izturis. Therefore, I actually dread seeing him added to this roster.

The question is whether the Cubs are better off long-term with Izturis being added to the roster, not whether he represents good face-value return for Maddux (which he does, and I believe both sides of this argument will agree). Time will tell, and it could definitely work out to their advantage, but I don't think it's a good bet at all, for the many reasons outlined here.

not whether he represents good face-value return for Maddux (which he does, and I believe both sides of this argument will agree)

I will agree with this. In a world without context, I would have no problem with the value returned.

Well, I don't have a problem with the thought that Izturis's trade value is the same as Maddux's. I probably didn't think so two weeks ago, but the facts proved that wrong. My problem is that Izturis doesn't have that much value to the Cubs, and may in fact hurt them.

In that respect, I agree with Pops and Andere that in this context, I think this is a bad deal. If it were another team who had a lousy fielding, lousy hitting shortstop who needed to be replaced, then the deal would make all the sense in the world.

I'm not sure who that team is, however (maybe Toronto?). Considering that I believe that Neifi can match Izturis's glove and both he and Cedeno can match Izturis's bat, I don't believe that mystery team is the Cubs.

First to djf: No hard feelings. It's entirely possible that too many of my comments lent themselves to an interpretation other than what I had intended.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I did want to summarize and clarify a few other points.

I think djf and Andere do a pretty good job of outlining some of the differences of opinion we have had. And I do acknowledge the arguments against this trade have much merit and reason.

In fact, posts by Andere and djf and by pops talking about "the larger context" of the trade -- its impact on the overall team -- make a good deal of sense. I've made the same case often about other Cub moves -- most recently in describing what I so disliked about the Jacque Jones acquisition. Your comments feel like echoes of mine; I said about Jones: He is signed to too many years for too much money. He's certainly not a terrible player, but his signing is suspect because it takes away a position where the Cubs can improve and locks in the team to mediocrity for too many years.

That certainly sounds very familiar to what I'm hearing back about the Izturis trade.

And it raises a fair and legitimate question that I have to grapple with in my own mind: Why is this different to me?

I guess it starts from a foundation of cynicism about how good the Cubs can be next year no matter what they do. Because of payroll and roster choices, I start out with the given that this team has little chance to become a powerhouse in the NL. I think the best we can hope for going into next year is the addition of a few key upgrades and better health, which could launch them into the middle of a considerable pool of NL mediocrity vying for post-season play.

It is for this reason that I would have taken 2006-07 to build around a few players and engage in a true rebuilding plan. I would have given up the chance to become one of eight or so NL contenders for a playoff berth next year in exchange for a true and committed plan to rebuild this team with youth and in a new way.

Under those circumstances, I would have been quite content with a Mike Fontenot at second (until Patterson was ready) and a Cedeno at short as he continued to develop. I agree that Fontenot is having a seriously fine year at Iowa this year. So I wouldn't have had a problem with bringing him up right now and watching him play for the next two months and maybe even in 2007 with other young kids until we are ready to say hello to Corey's brother.

Alas, that is just not where the Cubs were ever willing to travel. Given that this franchise will participate in yet another patchwork project for 2007, and given that the team is significantly limited in how good thay really can be, I saw this as a ripe time to take a chance with a player at a position that I didn't think was overflowing with great offensive options.

I don't doubt there may have been other options out there -- maybe better ones that I didn't even recognize. But the outfield was really where I thought the Cubs had their best shot at offensive upgrade(s). To gamble on a a very good defensive SS who I see as having some upside with the bat, and at a position where I didn't see too many better options made some sense to me. And that it cost the Cubs only a Greg Maddux who would have waved bye-bye in October anyway solidified for me my position on the trade.

As djf and Andere and others have more or less said, some of this discussion/debate comes down to the basic difference of opinion as to whether there's still really an upside to Izturis. Additionally, I think djf is accurate in stating that in this one case, he places more value on certain historic career statistics in evaluating Izturis than do I. Or to put it another way: I guess I see a greater possibility that extenuating circumstances skewed some of Izturis's statistics than djf and others.

I also want to expand on the idea of the trade being bad because it could block the development of Eric Patterson.

I apprecciate that point of view and clearly understand where it comes from. But I look at this somewhat differently.

