User login
Archives
Cubs Blogosphere
Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
A small blurb in the Boston Herald about the Red Sox going after John Smoltz made me wonder if Smoltz should be the Cubs top target. Oh sure, a 27-year old Jake Peavy not coming off arm surgery sure sounds swell, and the Sun-Times is stoking those fires again.
''Hopefully, we'll still add another pitcher before Opening Day.'' (Jim Hendry)
But the numerous roadblocks to that destination still make it highly unlikely that the Cubs will ever land on planet Peavy. If Hendry is intent on adding another pitcher, and I assume starting pitcher, I sure hope he's looking into John Smoltz over the normal grab bag that has produced Wade Miller, Jon Lieber and Glendon Rusch the last few years. But then of course, considering Smoltz just came off arthroscopic shoulder surgery to fix his labrum, sounds like Smoltz might fit the pattern.
Smoltz has been rehabbing since his surgery in July and reports are that he's throwing well and expects to be back in May. Considering the generous days off in April that allow for skipping the fifth starter and the fact that Rich Harden should have his season-ending injury by that point, sounds like the timing couldn't be anymore perfect. Despite pitching through a good deal of pain, Smoltz did put up a 2.56 ERA in his six games in 2008. Even if he's not 100% when he gets back, I think it's safe to assume he'll grin and bear it and can still be quite effective. Most importantly for the Cubs, he's still the proud owner of a 15-4 record in the playoffs with a 2.65 ERA.
If the Cubs aren't going after John Smoltz and this Peavy thing ends up just being another offseason foreplay, are there any other cost-efficient names on the market? As with Smoltz, I'll make a few assumptions that a pitcher is only coming if new ownership approves and the Cubs are probably not interested in a long-term contract. Peavy, rightfully so, is worth the exception. A look through the ESPN Free Agent tracker comes up with a few interesting names.
Curt Schilling - not sure if he's even planning to pitch this year
Pedro Martinez - awfully quiet on his front
Mark Prior - just seeing if you're paying attention
Orlando Hernandez - no idea what's up with him, but a 2.55 postseason ERA
Andy Petitte - turned down $10M from the Yanks, doubtful
There still some bigger names out there, but they should all get multi-year deals such as Lowe, Oliver Perez, Ben Sheets, Randy Wolf and Jon Garland. For a fifth starter though, and if the Cubs can fit it into their budget with a new owner being announced in the next week or so, I think I'd put their money on John Smoltz.
Comments
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
pedro :/
i miss old pedro...he was/is a really fun guy. seems his days are winding down prematurely.
that said i dunno how they add more pitching without 1- needlessly sending someone back to AAA 2- making more trades
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
just going off what Hendry said about hoping to add an arm...
he seems to do this every year now, some vet thrown in there to compete for a spot and everyone wondering where it will all fit.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
I'd sign Sheets to a one year deal with an option
...don't we have unsed towels to rehab him?
alas Linen's N Things has filed for bankruptcy and if they emerge, will this give them an idea how to rename themselves? (Sheets N Towels?)
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
interesting piece from Gammons
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extra...
What happened this winter is that, as the internet has expanded to become the media power, the flow of information is quickly controlled by agents. A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it, you know, 'The Brewers are jumping in on Derek Lowe.' They're not jumping in on Derek Lowe. I mean, please. 'The Red Sox are really hot for Derek Lowe at $16 [million] . . . ' No, they're not. But Scott floats this stuff out, and he's able to get people to report it.
some other good stuff...I wonder how many players wish they just accepted arbitration now.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
It would be nice to have someone with Smoltz's credentials. However, we have Harden already and we need someone who is either going to be a potential playoff help or someone who we can count on so we don't have to panick if Harden and #5 starter goes down.
Martinez- old
Prior- broken - funny though
Sheets - would be nice but is another Harden
Smoltz - would be a great mentor and when healthy could lead the world series push..just don't see the connection to chicago...
I have a hunch that the next pitcher is going to be via trade...with Pie and Cedeno out of options and no real use on our team after gathright and miles...they have to be packaged...I'm interested to see what happens to Rich Hill..not worth a used can of chew! It seems like it may be possible when the new owner (too bad it wasn't Cuban) Peavy deal will be announced.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
if they wanted someone to that would just be reliable, they would have kept Marquis. My guess is they're going to take a shot at someone with huge upside if the new owners approves the money, with the idea they can cover with Marshall, Gaudin, Hart, Samardzija and so forth.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
My thoughts on Pitching for 2009 for what it's worth...
Now that Marquis is traded along with his salary and cubs have acquired pitchers from Cleveland and Rockies...and with no options remaining for the players mentioned above...I think there is plenty to acqure Peavy from Padres. I think that move is the best move....That rotation is the best in NL if healthy. That is a big IF however. I would keep Marshall as a 6th starter because he will be needed.
