Of Taguchi, Jaramillo and Hawpe
Don't know what you'll remember most about the So Taguchi era with the Cubs, but it's over. The Cubs today confirmed Internet chatter that they have released the veteran outfielder, who came up from the minor leagues in September to fill in because of injury- and suspension-related shortages. The Cubs' 40-man roster now stands at 39.
As far as hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo goes, don't be surprised if something gets done this week. I expect the Cubs to name Jaramillo their hitting coach and to give him the mulityear contract the Texas Rangers would not. As I blogged last week, the Cubs and Jaramillo have spoken (with the Rangers' permission because his contract does not expire until Oct. 31), and things are moving along smoothing, I'm told.
It looks like one name is off the books as far as a trade for suspended outfielder Milton Bradley goes. Colorado Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd tells Hall of Famer writer Tracy Ringolsby that he's not moving outfielder Brad Hawpe:
http://www.insidetherockies.com/2009/10/18/hawpe-not-on-market/
O'Dowd tells Tracy: "The Rockies understand the value of Brad Hawpe on the field and off. We have no desire to move him at all. He has leadership ability and commitment to the approach we feel is important for a team's success."
Stay tuned throughout the week for news on the hitting coach.
Bruce,
I don't expect this to be posted It is just a "Thank You" again!! It is so refreshing to have a columnist who answers questions without a smarmy attitude or dismissive nature Speaking for many, we do MUCH appreciate your efforts! Thanks again, so much!
Scott
Bruce
Another question My friends and I were discussing this the other night Are team owners allowed to pursue scouts, farm directors, etc? Much like Jaramillo, I know the Cubs had to ask Texas for permission to speak with him. My thought on building a perennial contender is to build a viable farm system The Dodgers, Twins, Marlins, and even the hated Yankees seem to bring everyday players to the fore about every two years or more
If we were able to sign scouts from the those teams, I would think we could begin to start having everyday players come up through the minors the norm, not an anomaly as it is currently I think a goal of 1 everyday player a year is plausible in time That would allow you to let some FA's go and re-stock from within. And save the money for the superstars who would eventually emerge from your own scouting.
And, if the Cubs were to trade Lee, Ramirez, and any other high priced player, then they could re-stock much like the Marlins of '97 who were able to beat the Cubs in "03 when they basically gave away the store after the W.S. 6 years prior I Know Ramirez and Lee have no trades, but if players get to go to a WINNING team, I think most would waive that right. I just don't see this group being a team that can win the pennant. The division? Possibly. But the Dodgers and Phillies are worlds ahead of them
They hired Tim Wilken as scouting director from Tampa Bay. Previous to that, Wilken was with the Blue Jays as director of U.S. scouting and VP for baseball operations. He helped to scout and sign, among others: Casey Blake, Chris Carpenter, Carlos Delgado, Roy Halladay, Shawn Green, Orlando Hudson, Reed Johnson (yes, the same one), Alex Rios and Vernon Wells.
They also brought in Paul Weaver as director of international scouting a few years ago from the D'Backs.
Under Wilken, the Cubs have drafted Colvin, Samardzija, Vitters, Cashner, Brett Jackson, LeMahieu, Chris Carpenter (a pitcher like the other Chris Carpenter), Casey Coleman, Ryan Flaherty, Casey Coleman and Jay Jackson. Shortstop Starlin Castro, who figures to be in the top 3 of Cubs prospects, was scouted by Jose Serra in the Dominican Republic. The proof is still in the pudding, but as of now, the Cubs system is showing some promise after about a four- or five-year period of poor drafts.
Bruce,
I know this is a bit off topic, but watching the playoffs and seeing the Yankees have so many players that most teams might be lucky to afford paying ONE of, I had an idea as it regards compensation in FA.
Currently, if you sign a FA they are graded, in, I believe 3 classes "A", "B" and "C" If you sign an "A" designated player, the team losing him is given a "sandwich" pick in the draft. Or maybe two. Well, I see that as a fallible remedy
Signing an "A" free agent means that player has proven they are a high performing player. By giving to the team losing said player (Texiera, Sabathia,) all you do is give them the opportunity to pay MILLIONS to a high pick and to have to develop them all over again Then the player gets to the majors, and in three years they are eligible to go to arbitration and get millions again.
Why not allow the team losing an "A", "B" or "C" FA to pick from a pool of ALL teams signing major FA's All teams who sign an A,B, or C can protect limited players If you sign an "A" FA you can protect FIVE total minor leaguers If you sign a "B" FA, you can protect ten. And finally, "C" allows you to protect 25 This would allow the team losing the major FA(s) to restock more quickly It isn't really right to watch the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, etc to continue to stock the other teams Where would the Cubs be if the Pirates didn't give him away due to not being able to afford his pending FA status The Red Sox without Bay? A few years ago, the Royals gave away Damon in much the same manner Just to name a few examples. Thoughts??