Patterson's ETA of 2008 would overlap with one signed season for Izturis putting aside for a second the discussion of whether Hendry will or won't sign Izturis to a longer term deal.

But to me, for Izturis to truly have a negative impact on Patterson for 2008, three things have to happen.

1. Patterson has to continue to develop as a decent prospect in 2007 and be the right choice as a starting infielder by 2008. In other words, he has to live up to some of his hype and be ready for the Bigs at the expected time...something that we have not seen too often with Cub position prospects.

2. Cedeno has to continue to develop and take big steps froward in 2007 -- proving that he should be the Cubs starting SS or 2Bman in 2008.

3. Izturis has to prove to be the essence of what critics think he'll be -- pretty lousy and not the best man for the job.

Under this scenario, the Cubs have two young players ready to be the Cubs' double play combination in 2008 with Izturis and his contract clogging the way. Possible problem, I acknowledge.

But I just can't balk right now at this trade because of its potential to hurt Patterson a couple of years down the road. There could very well be chances over that time for worthwhile trades to be made and for that scenario to never come to pass.

I think I'd feel differently on this point if Izturis came here with a 4-year contract. The fear that Izturis will get the equivalent of that kind of contract by Hendry making a bad extention signing is an understandable point to be sure. And just maybe my lack of forward thinking on this will prove to be a mistake down the road.

At any rate, I know I've prolonged this discussion plenty by now, but I did want to take one more stab at trying to be more clear on some of my reasoning behind mildly supporting the trade.

Geez, Mike, I think you're in need of as much therapy as the rest of us. :-)

Let me just pick a few things:

Because of payroll and roster choices, I start out with the given that this team has little chance to become a powerhouse in the NL. I think the best we can hope for going into next year is the addition of a few key upgrades and better health, which could launch them into the middle of a considerable pool of NL mediocrity vying for post-season play.

I think we all agree with this. The problem, as I see it, is that Izturis is not the right guy for the Cubs to build around, and there is the very real possibility that he will not only prevent the Cubs from acquiring guys they *can* build around (Patterson or someone else), but that the Cubs will lock into him beyond the next few years.

Yes, this is projecting, but my point is that he's neither the best short-term option (Walker or several others could do better in 2007-08), nor the best long-term option.

As an aside, I have absolutely no faith in Fontenot whatsoever. Not only do I have no faith in his ability to play at an MLB level, but more importantly, the team isn't either. Let's face facts -- the Cubs promoted Ryan Theriot over Fontenot and they aren't playing him either. Even if one believes that Fontenot can do the job (which I don't), what makes you think that he'll get a chance.


To gamble on a a very good defensive SS who I see as having some upside with the bat, and at a position where I didn't see too many better options made some sense to me.

My point is that (a) defense is not a problem; (b) we're arguably gaining very little defensively over what we already have; (c) offensively speaking, even if Izturis returns to his 2004-05 form, it still isn't all that good; and therefore (d) there is really no good reason to get him -- all he does is clog up roster space.

I understand the limitations in looking at the .214/.258/.291 line he's put up since his hamstring injury last year -- those are stats he's accumulated while recovering from various ailments. I'm willing to believe that if he's healthy now -- and that *is* an "if" -- he'll probably do better.

My point is that even of one believes his 2004 stats are his benchmark and represent his true talent level -- which I *don't* believe -- those numbers still are not particularly good. As I mentioned above, in his "banner season," his offense was roughly 10th among NL shortstops.

When his offensive upside is to be the 10th best SS in the NL, and his defensive upside is to be not significantly better than Neifi Perez, why does it make sense to bring him in?

As an aside, I have absolutely no faith in Fontenot whatsoever. Not only do I have no faith in his ability to play at an MLB level, but more importantly, the team isn't either. Let's face facts -- the Cubs promoted Ryan Theriot over Fontenot and they aren't playing him either. Even if one believes that Fontenot can do the job (which I don't), what makes you think that he'll get a chance.

As a quick aside to your aside, I'm mostly in agreement about Fontenot. I, too, have doubts about Fontenot as any kind of answer at the ML level. My point was only that had the Cubs decided on a true rebuilding plan where developing youth and bringing in high-ceiling prospects became the immediate priority, I would not have objected to playing a no-cost young player like Fontenot (or perhaps another minor leaguer ) to serve as a bridge to get to Patterson. I would have been OK with the Cubs saving their money rather than acquiring an Izturis or a mid-level middle infielder until the right player was ready to be plugged in.

