Jon Garland
Michael J. Sacks
> Jon Garland was 4-7 with a ERA over 5 at Rockford (A). We lost a really
> young righthanded pitcher, and we have more than enough of those.
1) While minor league batting stats have been proven to directly
correspond to major league hitting stats, minor league pitching stats are
fairly useless in comparison. Things like scouting, physical history,
types of pitches thrown, and maturity of delivery are far better
indicators of how a pitcher will be down the line than his stats. You
have to understand that most of these young pitchers have been doing
stuff wrong their entire baseball careers and basing their worth on A-ball
statistics is like telling someone who's lived in France and studied
English in high school, "Here! Go take the ACT in 3 months, and you need
to get a 30 or higher."
2) Garland is in his first year. From all indications, this kid has
mastery of his basic pitches, good velocity, good control, and he has
years to work in the minors if he needs it. I'm not saying he was so good
he should have been traded, but he was considered by experts (i.e. not you
or me) to be one of the Cubs top 5 pitching prospects (top 4 with Wood
shedding the "prospect" logo).
3) Trading away farm people with good reputations and mediocre stats is
about as successful as trading away players with mediocre reputations and
good stats. Meaning some of the Iowa pitchers doing good right now would
have probably been as equal to trade, without the upside going to the Sox.
4) The Sox know how to trade for farm players. This makes me think that
Garland is better than I thought. I considered him one of the top 10
players in the farm system. Now, I think he might be in the top 5. Look
at the young players on the Sox that have come up the last 3-4 years, and
how many of them started with the Sox.
And, on non-direct points about Garland...
5) Karchner is decent, but he's not what we NEED. I don't doubt he'll
help this team much. The only reason this could be OK is if Wengert is
out #5 pitcher the rest of this season. If that happens (and works out
well), then who cares about this trade and lets raise Lynch up on a
pedestal for pulling him out for Van Ryn, at best a journeyman tweener
lefty reliever.
6) The Cubs probably don't know the full extent of what's been causing
Karchner to perform so bad since coming off the DL. It might not be
anything hurting, but a slight change in delivery pattern is good.
I will say three positive things. First, this is a start. It is
something. And it helps out 1998 to some degree. Secondly, trades with
the Sox have worked out well. And last, Lynch didn't do something silly
and trade away the bank for a position player. He fixed the problem that
needed the most help.
The Cubs aren't stupid anymore. That's starting to make me happy.
They've made less dumb mistakes management-wise the last two years than
any non-rebuilding team or an already contender (well, maybe the Giants,
but they lose since they extended Jeff Kent's contract). They haven't
made too many good moves at the major league level, but with what's there,
they're getting the most out of it and aren't sacrificing the future.
Mike Sacks
Kyle
young righthanded pitcher, and we have more than enough of those.
--
Make something idiot-proof and the world will build a better idiot"
User Name
>1) While minor league batting stats have been proven to directly
>correspond to major league hitting stats, minor league pitching stats are
>fairly useless in comparison. Things like scouting, physical history,
>types of pitches thrown, and maturity of delivery are far better
>indicators of how a pitcher will be down the line than his stats.
I'm snipping most of it but this is a really good post. It might be
observed that Baseball America named Kyle Farnsworth the #10
prospect in the Cubs' system before the 1997 season after a not
particularly good year at Rockford and he followed up with a so-so
year at Daytona. He was dropped from the list. Then he reemerged
as the ace at West Tenn and has been promoted to Iowa. Jeremi
Gonzalez and Javier Martinez both languished for years in the lower minors, seemingly making no progress. On the other hand, Jon
Ratliff and Kennie Steenstra shot up to AAA like rockets.
It is hard to imagine, with the unreliability of such data, that
a guy could fall so far so fast - from being one of the top ten picks
(I think) in the 1997 draft - to traded for a middle reliever.