If this does not work, I think Ben Sheets is the second option.
Outfield looks much better with Bradley in RF and Fukodome in CF. Looking forward to spring training.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
they're going to take a shot at someone with huge upside
=========
If you don't mean Peavy, then maybe Roy Halliday can be pried loose if the BlueJays suck in April/May. I think he's got 2 yrs left on his current contract.
I'm partial to getting Sheets though, as he'll assure me more ortho articles...but hey, Bradley works for me on that front too.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Halladay sure would be nice, I'd think I'd prefer him over Peavy, but Blue Jays didn't spend anything this offseason, they can certainly afford him.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
What about Ian Snell and a low level prospect from Pittsburgh.
Cedeno would have a starting spot as soon as Jack Wilson is moved, and Felix instantly becomes 4th OFer.
Snell has been pretty good up until last year. Decent Whip and Srikeout rates to back it up.
He's cheap, under club control for a couple more season's. And he can fit into the bullpen role if needed.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Yeah, but he sucks.
The next Eric Gag-me?
The Dodgers and Brewers have both offered free-agent closer Trevor Hoffman a one-year deal with an option for 2010...
Hoffman hasn't decided yet where he wants to play. Both deals are higher than the $4 million (offered by the Padres earlier).
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090106&c...
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Johnson would have fit perfectly here, but if Peavy really is unattainable, then I like either Sheets or Smoltz in this role. Sheets will probably get more here, but he's probably more readily signable right now compared to Smoltz, who may drag this out and still prefer ATL or BOS in the end. Maybe Jim can find a way to lure Sheets quickly.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Maybe they can wait out Garland, he would be good.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
good at what?
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Good # 5 starter, throws sinker(I think)
Eats inning, and never look over the AL to NL switch for a pitcher's favor.
(see Ted Lilly-whom I believe you did not like the signing)
;-)
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
if we wanted Jason Marquis, we would have kept him though...
seem the same to me....
AL East to the NL i can see the difference, AL in general, not so much...
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Maybe we can just give back Matt Karchner for Garland?
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Sun Times is reporting Hendry is going to start on the Peavy deal again at the Winter Meetings.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
2009 Winter Meetings? might be a bit too late...
also, thanks for reading the article :)
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Argh. I didn't mean the winter meetings.
SI just put up the link too from the Sun Times. I know it's not anything new, or surprising.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Garland vs Marquis, contrast and compare over the range of a few stats the last 5 yrs.
last 5 yrs IP: Garland 196-221; Marquis 167-207 (the 167 was last yr as they skipped him in order to limit his sucking into Aug-Sept.
last 5 yrs ERA: Garland 3.50-4.90; Marquis 3.71-6.02 (the 6.02 was the season LaRussa left him in for cannon fodder forcing his exit from StL)
last 5 yrs WHIP: 1.172-1.505, 1.505 last yr; Marquis 1.329-1.449
although Garland had back to back 18 win years he more often had 10-14 wins in 5 of the last 7 seasons, which is strangely similar to Marquis.
oh, and the Angels ignored him in the playoffs too
methinks the were twins that were mislabeled in the nursery.
our luck Hendry will re-sign Matt Karchner as the person he's looking for to add more pitching.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Noooooooo! That is harsh!
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Garland IS Marquis. Total numbers aside, the one thing both those guys did on a consistent basis is sail along until somewhere in the 4th, 5th or 6th inning, when the wheels fell off.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Livan?
Livan Hernandez is still out there.
I know he sucked ass last year, but as a #5 with a nice sinker...
Also, I still think Jason Jennings will be getting a minor league deal - and Smoltzy, and most of the other rag-armed guys have 10 years on him.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Bobby Brownlie?
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Bobby Brownlie never had a MLB career. Jennings was Rookie of the Year 4 yrs. ago. A little bit of a difference. I mean even if we are talking "scrap heap" here. Just what kind of "Dr." are you, again?
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
Good lord E-man. I'm a Dr. of comedy.
And I find it funny that we have went from visions of Peavy, to visions of Wade Miller in 2 weeks.
I said it 2 weeks ago, and I still say.
Peavy = Brian Roberts
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
HAHA!
Wade Miller?! OY!
I had conveniently forgotten about him!
I sam him I think in his last awful start, Easter 2007, in Miller Park. Yuch.
You're probably right about Peavy - but one cannot be a Cub fan without permanent - and blinding - hope.
Re: Should the Cubs Be in on John Smoltz?
I thought it was clear to try and bring in a pitcher better than Marquis, Marshall, Gaudin and so forth...
what's with all the lateral ideas and worse ideas?
Return to Homepage