Carlos Silva (and minor-league news, with UPDATES)
That last blog was sure fun. Triple-digit posts, all (or mostly) about Randy Wells! Wow. Thanks for the input.
Before we get to today's main subject, take a gander at MLB Trade Rumors list of minor-league free agents (gleaned from Baseball America):
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=10522
They list the Cubs as follows:
RHP: Mitch Atkins (AAA), Jeff Gray (AAA)
C: Mario Mercedes (AA), Mark Reed (Hi A)
3B: Russ Canzler (AA), Scott McClain++ (AA)
OF: Jason Dubois (AAA), Bryan LaHair (AAA)
UPDATE: The Cubs also inform me that outfielder Brad Snyder was outrighted off the 40-man roster and is now a free agent. The 40-man roster stands at 36.
We'll move today to Carlos Silva before rounding out the pitching. The one thing we know about Silva is that it's always going to be something.
And we'll remove the heart scare from that equation. I was in Colorado when that happened, and you don't mess with those things.
It was an interesting ride all season long with Silva, who always seemed to come up with a crick in his neck here or a sore shoulder there. And let's not forget that in the middle of September, the Cubs shut him down because of a strained right elbow, which they said was nothing more serious than tendinitis.
From the very beginning, things were interesting. Lou appeared miffed at the beginning of spring training when Silva showed up in what Lou deemed to be not the best of shape. Silva soon rounded (bad choice of words, I know) into shape and began the season 8-0 with a 2.93 ERA through June 7. At the time, there was serious talk that Silva belonged on the NL all-star team (he didn't make it).
The ride ended with Silva finishing at 10-6 with a 4.22 ERA and a 1.27 WHIP, with 113 innings pitched. He had 13 quality starts. Seventeen of Silva’s 21 starts came before the all-star break.
As you know, Silva came to the Cubs last December from the Mariners in exchange for Milton Bradley in one of those bad-contract-for-bad-contract trades. Cubs GM Jim Hendry was able to salvage something from the self-created mess that was Bradley.
This just in: Got a message a few minutes ago from one of our regular bloggers here who said the Cubs should dump Silva this off-season. He’s owed $11.5 million for 2011, $5.5 million of which the Mariners are paying. I’m not sure there’s much of a market for Silva, but we’ll see if Hendry gets any bites next week at the GM meetings and before or after next month’s winter meetings in Orlando.
Silva was brutal in 2009 with the Mariners, as injury woes limited him to 8 games and a 1-3 record with an 8.60 ERA. For comparison’s sake, we’ll look at 2008 and 2010. In ’08 with the Mariners, Silva was 4-15 with a 6.46 ERA and a 1.60 WHIP. Here are some of the categories:
K/9 in 2008: 4.05
K/9 in 2010: 6.37
BB/9 in 2008: 1.88
BB/9 in 2010: 1.91
K/BB in 2008: 2.16
K/BB in 2010: 3.33
HR/9 in 2008: 1.17
HR/9 in 2010: 0.88
Although it seems like he’s been around forever, Silva turns 32 on April 23. He’s yet another guy you don’t build around. He’ll be heading into a contract year next season, so maybe that will provide some extra motivation.
Best as I can read the Wrigley plan is that Ricketts wants his own Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan. It worked for Daley the last 20+ years - so why not the Cubs?
There are two major points to make about this proposal:
1) It absolutely is a use of state tax revenue dollars no matter how it is spun. By capping the dollars that would go to the state, the state/ city will be losing revenue in future years they would have been projected to be coming from existing tax on Cub tickets. That "lost revenue" will have to come from somewhere else, in either the form of new or raised taxes somewhere else, or reduced current spending by gov't. Daley's TIF programs have done a remarkable job of helping revitalize certain areas of the city, but it has been a big contributor to the structural deficit the city currently has (particularly educational funding. The most honest description of this plan in my mind is to say the Cubs want the state to reduce their taxes with the agreement they will use the money saved by the reduction in future taxes to rebuild Wrigley (and they want the state to fund cash upfront via the bond sale).
2) I am sympathetic with the Cubs that the state should send some support their way as well. After watching all the sweetheart deals thrown the way of our other multi-millionaire owners like McCaskey and Jerry Reinsdorf, big part of me says that's only fair the team I most care about should get some dollars too. The city has already stepped in and landmarked the stadium, so it's not entirely fair to compare the Cubs and SF Giants' situation. They can do whatever they want with that park, host 50 concerts and monster truck races throughout the year to raise additional revenue. The city is very much a partner already with the Cubs in what goes on at Wrigley Field.