Of course, maybe the Cubs saw something significant. In 1994, the
Cubs drafted Jayson Peterson in round #1 out of high school. Locals
who knew him realized it was a dumb choice right away. maybe Garland
was a blunder, just now realized. -- I doubt it though. I think it's
a GM who doesn't have four years trading a guy who is four years away.
Putting self interest before team interest -- I don't think Mr.
MacPhail is pleased today.
> I'm not saying he was so good
>he should have been traded, but he was considered by experts (i.e. not you
>or me) to be one of the Cubs top 5 pitching prospects (top 4 with Wood
>shedding the "prospect" logo).
And well placed in that top five too I think. One thing that
experts don't consider, I think, is durability. Todd Noel
rates very highly but I just don't believe (love to be wrong here)
he'll still be able to pitch five years from now. My suspicion
was Garland was #1.
>4) The Sox know how to trade for farm players. This makes me think that
>Garland is better than I thought. I considered him one of the top 10
>players in the farm system. Now, I think he might be in the top 5.
The Sox gave up so little - I'd give up Karchner for any #1 - sight
unseen. On my unscientific list, the top two names were Garland
and Nieves.
>5) Karchner is decent, but he's not what we NEED. I don't doubt he'll
>help this team much. The only reason this could be OK is if Wengert is
>out #5 pitcher the rest of this season. If that happens (and works out
>well), then who cares about this trade and lets raise Lynch up on a
>pedestal for pulling him out for Van Ryn, at best a journeyman tweener
>lefty reliever.
So who is Matt Karchner? As I recall, four years ago he was a
lightly regarded 27 year old. So lightly regarded in fact that
he was left unprotected in the Rule V draft by an organization's
AAA team. When he was the age that Steenstra and Miller are now,
he had nowhere near the respect that they do. These are guys that
Cub fans regard as too old to be prospects. After everybody else
got traded away, he emerged as the closer. The Cubs have guys
at Iowa who are throwing better than Karchner is this year
(and probably in most years of their careers) but who aren't
getting a shot.
I don't really want him. Still, he might prove me wrong. Larry
Anderssen was a slow starter but still had lots of years in him
when the Red Sox got him (for a mere prospect -
first baseman named Jeff something)
>I will say three positive things. First, this is a start. It is
>something. And it helps out 1998 to some degree. Secondly, trades with
>the Sox have worked out well. And last, Lynch didn't do something silly
>and trade away the bank for a position player. He fixed the problem that
>needed the most help.
He needed to be patient in the face of criticism. He couldn't
do it. He had to follow the desperation of the Dodgers - Piazza
for mostly junk - and the Mets, acquirers of Mr. Nomo. Met,
Marlins, Dodgers trade. Marlins come out way ahead and the others
get praised. ????
>
>The Cubs aren't stupid anymore. That's starting to make me happy.
>They've made less dumb mistakes management-wise the last two years than
>any non-rebuilding team or an already contender (well, maybe the Giants,
>but they lose since they extended Jeff Kent's contract). They haven't
>made too many good moves at the major league level, but with what's there,
>they're getting the most out of it and aren't sacrificing the future.
Unfortunately I believed this more yesterday.
Ray Heitmann
Offie
>
>>1) While minor league batting stats have been proven to directly
>>correspond to major league hitting stats, minor league pitching stats are
>>fairly useless in comparison. Things like scouting, physical history,
>>types of pitches thrown, and maturity of delivery are far better
>>indicators of how a pitcher will be down the line than his stats.
>
>I'm snipping most of it but this is a really good post.
Ditto.
>It is hard to imagine, with the unreliability of such data, that
>a guy could fall so far so fast - from being one of the top ten picks
>(I think) in the 1997 draft - to traded for a middle reliever.
>Of course, maybe the Cubs saw something significant. In 1994, the
>Cubs drafted Jayson Peterson in round #1 out of high school. Locals
>who knew him realized it was a dumb choice right away. maybe Garland
>was a blunder, just now realized. -- I doubt it though. I think it's
>a GM who doesn't have four years trading a guy who is four years away.
