Cub Bullpen Failure Is Not a Surprise

Derrek Lee crushed a two-run double, Aramis Ramirez and Tyler Colvin had two hits a piece (and Colvin also stole a base and scored two runs), and Ryan Dempster threw five innings of shutout ball before tiring in the 6th, as the Cubs and Royals played to a 5-5 tie in Cactus League action at Surprise Stadium this afternoon.


 


box score


The game was scoreless through the first three innings, before the Cubs broke-through for a run off Royals starter Luke Hochevar in the top of the 4th. Tyler Colvin rapped a hard-hit ground-single to right with one out, stole 2nd base, and then scored on a two-out RBI single to left-center by Aramis Ramirez. (Suffering from a sore right triceps, Ramirez was the Cubs DH today, and he hit the ball hard twice, settling for singles both times).


The Cubs scored two more runs in the 5th off KC LHRP Dusty Hughes, as Ryan Theriot walked and Tyler Colvin hammered another single to right with no outs. Derrek Lee then crushed a long double off the right-centerfield fence to score Theriot and Colvin, giving the Cubs a 3-0 lead.


Meanwhile, Ryan Dempster was in mid-season form through the first five innings (80 pitches - 50 strikes), allowing no runs on two hits (a lead-off single in the 1st and a lead-off double in the 3rd) and three walks, while striking out six.


Trying to extend him a bit further, Manager Lou Piniella sent Dempster out to start the bottom of the 6th, but the veteran right-hander did not have much left. He gave up a lead-off triple to Alberto Callaspo, a hard-hit sac-fly to RF to Billy Butler, and a double to Jose Guillen, before being relieved by Carlos Marmol.


For the day, Dempster threw 93 pitches (59 strikes), with a 6/5 GO/FO.


Generally speaking, rotation starters are stretched to about 100 pitches by their next-to-last Spring Training start, and then they are usually cut-back to five innings and 75 pitches in their final start prior to the beginning of the MLB regular season. So with two Cactus League starts remaining, Dempster is probably right where he should be, maybe even a bit further along than normal.


Marmol relieved Dempster with one run in, a runner on 2nd, and one out in the 6th, and proceeded to strike out Jason Kendall with some nasty sliders. But then lefty-hitting Brayan Pena got a first-pitch fastball from the Cub closer and drove it high over the RF fence for a game-tying two-run home run.


Marmol also pitched the 7th, and labored a bit through the inning (23 pitches - 12 strikes), walking one batter and hitting another, while also throwing a wild pitch. But with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd, Marmol got it together and struck out Alberto Callaspo and Billy Butler to end the threat and keep the game tied.


For the day, Marmol worked 1.2 IP, throwing 30 pitches (17 strikes), allowing one run (the HR).


The Cubs took the lead back in the 8th, when Micah Hoffpauir worked a two-out walk off Royals veteran LHRP John Parrish, advanced to 2nd on a wild pitch, and scored on a clutch two-out line single to right by Jeff Baker.


But the Royals came right back against the Cubs LHRP John Gaub in the bottom of the frame, tying the score at four as lefty-hitting Mitch Maier laced a lead-off triple into the right-center alley, and (with the infield drawn-in) scored on an RBI line single to CF by Jason Kendall. Gaub did get out of the inning without further damage (1-3 SH, 6-3, 5-3), however, throwing 20 pitches (13 strikes) with a 3/0 GO/FO.


Still facing lefty John Parrish, the Cubs took the lead once again the top of the 9th, as Kevin Millar rapped a lead-off line-drive single to left, and advanced to 2nd base on a picture-perfect 1-3 sacrifice bunt laid down by Darwin Barney. Sam Fuld struck out and Chris Robinson walked, before ex-Royal Andres Blanco ripped an RBI line-drive single into left-center to score score Millar with the go-ahead run.


But the Cubs bullpen gave up the lead one last time in the bottom of the 9th, as RHRP Marcos Mateo entered the game with a chance for the save. But unfortunately Mateo immediately gave up three consecutive hard-hit singles to Chris Getz, Scott Thorman, and Alberto Calaspo to tie the score 5-5, although he did work out of a bases-loaded jam to keep the score tied through nine innings.


Apparently neither team was interested in playing extra innings, as the game was declared a 5-5 tie and the Cubs headed home to Mesa.