So - I'm fine with the Ricketts plans as described, just wish he would drop the spin and not try to act like this is anything other than a tax subsidization of the Cubs.
State and local government officials are already howling on this one. This thing is dead before it starts. And for good reason. The State of Illinois is a whopping $14 Billion in debt and the economy still crippled. If it smells like a tax, then it is a tax. Ricketts isnt' careful and he is quickly going to become the most hated man in Chicago.
So I think it safe to say we can move on from this topic. Ricketts better come up with a Plan B. As in tapping into a family fortune worth $2.6 Billion if he wants to fund remodeling of Wrigley Field. Either that or sell then damned naming rights. Good fans could care less if the name is changed to Wrigley Field at Tampon Park.
from past proclamations, I'll assume this one still has some life
Great info, Charlieboy. I appreciate it. Yes, the spin from the Cubs is never good, whether it's how they explain ticket-price hikes or now this.
I HATE that teams get public funding for things like this. I hope it gets shot down.
But is it fair that the city designates Wrigley as a "Historical landmark" which has the Cubs jumping through hoops to maximize revenue dollars, for something they own? Or that bars, restaurants, and roof tops have been mooching off them for years? I do realize that roof tops pay a small royalty, but still.
I went to the Winter Classic for the Hawks. The NHL rolled out video boards in each foul pole area, and they weren't a nuisance at all, except for the people across the street.
I just don't think it's fair that the state/city can dictate to the Cubs when they can do upgrades on something they own outright, and then refuse to give them any sort of payment for a new stadium.
If Ricketts were smart, he'd offer to sell Wrigley and it's land to the city, and then move the Cubs to a neighboring suburb where they can get a state of the art stadium, lots of parking, and start bringing in a LOT more revenue.
You think the alderman would allow the Cubs to go, and call their bluff, when all those registered voters and businesses lose out? Not a chance.....Let the games begin.
on the Landmark status...
I don't vouch for owners getting public funding, but at the same time this WRigley thing is a whole other animal.
So now he'll raise ticket prices, and I don't know one guy who would take a party of 4 and have obstructed view seating and pay just as much to go to a Bears game, pay more for concessions, and park in the middle of BFE that'll cost $30 on average. That's a $500 adventure, and who has the discretionary dollars for that? Not to mention, that all could take place on a cold May night to see the high powered Pirates.
Better role out the beanie babies, because the onfield product is sub par at this point.
But tell me how many other sports franshises already don't get public financing in some form or fashion? McGowan was one with SF (but even with that deal, I have no idea if the state didn't lower his taxes or do. No others come to mind. I'd like my team to get some too is all. Vicious cycle I know and horribly hypocritical of me.
I'm all for trying to pull the state dollars still going to Reinsdorf and McCaskey as well. Let them both act on their threats to move to Florida and Gary, IN.
Not surprising I might add. The State of Illinois has a $14 billion deficit and the economy remains mired in deep downturn. There is snowball's chance in hell that the legislature and the taxpayers of Illinois will get behind Ricketts' funding scheme to tap into amusement tax dollars. And rightfully so. If it smells like public financing then it is public financing and the taxpayers are being impacted. Tom Ricketts can spin this any way he wants. The Ricketts want a subsidy.
It's what you call bad-timing, chutzpah, desperation, trying to make lemonade out of what's turning out to be a lemon of a deal or all four. Maybe even throw buyer's remorse into the mix.
He had to know about Wrigley before putting the money down.... anybody who buys a resale has an inspector come in to give the bad news about what needs to be done and how much money it'll take. Then one starts taking that amount off the asking price taking into consideration how motivated the seller is.
The big question now is:
Did Ricketts do that or is this a case of a rich boy wanting a new toy and it not being as fun or cool as he thought it would be???
In any case the guy keeps shooting himself in the foot. Hard to imagine someone seemingly that bright doing and saying such stupid things which could never endear him to the people who were ready to support and embrace him!
Image over substance?
In any case, it's not gonna fly and for that reason and Wrigley safety concerns.... expect lower payrolls, higher ticket prices and personal seat licenses.
...clearly didn't learn much during due dilligence on the quality of the people running the baseball operation, maybe he didn't learn anything on the condition of the ballpark either.
I don't blame him asking for some dough (and he'll probably get it), but his timing, tact and judgment have left a lot to be desired in all areas.
I don't see them allocating more than $5 million total on short-term solution(s) at 1st base. I'm actually in favor of Nick Johnson versus the othe options mentioned. Granted, Johnson NEVER is healthy. But he is an on-base and doubles machine when he is, plus he is considered a solid defensive 1st baseman. Johnson also hits lefties, so the need to find a platoon mate is lessened. A move to acquire Johnson is a bet on health and catching lightning in a bottle.