>Putting self interest before team interest -- I don't think Mr.
>MacPhail is pleased today.
>
I sort of had a similar thought when I first heard of this deal. However, Iam
not being quite as uncharitable as you :-)
>> I'm not saying he was so good
>>he should have been traded, but he was considered by experts (i.e. not you
>>or me) to be one of the Cubs top 5 pitching prospects (top 4 with Wood
>>shedding the "prospect" logo).
>
>And well placed in that top five too I think. One thing that
>experts don't consider, I think, is durability. Todd Noel
>rates very highly but I just don't believe (love to be wrong here)
>he'll still be able to pitch five years from now. My suspicion
>was Garland was #1.
>
Hm. Why do you think Noel wont be around 5 years from now? Opinion from scouts
who have seen him at Rockford this year has been (apparently) "stud". The Cubs
were high on him, and not willing to trade him early in the year when he was
asked for, by several teams.
>The Sox gave up so little - I'd give up Karchner for any #1 - sight
>unseen. On my unscientific list, the top two names were Garland
>and Nieves.
>
Iam not sure about this. Last year, the Cubs themselves apparently rated
Garland #5 on their list of minor league prospects - Wood was #1, and Cline,
Noel and Chris Gissel were ahead of Garland. Both Noel and Gissell are, of
course, RH starters. They were followed by (among pitchers), Scott Downs and
Philip Norton in the top 10, and Farnsworth was just out of the top 10.
Its true that Garland is only 18, and very very young - there was no reason to
expect him to do brilliantly at even lower A (Rockford) this season. He has the
most command of his pitches, apparently. But the Cubs thought he would be a
93-95 mph thrower, and his velocity wasnt up there last year. This year too,
his velocity has apparently been about 89 or so, from what I hear. He could
still fill out and get up there, but hasnt yet, in the last couple of years.
In addition, look at whats happened to the other pitches. Noel has done better
than Garland at lower A, especially in hits/innings etc. Gissell did
brilliantly at lower A (0.80 ERA in a few starts), and was promoted mid season
to the next level (Daytona), and is doing reasonably there, without setting the
world on fire. Downs did well at Daytona and has been promoted to AA. And
Farnsworth, 21 years old and not rated among the top 10 prospects, set the
world on fire at AA, went 8-2 with a v low ERA, and was promoted to AAA (where
he has struggled with the adjustment a little).
One has no way of knowing, of course, what the current ratings were according
to the "experts". Personally, I would expect Gissell and Noel have stayed ahead
of Garland in the ratings this season. And I would think Farnsworth has moved
ahead of him with his showing this year too (he's only 21 after all).
Garland is still a prospect, of course - and a very good one. I hate to lose
someone like him to the Sox, even though he is 3/4 years away from the majors
at the earliest. But I can sort of see the point, w/o being quite as harsh on
Lynch as you are :-) With about 3/4 good arms in the minor league, and the Cubs
desparate for a middle reliever at the major league level and hanging on to a
wildcard lead, management thought it was probably worth the gamble. If Garland
continues to develop and turns into a fair starter in the majors, it will
definitely be a loss to us. But if this helps us win a division (or even a
wildcard) - we've made postseason twice in the past 15 years, after all. The
fans will probably not be particularly unhappy :-)
>>5) Karchner is decent, but he's not what we NEED. I don't doubt he'll
>>help this team much. The only reason this could be OK is if Wengert is
>>out #5 pitcher the rest of this season. If that happens (and works out
>>well), then who cares about this trade and lets raise Lynch up on a
>>pedestal for pulling him out for Van Ryn, at best a journeyman tweener
>>lefty reliever.