With mediocre outings by John Gaub and Marcos Mateo today on the heels of a piss-poor performance by Rule 5 pick Mike Parisi yesterday, the Cubs are running out of in-house bullpen options. At present it would appear that (barring a trade) the Opening Day pen will be (essentially by default): Carlos Marmol, John Grabow, Esmailin Caridad, either Sean Marshall or Tom Gorzelanny (Marshall gets the start tomorrow and Gorzelanny starts on Thursday, as the two lefties vie for one spot in the rotation), either Carlos Silva or Jeff Samardzija, Justin Berg, and James Russell.


I would think Hendry will probably be stepping-up his pursuit of a veteran MLB set-up man with closer experience, who can be the #1 8th inning set-up guy and close on days when Marmol is unavailable (Marmol throws a lot of pitches-per-inning, and so even if he turns out to be the 2010 N. L. Fireman of thed Year, he probably will not be able to throw more than three days in row). Toronto Blue Jays RHP Jason Frasor would appear to fit the Cubs need perfectly, but of course the Jays know that, too, so the Cubs would probably have to overpay to get him.


31-year old veteran RHRP Mike Adams has pitched very well for San Diego this Spring and would probably be available in a deal if the Cubs would be willing to give up a couple of decent prospects, but he does not have MLB closer experience. (Adams was eligible for salary arbitration for the first time this past off-season, and he and the Padres agreed on a $1.2M contract in lieu of going to abitration).


Getting the start at 3B, veteran Chad Tracy had a bad day today, getting called-out on strikes, grounding into an inning-ending 6-4-3 DP, and flying out to right at the plate, while also throwing a ball away for a two-base error (his only defensive chance of the day) on what should have been a routine 5-3 ground-out.

Return to Homepage

Comments

adams is f'n bank...if his health holds.

they should trade one or the other while the fans won't give SD too much hell about it. one of them (adams/bell) seems destined to be traded anyway.

From Roto World:

"Adams and the Padres were able to find common ground rather quickly. The 31-year-old reliever had an impressive 0.73 ERA, 0.59 WHIP and 45/8 K/BB ratio in 37 innings last season. He will serve as San Diego's primary setup man this year, manning the eighth inning while Heath Bell handles the ninth."

He has had some "flipper" issues, though. IIRC, doesn't Frasor also have shaky health issues?

Good wrap, Phil.

Do you not feel Cashner would be a better choice? Now that he's been optioned, how soon can the Cubs recall him?

Submitted by John Beasley on Tue, 03/23/2010 - 7:35pm.
Good wrap, Phil.

Do you not feel Cashner would be a better choice? Now that he's been optioned, how soon can the Cubs recall him?

====================================

JOHN B: Andrew Cashner isn't on the Cubs 40-man roster so he wasn't optioned to the minors. Therefore he can be added to the 40-man roster (and 25-man roster) at any time. But he won't get to Chicago until he learns to throws strikes more consistently. And it's still not clear whether the Cubs will use him as a starter or a closer in 2010, or even whether he begins the year at AAA Iowa or AA Tennessee.

I would think Hendry will probably be stepping-up his pursuit of a veteran MLB set-up man with closer experience, who can be the #1 8th inning set-up guy and close on days when Marmol is unavailable ...

Hendry already had that guy, Kevin Gregg.

We need someone who can actually do the job, not throw batting practice.

I agree. That would be a nice thing.

Exactly. Like Kevin Gregg... only better.

Mike McDougal was just released, worth a look? He's had a rough spring, but he did manage 20/21 in save oppos last year, better than Gregg could manage. He'd only cost the big league minimum to try out. Give him a whirl and send Samninja to Iowa?

Give him a whirl and send Samninja to Iowa

I like the idea, unless McDougal is hurt.

I was thinking the same thing. Only keep Samjay and send Russell and Gaub to Iowa.

I am not yet in the camp of trading the farm for bullpen parts at this point.

If the Cubs are FIRMLY in the race come July, then kick some tires. Trading upper end prospects to augment a 75 win team doesn't seem like a prudent move.

I thought it was 78 wins.

dude has the control of carlos marmol with the bat missing abilities of carlos silva.

always a horrible pitcher, imo.

billy kotch had more in his skull than macdougal...all mac does is try to throw this high 90s "thing" past you.

-edit- yes, i realize this is overly harsh. =p i just haven't thought of this guy as a pitcher in many years. he sure as hell is a thrower, though.

I agree. DO NOT WANT.

Submitted by Jim Hickmans Bat on Tue, 03/23/2010 - 9:37pm.
Mike McDougal was just released, worth a look? He's had a rough spring, but he did manage 20/21 in save oppos last year, better than Gregg could manage. He'd only cost the big league minimum to try out. Give him a whirl and send Samninja to Iowa?