Branyon? No. He is a hacking nightmare that would only serve to compound the all or nothing dysfunctional nature of the Cub lineup.
Pena? Be very careful. He couldn't hack it with four other organizations before finally finding a home in Tampa Bay. His drop-off in 2010 is also alarming. If he came cheap, then okay. But I take a pass if I am the Cubs.
Overbay? Decent enough bat with a great glove. He draws a yawn from me, but wouldn't be the worst option.
Berkman? Not sure what Fat Elvis still has left in the tank, and also not sure if he can hold up for an entire season. But there is no denying his resume.
LaRoche? Reputation for being a very slow starter, but overall he is a competent performer. He falls in between Johnson and Overybay for me.
Dunn? I bet he ends up in Boston, with Youklis moving back to 3rd base and Beltre signing elsewhere. No denying his production, but I also view him as a high risk signing given the money he will command.
Huff? He'll re-sign a quality two or three deal to stay in San Francisco.
Konerko? It will come down to the loyalty he feels toward the White Sox or the lure of the money that Arizona seems willing to give him. Plus he lives in Scottsdale.
Fielder? I don't think Milwaukee can find the value they need to get out of a trade, hence I bet they keep him and reconsider trading him at the July deadline. A wildcard could be the White Sox if they lose Konerko, with Gavin Floyd being the bait.
OK, say the Cubs luck out and sign A.Gonzalez next year, and Ramirez leaves, who will
the Cubs have to play 3rd base. They fill one need (no one in the minors) and leave one
open at 3rd (no one in the minors). Now they have to sign an expensive guy who can
slug to play third base. YOU GUYS HAVE ANY IDEAS ? And can you hear the commotion
when Tom will want Millions from government to help renovate in and around Wrigley Field, and then sign Free Agents for Millions of Dollars. Right now the way I see it, the Cubs are
in real trouble for the long run, unless some miracles via Minor league position players fill
the gaps or Henry lucks out in trades. Dunn may slug 35- 45 home runs for the Cubs,
but how many runs with his bad fielding will he give up, and do we want him for 3 or 4 more year to tie up the payroll. Is there anyone out there besides, Overbay, Johnson, Dunn, Kornerko, Branyan, LaRoche and Huff. I'd prefer Victor Martinez at 1st base who can spell Soto for time to time, but Detroit will probably get him, and he'll be expensive anyway. This still leave 3rd base open, and some of you guys want Ramirez to leave in
2012. Let's think long run for a while.
He is still one of the Cubs very top prospects. A broken hand doesn't keep you from being a prospect. I have not seen one scout who has previously liked him, who doesn't like him now. All think he has great plate coverage, a short quick swing, solid power which should improve and Keith Law who is usually very critical recently said that Vitters has improved his defense to the point that he is an average 3rd baseman.
The Cubs also have Marquez Smith and Ryan Flaherty in the minors who have some potential and a couple of very solid prospects down lower in the minors.
Most of players mentioned in the Cubs minor leagues maybe 1, 2 or 3 years away, and none of
them have power to play 3rd base, perhaps Vitters, but he maybe a few years away, if he even makes it.
with a good year at AA, Vitters would probably be the Cubs starting 3rd baseman in 2012.
did a re-draft of the 2007 draft that Vitters came from and didn't even have him going in the first round again. So yeah, I'd say there are some that have previously liked him who do not like him now. His stock has fallen drastically.
No reason to give up on him, but he's got A LOT of work to do.
... but only looking backwards, not ahead. Adrian Gonzalez was the #1 pick overall the year he was drafted. 4 years into his pro career, he hit .269 with 5 home runs in almost 500 plate appearances; during that year he was traded, a thing that rarely happens to guys picked #1 overall before they reach the majors. Though he was picked in a notoriously weak draft, it's pretty safe to say that a retrospective draft 4 years into his career would have dropped him way, way down from #1 overall.
But the point about young position players is not what they are at 21 or 23 or even 25: it's what they are going to be when they are 27. Gonzalez didn't finally graduate from the minors for good until he was 24, didn't give any real hint that maybe after all he really was the best player in his draft (note: Cliff Lee, Chase Utley, and Adam Wainwright might still disagree) until he was 26. Most impact players show from an early age that they're going to be impact players; but Gonzalez shows that there *are* late-blooming exceptions.