>
>So who is Matt Karchner? As I recall, four years ago he was a
>lightly regarded 27 year old. So lightly regarded in fact that
>he was left unprotected in the Rule V draft by an organization's
>AAA team. When he was the age that Steenstra and Miller are now,
>he had nowhere near the respect that they do. These are guys that
>Cub fans regard as too old to be prospects. After everybody else
>got traded away, he emerged as the closer. The Cubs have guys
>at Iowa who are throwing better than Karchner is this year
>(and probably in most years of their careers) but who aren't
>getting a shot.
>
Hum. This I disagree with. Its true Steenstra etc are doing better at the minor
league level - but they *have* been seen at the major league level, even if for
very short periods, this season. Just like Rodney Myers et al. None of them has
ever achieved what Karchner has at the major league level. Even this season,
really - Karchner started the year as closer, and converted 11 of 15
opportunities - his ERA was 3.5 or something, until he had a very bad stretch
in early July.
Iam one of the few people left who *still* thinks very highly of Terry Adams, I
think :-) - I think he's done poorly only when he's really tired due to
overwork. In his last 5 or so appearances, he's had 1 bad outing - and that was
when he was working for the 2nd time on the same day, in the double-header.
With Adams and Karchner available for 7th/8th innings to set up for Beck, I
think we're in pretty good shape with the bullpen. If we get even a servicable
lefty for Fossas, I think our bullpen will be fine and need no more tinkering
with.
>I don't really want him. Still, he might prove me wrong. Larry
>Anderssen was a slow starter but still had lots of years in him
>when the Red Sox got him (for a mere prospect -
>first baseman named Jeff something)
>
Grrrr. Dont say it :-) If Garland turns out as good a major-leaguer as
Mister-Jeff-the-first-baseman, then I agree, it will have been a terrible deal
to make :-)
>>I will say three positive things. First, this is a start. It is
>>something. And it helps out 1998 to some degree. Secondly, trades with
>>the Sox have worked out well. And last, Lynch didn't do something silly
>>and trade away the bank for a position player. He fixed the problem that
>>needed the most help.
>
>He needed to be patient in the face of criticism. He couldn't
>do it. He had to follow the desperation of the Dodgers - Piazza
>for mostly junk - and the Mets, acquirers of Mr. Nomo. Met,
>Marlins, Dodgers trade. Marlins come out way ahead and the others
>get praised. ????
I agree with what youre saying here. But with the moves the Mets and Dodgers
have made, they *are* better *this* year -and thus are putting more pressure on
us for the wildcard. Ive said before that I dont believe we're going to the WS
this season - thus I would not mortgage the future for a run this year. But it
*would* be nice to make the playoffs. If Garland was rated about 4th best
pitcher in the minors (as I believe), then its not really mortgaging the
future, is it? If he's #1 as you think, then it is. I suppose thats where the
disagreement comes :-)
>>
>>The Cubs aren't stupid anymore. That's starting to make me happy.
>>They've made less dumb mistakes management-wise the last two years than
>>any non-rebuilding team or an already contender (well, maybe the Giants,
>>but they lose since they extended Jeff Kent's contract). They haven't
>>made too many good moves at the major league level, but with what's there,
>>they're getting the most out of it and aren't sacrificing the future.
>
>Unfortunately I believed this more yesterday.
>
I believed it yesterday - and I believe today that theyve still been doing a
fair job, but are also very keen to win this year. That they arent just going
to wait for the future alone, theyd like to get this club some playoff
experience in the meantime, so that the team is ready to win it all in their
next shot at the postseason (fingers crossed, to ward off the Woofing Gods).
Getting to the playoffs, even if you dont win it all, isnt *entirely* a cheap
thrill, IMHO - it helps with confidence and seasoning of the younger players
too.
Sadiq [ still thinking somewhat long-term ] Yusuf
>Ray Heitmann
>
>
User Name
>Hm. Why do you think Noel wont be around 5 years from now? Opinion from scouts
>who have seen him at Rockford this year has been (apparently) "stud". The Cubs
>were high on him, and not willing to trade him early in the year when he was
>asked for, by several teams.