========================================

JIM H: I think it's quite possible that Mike MacDougal will be given a look by the Cubs sometime over the next ten days, presuming MacDougal is interested in pitching for the Cubs.

Mike MacDougal was released by the Marlins. Any chance the Cubs think about picking him up?

has been in 4 organizations over the last 3 years and had to sign a minor league deal this offseason. He had a 1.520 WHIP last year getting that 20/21 saves.

Maybe on a minor league deal and see how he does in Iowa, but he's pretty sketchy.

keep russell

My out of the box thought for the bench: bring back Edmonds. He is hitting .286/.390/.457 for the Brewers this spring, but there is talk that the Brewers might not keep him (they also have Jody Gerut) or that Edmonds might not accept a 5th OF position with limited playing time.

Edmonds is the lefty power bench bat that Hoffpauir or Tracy would be, but in addition to playing 1B, RF, and LF, he can also play CF. So you send Fuld, Colvin, and Adduci to the minors, and your bench is: Hill, Baker, Nady, Edmonds, and Blanco. Good LH/RH balance, good experience, good power, good defense.

Will never happen. But I like it.

I hate it. Ugh--I hope I never see that slow ugly swing again. First-bleacher-row power to the opposite field, preferably near the line where it's about 360. He only gets hits at all because lazy pitchers don't read the scouting report and figure it's always safe to throw breaking balls low outside. Any decent fastball inside gets him out.

If I wanted an inside-out hitter--which I don't--I'd ten times rather have Jaques Jones.

(I was an Edmonds fan before he came to the Cubs, because of his numbers and the glamor associated with the red cap, but then I started looking at him.)

per usual, your light on facts, while he did hit a lot of opposite field home runs, not that many were near the line or around 360 feet.

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/detail.php?id...

shows maybe 2 that were down the line and only 5 of his 17 were less than 370 feet using "true" distance (7 if using standard distance).

not sure if this link will work

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_player_hi...

7 hr's to left, 1 to cf, 3 to right, none by the line, closest was just left of the well

3 hr's to left @ Miller Park, 1 to right, once again, none really close to the line

I was working from memory, but if readers follow your hittrackeronline link, it illustrates very well the point I was making about Edmonds' penchant for Wally-Moonshots. In a 20-HR season, he hit three HRs within a 42-degree arc around straightaway center. Thirteen homers were to the left of that arc; four to the right. The 368 sign in Wrigley is to the left of the arc. You're right, though, he doesn't need to hit it down the line. He can reach the seats to the left of 368, particularly if the wind is blowing out.

Anyway, it's a weird swing that produces that graphic. Edmonds is too old to play centerfield and hit like a normal hitter.

From Gordon Wittenmeyer (I presume, no byline) Sun Times:

"SURPRISE, Ariz. -- The Cubs appear no closer to acquiring a veteran reliever for their young bullpen than they were when they got to Mesa last month.

But enough pitchers have performed well enough this spring -- Tuesday's three blown saves by three different guys notwithstanding -- that the need is looking less urgent to team officials, especially given the difficulty in making a quality trade during spring training."

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/...

Well what do we know anyway? The bullpen is in great shape!

Why trade long term assets for short term gains when those gains aren't likely to result in a world series title.

Agreed. You don't trade prospects to finish second instead of third---or even just to get into the playoffs--only if it gives you a real shot at the pennant.

I suppose that is the right call. This team is shaping up to finish 2nd or even 3rd in the Division, imo.

For them to contend for a Playoff spot, they have to rely on a stack of things to go well, and what is the liklihood of of that happening?

They certainly could contend, but why not wait a couple of months to see how well they get out of the gate. If they fall on their face, trade what you can. If they are in the hunt, try and get what you need.

The reason that you don't wait a couple months is that games you lose in April and May count the same in the standings as the games you lose in August and September, and it only takes 1 game to keep you from the playoffs.

If you think you're a contender, except for a RH backup closer, then you should find one.

You are of course correct that the games in April in May count the same, but then I don't think we are a contender.

To some degree I was playing devil's advocate. Your similiar sentiment was being expressed by a few people and I just wanted to point out that there could be a huge benefit in getting a guy right now.

I think we are contenders - again this is pretty much the same team that could have won 100 games two years ago.

This team is similar to the 2008 team, so I am not sure why I am so down on them.

I guess it is because I wasn't a big believer in that team, they are two years older and three of the major contributors (Lilly, ARam and Soriano) are coming off of injuries. This seems like a mid-80 win team that will actually win mid-70 games once they determine they are out of the race.

