Your Daily Tejada

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 9:41 AM CST in Chicago Cubs News

Paul Ladewski's column in today's Daily Southtown is all of the following:

intriguing
maddening
thought-provoking
filled with conjecture and outright misinformation, and
worth reading.

First, he lays out the 16,564th Tejada rumor:

The latest version was a three-team deal that had Prior and pitcher Barry Zito headed to Crabtown, pitcher Erik Bedard bound for the Oakland A's and Miguel Tejada en route to the North Side.

Ladewski says the Cubs should bite, and much as I'd love Tejada, that deal seems a bit one-sided towards Baltimore, yes? Further, it sounds somewhat incomplete, as the Orioles would probably want Ronny Cedeno to take Tejada's place at SS (they really have no other logical options), and if so, the Cubs would surely want a pitching prospect back from either the A's (Jairo Garcia, anyone?) or the Orioles (I'd love Hayden Penn). Or it could be expanded to include any number of Cub minor leaguers.

Then he pulls the old "Latin-Player's-Really-Older-Than-He-Says-He-Is" saw out:

What concerns me most is his age. The Dominican native is listed at 29, but it wouldn't come as a shock to find out he's really 32.

There's absolutely no evidence of this. First of all, as I have written here before, after 9/11 the State Department required all foreign nationals -- including, and one could argue particularly including professional athletes -- to certify their ages. Alfonso Soriano was one of the players who had to add a couple of years to his age. Sammy Sosa (who's been so accused) and Tejada were not. Fact: Tejada was signed by the A's on July 17, 1993, which would have been about two months after he turned 17, given his listed birth date of May 25, 1976.

This is the age at which most Dominican players are signed -- around the time they turn 17. Sosa -- same thing (born: 11/12/1968; signed 7/30/1985). Aramis Ramirez -- ditto (born 6/25/1978, signed 11/7/1994).

This is a canard, and I wish MSM writers would stop bringing it up.

What's most interesting about Ladewski's article is his quote of former major league pitcher Mike Marshall:

"Prior has a pitching motion that is very problematic, no question about it," Dr. Mike Marshall said. "If he doesn't change, he will never reach everything that he should be."

Marshall has some unconventional ideas about pitching that are not universally accepted, and in fact, have been scorned by a lot of major leaguers -- which is why Marshall's been pretty well blacklisted from the majors since he retired as a pitcher in 1981. I'm not sure I buy all his ideas, but they are at least worth considering. Read the rest of the article and you'll at least have to think that trading Prior for Tejada isn't as crazy an idea as many of you think it is.

For as Ladewski correctly states about Prior:

The Next Tom Seaver has become The Next Scott Erickson or The Next Kevin Appier, the pitchers whose statistics are closest to Prior's at similar stages of their careers.

Something to think about, at least.

Tweet Comment 91 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

NO!!!

No, A thousand times no. Do NOT trade Prior.
We do NOT have the rotation so survive without
him. Bedard even if he came would not do it.
For once can we trust the kids and give Cedeno
a chance?

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 10:07 AM CST reply actions

On Marshall...

If some of the younger folk around here aren't familiar with his playing career, among other things, I'd suggest they seek out Jim Bouton's Ball Four. Ball Four is must reading for any fan as it is, but much of Bouton's 1969 season was spent with Marshall on the Seattle Pilots. Marshall was doing a good job of alienating himself from baseball even at that stage of his life. He was already developing his own ideas on pitching. It's hard to knock his education, but one has to wonder why more teams wouldn't have adopted his methodology if it was as advertised.

As far as the trade proposal contained in Ladewski's article, feh. HE might sign up for it, but the Cubs better not. Now that Millwood's off the market (and a vastly over-priced Millwood at that; no wonder the Cubs didn't bite), they absolutely have to get a major league ready pitcher in return if they let loose of Prior in any Tejada deal. As far as comparing him to Erickson and Appier, as we've pointed out here, his latest injuries haven't been from his motion, i.e. the ball off his elbow and the base running incident. People who insist that he's going to continue to be injury prone need a bit more evidence before I'll take them seriously.

by BeerCub on Dec 27, 2005 10:12 AM CST reply actions

I would argue...

... that Penn is a major-league ready pitcher. Sure, he's only 22 years old, and his numbers weren't great in his handful of starts in 2005 in the major leagues.

But I do believe he could jump in to a major league rotation.

Or, perhaps the deal could be reworked to give, say, Angel Guzman and Penn to the A's, who seem to like young pitchers, and sending Bedard to the Cubs.

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 10:15 AM CST up reply actions

Oh, I Agree....

....except Ladewski didn't have any of that in his piece. If all the Cubs get back is Tejada, which is what Ladewski had, then this deal stinks out loud. As much as I don't want to lose Prior, it's a more tolerable deal if someone like Penn or Bedard comes along as well. See the post by tomas21 I dug up. I like that scenario the best.

by BeerCub on Dec 27, 2005 10:22 AM CST up reply actions

Penn is not ready

he still has to develop consistency in his breaking ball and change-up. I would still like Bedard above all from Balt if this trade goes through. Penn would be a nice addition to the '07 rotation after a full season of AAA.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 10:50 AM CST up reply actions

agreed

i you're going to try to win now, penn is no help.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 11:41 AM CST up reply actions

Not injury prone

But as I pointed out in my post, there is concern about the health of his elbow on the part of scouts and those in the industry. He now has had two years since his 2003 season when he was dominant. In the following two seasons, his WHIP, ERA, and innings pitched went down. Yes, I know that part of that can be attributed to missing chunks of the season, but compare 2003 and 2005. He started three less games in 2005, yet he threw almost 50 less innings.