In the early stages of free agency, you had a pool concept. It's how the White Sox ended up with Tom Seaver, whom they plucked from the Mets after another team (I believe the Yankees) signed away a Sox free agent (maybe Steve Kemp; UPON FURTHER REVIEW, THE CUBS GOT SEAVER FROM THE METS AS A COMPENSATION PICK AFTER LOSING TYPE A FREE AGENT DENNIS LAMP TO THE BLUE JAYS AFTER THE 1983 SEASON.). The strike of 1981 was all about free-agent compensation. The owners wanted to restrict movement (and hold down prices) by opening up major-league rosters to teams losing free agents. This, of course, would restrict player movement. Both sides knew it, but Marvin Miller waited out the owners and a version of the pool system was put into place. A few years later, it was scrapped.
I know what you mean, but I don't think the players would ever go for it.
The owners completely missed the boat on free agency after the Messersmith decision. They thought they'd get to keep their own players by offering free agency after six years. What they should have done, as Charlie Finley suggested, was make everybody a free agent when their contract expired no matter when. Owners could have reaped a two-fold benefit of eliminating salary arbitration for 3-5-year players and flooding the market with free agents every year and creating a buyers market.
We could go on for days here, literally. Small-market teams have to stop pocketing revenue-sharing money and start spending it on player payroll. When the collective-bargaining agreement of 2002 was struck, the owners proposed a salary floor, but the players didn't want that because they said they didn't want teams to be told how much they had to spend. That was their way of saying they didn't want a salary cap, either.
I appreciate the thoughts.
that I read earlier this season that someone actually did a study showing that even though the price of signing first round draft picks seem like a lot, the teams actually come out ahead financially on that one. If this study is true then small market teams are actually better off with the draft picks.
"Ohlendorf majored in Operations Research and Financial Engineering at Princeton, a major that combined mathematics, engineering and economics. His thesis was written on the June amateur draft, which will be held on Tuesday. Ohlendorf examined the top 100 picks from 1989 to 1993, tracked the progress of each player for a 12-year period, starting with the draft, to determine the value of the picks. Ohlendorf studied the investment (signing bonus) and the financial return from signing the player.
"The financial return is not cut and dry like the signing bonus, so I did my best to estimate it for the players in the study,'' he said. "The vast majority of the return was determined by the player's contribution in the major leagues prior to reaching free agency, and his salary over that period.''
What were his findings?
"On average,'' Ohlendorf said, "the player brought twice the return.''
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=42...
I personally don't put much stock in the rumors that Milton may remain a Cub at this point. If January rolls around and a trade hasn't been completed or at least discussed in depth then it may be time to start thinking about what other options exist.
Hopefully Trader Jim can work something out with a team willing to take a gamble on Milton.
Bruce - one team I haven't heard mentioned as a possible trade partner thus far is Cincy. They aren't really settled on who will play LF and Bradley could certainly handle those duties if Adam Dunn got the job done there. It's been long rumored that Cincy is willing to listen on offers for Harang or Arroyo. I know the intra-division aspect could kill this before it starts, but it wouldn't be the worst deal in the world for either team. Maybe Bradley could find peace in Cincy with Dusty at the helm, a larger clubhouse and less fans in the seats with high expectations. Harang / Arroyo would both be nice inning eaters that have the potential to go out and shut a team down from time to time.
Also, I've heard a few times that the Reds may be looking to move Willy Tavaras to make room in CF for younger guys that they think have just as good of a glove and would make good lead-off / speed guys. I don't think there would be room for him and Reed Johnson on the roster since they both would fill about the same role. Reed is probably a little better hitter, but I'd be interested to know if it's been explored.
Until Bruce has finished his coffee, let me say, that the ONLY way Milton Bradley returns to the Cubs in 2010 is if Hendry cannot find a way to DUMP him, profitably OR UNprofitably!!
And that includes any possibility, whether slim or none, of trading him to Japan!
Hiring Jaramillo, or not, will not change that!
Bruce --
I'm starting to hear more rumors that Milton Bradley may stay with the Cubs in 2010. The reasons behind the rumor are 1) Ricketts doesn't want to start his tenure with the Cubs by eating a big chunk of money to make Bradley go away, and 2) the possible addition of Rudy Jamarillo as hitting coach, supposedly to work with Bradley and get him back to his 2008 form.
Are you hearing anything? Any truth to this rumor?
Thanks!
I don't know who is starting that, but the Cubs are working to trade Bradley. Milton has been with how many teams over the years? That means he's worked with about that many hitting coaches. So sooner or later, the Cubs might hire somebody who might have worked with Bradley at some point. The imminent hiring of Jaramillo is in no way related to mending fences with Bradley.
As to other teams, I had not heard the Reds. A few years ago at the winter meetings, I got a tip that Dusty had met with Milton when Dusty was still the Cubs manager. I've heard even Dusty came away with doubts about Milton, and Dusty would seem to be the perfect guy to handle him.
But once again, don't look for Milton back with the Cubs.