I certainly hope I am wrong, and am looking forward to eating my words.

they're pretty much projected across the board at around .500. Throw in the standard +/- of 6 games and they're right in the thick of it or gonna fade, but I don't think there's anyway of knowing. If they stay healthy and a couple guys bounce back, they'll be fighting the Cardinals. If they're not healthy and guys have similar years or even more decline, they'll be battling for .500. But any team that can reasonably be expected to be .500 is gonna be at least in the wild card race until August most likely which means might as well go for it without selling off the farm.

They have a few guys close to the majors (Castro, Cashner, J. Jackson, Colvin) that could be a big shot in the arm as well during the season.

"they are two years older and three of the major contributors (Lilly, ARam and Soriano) are coming off of injuries"

Ding!Ding! Ding!

And the bullpen is worse then 2008.

Hopefully Pujlos is out for a long time so we can have the first sub-.500 division winner this year.

Hendry is trying to save his job.

Of course his new bosses have said they want to build the team through the farm system. This tells me that they would not agree that trading away a "prospect" for a middle relief pitcher so that the Cubs can win a couple more games was a good move.

So when a guy is optioned to the AAA (let's say Parker) when can he be called back up? Also, do you think they are thinking of trading Parker or keeping him to see what he can do? He did lead the AAA in saves last year.

I believe it is 6 days, unless a guy goes on the DL. If someone goes on the DL you can call a guy back at any point.

Read AZ Phil's Corner - on the top tool bar. His report on the 40 man roster and rules is highly informative.

a player must stay in the minors for 10 days unless another player is put on the disabled list or bereavement list or the optioned player is traded to another team or the their minor league season is over.

The strength of the team last year was our rotation, and I think it won't be this year. I don't have a good feeling heading into the season, bullpen aside I think we're due for a drop-off here.

I think Randy Wells is going to prove to be a back of the rotation inning eater, a slightly better Josh Fogg. Silva will get rocked. It would be very helpful if Gorz had a comeback year. The only starter I have 100% confidence in is Dempster (and Lilly if he's healthy)

Zambrano not on the team anymore? He is a bit erratic, but seems to be more focused according to reports. I'm not worried about him.

Z, Demp, Lilly (by June) will be as good as any top three. Wells at 4, Silva, Gorz, Marshall, Ninja, etc - someone will be better than the rest and claim the 5th starter spot.

Assuming health the rotation should be decent. Lineup is still full of Fukodome, Soriano and Fontenot/Baker, so it's hard to be excited about any of that.

Bullpen looks 10x worse than the rotation or the lineup. I'd rather run through the AAA pitching roster than trade Colvin for a rental, even if we get someone for a full season.

If Jim Hendry ever wanted to sell high on anything then Tyler Colvin is probably his best chance.

I'd just rather he dealt Colvin for something that will add more impact going forward than a bullpen arm. Say.....

Soriano and Colvin for Vernon Wells and Travis Snider?

He sold high on DeRosa last year, fwiw.

No, Cleveland sold high on DeRosa last year. We didn't pick up a sure thing Major league player in the bunch.

And last year we were supposed to contend. So trading DeRosa was a HUGE MISTAKE.

He should be trying to trade DLee.

Levine said last spots are between Millar and Tracy. And he see the winner being....Millar.

~sad trumpet~

"selling high" doesn't have anything to do with what you get back.

DeRosa: .250/.319/.433, 23HR, 78 RBI, 78 runs

Fontenot:.236/.301/.377, 9HR, 43 RBI, 38 runs

Even with the wrist injury, I'd have rather had DeRosa last season.

And random comment of the day goes to...

To explain, I don't think Hendry sold high on DeRosa. He still produced better than anyone the Cubs put at 2B, and the trio of minor league arms we got, aren't exactly lighting the world on fire.

What you're saying as that you don't think he got a good price for DeRosa. Selling high is when you trade a player at the peak of his perceived value. Getting a good value is something totally seperate.

He sold high on Bobby Hill, Sean Gallagher and Choi as well - though he probably would have been better served trading Choi before the 2003 season.

Ah..point taken.

Sold high on Hill and Choi

Gallagher still remains to be seen

selling high" doesn't have anything to do with what you get back.

* reply

HuH?????????

The return is everything in a trade. The fact that we were supposed to contend last year and dealt our starting second baseman for 3 bullpen suspects is nowhere near selling high.

The Indians sold high because they picked up their MLB closer and probable 8th inning setup guy when they turned DeRosa around to St. Louis.

Conversely, If we would have shipped DeRosa to St. Louis instead of Cleveland. We would probably not be having all the bullpen hand wringing that we are.