No doubt there are exceptions, and I said I wouldn't give up on him, but to think he's still one of the best prospects in baseball or that teams/scouts haven't soured on him is just wrong. So penciling him in as 'ready' for 2012 or even 2013 is far fetched at this point and if he never improves his plate discipline, he's not going to make it.
I've looked. Major leaguers that walked as little as Vitters are guys like Jose Lopez (still higher than Vitters) and AJ Pierzynski (a tad better than Vitters, but basically equal)
Can he become what the Cubs thought? Sure. I wouldn't put my money on it though.
I don't know if that so much says anything about Vitters, as it does about the guys taken lower in the draft whose stock has risen. You don't take a high school kid to have results in 3 years.
Yes, he clearly has alot to prove, but his skills are not diminished at all from what they were when he was drafted. Moustakas has followed almost the exact same career path as Vitters, struggling mightily in 2009 and following it up with a great year this year.
2010 should indeed say alot about Vitters future.
And we're not talking results. The bad thing is his walk rate. Find me a major leaguer that walked as few times as Vitters has in the minors. Probably can't do it!
And anybody who was a Cubs fan from the '80s on ought to. To this point, Vitters has walked in about 4% of his plate appearances. Shawon Dunston, TTBOMR, walked in about 2% of his PAs over the course of his minor league career. Sammy Sosa was only a little better than that, less than 2.5% per my memory.
Of all the comps you choose you had to pick one of the all time busts??
Sosa was over 6% in the minors according to the baseball cube.
*edit* not one of the all time busts, obviously, but if Vitters hits like that, you better believe he'll be one of the all time busts.
You asked for a major league who walked as little or less than Vitters in the minors; I cited one. I wouldn't have mentioned Dunston (or Sosa) if you had asked for a comp. No objective observer would call Vitters and the young Dunston comparable: they differ in more baseball respects than they are alike.
Nice consistency, BTW: Vitters has a distinctly higher minor league walk rate than Dunston, yet you imply he'll hit "like that".
I stand corrected on Sosa's minor league walk rate.
"Skills are not diminished at all from what they were when he was drafted."
Well I hope not! the problem is that they haven't IMPROVED since being drafted.
Here's BA's do-over of the '07 draft. Not all good names that they now have ahead of Vitters.
1. David Price, lhp, Rays (first round, No. 1 overall)
2. Jason Heyward, of, Braves (first round, No. 14)
3. Mike Stanton, of, Marlins (second round, No. 76)
4. Matt Wieters, c, Orioles (first round, No. 5)
5. Mike Moustakas, 3b, Royals (first round, No. 2)
6. Madison Bumgarner, lhp, Giants (first round, No. 10)
7. Matt Moore, lhp, Rays (eighth round, No. 245)
8. Rick Porcello, rhp, Tigers (first round, No. 27)
9. Freddie Freeman, 1b, Braves (second round, No. 78)
10. Jordan Zimmermann, rhp, Nationals (second round, No. 67)
11. Jarrod Parker, rhp, Diamondbacks (first round, No. 9)
12. Brett Cecil, lhp, Blue Jays (sandwich round, No. 38)
13. Danny Duffy, lhp, Royals (third round, No. 96)
14. J.P. Arencibia, c, Blue Jays (first round, No. 21)
15. Devin Mesoraco, c, Reds (first round, No. 15)
16. Tommy Hunter, lhp, Rangers (sandwich round, No. 54)
17. Nick Hagadone, lhp, Red Sox (sandwich round, No. 55)
18. Julio Borbon, of, Rangers (sandwich round, No. 35)
19. Chris Withrow, rhp, Dodgers (first round, No. 20)
20. Jake Arrieta, rhp, Orioles (fifth round, No. 159)
21. Casey Crosby, lhp, Tigers (fifth round, No. 181)
22. Austin Romine, c, Yankees (second round, No. 94)
23. Travis d'Arnaud, c, Phillies (sandwich round, No. 37)
24. Matt LaPorta, 1b, Brewers (first round, No. 7)
25. Mitch Moreland, 1b, Rangers (17th round, No. 530)
26. Derek Norris, c, Nationals (fourth round, No. 130)
27. Jonathan Lucroy, c, Brewers (third round, No. 101)
28. Todd Frazier, of/3b, Reds (sandwich round, No. 34)
29. Matt Dominguez, 3b, Marlins (first round, No. 12)
30. Ben Revere, of, Twins (first round, No. 28)
Your continuing advocacy of Josh Vitters flies in the face of general evaluations. His stock has fallen precipitously. He still has time to get things on the right track, but penciling him in as the solution at 3rd base is blindingly optimistic.