Geez, Mike, I think you're in need of as much therapy as the rest of us.

Goes without saying. You don't passionately follow this team and the Bozos who run them for decades with the expectation of maintaining anything close to mental health.

whats this mental health thing i keep hearing about?

Not to take this in another direction, but did anyone see this article today:

Baker: Cubs Still Wild-Card Contenders

Sigh.

Also this, from the game write-up. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph:

With Cesar Izturis likely manning shortstop for the next few years, Cedeno moved to his new home and became the seventh player to man second for the Cubs this season. He also switched to a smaller glove, which ultimately became a factor in Friday's game.

Before the game, Baker said: "Nice you use that short glove, then you have a quicker, shorter transfer. You don't have that much room for the ball to rattle around."

Sure enough, Cedeno had trouble getting the ball out of his glove in the second inning after a soft toss from Izturis on Jose Castillo's potential double-play grounder with runners on first and second.

The slight hesitation allowed Castillo to beat the relay and keep the inning alive. Ronny Paulino followed with an infield hit off Zambrano to bring home the first run. Cedeno said he squeezed the glove too tightly and the ball stuck for a fraction of a second.

After Freddy Sanchez singled with one out in the second, Jason Bay hit a shot into center. Cedeno left second base uncovered on the relay, allowing Bay to stretch a single into a double.

"He's supposed to rotate, or actually say, 'Hey, get second base,' or, 'I'm going out,'" Baker said. "Ronny actually went out like he was playing shortstop and not second base."

Xavier Nady followed with a blooper to left that eluded a diving Matt Murton, turning into a two-run double.

Cedeno said he has to have better communication with Izturis. The two had not practiced together before Friday.

So the Cubs acquired Izturis early in the week, with the plan of moving Cedeno to 2B. But they said Cedeno couldn't move to 2B because he didn't have a glove (which I guess it took 3 days to buy him) and because he needed to practice there first. But now it comes out that Cedeno and Izturis weren't able to practice together until Friday.

So what exactly were they doing between Monday (when Izturis was traded to the Cubs) and Friday (when he and Cedeno finally practiced together)? Wouldn't it seem like getting Cedeno a glove, and getting him as much practice time as possible, would be a #1 priority?

I need someone to explain this to me.

Dusty Baker made a stunning revelation before Friday's loss to Pittsburgh:

A loss to the Pirates should be triggering revelations in the opposite direction.

I also want to expand on the idea of the trade being bad because it could block the development of Eric Patterson.

I don't know that anyone has specifically mentioned this in the thread (and I'm going to go back and read this behemoth to find out). If it's a response to my vague complaints about the addition of Izturis harming prospects, I want to be clear that I was talking about Cedeno's development.

I also want to expand on the idea of the trade being bad because it could block the development of Eric Patterson.

I can't recall if anyone has brought up Patterson's development pattern as a negative. If you're responding to my vague complaints about harming prospects, I was speaking of Cedeno's hindered development due to the position switch.

I hope my earlier, garbled post was stopped in time...

damn it

Ignore #131 or your brain will ache

I need someone to explain this to me.

Jeez UCCF, it's not that crazy. Izturis and Cedeno couldn't practice together because Cedeno didn't have a glove. And it's not like you can just walk into any store and buy a glove. They have to be shipped in. The cubs will be damned if they're going to pay for any overnight shipping.

In the meantime, Cedeno couldn't use a SS glove because he's playing 2B. Using a SS glove to practice at 2B would be like using a hammer to unscrew bolts.

So what exactly were they doing between Monday (when Izturis was traded to the Cubs) and Friday (when he and Cedeno finally practiced together)? Wouldn't it seem like getting Cedeno a glove, and getting him as much practice time as possible, would be a #1 priority?

In the other night's rain delay, tbey showed Cedeno practicing with Chris Speier. What he was practicing was footwork, not where the throw would be, etc. Speier had him practice crossing the base, planting his feet, and throwing to 1B.

Yeah, having Izturis stand there and feed him throws might have helped, but the point was really for Cedeno to master the footwork, not to recieve throws.

And it's not like you can just walk into any store and buy a glove. They have to be shipped in. The cubs will be damned if they're going to pay for any overnight shipping.