The belief is that power comes from the shoulder and control comes from the elbow. Some in the baseball world wonder if there isn't something wrong with Prior's elbow. Further, we've always assumed that Prior's mechanics are perfect, well, because thats what they said coming out of college, however there those who are now saying that his mechanics aren't all that perfect and we've seen various nagging issues the last two spring trainings.

I would not trade Prior, however if the Cubs do not get serious about Prior and figuring out why it is that he hasn't been nearly the dominant thrower he was in 2003, they're going to waste his career.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 10:22 AM CST up reply actions

Okay....

....you're right, there's no denying that his stats have slid somewhat. Last year, watching some of those starts where he'd walk 2/3's of the batting order before settling down, I wondered just exactly what was he doing to prepare for game day? It was as if he was trying to be too cute with his pitches and not trusting his stuff, along with forgetting he had seven guys behind him to field the ball. Either he was worried about his elbow or he was overthinking out there. It seemed that many times he had to be down two runs in the first inning with two guys on and one out before he settle down and really pitch. That, of course, makes for some bad stats.

by BeerCub on Dec 27, 2005 10:29 AM CST up reply actions

A lot of what you wrote...

... you'd think, could be addressed by help from a pitching coach.

This says one of two things:

Rothschild isn't a good coach, or
Prior won't listen to coaching.

Neither is a very palatable thought.

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 10:33 AM CST up reply actions

Yup

And with essentially two on the bench, Rothschild and good old Dick Pole (that name, that name), you'd think something good would come of. This doesn't even consider Maddux, who would seem to be a natural tutor for Prior.

by BeerCub on Dec 27, 2005 10:36 AM CST up reply actions

Maddux...

... despite his reputation, doesn't seem to be one that Cub pitchers listen to. Sergio Mitre said he did, but that didn't translate into results on the field.

Somehow I doubt Maddux "tutored" Prior, or tried to.

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

listening is one thing

Mitre can listen all day to Maddux. He'll never be a fraction of the pitcher Maddux was.

by Slaky311 on Dec 27, 2005 11:08 AM CST up reply actions

Actually he listened to him a lot

Prior has commented a number of times about
learning a lot from Maddux and sitting next
to him during games and listining. However
it is not all together clear if he is refering
to Maddux's general knowledge during
a game or any specific advice offered to Prior
re his pitching. Prior never struck me as
the obstanate type re advice but sometimes
it is hard for someone with stuff that good to
take constuctiveCriticism
Back to Maddux ( what else) this was always
one of his attributes. Refering to his developement
back in 87-88, Dick Pole said " It was like kids
in school, some kids just pay more attention than
others" I think the 87 off season he spend in Venezuela
with Pole & his brother Mike was crucial to his
developement into a great pitcher.
I think Prior may have a harder time understanding
that he has things to fix ( Maddux had an ERA of
5.61 in 87) but I am convinced he can. You let him
go to the O's and Mazzone turns him into Maddux
with a 95 mile an hour fast ball.
I have faith in him AND Cedeno. Let the O's
shop Tejada elsewhere

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

a third option:

this is an organizational problem. I guess part of this would be Rothschild being a bad pitching coach, however there seem to be system wide problems with the organization. I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that so many Cubs prospects have suffered from injuries. I think that this upcoming season is a big one for the entire organization and if things don't change, it may be time to clean house. The Cubs have done a great job with scouting and drafting, however their player development has been less than stellar.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 10:45 AM CST up reply actions

true

but the minor leagues and organizations are filled with injuries. Every organization deals with them and it's not exclusive to the Cubs.

The phrase TINSTAAPP was coined because of injuries.

I think our pitcher's are just as bad as our hitters. That is an organizational flaw.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 10:53 AM CST up reply actions

Perception...

Do the Cubs, in fact, have a higher than average number of prospects injured, or is this just the perception of fans who follow this team closely?

I don't know that there is any statistical evidence that shows the Cubs have more injuries than other organizations. I wonder if it just appears that they have more to the those who follow the team closely, and are perhaps unaware of the number of injuries other teams prospects endure. Or is it just a bad run that they've had with injuries.

"...the minor leagues and organizations are filled with injuries. Every organization deals with them and it's not exclusive to the Cubs." Socalbob, I agree until it's proved otherwise.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 27, 2005 6:50 PM CST up reply actions

Or...

... they're not mental, as you seem to indicate. These problems may be his train of thought, game day preparaton, or whatever. Or they may be that his mechanics aren't all that great or he has some problems with his elbow. I don't know. David Kaplan said that he talked to one scout who believes that Priors problems and his slide from his 2003 statsitcs and performance are due to elbow injuries.

Last season, Prior was a guy who had high pitch counts and threw lots of five and six inning games. This is troubling to me and I hope that the Cubs have been trying to figure this out.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

A few thoughts

First, I wanted to make a few comments about Bedard, since he's also been rumored to be coming to the Cubs. Bedard made his major league debut in 2002, so while he may be a young pitcher, his major league service clock has been ticking for some time now and he's not all that far away from his arbitration years. If anyone thinks that the Cubs are landing someone who is young and going to be cheap and under their control for five or six years, they're incorrect.

Secondly, WGN had a guy from rotoauthority on last night (this is the same site that runs MLBtraderumors.com, judge this however you wish) and he's basically said that if the Cubs consider Prior for Bedard trading a two pitching talents, they're getting one who is very injury prone.

Both this guy from rotoauthority and a scout that David Kaplan talked to believe that a big part of Mark Prior's control problems are due to possible damage to his elbow. Prior had a superb 2003 and has really lost it since then. What bothers me is that there is this train of though out there and the Cubs appear to be doing NOTHING. Are they waiting for him to need surgery? Their mentality as it relates to their pitchers mechanics seems to be that they'll figure it out or they'll need surgery, but until that happens, just let them pitch.