You are consistent in that you never let facts, feelings, and/or hyperbole get in the way of an accurate post by you. Here is a pretty damn good analysis by a guy who has actually SEEN and evaluated Vitters in Spring Training, Minor League Spring Training, AZ Fall Instructional League, and AZ Fall League. The real point in his analysis (which I'm sure you would miss if not pointed out for you) is that Vitters is only 21 years old, HS prospects develop slower that college prospects, he has had injuries slowing his development, and he has been PROMOTED mid-season (twice) after mastering the lower classification (and becoming a BA Top 20 Prospect in that lower league post-season). Read on and learn, goniou:
Which brings us to Josh Vitters...
When the Cubs selected Josh Vitters with the 3rd overall pick in the 2007 Rule 4 (June) Draft, Vitters was rated the second-best HS bat in the draft, behind only Mike Moustakas (who was taken by KC with the second overall pick). Vitters had been absolutely outstanding the previous year (between his junior & senior years in HS) in the AFLAC & Area Code "wood bat" HS all-star games, and nobody (and I mean nobody) questioned his bat. Whether he could stay at 3B was the only question.
Vitters had signed an NLI with Arizona State prior to being drafted by the Cubs, and if he had gone to college instead of signing with the Cubs he would have just completed his junior season at ASU this past Spring, and presuming he was drafted & signed (by the Cubs, let's say) this past June as a college junior, he would have spent June-July-August 2010 at Boise. So he is WAY advanced over where he would have been if he had gone to college in 2007 instead of signing with the Cubs.
The problem with Vitters signing with the Cubs in 2007 was that he had pneumonia in his senior year in HS, and then he (like Hayden Simpson this year) contracted mono the summer after he graduated from HS. And then he signed right at the August signing deadline, when he was weak and out of shape, and he hit just 118/164/118 with no XBH in 14 games (55 PA) combined between AZL Cubs and Boise. (The Cubs should have told him to come back next year when you're 100%). And then he was just as anemic at Instructs post-2007. I didn't know about the mono, so I figured when I saw him at that time that he might be a bust, a chump who wouldn't be able to adjust to pro pitching.
Then when he reported to Minor League Camp in 2008, he had a hand injury and so he was held back at EXST for a while after Spring Training getting his hand in shape before going to Peoria, where he struggled. Then he was sent back to Boise when the short-seasons started in June, and he hit 328/365/498 at age 18 and was named the #1 prospect in the Northwest League by Baseball America.
He was moved back up to Peoria to start the 2009 season, and he hit 316/351/535 with 15 HR in just 70 games (less than half a minor league season), before being moved up to Daytona when he was right in the midst of a HR binge at Peoria. He was 19 years old at this point.
So he goes to Daytona in June, and he struggles through the balance of the 2009 season, hitting just 238/260/344 in 50 FSL games. Then he goes to Instructs and looks good, and then to the AFL last October, where he hit about .350 depite battling back spasms.
He goes back to Daytona to start the 2010 season, and he hits 291/350/445 in his first 28 FSL games. That earns him a promotion in May to AA Tennessee, where he struggles, until the last ten games before he suffered the broken hand. In that ten game stretch in July (just prior to having his season ended), Vitters hit 303/395/636 at AA.
Now he just returned to game action at Instructs today after missing the last two months of the season. He will be playing in the AFL again this October.
And he just turned 21.
If you prorate his career minor league numbers over a full minor league "full" season (which is 144 games), he has hit a combined 275/317/435, with 16 HR & 74 RBI, 33 doubles, and 24/96 BB/K. OK, but not great, but you have to remember all the time he has spent trying to adjust to a promotion before he masters that level. The learning curve required each time he has received an in-season promotion has held down his career numbers.
Now, I can understand why some Cub fans might wonder why Vitters hasn't done better, and maybe he will be a bust, but he actually HAS done better at each stop once he had a chance to adjust. And he's still only 21 years old.
The main critcisms about Vitters have to do not with his hitting or power potential, but rather his defense and his tendency to not take walks.
I believe his defense is the biggest problem (he has a career .907 fielding % at 3B that has remained fairly constant throughout his career), and he just doesn't appear to be much interested in improving his play at 3B. Vitters is kind of a laid-back California dude and nothing really seems to bother him, but he also sometimes appears to lack passion or appears to just not care about things that don't interest him, like improving his defensive play. That's why there has been speculation that he might eventually have to move to 1B, LF, or RF.
