The Cubs certainly need to develop a plan for Sean Marshall. To me, he is the most intriguing asset the Cubs have. I see four options:

1) Keep him in his current role.
2) Move him to closer.
3) Move him to the starting rotation.
4) Trade him

To me #1 makes the LEAST sense, although it is the easiest route. As a pending free agent he will soon be a pretty expensive set-up man, a luxury that I don’t see the Cubs splurging on in the next couple of years.

As a free agent reliever, he will be on the market as a closer, albeit a largely untested closer. If Theo and Jed really do believe that he is the best lefty reliever in baseball, then put that to the test and see if he can handle the closing responsibilities this year. Of course that means moving Marmol, which, although I like the idea of in general, there might be some argument that he’d best moved later when he, hopefully, has built his value back up a bit. Furthermore, if there is one area the Cubs seem to have good organizational depth it is with potential closers.

The option that most intrigues me is moving him to the rotation. It is nice to dream of a CJ Wilson type of transition for him. There are no indications that this is being pursued though, and I’d think that Marshall would need/want to know soon with regards to his off season training.

This of course leaves the trade possibility. Certainly possible. That said, it will be very interesting to see how the trade market for middle relievers develops. Yes, an in season trade will not bring back draft pick compensation. However, holes in the bullpen are the types of things that many teams go into the season hoping (justifiably) that young internal guys can handle the job, then, in July when the team is desperate and sees the weakness they spend on at the deadline (as both the Cardinals and Rangers did this season in a big way.)

So, would Marshall make a successful jump to the rotation? I compared him to CJ Wilson to get a better idea. Yes, there are good reasons to not simply compare two players (can you say bad statistics!) but, what the heck.

1) First and foremost, it is certainly arguable that Marshall is a better reliever than CJ Wilson was. In Wilson's best and last year as a reliever he was valued as a 2.0 WAR pitcher, Marshall has exceeded that each of the last two years with WAR values of 2.2 and 2.8.

2) Wilson relied heavily on his fastball as a reliever, throwing more than 73% fastballs (including 2-seamers). This is notable since his average fastball velocity dropped from about 93mph to 90mph with his move to the rotation. Because Marshall is less dependent on his velocity, any vulnerability due to decreased FB velocity is less than what Wilson faced.

3) Wilson threw his slider 18% of the time as a closer (along with his 73% fastballs), making him a pretty classic fastball/slider power reliever. Marshall, on the other hand threw his fastball (~30%), slider (~40%), and curve (~30%) almost equally in 2011, interestingly dropping his cutter which had made up about 10% of his pitches in 2010 and 20% in 2009.

So, Marshall is arguably a better pitcher, with more good pitches in his arsenal, who is less dependent on his velocity. Furthermore, he came up as a starter so he has a history of throwing more pitches in a season. Are there arguments against? Sure, but that's what you all get to fill in.

Poll

So, where should Marshall be pitching in 2012?

22%

For the Cubs as their 8th inning guy

34 votes

10%

For the Cubs as their closer

16 votes

31%

In the Cubs rotation

48 votes

35%

Trade him

53 votes

151 votes | Poll has closed

Yeah, I know that this topic has been batted around plenty. But, its a slow day, and I am tired of thinking about PEDs, MVPs, and a list of very unexciting non-tenders.

Let me start by saying I want the Cubs to sign Fielder. Not in a well thought out kinda way, but in the it is December and that would "feel like a win" kind of way, you know the very reason that I am glad that I am not the GM.

Anyway, to try to get a better, more statistical grasp on this question, I looked up Prince Fielder on baseball reference and looked at the most similar players by age. The list is:

1. Eddie Murray (912) *
2. Juan Gonzalez (908)
3. Jose Canseco (901)
4. Mark Teixeira (892)
5. Greg Luzinski (892)
6. Darryl Strawberry (887)
7. Kent Hrbek (885)
8. Boog Powell (885)
9. Jim Rice (884) *
10. Orlando Cepeda (883) *

I am interested to see how this lot fared for the 7 seasons from their age 28-34 seasons. From that list, I am ignoring Gonzalez and Canseco, for obvious reasons. I am also ignoring Darryl Strawberry for equally obvious reasons.
Through last season, Fielder has averaged an OPS + of 143. So, let's run down the list.

• Eddie Murray, averaged an OPS+ of 142 through his age 27 season. He then averaged an OPS+ of 138 for his next 7 seasons. That would be great!
• Luzinski averaged 138 by age 27, and 118 over the next 6 years, but was out of baseball by 35
• Hrbek averaged 129 by age 27, and 124 from 27-34, again, pretty good.
• Powell averaged 133 by age 27, and 132 from 27-34, again, pretty good.
• Rice averaged 138 by age 27, and 120 from 27-34, again, pretty good.
• Cepeda averaged 140 by age 27, and 126 from 27-34, again, pretty good.
• Teixera averaged 130 through age 27, and has averaged 133 since, though only through age 31, and his last two years have showed decline.