DmL
The Cubs lack of proactiveness is really bothersome as their handling of Wood and Prior may result in two great talents seeing their promising careers go to waste.

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 10:13 AM CST reply actions

yes

Are they waiting for him to need surgery?

that's exactly what they're doing. they don't have a firm diagnosis as is, and even exploratory surgery is risky.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 11:44 AM CST up reply actions

pitching form

I know one thing Marshall doesn't take into consideration is the vast experience all pitching coaches have. Rothchild is supposed to be one of the best. The knowledge these guys have is based on experience and the school of hard knocks. With any human, what works best for one is not best for all. Baseball lifers know so much about the game any of us pale in comparison. I don't buy that our pitching coaches don't know what is going on.

by mrcubsfan on Dec 27, 2005 10:17 AM CST reply actions

Unfortunately...

... results aren't really on Rothschild's side right now. If the Cubs past two seasons from their starters, aside from Zambrano aren't really concerning to you, they should be.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 10:24 AM CST up reply actions

freak

Prior's accident was a freak last year, getting hit on the elbow. Achilles problems?? Just look at his calves. Maddux problems? Old age, that will happen to all of us. Wood, won't change throwing across the body, that was before Rothchild and he hasn't changed. I'm a life long coach. When teams lose, blame the coach.

by mrcubsfan on Dec 27, 2005 10:29 AM CST up reply actions

not just the injuried

as I've said, what bothers me is not the injuries, its that Prior, once a dominating pitcher, has had control problems of late and was a six inning pitcher last year. His control was questionable. His pitching efficiency was not good last year. Again, this very possibly may be due to problems with his shoulder and/or mechanics.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 10:49 AM CST up reply actions

I felt..

very bothered too. The game he pitched in Colorado bothered me the most. I think he struck out a lot of people that day and that usually leads to a high pitch count, but he was taking extra long to strike guys out. They would foul off pitch after pitch after pitch. I even remember saying that Prior needed to find an out pitch because it seemed like he didn't have one.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 27, 2005 11:18 AM CST up reply actions

nothing freak

about his elbow pain, which (after his stunning abuse in 2003 at the hands of dusty) has surfaced in 2004 and 2005.

you can cite line drives and achilles tendons all day, but the kid has elbow pain and that's a fact. his control issues are almost certainly a direct consequence.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 11:46 AM CST up reply actions

Experience?

Well... Mike Marshall pitched in the major leagues for 14 seasons, still holds the record for appearances (106) by a pitcher in a single season, won a Cy Young Award, led his league in saves three times, and had 188 career saves in an era when relief pitchers were used far differently than they are now, as a quick perusal of his stats will show.

Marshall isn't in baseball because his ideas are unconventional, and as you probably know, unconventional ideas are frowned upon in the old-boy network. I'm not saying I buy everything Marshall says, but there are things he believes that make a great deal of sense.

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 10:28 AM CST up reply actions

Forces marshalled

It seems like there should be some team willing to give Marshall's ideas a shot. How could it hurt a team like Detroit, KC, Pittsburgh or Cin. to give the theories a try?

by DrCrawdad on Dec 27, 2005 6:53 PM CST up reply actions

Actually

these teams seem to be the ones least likely to go that route. The first team to actively involve Sabrmetrics was the Red Sox with the hiring of Bill James. I think the teams that are worst off are least able to take risks.

There is just so much resistance to change. MLB is populated with old school folks and they don't want to have to consider deviating from what they know.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 27, 2005 11:13 PM CST up reply actions

This...

... is illogical, of course, but true. The teams mentioned SHOULD be the ones most willing to take risks, but as you said, they won't.

There's a real good analysis of such things in "Moneyball", if you haven't already read it -- how Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta tried to change this sort of attitude and the huge resistance they met up with.

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2005 3:23 AM CST up reply actions

Security

I guess when you work for teams that constantly finish last, you have less sense of security and you want to keep your job. Going out and hiring someone like Mike Marshall or Bill James is a risk. Also, if you look at some of the GMs of these teams, these guys aren't the best. Now I do believe that as GMs and team presidents get younger, they will start to look at the works of people like Marshall.

Marshall was on the radio last night, interviewed by David Kaplan on WGN. Hey, he's firm in his beliefs and likely rubs some people (especally establishment folks) the wrong way. However this guy should be listened to. He's not out there to make money nor to build his reputation. He's a former pitcher who doesn't want to see other pitchers get injured. Further, he believes that if teams followed his routines, they'd be able to go back to four man rotations.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 28, 2005 10:00 AM CST up reply actions

This Post Bears Repeating....

With apologies to tomas21, I thought I'd resurrect his post from last week on the Prior/Tejada mess. To me, it makes perfect sense for all involved. To wit:
-------------------------------

i think about this, the more i think if there indeed is a 3-team deal involving the As and Orioles, Prior/Z will stay put.

The Orioles want to get a top starter if they're going to trade Tejada, so they get Zito, and likely cedeno.
The Cubs want to keep Prior, but also want their cake (tejada).
The As want to maximize their return on Zito before he becomes a free agent and prices himself out of the oakland market. Beane wiggles himself into the deal and snags Pie/Hill et al.

I think that makes more sense than prior going to oakland, zito going to baltimore, and tejada going to the cubs. in that scenario the As seem like a pretty unneeded third party.