But he has been taking lots & lots of ground balls the past couple of weeks at Fitch Park, and he looks like he might (MIGHT) finally understand that he has to improve his play at 3B to stay there. He actually prefers 3B and he has the actions of a third-baseman, it's just that he makes too many lazy throws and half-assed attempts to field routine ground balls. That's why his effort today on the pop-up in foul territory was somewhat surprising, but he still has to make the routine play consistently. While he might not ever win a Gold Glove, he could at least be passably mediocre. Hopefully he has turned a new leaf, and it's not Ryan Leaf.
This was written after a AZ Fall Instructional game on 9/30/2010. Bottom line, you can't say his stock has fallen because he's still developing and no one can say for certain what a 21 year old prospect will or won't be at this point. Try researching at least some of your opinions before Post/Ready/Aim, and you might find more of an audience around here.
any place that you have seen this in print. I will save you time. You can't (other than your own posts).
From what I hear from people who've seen him in Arizona is that he's come out of his shell personally quite a bit. This again would be consistent with a kid maturing a little bit. I had a chance to talk with him a few times, at spring training and such, and found him to be quite shy and reserved. A kid like Brett Jackson, on the other hand, would talk my ear off. Difference in personalities, age, background, college vs. high school, all that. It's an intangible, but those do matter.
I won't predict stardom for Vitters, and yes, he does have a lot of work to do, but it is too early to give up on him.
Bottom line is that the stock of Josh Vitters has dropped. Whether he ultimately gets written off as a bust is to be determined. The probability of him becoming a productive major league ballplayer is the real issue. In hindsight, yes the Cubs made a mistake picking him # 4 in the 2007 draft.
I doubt strongly that the Cubs are viewing Vitters as heir apparent to Ramirez in 2012. It is highly doubtful he will be ready by 2012.
Flaherty's going to be more of a utility IF/OF type. The Cubs really seem to want to work DJ LeMahieu at 3rd, with enough folks believing that to be his more better position. Junior Lake might also get time at 3rd, although as of now, he's probably the primary shortstop.
The low minors are actually fairly thin. Matt Cerda may get the nod at 3rd in A+, but his offensive profile better fits the middle infield, and Nate Baliva and others have indicated that he has the glove work to stick there (which may lead to Logan Watkins shifting to more of a IF/OF utility role). After that? The best looking guy might be Dustin Geiger, who is far away. Arismendy Alcantara should be getting MI work (some power projection, but hard to see him developing a lot more power). Dustin Harrington is a thought, but he has some power questions about him as well.
Toonster, as you know, Flaherty has shown some difficulty hitting LHP so the jury's out on whether he'll be an everyday player or a 'DeRosa' type super sub (1B/2b/3b/LF) platooned against RHP.
with your assessment of Flaherty. I think the Cubs are giving him some experience around the field to be able to use him. Vitters is at AA, Smith is at AAA. You can't play him at 3rd in front of those 2 guys. If either guy is on the major league roster, I think you will see Flaherty at 3rd.
I personally would prefer them to use him at 2nd base, but I don't know if he can handle it or not. I would like his bat at 2nd though. Geiger and Lake are the 2 guys who I was speaking of. I would think Lake has no future at SS, as he is behind both Castro and Lee. Not sure LaMahieu has enough bat for 3rd, but I hope I am wrong.
I actually like Flaherty quite a bit (still ranked him ahead of LeMahieu on my own list), but with enough indications that the Cubs view LeMahieu at 3rd base, and with Vitters needing time there, the reality, as of now, seems to be that Flaherty won't get a lot of opportunities at 3rd. Vitters will likely get some first base time, so Flaherty will have some looks there, but as you note, you can't play Flaherty ahead of Vitters at 3rd.
Lake may not have a future at SS, but at AA Tennessee next year, he'll likely be the main shortstop. The competition would come from LeMahieu/Flaherty, and both are likely to play other positions more than they would play short. The other options would be Samson or Lee, but IMO, Lee shouldn't be at AA yet.
Anyhow, my 2nd point was that the lower levels for 3rd is fairly sparse as we look towards projecting 2011 placements. Lake/Flaherty/LeMahieu all have questions, but all are going to be in AA or higher.
anything about Flaherty at 2nd base? Does he have the range or ability to turn the double play? I know he has only been there a limited amount, so might not be enough data to show one way or the other.
Flaherty was, when I saw him, significantly better at second than at third (and *miles* better than at shortstop: shortstop just seemed to draw out all of his limitations). At third, he had 2 problems I could see. First, his arm seemed a little bit challenged by the extra distance. But the real issue was that the tempo of play was too quick for him: he didn't react quickly when he had to come in for a bunt or when a hot shot came his way. My guess is that he's not a natural infielder: he has to think too much instead of doing the right thing instinctively.