Just sayin

Selling high, as I've now explained three times is a timing concept. It has nothing to do with the return.

He sold low on Bradley and Sosa, he sold high on DeRosa and some others.

Really, it's not that hard a concept to grasp, is it?

Explain it as many times as you wish, you are still wrong.

I understand the concept of what you are saying.

My counter is that no matter the date of the trade, if the return is shit. Then you did NOT sell high.

Selling high, as I've now explained three times is a timing concept. It has nothing to do with the return.

You could not be more wrong. Selling high is entirely dependent on the return you get. If you buy a stock at $12 and sell it when everyone else is getting $84 but you settle for 6 bucks, not only didn't you sell high, you're a dope too.

that's just a terrible analogy.

If you buy a $ 6 stock and sell at $84 but not in dollars but in McDonald's gift certificates you are selling high ala Jim Hendry.

Except that since we're not trading dollars, known, absolute values (or at least more absolute and more known than minor league ball players), we can only guess/estimate the real value of a prospect.

Not that I want to be a part of this argument.

Hendry paid full market value for DeRosa (some even said above market value for him), then traded him for prospects, therefore he sold high. Thanks Navigator for settling it.

Neal's right about the term "selling high" though, DeRosa was traded when his value was pretty much at his peak for the Cubs, they had the Phils, Twins and Indians interested. They wanted salary relief and some pitching prospects and that's what they got. You may not like what they got, but that doesn't mean anything.

The Indians also sold high on DeRosa for them and got a good return as well.

The Indians got a better haul than the Cubs. So they sold "Higher".

I understand where he is coming from conceptually.

My contention is who is to judge when and who we sold high on? The Cubs got a better trade haul for Sosa than they did for DeRosa.

The Indians got a better haul than the Cubs. So they sold "Higher".

who is to judge who got a better haul?

you've already determined the Indians did better(not that it really matters with what was being discussed) despite a very incomplete evaluation period. But now 6 years later, the Cubs did better in the Sosa trade. If you evaluated the Sosa trade in 2006, everyone would have thought the Cubs got absolutely nothing in the deal.

And the Cubs paid almost all of Sosa's deal in the O's trade, they certainly didn't get a better haul.

So if Archer becomes a Cy Yong candidate then the Cubs go from selling low on DeRosa to selling high?

I guess it's OK if you want to use that defintion, just don't expect anyone to understand you.

Why would someone not understand me?

Because the Cubs dealt DeRosa in January after a career year, they sold high?

The Indians got their closer and 8th inning guy for him 3 months later. So I contend that the Cubs really didn't sell all that high.

If we had gotten a couple of guys in Cleveland's top 10 prospect lists, then you can argue that we sold high.

Since we grabbed 3 guys in the 13-30 ranges, it was hardly an act of "Selling high".

Because that's what the expression means.

Traded after or during a good season = 'sold high'
Traded after or during a bad season = 'sold low'

The only point some people are making is that Hendry sold DeRosa high after his career year, but if you look at what each GM got in return, it certainly looks like he was even "higher" when the Indians traded him.

So either Hendry did not get enough for him, or DeRosa's value increased after he was traded.

Either way, the main point is that Hendry either got screwed on the deal or pulled the trigger to early.

The only point some people are making is that Hendry sold DeRosa high after his career year

it seems more like the point trying to be made is that he didn't sell high at all.

So either Hendry did not get enough for him, or DeRosa's value increased after he was traded.

DeRosa was owed $5.5M when the Cubs traded him, $2.75M when the Indians moved him. So yes, his trade value did increase, although the Cubs would have never moved him mid-season since they were still competing. The Cards would not have offered the same package if they were on the hook for all of DeRosa's $5.5M.

This allegedly better haul of prospects the Indians got cost them about $2.75M.

Either way, the main point is that Hendry either got screwed on the deal or pulled the trigger to early.

There was no later opportunity for the Cubs to trade DeRosa, it was either keep him for the season or move him over the offseason to save money to sign their left-handed hitting outfielder(that of course is a different bag of worms).

As for getting screwed...

Perez, Todd and essentially sending over $2.75M(or the cost of one year of Ryan Theriot) vs. Gaub, Archer, Stevens

I fail to see much of a difference there.

Totally understood. How else was Hendry going to pay for Luis Viscaino to not pitch for us or to add the extra 16 million to Bradleys deal that no one else was offering?

I wish Jim Hendry could manage my 401k.

other than that has nothing to do with anything we were talking about, Bradly had about a 2/20ish offer from the Rays.