I think it goes without saying that if Hendry is able to acquire Tejada without giving up z/prior, he will be back in my good graces (but i'd still like him to sign byrnes).

by tomas21 on Thursday, December 22, 2005 at 10:44 AM PST

by BeerCub on Dec 27, 2005 10:19 AM CST reply actions

wow

what a well-thought out and articulate post, beer cub. i couldn't have said it better myself. :)

by tomas21 on Dec 27, 2005 10:36 AM CST up reply actions

Yes, exactly, LOL

by BeerCub on Dec 27, 2005 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

i've been promoting this idea...

ever since Tejada said he wanted to be traded. I originally thought the Cubs might be willing to pull it off as a 3-way with the D-Backs and Vazquez, but it looks as if that's unlikely now. I still think the Cubs can and should get Tejada if they can maneuver a 3-way deal that gets them Tejada for prospects.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 27, 2005 10:52 AM CST up reply actions

the problem is

that this radically overestimates the value of pie.

if rumors are taken as fact, the orioles are talking about getting prior and hill -- they want more than just prior for tejada, who is under contract for four more years. presumably, they would want VASTLY more than just zito, who is going to free agency after this coming season. the o's just don't get enough in this trade to make it workable.

and if hill and more would have to go to the orioles, what's left for beane and the a's? pie? a someday-maybe outfielder who strikes out more than patterson? don't think beane is that desperate. he could find a better offer elsewhere.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

murton might do it...

a poster over at The Cub Reporter has said a deal of Murton, Hill, and Weurtz to the A's would net us Zito. Zito, Patterson, and Pie could then be turned into Tejada (AZ Phil claims it would take Zito, Pie and Cedeno). The net trade for the Cubs would be giving up Murton, Hill, Weurtz, Pie and Patterson or Cedeno (depending on how much the O's demand) for Tejada. That's giving up a lot of young talent for a 30-year old SS. Would i do it? Probably.

Lets rephrase this potential trade as in what it would take to keep Prior. The current offer is Prior, Hill, and perhaps Patterson for Tejada and Bedard. In order to keep Prior and get Tejada in the 3-way scenario we'd essentially be trading Murton, Pie, and Weurtz for Prior.

So, lets put this another way... if we can get Tejada in either of these deals, would you rather have Prior or would you rather have Murton, Weurtz, and Pie? That's not an easy one, but i'd personally take Prior.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 27, 2005 5:56 PM CST up reply actions

This is getting silly

I can't say this enough the deal is NOT Prior, Hill
Patterson for Tejada AND Bedard but just Tejada.
I doubt the A's would take those 3 for Zito but even
if they did would someone tell me who in the HELL
is playing LF ? Things are not bad enough in the outfield ?

If you are left with an infield of A-Ram, Tejada
Walker ( Neffi?) and D-Lee than D-Lee is going to burn out
FAST and Maddux's ERA shoots up to 6 with all the
crappy fielding.

Jeez you want a REALLY big bat. Offer the Bosox
A-Ram, Cedeno, Murton cPat and Hill for Manny and
Lowell. You can argue that A-Ram is at LEAST as much
of a injury liability as Prior and will walk after 2006 if he
IS good, Manny replaces Murton and we can always
have Neffi at SS. Makes as much sense to me as
Prior trade configurations.

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 6:25 PM CST up reply actions

bad post

when you claim Tejada is bad defensively. He's above average and does make spectacular play via great range.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 6:27 PM CST up reply actions

Tejada

does not have a reputation as a great defender. he is actually very average, and makes a large number of throwing errors, which might be what Jessica is referring to when she says Lee would burn out, as Aramis makes a lot of bad throws as well.

If you compare his fielding percentage to the league average, he is below average. If you compare his RF to league average, he is a little above average.

But pairing Armamis and Tejada would probably give the Cubs the most errors out of the left side of the infield in baseball. (tejada had 5th most among MLB shortstops, Amarmis 9th most despite missing 43 games).

by tomas21 on Dec 28, 2005 9:38 AM CST up reply actions

his fielding %

was .971 last year. Uribe for instance who is a brilliant defender was .977. That's 6 1/1000's lower! It amounts to nothing. It's just wrong to make the statement that he is not a good defender.

Claim "he had 22 errors"--so what? Uribe had 16 in over 100 less innings played. And Uribe is a great defensive SS.

If we look at this as if they were hitters is Albert Pujols really a brutal hitter because D Lee hit 5 1000's better? I would say NO.

And then would the pitchers really be unhappy when he drives in far more than he ever let up?

He is not a bad defensive player as suggested. He is league average if not above. If one is not happy trading Prior, that's fine and I understand. But to say he's lousy defensively to bolster that position is false.

by socalbob on Dec 28, 2005 10:16 AM CST up reply actions

i wonder...

how exactly Mark Prior's pitching motion led to him getting into a collision on the basepaths and to getting nailed on a line drive. I should probably read some of Marshall's stuff before dismissing him completely, but i would wager that almost every pitcher that throws 95-100 MPH fastballs puts a lot of strain on their arm, regardless of their pitching motion. Furthermore, didn't we read all the rave reviews of Prior's motion when he came into the league? Wasn't one of the major reasons he was considered to be the next great thing the opinion of other "experts" that he had a smooth pitching motion that wouldn't lead to injuries?

If you take his major injuries caused by freak accidents away, his pitching numbers and durability record would probably be more similar to Carlos Zambrano than Kevin Appier.

I don't buy this guy's analysis and i still don't buy the trade... unless we're the ones getting Zito as a part of it.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 27, 2005 10:39 AM CST reply actions

Obviously...

... the collision and the line drive were both freaks. But freak injuries CAN spook players. Look at what happened to Sammy Sosa after he was hit in the head in early 2003 -- or even after he collided with Mark Bellhorn in late 2002. He never seemed to be the same player after that.

I'm not saying this has happened to Prior, but it could be affecting his mental game.

You could say the same thing about Carlos Zambrano, who also throws 95-100 MPH fastballs. He's been healthy throughout his major league career. Why? Because his pitching mechanics are different than Prior's.