I really hope I'm wrong here. Noel was drafted in 1996 and only
pitched a few innings because he was hurt. He's been on the DL this
year as well. I don't like the sound of that. He has been
brilliant when healthy - maybe not as good as Mike Harkey was
before he got hurt the first time or Lance Dickson when the
Cubs drafted him. Some guys are just not meant to be pitchers
even though they have great arms.
If I were Lynch, I wouldn't want to trade Noel - he has great
upside potential - but I would be very very nervous.
>
>
>>The Sox gave up so little - I'd give up Karchner for any #1 - sight
>>unseen. On my unscientific list, the top two names were Garland
>>and Nieves.
>>
>
>Iam not sure about this. Last year, the Cubs themselves apparently rated
>Garland #5 on their list of minor league prospects - Wood was #1, and Cline,
>Noel and Chris Gissel were ahead of Garland. Both Noel and Gissell are, of
>course, RH starters. They were followed by (among pitchers), Scott Downs and
>Philip Norton in the top 10, and Farnsworth was just out of the top 10.
Here's my thinking. Cross off Wood - no longer in prospect class.
Cline doesn't quite excite me the way he used to. His BA at Iowa
is okay but not great but his extra base hits/AB and walks/AB
are both under 10%. To be a #2 prospect and be at AAA, you should be
can't miss and I don't quite put Cline in that category. Actually,
I like Maxwell better. I discount Noel because of the injury factor.
Neither Gissell nor Garland has impressed all that much and I just
rated Garland higher because he was a higher pick.
I don't recall where Nieves was on the earlier list but obviously
the Cubs thought highly enough of him to protect him in the Rule V
draft. I think he can field and he is having a breakout year at
the plate. Great power numbers for a shortstop.
>
>Its true that Garland is only 18, and very very young - there was no reason to
>expect him to do brilliantly at even lower A (Rockford) this season. He has the
>most command of his pitches, apparently. But the Cubs thought he would be a
>93-95 mph thrower, and his velocity wasnt up there last year. This year too,
>his velocity has apparently been about 89 or so, from what I hear. He could
>still fill out and get up there, but hasnt yet, in the last couple of years.
Predicting velocity is real tricky. Cubs didn't really think much of
Duncan but he got a lot faster.
>
>In addition, look at whats happened to the other pitches. Noel has done better
snip
>Garland is still a prospect, of course - and a very good one. I hate to lose
>someone like him to the Sox, even though he is 3/4 years away from the majors
>at the earliest. But I can sort of see the point, w/o being quite as harsh on
>Lynch as you are :-) With about 3/4 good arms in the minor league, and the Cubs
>desparate for a middle reliever at the major league level and hanging on to a
>wildcard lead, management thought it was probably worth the gamble.
This is what I really expect: Look at Noel, Garland, Gissell, Downs,
Farnsworth, Duncan, Norton. Some of these guys will get hurt. Of the
healthy ones, some will pan out, some won't. There is a real good
chance one of these guys is headed for an AS game. I'd just hate
to think we happened to trade that guy away for somebody with very
little upside potential.
If Garland
>continues to develop and turns into a fair starter in the majors, it will
>definitely be a loss to us. But if this helps us win a division (or even a
>wildcard) - we've made postseason twice in the past 15 years, after all. The
>fans will probably not be particularly unhappy :-)
Having seen the Cubs in the postseason twice - and deservedly so -
the wildcard doesn't really thrill me. Alas, I don't want to
win. I want a team good enough that I can believe it deserves to
win (and I will supply some creative delusion - but I have limits)
I've waited too long for an empty triumph.
But you are right about the fans. Sutcliffe for Carter and
Palmeiro for Williams are easily accepted because they paid off
in the short run. [Not that Carter was really any good]
>>got traded away, he emerged as the closer. The Cubs have guys
>>at Iowa who are throwing better than Karchner is this year
>>(and probably in most years of their careers) but who aren't
>>getting a shot.