And Fukudome had 5/60 from San Diego.

per Levine, Rangers offered more for Fukudome and WSox the same. Padres offered about 3/30 from the San Diego papers.

2.5 million dollars is absolutely Nothing to a MLB team like Philly or St. Louis. They threw more than that at 16 year old latin kids last summer. Acting like its an acceptable difference between the Indians getting 2 Charter Memebers of their pitching staff and the Cubs getting the ghosts of Luke Haggerty and Grant Johnson in return is beyond disingenuous.

Surely we could have found money to make the haul different if need be. We didn't have trouble finding money for Grabow and Gorzo in July.

I am really looking forward to this string of CY Youngs that their jumped up set up man and player to be named later are going to duel over for the next 10 years.

All this bitching and moaning about Perez. Let's take I don't know, 10 seconds and review some facts. Perez had a 4.26 ERA, 99 ERA+ last year. You're bitching because the Cubs didn't get a guy who can't match Aaron Heilman's ERA - the same guy the Cubs discarded because he wasn't good enough to be on the team. Next you're going to start complaining how we let Barry Zito go to the Giants.

You win. Hendry is a shrewd operator. Cubs will probably match 97 wins this year. 101 ends this year. Start mixing the kool-aid.

2.5 million dollars is absolutely Nothing to a MLB team like Philly or St. Louis.

False.

They threw more than that at 16 year old latin kids last summer.

Amateur/draft budgets are generally separate to major league budgets.

Acting like its an acceptable difference between the Indians getting 2 Charter Memebers of their pitching staff and the Cubs getting the ghosts of Luke Haggerty and Grant Johnson in return is beyond disingenuous.

speaking of disingenuous, Jess Todd was cut today. Enjoyed the absurd hyperbole though.

Surely we could have found money to make the haul different if need be. We didn't have trouble finding money for Grabow and Gorzo in July.

they cost less than a $1M to the Cubs last year, teams usually leave some room in their budget for mid-season acquisitions. Plus the new ownership took over by then.

Not my argument. I personally think they should have kept DeRosa for last year. I just think that is what some people feel - that Hendry didn't get enough for DeRosa based on what they see Cleveland got. In turn, they express this by saying that Hendry sold too low or got taken on the deal. Whether they are using the right terminology or are even correct is debatable, but I just think that is what a LOT of Cubs fans think. "Why did we trade him, and even if we did, why didn't we get more, look what Cleveland got"

Look, you're right. They're wrong but will never admit it. It's the way of all things at TCR.

The Silent Towel fully endorses this statement.

boY i HATE TO SAY THIS...YOU'Re right TRN...SORRY FOR CAPS...

Lol....

If the Pads trade Adrian Gonzalez to the Red Sox this week for Prospects 13,21,29 does Jed Hoyer get credit for "Selling High" on Adrian Gonzalez?

Yes, because Gonzales improved his OPS+ by 27 over his career high last year.

Here's an idea. I know it's going to blow your mind. Maybe the Cubs don't use Baseball America when they determine how good players are... I know that's way out of left field, but it's just a thought.

The guy who started the discussion, Colvin, many people would have traded for a bag of beans over the off-season, and now he looks to be a commodity you can get something for. That right there is a very good illustration of how you, don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The whole way you're looking at this is so... flawed? ignorant? What's the nice word for it? Myopic? You can't both say that you have to wait for the players careers to finish to determine whether or not a trade was a "sell high" and simultaneously say that the Cubs didn't "trade high" when they got three guys of whom the most you could would have hope for is half a major league season at this point.

Obviously we will see how it will all play out. I would guess that public perception, both at the time and still today is that Hendry got hosed. I don't hold out much hope for the bullpen prospects from the DeRosa deal. The fact that they can't break camp in a bullpen with Marmol,Grabow, Carlos F'N Silva and 4 rookies tells us quite a bit about how they are viewed internally as well.

really...

Following that logic the Cubs should release the Jackson boys, Cashner and Castro.

Christ...I'd like to see what the Cubs use rating their prospects...Lol....

Again Neal,...you're right on the concept of selling high.

Gaub was called by one scout "the best left handed reliever prospect in the minors" - it's not like these guys are total crap. Stevens is the only one who's really disapointed so far.

I am one of those who said they wouldn't have been dissappointed if they traded Colvin for bullpen help. He has had a great spring, but the way I see it is that he has earned a stay of execution.