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 10:43 AM CST up reply actions

that could be...

but then we're trading the guy because we think he's been affected somehow by the line drive from last year, not because of his injury history. I think everyone would agree that he was affected in the 2nd half last year by the line drive to the elbow. The question is whether or not it will continue to affect him.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 27, 2005 10:55 AM CST up reply actions

and i agree with you...

Sosa's career changed forever the day he got beaned in the head. However, we had evidence for how that affected his play - not only did his statistics take a nose dive, but there was a visible change in his approach to the plate. Namely, he didn't approach it as much, as in he started to stand way too far off the plate. I don't see anything like that out of Prior, nor have i read/heard of it. If someone produced a video showing how Prior has cut short his follow through in an attempt to get him in a better fielding position, and how that has affected his control, then i'd be more willing to trade him. As of now, we're just speculating that he might have been affected mentally by the accident, and i'm not going to trade him away solely based on that.

The Cubs will thrive in twenty-oh-five... or sometime thereafter!

by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 27, 2005 11:00 AM CST up reply actions

mechanics

"You could say the same thing about Carlos Zambrano, who also throws 95-100 MPH fastballs. He's been healthy throughout his major league career. Why? Because his pitching mechanics are different than Prior's."

i don't know. but, it seems reasonable to me that two guys with completely different body types (Z is all upper body / prior is all lower body ) could have different mechanics without either being unhealthy.

by kjk on Dec 27, 2005 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

could also be

that it just hasn't happened yet.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 1:40 PM CST up reply actions

fellas, you can't wish

prior's elbow away. it has sidelined him for parts of two years. not everything about prior's injury history is freakish! and major leauge gm's know that, in prior, they may be getting damaged goods.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 11:52 AM CST up reply actions

That's because

Dusty threw his arm off in 2003.

Hey-Dawson backwards is Noswad!---Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on Dec 27, 2005 12:54 PM CST up reply actions

yep -- and until

i hear dr james andrews tell us all exactly what's going on in that arm, prior's whole future is one big question mark -- whether we like it or not. the history of baseball is littered with the failed careers of pitchers like prior.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

going purely from memeory...

marshall had much the same thing to say about wood a year ago; roughly, "his mechanics make him an injury waiting to happen". would be interested to know if marshall blesses anyone who has not attended his clinics/camps/workshops.

by dc60123 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 27, 2005 10:40 AM CST reply actions

On the other hand...

... sounds like he was right on about Wood.

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 10:44 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah...

but I bet everyone here but me would've predicted an injury for Woody. Unless, he was very specific, it is not hard to predict Wood.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 27, 2005 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

Forgive me...

I didn't have time toread all the posts so I hope I am not repeating...Bruce Levine reported that the trade offer is what I always thought it would be...Tejada and Bedard for Hill, Prior, Patterson (maybe). Still, on the fence here.

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Dec 27, 2005 11:05 AM CST reply actions

Man...

... if that's the offer, TAKE IT!!!

by Al Yellon on Dec 27, 2005 2:33 PM CST up reply actions

The most

interesting part of this article is this: "I don't know why the general manager isn't investigating this," said Marshall, who never met the Cubs boss. "If I were him and had two huge talents like Prior and Kerry Wood, I would search high and low for answers. I would go to Tibet. I would go anywhere in the world to make sure that two talented young men didn't destroy their careers." I actually met Larry Rotchild(sp?) at a hospital. His wife and my mother were having surgery. We sat and talked a good hour or so. Besides having a ton of great baseball stories, he mentioned that his has repeatedly tried to get Wood to change his motion. Wood is too stubborn to do it. Same with some of the relievers. I don't know about Prior but his motion looks perfect to me. I believe Larry's Dad because why lie to a schmo like me in a hospital waiting room.

by cubbieboy on Dec 27, 2005 11:09 AM CST reply actions

I'm not

not real computer literate. Sorry that all ran together.

by cubbieboy on Dec 27, 2005 11:12 AM CST reply actions

not just mechanics

my concern about prior isn't just his mechanics. it's that he's lost velocity. when he was dominant in 03, his fastball peaked at around 97-98 when he wanted it to, and was consistently 95. the book on prior that year was that he had pinpoint control and his fastball had an extra "hop" on it.

in 04 and 05 his fastball peaked at 95 and was more often at 93. couple that with his inability to place it as well anymore, and he's become a slightly above average pitcher. basically, he's got two pitches: fastball, curveball. it used to be that even when guys were sitting fastball, he could throw it by them. now if they're sitting on the fastball, it's very hittable. something's wrong with his elbow. or didn't he have some sort of leg thing in pre-season last year? whatever it is, i don't think he can be the pitcher we want him to be unless he gets that velocity back.

by billywan on Dec 27, 2005 11:19 AM CST reply actions

I do agree...

Prior's motion seems perfect to me. He has what it takes and if he goes, we WILL notice the hole left behind. Why not then sit tight and wait till next year for a new free agent ace to fill the spot. I would be done giving up prospects and players at this point...next winter we will have a new priority if this deal gets done. That's as silver as I can paint this lining.

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Dec 27, 2005 11:21 AM CST reply actions

Stay with me

Don't go to the dark side azweber we need Prior.

Madog93. There is only one good season of the year -- BASEBALL SEASON!

by madog93 on Dec 27, 2005 12:36 PM CST up reply actions

One thing though

If I understand the "age" thing correctly, and I might not, players who had acheived "permanent resident alien" status--i.e. a green card, do not need to get a visa to enter the United States (since they are permanent residents). Sosa is one of those who had a green card before September 11, 2001, so he has never needed to provide an authenticated birth certificate after 9/11 to re-enter the country. Therefore, he may be older than he is.

I have no idea if Tejada received permanent resident alien status before 9/11. If he had, then his age could still be a question.

Of course, the age thing sometimes cuts both ways, as it turned out that Adrain Beltre was actually younger than he claimed to be. But that is a rare exception.