>>
>
>Hum. This I disagree with. Its true Steenstra etc are doing better at the minor
>league level - but they *have* been seen at the major league level, even if for
>very short periods, this season. Just like Rodney Myers et al. None of them has
>ever achieved what Karchner has at the major league level.
Now wait. Steenstra has, as I recall, been scored upon exactly once
at the major league level. In Sept 1995, Swartzbaugh was a Sept
callup and I don't believe he was scored upon. He didn't get
another shot until Sept 1996 as a starter and really had only two good
starts. BUT, in his first start, he did go up against the Cy
Young winner, Mr. Smoltz, who was in top form, and Swartzbaugh
outpitched him and the Cubs won.
The manager has preconceived notions about pitchers and interprets
the data to support his beliefs. Riggleman doesn't like
Swartzbaugh or Steenstra and looks for faults (and of course
they give up hits and runs); he likes Fossas and looks for
virtues (and occasionally he gets an out). A better example
is Jeremi Gonzalez. He was awful this year - but he stayed in
the rotation because he was believed to be a prospect.
Now the data on relief pitchers is so spotty that managers have
to do this. The ones who choose wisely have good staffs -the
ones who choose poorly don't. Everybody has enough talent
available.
Even this season,
>really - Karchner started the year as closer, and converted 11 of 15
>opportunities - his ERA was 3.5 or something, until he had a very bad stretch
>in early July.
11 of 15 is really awful - almost Rojas numbers. But my point isn't
that Karchner is so bad. Before 1995, Karchner was a minor league
hack who never got a shot in the majors. He was mediocre for
a desperate team in 1995 and 1996 and came on somewhat in 1997
before going down with an injury this year.
In contrast, Kurt Miller was a #1 draft choice. he never put it
together and the Cubs grabbed him on waivers. He didn't impress
in spring training and so Riggleman doesn't want him. The
reality seems to be that he is fulfilling his promise. The
reality is also that the Cubs have no intentions of using him.
The Sox discovered Karchner. The Cubs make a point of not discovering
anyone. They want tried and true relievers like Tony Fossas.
>
I
>think we're in pretty good shape with the bullpen. If we get even a servicable
>lefty for Fossas, I think our bullpen will be fine and need no more tinkering
>with.
The best way to avoid overwork is to forget this righty-lefty stuff.
I'd love to release Fossas, make Mulholland a starter and go with
6 righties. Then, even Riggleman couldn't overwork the pen.
>Grrrr. Dont say it :-) If Garland turns out as good a major-leaguer as
>Mister-Jeff-the-first-baseman, then I agree, it will have been a terrible deal
>to make :-)
From 1981-1995, the Cubs had 15 first choices in the draft. The
four top names: Carter, Dunston, Palmeiro, Wood. The four
bottom names didn't ever grace a major league roster. In the
middle were creditable players May, Harkey, and Glanville,
the injury-struck Dickson and Wallace, and less creditable
Hall and Kieschnik. Garland might be any one of those guys.
The stars, excepting Palmeiro, were higher draft choices.
But it comes down to roulette when you trade a pitcher like
that.
>
>I agree with what youre saying here. But with the moves the Mets and Dodgers
>have made, they *are* better *this* year -and thus are putting more pressure on
>us for the wildcard.
I don't believe the Dodgers are better. They traded away Zeile
for the now hurt Bonilla and have a minor leaguer at third.
They replaced Piazza with Johnson behind the plate. They added
a pinch hitter who can't hit. These are big negatives. Shaw
and Sheffield help - but I think they are still behind.
Piazza does help the Mets - but hey, they were better than the Cubs
before the trade and we have a better record anyway.