"dealt our starting second baseman for 3 bullpen suspects"

Archer has always been a starter, projects as a starter. I remember reading early on that he was the key to the trade for the Cubs. He's 21 this season. Solid season at Peoria. Cashner-like, but even better, he gave up zero home runs in 109 innings. 78 hits, 119 Ks.

You think Colvin has improved his stock in Spring Training? Really?

He is doing what he is supposed to be doing but damn no walks?

Never lose sight of the fact he is a career .277 hitter with a .323 OBP in the minors. He walks about 30-40 times and strikes out 100 in 600 AB's in the minors roughly. Expand that to the major leagues and its a repeat of Corey Patterson except this kid has no power and no speed. He will walk maybe 20 times and punch out 160 times if you play him everyday in the majors.

Colvin hasn't impressed a single scout, he is just hacking away at the plate with no ability to lay off pitches. That will be exploited by major league pitchers shortly.

Corey never adjusted to pitching, though, and that might be something Colvin is more capable of. Corey was basically a dead pull hitter. Colvin uses all fields. Their numbers may look similar to you, but their swings are completely different.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dead...

teams paying the most to other teams for bad contracts(seems to be a few discrepancies if you look in the comments).

Cubs receiving a net of $2M from other teams, although I believe it's actually 2.5M as the guy is counting Vizcaino, although his is actually a buyout.

Sending $1M to A's for Miles
Receiving $3.5M for Silva.

Neat. Funny list in that many of the guys at the top of it are GM's who people here point to as being a lot sharper than Hendry.

Hendry's fat bad contracts are still on the Cubs.

Not like getting 3.5 million back for Silva is some kind of master stroke of genius.

Orioles playing the Cardinals. Hill started and went 3 innings, gave up 3 walks and 4 hits (2 runs), struck out 3. Not sure where he goes from here with his 6.30 spring ERA and his 9 walks in 10 innings.

Pie led off the game and walked, then singled his next at bat. Pie has been hampered by shoulder tendonitis this preseason, and is 6 for 15 (.400).

doh...dwight gooden...yesterday morning arrest...

"endangering the welfare of a child, driving under the influence of drugs, DWI with a child passenger, leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident and reckless driving"

yeah, dawg.

"endangering the welfare of a child, driving under the influence of drugs, DWI with a child passenger, leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident and reckless driving"

The Golden Sombrero of traffic offenses.

Let he who hasn't done all that in a night to cast the first stone......

the problem is dwight keeps casting the first stone...or rock...or whatever he's into these days.

Then 99% of the population can cast the first stone.

The really important question this raises is, What will this do to his chances of winning Celebrity Apprentice?

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/...

done arthoscopically which apparently gives him better odds of returning

ball in your court Dr. Hecht.

did you mean retiring?

http://muskat.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/03/32...

but he'll have to have opportunities to start...

Tracy with a bases clearing double in the first

but an error in the bottom half as Marshall gives up an unearned run on 2 hits and a walk.

4 K's through 3 for Marshall, no more runs allowed so far. One of the K's was Chris Davis which I think I could strike him out (also Teagarden, Borbon and Hamilton).

5K's through 4 with no earned runs, and finally a Jeff Gray sighting... who proceeds to give up a hit to the first guy he faces, but then retires the side.

Only if you have enough control to not throw one into the zone.

done arthoscopically which apparently gives him better odds of returning
----------
Without details, I have to make some assumptions but what Guzman probably had was a capsular repair that is done arthroscopically for recurring shoulder dislocations. This is what ARam would need if he re-dislocated and had continued instability of his left shoulder. The anterior capsule of the shoulder is reattached to the lower front of the socket (glenoid). There are several anchors that are available to do this which require drilling a hole in the bone where the anchor or anchors are to be placed and then placing the sutures to tighten the capsule (where the inferior glenohumeral ligament is embedded) and tying slide knots arthroscopically, essentially sewing the capsule back in position and removing the laxity that causes the instability. As I've said before, the trick is to get this not too tight and in a pitcher who needs a lot of external rotation, too tight means pretty loose but tight enough to prevent instability.

It probably takes 3 months for the capsular attachment to heal down to the anchor site but they will start stretching a lot sooner than that to prevent excessive shoulder stiffness. Then strengthening. Probably will be a year or two before he can throw at full velocity or whatever velocity and accuracy he can get to again.

An open procedure involves more tissue dissection and therefore scarring but it's all about getting that fine line of capsular tightening accomplished so it's probably easier to recover in the short run, but the end results, since it takes a long time to assess are likely to be tough to tell if getting it done by the scope alone will make a full recovery quicker or better. It's definitely better from how Guzman will feel in the early postop period though.