Baseball can be summed up in one word--you never know--Joaquin Andujar

by Josh Timmers on Dec 27, 2005 11:39 AM CST reply actions

I'm not an expert or anything, but...

Shouldn't the good doctor be trying to better explain how Prior's pitching motion and the extra strain he puts on his elbow affects the achillies? Or maybe how the "circular pitching" attracts stray come-backers.

by chicagojosh on Dec 27, 2005 11:59 AM CST reply actions

I know I'm in the minority here

but I would like to see some creative GM'ing out of Hendry. MAKE THIS DEAL to get Tejada in place. And then go get Zito!

I would gladly give up Prior, Hill, CPatt, Pie, Dopirak, Harvey, and Cedeno to add Tejada and Zito to our team in '06 (and if it takes more DO IT).

We all hold on too tight to our beloved Cubs, but we need changes and the only way to get there is to trade or sign free agents since our Scouting and Player Development departments have failed to produce 1 single impact player (excluding Prior Maddux, and Z) since Lou Brock.

Therefore we are relegated to alternative means (FA and trades). To get the quality player of Tejada, you need to give up quality. A group of minor leaguers for an MVP doesn't cut it.

Zito and Tejada both fit on the payroll this year and the cash is there for a loong-term deal with Zito.

Adding those 2 closes the gap on the NL Central crown and stading pat with what he have today means a 3rd or 4th place finish.

C'mon Jim--makie it happen and reward us for our patience.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 12:31 PM CST reply actions

You missed a few

While you are at it make sure to add Guzman, Williams
and Pawlek(sic) for a great hitting, mediocre fielding SS
and one year pitcher ( no WAY Zito signs a long term deal
now). That way you can guarantee the Cubs will be
screwed for years to come.

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 12:52 PM CST up reply actions

screwed for years--really?

How?

Yeah, I have seen a lot of FA's walk away from the Cubs. It happens all the time. And Hendry has done a lousy job signing potenital FA's before they hit the market.

Yeah, I understand this position (sarcasm).

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

what would really be screwed

is to do nothing, come in 4th or 5th place. Have D Lee walk, A Ram opt out, Pierre walk, Z not sign long-term, Prior exit, Wood walk, Maddux retire.

Come in 4th place again with a hostile crowd and all of those things listed above become more and more likely to happen.

But to win and get to the playoffs makes it easier to re-sign players and keep them around.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 1:17 PM CST up reply actions

Now that is a bleak picture

I don't think even the Cubs could piss off that many players in one season. I guess anything is possible though.

Madog93. There is only one good season of the year -- BASEBALL SEASON!

by madog93 on Dec 27, 2005 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

Way too many assumptions here

First of all the deal currently being thrown out by Levine
is Prior , Hill & cPat for Tejada & Bedard which I actually doubt
the O's will go for. Almost NO scenerio has the Cubs ending up
with Tejada and Zito as you presume but with Tejada and
BEDARD. As for players "walking" I believe Tajada can demand
a trade after next year himself so you could EASILY lost it all.

I think a lot of where you stand on this rests on how
bad ( or good) you think the Cubs are and what they
need to get better. A big bat would be real nice but
for many of us not at expense of an Ace pitcher who
is much, much harder to replace.
In your set up Socal you trade Cedeno so you end up
with one of the worst defensive infields and outfields
with only one really above adverage fielder and most
below.
To respond the earlier post IF you somehow could
get Zito ( which per above I doubt very much) I would
not count on any Hendry magic for a long term deal
It is almost incomprehensible that he would agree to
a long term deal before the end of the season and
a chance to test the FA waters

Much as I would like to see the Cubs add a power
bat, I think that virtually ever variation of the Tejada
trade ( with or without Zito, Cedeno etc) is a bad
move.

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 1:38 PM CST up reply actions

I agree completely.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 27, 2005 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

Jessica, I see your point...

...but I'm not sure about one aspect of it. Many people seem to think that Tejada could opt out after next season, while others say he is locked up through 2009. A player can only demand a trade once in the middle of a multi-year contract. If Tejada comes to the Cubs, I'm not sure if that would count as "demanding a trade or not", but if so, then he would indeed be locked up through 2009.

As many have mentioned before, there are, as I see it, 4 legitimate reasons to trade Prior:

Prior has some kind of injury or tendency to injury that we don't know about and that will very likely not be remedied by personal or mechanical changes.
Prior will not return to the Cubs after qualifying as a FA next year. We will also have to lock up Big Z and DLee after 2006, so are we willing to commit $180m to three players in the very near future?
The Cubs farm system is more likely to produce another Prior than another Tejada. Depending on what you think of Hill, there are several star young pitching prospects in the farm (Guzman, Hill, Marshall, Pawelek) that could be ready in the next two years or less. While Prior may indeed become a great pitcher, we may be (gasp) "expendable" if one of these other pitchers can replace him. It seems less likely for the Cubs to develop a star young position player, let alone a stud like Tejada.
The Cubs must get another pitcher back in the Prior deal. This one is the clincher for me. There's no doubt in my mind that Prior is worth more than Tejada. However, I can't say that I'm convinced that Prior is worth more than Tejada + Bedard/Penn.

I would hate to lose Mark Prior as he is an amazing talent and one of my favorite players. But if the deal that Bruce Levine is reporting is correct, I think it definitely favors the Cubs.

Apparently, according to ESPN1000, that deal of Prior+Hill+Kpat for Tejada+Bedard has been formally offered, so we'll see what happens.

by The Boar on Dec 27, 2005 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

everything is assumption or supposition

likely to happen: D Lee to test FA market, A Ram to opt out and test FA market, Maddux to retire, and Pierre to test FA market.

50/50: Z to sign a long-term deal, Wood to re-sign and Prior to sign long-term.