On average, this group (including the three I excluded) averaged an OPS+ of 133 through their age 34 season, which is only a drop of 4 points from their average through their age 27 season. Is that an indicator of what Fielder would do?
If so, would that be worth the $20M+ per season that Fielder would demand? What about his defense? Is his physique a unique negative influence when compared to this peer group?

Poll

So, let's vote. Should the Cubs sign Fielder, assuming the cost will be ~$20M per season for 7 seasons?

75%

yes

206 votes

24%

no

68 votes

274 votes | Poll has closed

There is a story in the Sun Times re: some possible targets for the offseason: link

This will obviously not be the last rumor type posts, but my question is simply, why?

I would categorize myself in the semi-optimistic category.  But, in my estimation, the Cubs would need a frontline bat, frontline starter, and frontline middle reliever to have a reasonable hope for contention.  Basically, they need to replace Lee, Lilly, and the 2008 Marmol.  

Those would not be cheap additions and the Cubs seem to be moving toward a lower payroll, not a higher.  Furthermore, there are not a ton of options for any of those slots on the FA market.  Sure, one could dream of Cliff Lee, Dunn, and Wood all joining the Cubs for 2011, but that doesn't seem particularly likely.

So, if they are not bringing in those names, why go after a Nick Johnson or an anonymous starting pitcher.  The Cubs do have depth and some young players who might develop.  I am not saying the Cubs will be competitive in 11 with them, but see what they have to offer moving forward.  If we are going to be a second division team, let's at least learn what we have along the way.  If we bring in a Nick Johnson, we will know we are a second division team with an aging non-healthy 1B with doubles power and a high OBP, whoopee.

Poll

What do you think the Cubs should do this off season?

24%

Spend the bucks on the big names/make the huge trade

59 votes

19%

Go for the middling FA/trades and hope for the best

48 votes

55%

Stay with what we have in house and have the dreaded "rebuilding year"

136 votes

243 votes | Poll has closed

Yes, it is a slow time for the hot stove, but I am wondering what folks thoughts are on Mark DeRosa given the latest offseason moves.

Per MLB TradeRumors Mark De Rosa was offered 2 year 12M from the Giants.  Now he didn't take it, but that is way down from the 10M/yr that he was originally thought to be seeking.  I would be happy with him getting 2yr 16M as a Cub.

He could platoon with Fukudome (40 starts), sub for Soriano (20 starts), Aramis (20 starts), DLee (20 starts), and play some 2B along with Fontenot and Baker (say 20 more starts).  

Just with those games, which the Cubs will almost certainly need to cover, there are 120 starts for DeRosa, or some other collection of players.  The Cubs will be far better off if those games can go to an "everyday" caliber of ballplayer.

Just to emphasize, this is not a "right a wrong" argument, simply that based on some platoon needs, fragile "stars", and some uncertain young players, the Cubs could really use an insurance policy.

I read this in Barry Rozner's column ( the main headline is a fairly far-fetched hypothesis regarding Joe Girardi managing the Cubs after his Yankee contract expires), and got a kick out of this tidbit:

Milton Bradley to the Mariners reminds me of the time a player was traded and I asked Cubs manager Don Zimmer what he thought of the deal from the other team's perspective.

Said Zimmer, "Our loss is their loss."

So here is a Cub history guessing game, what trade is he talking about?  I googled around a bit and couldn't come up with anything.

Posted on the SI website is an an old article discussing Ryne Sanberg's record breaking 1992 contract extension.  I read the article and thought folks might like a break from the hand-wringing, waiting, and anticipation that comes with the November to February months.

There are many interesting aspects of the article.

• How right were the owners and GM's who decried the signing as the end of baseball?
• What does that signing and how it was made say about Trib ownership?  Interesting that some of the most scathing remarks came from the man who would take over the Cubs just a few years later.
• How good was Ryno?  It is interesting that the article really clearly puts him into the elite 2B of all time, yet it took so long for him to get into the HoF.  Did this huge (and widely panned) contract slow his HoF election?

In case you don't listen to NPR in the mornings, there was a great interview with Ernie Banks this morning.  While we all sit around enduring the Cubless postseason, this interview is a treat and a reminder of why we are fans.