The Guzman procedure will be a variation on a Bankart repair where the anterior capsule detachment is repaired back to the glenoid/socket in a Bankart procedure. Guzman's repair probably differed in that the repair involves tightening the anterior capsule where the inferior glenohumeral ligament is stretched, so a place in the capsule is selected to anchor down to the front of the glenoid and heal there, tightening the front of the shoulder and thus shortening the stretched capsular-ligament complex.

Here's a link to an arthroscopic Bankart repair video:

http://tinyurl.com/yf8qr3b

which is more valuable, $84 worth of Shamrock shakes or $84 worth of McRib sandwiches?

Cubs leading 10-1, top of 6th after Tracy's second dooble, this one 2 runs, first inning was a 3 run.

6 spot so far in the 6th.

Az Phil: can you give us a scouting report on Brian Schlitter? He was acquired from the Phils for Scott Eyre. Nobody seems to mention him as a bullpen possibility at this point but what does he need to do to get noticed. Seems like the 22 saves at Tenn (even though his w-l record was bad) must have some value.

Plus he's another one from Park Ridge, IL

I'll betcha a million bucks Ricketts re-signs Hendry. Book it, and get used to it.

PS Is there ANY GM this forum would take? Eventually, we (baseball fans) get tired of all of them, even Sherholts, and that Marlins/Tigers guy. They are not gods and we are just Monday morning QB's.

I, on the other hand, "know" the prospect prognostications, therefore I would keep Colvin and then trade him after Lou leaves him on the bench until he rots, since he is a youth.

Pretty hard to argue with the job Theo Epstein has done, even after considering the disasters like Kim, Cabrera, Varitek, and Lugo.

Epstein
Beane
Beinfest
Huntington

All seem to be better bets than Hendry going forward. I'd be shocked if the Ricketts didn't bring in someone else more Sabr oriented. If for no other reason than to put their own stamp on the club.

beane isn't getting a lot of bang for his buck lately...

drafting fat asses who can take a walk keeps turning into fat asses who can't hit, can't play good D, and keep getting injured.

best person he's drafted in years besides bailey a few years ago was andre eithier (2003)...who they traded for...wait for it...WAIT FOR IT...milton bradley.

-edit- hudson street and kurt suzuki in 2004 wasn't bad, either...

only thing hendry has done to piss me off is signing milton without having a manager and coaching crew ready to deal with such a large investment (investment in money and time).

milton was better suited for a DH league to begin with and he showed up in a lazy locker room that wasn't ready to have him around.

people can blah-blah about how much of a baby milton is, but you don't make an investment like that unless you are ready to deal with something that shouldn't be a mystery to anyone.

it was all an extremely 1/2-assed experience.

i kinda wonder how they'd handle a guy like cj wilson.

it may be the cocaine, but ron washington's TX doesn't seem to be overrun by a single strong personality (or multiple ones) "ruining" everything for everyone else.

But on the other hand their are no expectations on the Rangers compared to the Cubs. People in Dallas are biding their time between Cowboys mini camp and the NFL season.

via ye olde world o' roto for those still interested:

"Padres GM Jed Hoyer told Corey Brock of MLB.com Monday that his club is not actively shopping closer Heath Bell, nor have they had offers."

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/3686

Nady plays RF in minor league game, gets HBP, Wells and Ramirez play as well

Nice update, but this guy's no Paul Sullivan.

Good to hear they at least felt safe letting Nady play in right.

here's your paul sullivan edited version...

MESA, Ariz. - I, Paul Sullivan, arrived back in Arizona in good time (Hey, any time you're in Arizona without Milton Bradley is a good time!) only to make it to Fitch Park where a noticeably celebrating Milton-less lockerroom was shooting off bottle rockets and giving me high fives.

The Cubs are playing the Rangers.

It was an eventful day without Milton Bradley (or should I call him Milton BADley? Hahah!), though, and I'll update you on the game if I get a chance.

haha

raise your hand if you did not know crunch's keyboard had a shift/caps key...

~hand~

Caps Lock: yelling
no caps: mutterring

http://twitter.com/JoeStrauss/status/11002711192

Jaime Garcia will be the StL 5th starter, that means Kyle McClellan and Rich Hill won't.

McClellan has a spot in the bullpen, Rich Hill maybe not.

mcclellan is a neat pitcher...he can throw a variety of stuff. nice guy to have around, esp. if he doesn't mind pen work.

and the Mike McDougal discussion can end (thankfully), he signed a minor league deal to go back to the Nats.

X
  • Sign in with Twitter