And their glove guy was in Vegas at the time. So there's no way he could've got to Chicago until yesterday.

I can't recall if anyone has brought up Patterson's development pattern as a negative.

I did, sort of. I was arguing that with the Izturis/Cedeno combo for the next 2 years, it will be difficult for Patterson if he develops and is ready for the majors during this time. I was also using Patterson to rebut the "we don't have anyone coming through the system" argument.

As for Fontenot, even I wasn't arguing that they should use Fontenot/Cedeno (or Theriot/Cedeno for that matter). I would've been ok with repeating the current arrangement (Cedeno and Walker/Perez) until Patterson is ready or we can get a good MI from outside the organization.

Baker: Cubs Still Wild-Card Contenders

Sigh.

Yeah, thatgot my blood boiling a bit too, but this isn't exactly the same nonsense we saw last year. As Sullivan observes:

"Of course, if the Cubs really considered themselves in the race, they would not have dealt Greg Maddux to the Dodgers and inserted Double-A pitcher Juan Mateo in his spot. Baker conceded that to make the comeback of the century, the Cubs would have to rely on consistently good starting pitching."

I guess the proof is in the pudding. If Baker and Hendry are going to continue to give time to Murton, Cedeno, Marmol, Hill, et al., then I don't really care if Dusty says that we're not mathematically out of the race. OTOH, if the organization acts as it did last year -- benching these guys to give us a steady diet of Rusch, play Neifi over Cedeno, and rush Lee back into MLB so they can move Nevin to LF -- *that* is yet another nail in the coffin.

Of course, the coffin already has a metal top from all the nails that have been hammered into it.

Wouldn't it seem like getting Cedeno a glove, and getting him as much practice time as possible, would be a #1 priority?

I need someone to explain this to me.

I didn't read it as Cedeno not having access to a 2B glove, just that this was his first day using one. As for practice...the Cubs don't practice...and explanation...do you really need this explained?

I guess the proof is in the pudding. If Baker and Hendry are going to continue to give time to Murton, Cedeno, Marmol, Hill, et al., then I don't really care if Dusty says that we're not mathematically out of the race

Yeah, while the article gave me a chuckle, it didn't bother me in the slightest. It's Baker's job to keep alight the last glimmer of hope for a Wild Card title, at least in word, even if it's long past the point where rational minds have given up on them. Of course, he lost his team in that regard back in late April, but I don't blame him for trying to work with whatever momentum he has right now.

I didn't read it as Cedeno not having access to a 2B glove, just that this was his first day using one.

Originally, one of the reasons Dusty held Cedeno back was because Cedeno didn't have the right glove. Specifically, he was switching from an 11.5 inch glove to an 11 inch one. It's quite possible that Cedeno didn't have this glove the other day (and until he can have one custom made, he's breaking in the smaller glove by microwaving it for 10 seconds). Yes, I feel this is incredibly stupid.

Still, I think this is the smaller reason why Cedeno hasn't played until Friday. The larger reason is that he didn't have his footwork settled for handling the DP.

In the grand scheme of things, the lack of a glove for the last couple of days doesn't mean anything. What is more important is how quickly Cedeno can master the pivot . . . and why he wasn't learning it over the past winter.

#5To repeat my rants from yesterday's Game Chatter, not having the "right glove" is up there with not having a LH batting practice pitcher. Actually, it's worse -- even if the gloves are different (which I don't believe is true), is Dusty really saying that Cedeno couldn't have borrowed one from Neifi?
#19If Neifi isn't willing to let Cedeno use his mitt, you'd think that someone could make a trip to The Sports Authority -- it's just down Clark St., less than a mile from the park!
Using somebody else's mitt, especially for a glove specialist, would be about as comfortable as going to bat with somebody else's glasses or contact lenses. As for wearing a new one from the store in a real game...obviously not written by a player.

Funny story-Aug 5, 89, A's are getting ripped at Seattle and we pinch-hit for Gallego. LaRussa then moves Stan Javier, who has never played a game in the bigs at the position, from left to second (oh, by the way, you should have seen how small he was before I gave him the s----). No way is he going to borrow a mitt, he goes out there with his big outfielder's basket. But in two innings he gets four assists (including turning a DP) while glovemaster Gallego had only gotten one assist in the first 6 innings).