He handled the tough plays better at second where the ball had to travel a little farther to reach his position. He showed decent range there, but nothing amazing. He turned only a single doubleplay while I watched and it was routine, making it hard for me to assess whether or not he could be adequate in that regard.
At all 3 positions, his glove-handling was a little rough; and he seemed inefficient transferring the ball from his glove to his throwing hand (a problem that had the least effect at second because the shorter throws gave him more time). At the time, I slotted him as an offense-first guy who might make it someday because left-handed power bats are hard to come by at second base.
But that's just based on what I saw, which is a small sample size indeed. And it might be antiquated now. Apparently he's bulked up some since then; if he continues to get bigger, he may be limited to first or an outfield corner.
Bruce may be able to provide better information. The times that I've seen him at 2nd in the past 2 years ... he looked fine to me. That said ... I know there are folks that feel like he lacks range for 2nd. I've never seen the range concerns (I wouldn't say he has great range for 2nd ... just thought he had enough).
The Cubs are grooming him as a utility infielder. That's the kind of work he's been getting this fall.
and who should warrant consideration over guys like Laroche and Overbay is Russell Branyan. Seems like almost every year when he gets lots of at bats, he puts up solid numbers in the on base and power departments. He can also fill in some at 3rd base and probably can be had on a 1 year deal, and would definitely add some thump from the left side.
Sorry, but I just can't get excited about many of the names I am seeing mentioned. If Johnson could stay healthy at all, I would be fine with him, but it is crazy to expect him to play more than 50 games.
Huff would be my top choice of the FA, followed by Dunn, Branyan, Laroche. I would not sign Overbay, I would just go with organizational guys instead. I also would hate to give any minor leaguers up for James Loney. I don't want Dunn on a 3 year deal though.
The Cubs have their eye on Adrian Gonzalez (as do many teams) - he will be a free agent after 2011 (along with Prince Fielder, who I suspect the Cubs are not high on) . All indications are that Gonzalez wants to experience free agency, so even if SD trades him now, he'll in all likelihood be a 1 year rental. With all the payroll that comes off the books after 2011 (Ramirez, Fukudome, Silva and Grabow - represents close to $40M), the Cubs will be in a super position to pay Gonzalez. In fact, if Gonzalez decides to stay in the NL, it will probably come down to the Cubs vs. the Dodgers, assuming Pujols stays in STL. It's important for the Cubs to keep their options open.
It's also important for the Cubs to win in 2011. Since the Cubs want defense, slugging and leadership, they should just sign Carlos Pena to a 1 year deal worth $7-9M. I think Pena would take that (like Adrian Beltre did last offseason) to re-build his value. That's the right move.
The Cubs have, roughly, according to speculation, 10-15 million to spend. I don't think a 1 year deal for 7-9 million for a first baseman is realistic, considering they also want to address the pen (likely 4-5 mil) and a starter (perhaps more than 5 mil).
Anyhow, I think Pena, barriing a stunner, will end up in Washington. They want him badly.
Actually, the Cubs should have about 20 - 25 million to spend. Payroll sits right now at 103 million and arbitration is going to bring that number to 110 million. I saw it reported just a couple of days ago that the payroll should be 130 - 135 million which is about 10 million less than last year.
That leaves money for 1st base, a starter, and a good pen arm.
I think you are underestimating what arbitration will bring that to, primarily because of Marmol and Soto's potential contracts. I think arbitration brings that number closer to 115. Based on recent history, it wouldn't be surprising to see Marmol and Soto cost somewhere from 9-14 million. Then, there's Sean Marshall and Tom Gorzelanny, which should be in the 4-5 million range. That's already 13-19 million. There's Jeff Baker, Koyie Hill to consider, along with pre-arb autorenewal guys. Even if you assume the Cubs chop Baker and Hill off, that's another 2-5 million to ponder at the very least. You are looking at somewhere around 15-24 million to factor in when considering arbitration/auto-renewals. That pushes our current numbers to somewhere in that 117-126 range, which is where I got the roughly 10-15 million range to spend from.
The key factor there is obviously the numbers for Soto and Marmol, the guys likely to get the biggest bumps. Marmol's coming off a monstrous year. Last year, Jonathon Papelbon and the Red Sox agreed to 6.25 million. There's a fairly good chance that Marmol may target more, but let's put it should be in that range. There isn't a perfect situation to compare Soto to that I can think of off the top, but coming off a big year, having 2 big offensive years in his career so far, it seems quite possible that he might net 3-4 million in his first arb year ... at the very least.