Come in 4th place and have the faithful get "ugly" again and these players won't want to play for us.

This scenario is not out of the realm of real possibilities.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

and if

Cedeno is "all that" do you think they would be willing to trade Prior for a proven MLB SS?

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 1:55 PM CST up reply actions

and

I'm not referring to "rumors" as I'm suggesting what Jim should do. Make a deal with Baltimore and then go make a deal with Oakland.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 1:57 PM CST up reply actions

Lots to reply to re all of the above

Pior is not a FA until AFTER 2007
I don't see any way the A's trade Zito to the Cubs
seperate of the Tejada deal in which O's end up with
him.
socal are you willing to trade Prior and NOT get
Zito?

Lastly unless and until his arm falls off don't plan
on Maddux retiring. No idea if he will play for the Cubs
in 2007 ( though he really HATES to move) but chances
are he will be playing somewhere. He has stated numerous
times that as long as he can be effective even as a 5th
starter , he will continue playing ( needless to say for
a lot less money)

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 2:09 PM CST up reply actions

yes

I would trade Prior for Tejada without having Zito. But I realize the Cubs will go nowhere in 2006. Just liek they are going nowhere in 2006 with Prior.

If you get Tejada, go get a top pitcher to win in '06.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

Maddux

I hope Maddux does not pull the hang around too long thing...From what we have seen and heard of him I doubt he will. When he does hang it up I would love to see him become a pitching coach, preferrably for the Cubs. Do you think he wants to go in that direction, or will it be time to go home and play golf?

by LT on Dec 27, 2005 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

He will hang around

His quote on this was
" I don't want to embaress myself but I would rather
pitch bad than not pitch at all" To be fair I have also
heard him say "when you have to ask it is time to go"
Again he can live with being a 5th starter but I am pretty
sure brother Mike, Mazzone and others would tell him
if it is time to go. I do think he can pitch 2 to 4 more
years BUT he does have to kick up his somewhat slack
physcial training to get in better shape.

For the record I think he will make a better manager
than pitching coach as he really sees the WHOLE game
and I don't think he can really "teach" pitching
since it is nearly impossible to convince the current
pitchers that location is more important than
velocity. As a strategic field manager though, he could be mind
boggling. I also think he will stay in baseball. I don't think
he can live without it

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 2:51 PM CST up reply actions

the question

as much as whether or not maddux will hang on is whether or not you want him hanging on here. he can go hang on in kansas city or pittsburgh and chalk up 6 era years until he's 50.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Been through this before

Maddux has no interest playing in KC or Tampa Bay
He will STAY with the Cubs IF he stays decent ( say as
good or better than last year) AND the Cubs are a
contending team. I am not kidding about his hating to
move around but he is not an idiot .
I would be happy to have him as 4th/5th starter with
200 plus innings 20 plus quality or very close to it
starts and an ERA around 4. My question to list
suppose Maddux goes 15-13 next year with an
ERA of 4.05 . Do YOU want to re-sign for a year
for say 2-3 million including incentives.
I know this tends to break down to the "got to
open a spot for someone younger & cheaper or lets
take someone we can really count on.
I know what I would do

by jessica on Dec 27, 2005 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

But I wanted Barry Zito!!!!!!

WAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey-Dawson backwards is Noswad!---Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on Dec 27, 2005 12:41 PM CST reply actions

For a good laugh

http://www.theheckler.com/

Hey-Dawson backwards is Noswad!---Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on Dec 27, 2005 2:43 PM CST reply actions

My Thoughts

Tejada didn't help the O's do anything last year.

Tejada won't make us a playoff team if we have to give up ANY pitching for him.

The Cubs sucked it up last year because their pitching, for the most part, was inconsistent and we had NO lead-off hitter. We have a lead-off hitter now and our offense will be much improved. They don't need Tejada to drive in runs. Aramis and Lee will take care of that.

The pitching has to stay. They CANNOT replace Prior. Cedeno can do fine at short. You don't have to have a big name at every position to be good. Check the Yankees.

by martyblue on Dec 27, 2005 3:17 PM CST reply actions

kidding right?

Check The Yankees?

How's this for a check. Since Joe Torre took over in '96, the Yankees have won the division title in 9 of 10 seasons. They have been to 6 World Series winning 4 of them. They have won in order 92, 96, 114, 98, 87, 95, 103, 101, 101, and 95 games.

I'll gladly take the Yankees approach over the next 10 years if we could mirror those results--wouldn't you? There's your check of the Yankees.

I could only dream of winning 4 W.S. in the next 10 years as a Cubs fan.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 3:30 PM CST up reply actions

Listen folks....

....while trading Prior would be a huge loss, it's not like the Cubs would have NO pitching left. We'd have Big Z as a stud, Bedard, Williams, Maddux, and Rusch finishing up the rotation, as well as whatever else Wood could give us. Yes, it'd be nice to have another pitcher, say Zito, as well, but we'd still have a better rotation than the Reds, Pirates, and possibly the Cardinals depending on Wood's production.

by The Boar on Dec 27, 2005 3:37 PM CST reply actions

let's not get carried away

Big Z as a stud, Bedard, Williams, Maddux, and Rusch ... we'd still have a better rotation than the Reds, Pirates, and possibly the Cardinals

i'll go ahead and give you the reds and even the young, improving priates -- but the cards are looking at a six-deep rotation of carpenter (21-5, 2.83), mulder (16-8, 3.64), suppan (16-10, 3.57), superprospect anthony reyes, marquis (13-14, 4.13) and castoff/reject ponson. that's better than what we're looking at WITH prior, much less without.

by gaius marius on Dec 27, 2005 4:07 PM CST up reply actions

right back at ya...

I was speaking as if all starters are healthy. I'll agree the Cards are better based on injury history. If that's what you're saying, no argument from me.