Oh -- a postscript to our earlier Hill discussion. I thought
Hill and Mieske on the same roster was redundant. In retrospect,
Hill replaced Mieske on the 25 man roster and White on the 40.
A change of heart -- I like it.
Ray Heitmann
Offie
>minor
>>league level - but they *have* been seen at the major league level, even if
>for
>>very short periods, this season. Just like Rodney Myers et al. None of them
>has
>>ever achieved what Karchner has at the major league level.
>
>Now wait. Steenstra has, as I recall, been scored upon exactly once
>at the major league level.
I have nothing against Steenstra, or any of the other guys - I hope they all do
well. However..
Steenstra has been at AAA for 3 full years before this season, the past 3
consecutive years. His performances were:
1995: 9-12, 3.89 ERA; 29 games, 26 starts
1996: 8-12, 5.01 ERA; 26 games, 26 starts
1997: 5-10, 3.92 ERA; 25 games, 25 starts
He was at the major league level for a little bit this season, with the
following record:
0-0, 10.80 ERA. 4 games, 3.1 innings, 7 hits, 4 runs, 2 HRs
> In Sept 1995, Swartzbaugh was a Sept
>callup and I don't believe he was scored upon. He didn't get
>another shot until Sept 1996 as a starter and really had only two good
>starts. BUT, in his first start, he did go up against the Cy
>Young winner, Mr. Smoltz, who was in top form, and Swartzbaugh
>outpitched him and the Cubs won.
>
Swartzbaugh is now 30 years old, and has seen 78 days of major league service.
At the major league level, his performance have been:
1995: 0-0, 0.00 ERA, 7 games, 7.1 inns, 5 hits, 0 ER (2 runs, but 0 ERs)
1996: 6 games, 5 starts, 0-2, 6.38 ERA; 24.0 inns, 26 hits, 17 ERs
1997: 2 games, 2 starts, 0-1, 9.00 ERA; 8.0 inns, 12 hits, 8 ERs
Career major leagues: 0-3, 5.53 ERA in 7 starts, 15 games.
>The manager has preconceived notions about pitchers and interprets
>the data to support his beliefs. Riggleman doesn't like
>Swartzbaugh or Steenstra and looks for faults (and of course
>they give up hits and runs); he likes Fossas and looks for
>virtues (and occasionally he gets an out).
I agree with this. We probably havent seen enough of Swartzbaugh or Steenstra
at the major league level to make conclusive decisions. But the fact remains
that they havent been overly impressive at the major league level - one might
even say they have been downright unimpressive in the Bigs. When youre making a
run at the playoffs (with a 3 game lead in the WC and a 3 game deficit in the
division), I dont think I would trust either of these 2 pitchers anywhere near
as much as I would trust a Karchner - a man who went 15 for 16 in save
opportunities last year at the *Major League* level,with an ERA under 3. This
year too, his ERA was in the mid 3's, until the injury - it then rocketed
upwards. But his last 2 outings have led to I believe 3 innings with no runs?
I dont think Karchner is God's Gift to the bullpen or anything of that sort :-)
I think highly of Adams, and I think we need someone to help him with the
set-up role - the role I originally hoped Pisciotta would fill. Karchner is not
all that old, he's been a closer in the past, he has a good arm and is signed
thru next year I believe. Hopefully he will be very useful in getting to Beck,
and for not just this year. It would, IMHO, be too much of a gamble to presume
Steenstra or Swartzbaugh could have done the same job at present.
I agree with you about Fossas, we need to get a replacement for him pronto,
IMHO. And while I think the lefty-righty thing is overblown, I would like
*some* balance to the bullpen - ie a lefty to support Mulholland. I dont agree
with the trust the management has in Fossas at the expense of even a
Swartzbaugh or Steenstra - but I think a major reason for it is probably that
Fossas *has* shown in the past (the distant past, admittedly :-), that he is a
viable pitcher at the major league level, while in their opinions the others
havent.