As much as I would like Jeff Baker back, I would understand it if the Cubs felt a need to find savings somewhere. That said, if Baker leaves, the Cubs will likely need to find a replacement, and I doubt they will find a similar level veteran righty bat with some defensive versatility for Jeff Baker's likely cost in 2011 (somewhere from 1-2 mil). Sean Marshall is a lock to come back, and he should get a healthy raise from his 975K.
Now, the Cubs could decide to sign Soto and Marmol down and perhaps buy out not only the arb years, but maybe the FA years as well. That would alleviate some of the burden.
You are greatly over-estimating what they will make. No way does Soto get a ton of money in his first year of arbitration. He will get between 2 and 3 million. Marmol should get about 5 - 6 million and the rest of the guys will get somewhere around a million dollar bump.
Soto's going to get more than 2, but add up your estimates. It takes you, at the very least, to 7-9 million for those two. That takes you to around 110 million.
That leaves Marshall, Baker, Gorzelanny, and autorenewals. Let's take low-end estimates on Marshall, Gorzelanny, and Baker (say, 1.5, 1.2, 1.3). That gets you to around 114. Add in autorenewals on DeWitt, Wells, and others and you are near my low end estimate of 117 million.
Cubs contracts commitments stand right now at 96.775 million according to Cot's. That is including the 5.5 million from Seattle for Silva.
Marmol, Soto, Marshall, Gorzelanny, Baker and Hill are all arbitration eligible. I figure Hill is non tendered or traded, and Baker could be non tendered, but probably resigned.
I don't figure the Cubs will go to arbitration with any of them, instead resigning the players, probably Marmol, Soto, and Marshall to multi year deals. By not going to arbitration, the Cubs probably get a discount, or at least that is the way it normally works.
Marmol - 5 million
Soto - 3.5 million
Marshall - 2.5 million
Gorzelanny - 2.5 million
Baker - 1 million
that is 14.5 million. But lets call it 16 million just to be safe.
96.775 + 16 million = 112.775 million
Cubs will renew Castro, DeWitt, Barney, Wells, Colvin, and Cashner. Wells is the only one who will make more than 500K, with almost everyone else at .425 million or so. Lets call it 2.8 million.
96.775 + 16 million + 2.8 million = 115.6 million for 18 players
Cubs will fill 4 roster spots (5th OF, backup catcher, 2 bullpen arms from within). Those players will make .400 million each. So that is 1.6 million.
That is 115.5 - 117 million (depending on the unknown arbitration eligible contracts). Based on current projected payroll of 130 - 135 million, that give the Cubs 15 - 20 million to spend on 3 free agents.
Cots has a Cubs spreadsheet that makes looking at the payroll fairly simple, and it lists 102.525, which is what most people have been working off of. Unless I'm missing something, it is 19 for Soriano, 18.875 for Zambrano, 14.6 for Aramis, 14.5 for Ryan and Kosuke, 7.25 for Silva (12.75-5.5), 5.5 for Byrd, 3.5 for Samardzija, 4.8 for Grabow. Add 14.5 mil (your #'s above) onto that and we get to 117.025. Let's add in the 2.8 and 1.6 estimates you've made as well. That's 4.4 mil more, getting us to 121.425 using your numbers.
If the payroll is closer to 130, that leaves less than 9 mil. If it's 135, that leaves less than 14 mil.
Maybe you can tell me where you are getting that 96.775 number from.
include pro-rated signing bonuses, which is not how it is actually paid out. All of the signing bonuses are paid up front. Those numbers you have all signing bonuses paid out evenly along the length of the contract. That is why if you look at the Cot's Cubs home page, it tells the real payroll numbers. Your numbers are wrong.
The Cubs certainly don't owe Silva any part of a signing bonus that he got from the Mariners.
Maybe the NFL has influenced my thinking on this, but I was under the impression that most teams pro-rated the signing bonuses from contracts they signed to calculate their year to year payrolls. I completely forgot about Silva in that, but removing his signing bonus from consideration, hmm. Admittedly, I'm more cognizant of NFL salary rules than MLB salary, but I had been under the impression that that's how most teams calculated it. Largely because, that's how it is typically published (and I'm not talking about Cots here ... for example, usatoday and espn both list the Cubs 2010 payroll 146609000, usa lists the 2010 salaries for soriano/zambrano at 19 and 18.875 million, aramis at 16.75 million).
Bruce, can you clarify how the team calculates, internally, their payroll year to year. For contracts they sign, do they pro-rate the signing bonuses, or do they lump-sum signing bonuses at the initial year? Most places that list payroll seem to pro-rate them, ranging from Cots, to espn, to usa, but maybe that's not the Cubs practice.