But if you're looking at pure talent, there's no doubt that the Cubs are better with Prior than the Cards, and i'd argue that they'd be as good or almost as good without him and with Bedard.

Zambrano, our ace, is unhittable when he's on. So is Carp, at least v. 2005. That's a push.

Prior, healthy, is a far, far better pitcher than Mulder.

Wood, if healthy, leaves Anthony Reyes in the dust.

I think Maddux and Suppan are probably close to a wash, but I'd give the edge to Suppan slightly. Same goes with Rusch and Marquis.

As for JWill and Ponson, I've no doubt that Jerome Williams can and will match Sid's stats this year. No doubt.

So let's review:

Zambrano = Carp
Prior >>> Mulder
Wood >> Reyes
Maddux < Suppan
Rusch < Marquis
JWill = or > Ponson

So, in my estimation, that's better. Without Prior, it looks like this:

Zambrano = Carp
Wood >>> Mulder
Bedard >> Reyes
Maddux < Suppan
Rusch < Marquis
JWill = or > Ponson.

That doesn't even get into Hill and Guzman being far closer to the majors than any of the Cards prospects not named Reyes. Oh, and "superprospect". He's good, but he ain't no King Felix.

by The Boar on Dec 27, 2005 5:19 PM CST up reply actions

point by point

z and carp -- i agree, a wash.

prior and mulder -- mulder is every bit the pitcher prior is, i'm sorry to say. you wave a wand at durability as though it didn't matter. mulder's career 3.87 era/1.30 whip may not be prior's 3.24/1.19 -- but mulder has averaged 210 ip over the last five years. take mulder's 210 innings and compare it to an amalgam of 150 innings of prior and 60 of glendon rusch to get a fair comparison. that's advantage mulder.

suppan and maddux -- last three years, suppan is 3.97/1.35 with 45 wins; maddux is 4.07/1.19 with 45 wins -- a wash.

rusch and marquis -- marquis career 4.15/1.40 compares very favorably to rusch's 4.88/1.46. advantage marquis.

williams and reyes -- and, let's be honest, this is the valid comparison because wood's career as a starter is nearly over -- williams' 3.92/1.30 in 383 career ip is quite good at just 24 years of age. but, of course, williams has never pitched more than 131 innings in a year. it's even harder to know about reyes -- but his last two years are good stuff, much as williams' time in the minors was. again, i think, a wash.

and if you put bedard in there, it's little different.

by gaius marius on Dec 28, 2005 11:29 AM CST up reply actions

SoCalBob writes:

"...the only way to get there is to trade or sign free agents since our Scouting and Player Development departments have failed to produce 1 single impact player (excluding Prior, Maddux and Z) since Lou Brock."

If you're going all the way back to Brock you would have to add to this list - Don Kessinger, Larry Gura, Joe Neikro, Bill North, Andre Thornton, Joe Carter, Ron Davis, Shawon Dunston, Rafael Palmeiro, Jamie Moyer, Billy Hatcher and, of course, Dontrelle Willis with no doubt a couple of others missing. Still not great development, and it could be argued which of these were disappointing, what an impact player is etc. but not quite as bleak as you say. Almost all of them made at least one All-Star team.

by TR on Dec 27, 2005 4:22 PM CST reply actions

the list wasn't mutually

exclusive. It was directional.

And I meant MVP caliber players. All Star games don't hold a lot of credence.

So in 30+ years we can't even field a team of 10 guys and that's not bleak, huh? Kessinger, Gura, Hatcher, Dunston, Davis, & Moyer (not until after 12 unsuccessful years) were hardly impact players.

Just in the last 10 years Oakland alone has brought Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Chavez, Tejada, McGwire, and Giambi to MVP/Cy Young races. They are all better than the last 30 years of our system.

by socalbob on Dec 27, 2005 4:56 PM CST up reply actions

Dominican Players and Age

I live in a very Dominican neighborhood in uptown Manhattan, and I enjoy talking baseball with guys in my "barrio."
Without fail, every Dominican I talk to about Sammy Sosa says that he is at least 2 years older than he claims to be.
I know this doesn't make it fact, but literally, 100% of the people I talk to from the DR say that Sammy is around 40 years old.
At the time when Sammy came over, it was much more common for Dominican players to lie about their age. For the younger generation of players like Furcal, Aramis and Jose Reyes, their ages are legit. Things have tightened up in that in the past 5-10 years.
Tejada falls somewhere in the middle.
I'm not saying he's older than he says, but I have to agree with the reporter who said he wouldn't be shocked to find that he was a few years older.

by dan the fan on Dec 28, 2005 2:01 AM CST reply actions

The Cubs' weak player development

Socal Bob,

"the list wasn't mutually
exclusive. It was directional."

I don't know what the hell that means. Your statement said:

"our Scouting and Player Development departments have failed to produce 1 single impact player (excluding Prior Maddux, and Z) since Lou Brock."

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

And you say you meant MVP caliber players by impact players. I would argue that a guy like Kessinger, though horribly used as a leadoff hitter during a lot of his career, was an impact player by being a top defensive player at the most important position on the field for a decade. But if you mean MVP candidates, I guess there are only a handful of impact players each season in baseball.

And I sure didn't say the Cubs development was anything but bleak. I just said it wasn't quite as bleak as only three impact players produced in 40 years. Obviously, the ouput has been disappointing as I said. In fact it's been downright terrible. Just better than the three guys you mentioned.

by TR on Dec 28, 2005 4:32 AM CST reply actions

easy there TR

have you ever had a conversation where you make a statement you know is "in the right direction" and you use a few facts without doing all the research to back up your claim?

The Cubs have failed in player development. Is that better without naming names?

by socalbob on Dec 28, 2005 9:40 AM CST up reply actions