> A better example
>is Jeremi Gonzalez. He was awful this year - but he stayed in
>the rotation because he was believed to be a prospect.
>
Hm. True, but I happen to be a fan of Jeremi myself. I believe he has good
stuff, better than either Steenstra/Swartzbaugh, IMHO. And we shouldnt forget
his age either - he is much younger, and is far more unpolished than either of
them. He was over .500 for a horrendous major league team last season, and was
over .500 this season too, despite arm troubles, and pitching on many days when
the wind seemed to be blowing out :-) His upside, IMHO, was 2nd only to Wood
among the younger ones who have been seen at the major league level for the
Cubs. Its probably a combination of all of the above that kept him in the
majors ahead of anyone else.
>Now the data on relief pitchers is so spotty that managers have
>to do this. The ones who choose wisely have good staffs -the
>ones who choose poorly don't. Everybody has enough talent
>available.
>
Does *everyone* have enough talent available? Iam not sure they do. If it was
an ideal world, I think we'd have Jeremi healthy at #5 starter, Adams,
Karchner, Wengert and maybe Telemaco as the righties in the bullpen, and
Mulholland and x (maybe Christiansen/Arthur Rhodes) as the lefties. With that
lineup, I think our bullpen would be maybe the most talented around - and I
think Riggs would do a great job with *that* bullpen :-)
>
Karchner was a minor league
>hack who never got a shot in the majors. He was mediocre for
>a desperate team in 1995 and 1996 and came on somewhat in 1997
>before going down with an injury this year.
>
Hum. Surely 15 saves in 16 opportunities at the end of the season (for a team
that was 3 games out of the division lead when he came up) is better than
"coming on somewhat" ? :-) I agree, he isnt a great closer - but then that isnt
his role on the Cubs either.
>In contrast, Kurt Miller was a #1 draft choice. he never put it
>together and the Cubs grabbed him on waivers. He didn't impress
>in spring training and so Riggleman doesn't want him. The
>reality seems to be that he is fulfilling his promise. The
>reality is also that the Cubs have no intentions of using him.
>
>The Sox discovered Karchner. The Cubs make a point of not discovering
>anyone. They want tried and true relievers like Tony Fossas.
>>
I agree. But do we know if Miller is any good in the bullpen at all? His major
league performances in his career have been very poor, always. Maybe he's only
really fulfilling his promise now - I sure hope so. But its been entirely as a
starter. He isnt that old yet - 25 I believe. (Any idea what his stuff has been
like this year, BTW ? Has his arm come back completely? Is he throwing hard?)
>I don't believe the Dodgers are better. They traded away Zeile
>for the now hurt Bonilla and have a minor leaguer at third.
>They replaced Piazza with Johnson behind the plate. They added
>a pinch hitter who can't hit. These are big negatives. Shaw
>and Sheffield help - but I think they are still behind.
>
Of course, they made a couple more moves today. I heard an interview with Tommy
Lasorda a few days ago on the radio, where he said he was 71 years old and
didnt have the time to wait, winning now was important. It sounded good at the
time, as a sound byte :-) But the Dodgers have decimated their minor league
system (4 of their top 10 prospects given away in the past month, I believe) -
and theyre still 4.5 games out of the wildcard, with 4 teams ahead of them. If
they dont make it this year, they will have mortgaged their future for nothing.
Iam glad we didnt do something of that sort (even though the Dodgers farm
system is light years ahead of ours).
>
>Oh -- a postscript to our earlier Hill discussion. I thought
>Hill and Mieske on the same roster was redundant. In retrospect,
>Hill replaced Mieske on the 25 man roster and White on the 40.
>A change of heart -- I like it.
>
Yes, this has been a good move. I still cant believe 24 teams passed on him
(via waivers) before he reached us. How could nobody find a use for him?
Sadiq [ still pro-Hill ] Yusuf
>Ray Heitmann
>
></PRE></HTML>