Listening to Ernie really helps put baseball, winning, losing, and life into perspective.  I am always amazed by the simple yet profound wisdom of Ernie Banks.  This interview (and Sandberg's HOF acceptance speech) should be required listening for all fans and athletes at every level of play.  

Also, congratulations to Mr. Cub on his "Living Legend" award at the Library of Congress.

Over at MLBtradrumors.com, there is a rumor of a Griffey to the Cubs deal.  I am sure that others will see it, and I actually came by BCB to read what others would think.  I for one, wouldn't do it.  If there was someone who seemed ready to step in for Marshall, I'd be fine, but at this point, I just don't see that many more rotation answers.  Just for the Hell of it, I'll add a poll:

Poll

Griffey Jr. for Marshall and Jones

44%

Yeah

92 votes

55%

Nay

114 votes

206 votes | Poll has closed

I have seen that the Cubs are slated to pick 3rd in this years draft, with TB and KC 1 & 2.  I seem to recall in the past that the order of selection alternated between NL and AL teams, with the #1 selection going to the worst team in the NL in alternating years.

Am I remembering incorrectly?  Has something changed recently?

Any thoughts/rumors floating out there about the upcoming draft?

I came across an interesting story on the Sports Illustrated site written by Mike Schmidt.  He is a guy who, when first elected to the HOF, took a very elitist view of who should be there, and likely voted against Santo.  Based on this article, his views have clearly changed.  

It seems as if the travesty of Buck O'Neill just missing the Hall before his death may have made some folks realize that perhaps things should be a bit different.  

I know Santo's candidacy has been discussed before, but I found Schmidt's comments to be very interesting.  Clearly Schmidt is among the elite in the HOF, especially among 3B, and I think that his support of Santo might spur a few others to support Ronnie as well.  Here's to you Ronnie!

Here is a link to the article

Poll

Should Ron Santo be in the Hall of Fame?

93%

Yes

127 votes

6%

No

9 votes

136 votes | Poll has closed

I know that this opinion is not a particularly popular one, but I am pretty happy with the signing of Jason Marquis.  My pleasure with this signing stems from two lines of logic:

1. I feel there is a good chance that he will rebound from an atrocious year, giving the Cubs an average (possibly, though not probably, good) pitcher for a good price.
   
2. More importantly, given the changing philosophy, I am confident he will be used appropriately by Piniella.

Folks have debated my first point to no end, and frankly, there is no way for any of us to know, so I don't have anything to add there.

It is my second contention that doesn't seem to have been considered.  To me, Marquis is just one more guy competing for a slot in the starting rotation.  He will have competition from a host of teammates (Miller, Prior, Cotts, Marshall, Mateo, etc.).  How can this be bad?

Let me put it this way, if there is a 33% chance that he will be deserving of a slot in the 5-man rotation, then he has increased the likelihood that the Cubs will be able to fill their rotation with a capable pitcher accordingly.

Things will be different under Lou Piniella.  He has made numerous comments about wanting more than 5 starting pitchers and more than 8 position player "starters."  This is the operating philosophy of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, and one I am fine with emulating.  The idea is you add numbers, open up competition, and the cream will rise to the top.  Will Marquis be among those contributing every 5 days?  Who knows, but there is no question that his presence can only improve the productivity of the 5-man rotation, it CANNOT hurt it.  The days of Dusty Baker's loyalty to "his guys" and the frustrations that brought us are over.

The same logic applies elsewhere on the diamond, for example, if Theriot outplays DeRosa/Izturis, you can bet he will get his playing time.  Piniella wants to win.  He isn't afraid of stepping on players toes and challenging them, and more importantly, letting the players challenge each other.  

So, I look at Marquis as a gamble.  He is a low enough cost guy that if he isn't able to crack the rotation, the Cubs can replace him with one of their youngsters.  If he cracks the rotation but is outperformed by one of the youngsters he becomes a very attractive trade candidate. If he rebounds to something close to his #s from a few years ago, fantastic.

I am curious what folks think of this somewhat hypothetical question, Would your rather the Cubs...

...sign 1 frontline starter, (Schmidt or Zito) then cross your fingers on the rest of the rotation w/o another significant addition.

Or

... sign 2 mid-level SPs that would cost ~ the same as Schmidt or Zito.

Poll

1 SP or 2 SP?

58%

I'll take the two-for one deal please.

50 votes

41%

Give me Zito/Schmidt!

36 votes

86 votes | Poll has closed

I am wondering what folks would think about the possibility of bringing back Moises Alou?  Yes he is getting a bit old, but he still hits well, and, along with Murton and Jones, could make a decent corner outfield.

To me, it seems like the other options would be to spend big money on either C. Lee or A. Soriano, then  be forced to deal Murton.