BCB Interview: Baseball Prospectus' Will Carroll

by Al on Apr 28, 2007 10:35 AM CDT in Interviews

I had a chance yesterday to run a few quick Cub-related questions by Will -- here are his responses:

Q: Let's talk about Mark Prior's labrum surgery. Why do you think it took so long for them to do this? And what's the prognosis for his future? Finally, could the two injuries he suffered -- the collision with Marcus Giles in 2003 and the broken elbow from Brad Hawpe in 2005 -- have altered his mechanics and caused the shoulder troubles?

A: Rule 1: Always avoid surgery. This one was relatively minor; Hendry's not wrong in calling it a tune-up. Aside from the labrum repair, there's nothing TERRIBLE there. It's just a lot of abuse coming to roost in the form of pain. Still, you have to do everything possible before doing surgery so I can't fault anyone for trying that. Would surgery have been better a year ago? Maybe, but easy to say that now. I'd put a lot more in the latter, as a "piling on" to problems he was having. Let me put this in the simplest terms: according to my sources there was no evidence of ANY TRAUMA. Suggestions that the Giles collision had anything to do with the findings now are incorrect or at the very least shows no clear indication of being the cause.

Q: Is the hamstring injury to Alfonso Soriano going to slow him down?

A: Literally! At least for a bit. He's shown that he's smart about running, knowing there's a recurrence risk. I think that giving up some speed and range is a fair trade, assuming his bat makes the trip to Chicago soon.

Q: What's up with Kerry Wood? What's his prognosis and future?

A: Remember that rule [see above]? Wood did and now he's at the stage where things are either going to come together or they're simply not. I wish I could say something more scientific here, but at this point, Wood's not so much a medical case as he is a mechanical case. I'd love to see him work on nothing but mechanics -- stopping from throwing across his body -- for a couple weeks just to see what happens.

Q: Same for Wade Miller. Any point in keeping him?

A: I never saw the point in having him. What don't you know about your pitchers that you needed another month or two to find out. Miller at this point is at best a passable placeholder. If you really think Miller, right now, is better than Guzman, right now, then you need to cut bait on Guzman and go down the depth chart. There's a lot more to be gained from that approach than merely treading water with a guy you know is going downhill.

Q: If there's anything else you'd care to add that's Cub-related, go ahead!

A: Everyone that thinks the sale of the team is going to have big changes in 2008 is likely wrong. This isn't going to be as quick or as neat a process as most are making it out to be. There's almost no chance that the team will be sold quickly enough to change management by the time of next year's winter meetings in Nashville. Given some of the prices we're hearing, there's a lot of people that think move #1 might be a fire sale.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Fire sale?

That's a very scary thought.

by NDCub on Apr 28, 2007 11:06 AM CDT 0 recs

Yeah.

How is that going to happen? These contracts are big, who has a no-trade clause? As much as people want this to be blown up, I don't trust the Cubs scouts. They can't bring in talent unless its extremely obvious. But then again, Tim Wilken is here, so maybe I should trust them more.

There's not much to sell anyway. Maybe D-Lee? That's pretty much it. The no-trade clauses will stop it unless players accept trades.

"I don't talk. I just let what I do talk for myself." -Johan Santana

by sparkles721 on Apr 28, 2007 11:35 AM CDT up 0 recs

It's not often

that player's don't accept trades, sparkles. About the only time it's done is one of three reasons:

Veteran player playing out the last year or two of his career in a place that he considers home
So that the player can increase his value...get an extension from the team trading for him, for example.
The team attempting to trade for the player is so bad that the player just prefers to stay put.

Rarely do players a team is trying to trade want to stay with that team. Imagine if your employer tried to trade you. Would you feel wanted? Would you feel valued? Would you want to stick around?

The no-trade clause is really there just to give the player the option of declining a trade to a bad team. Other than that, these guys are easily tradeable and with the length of their contracts already, the Cubs won't get much at all in return anyway and the team they are traded to won't have any reason to extend the contracts.

Also, once you get rid of one key player, it's highly doubtful any other player is going to want to stick around.

Everybody on the team is tradeable after this season except Soriano. Even Ramirez, Lee, Lilly and probably even Marquis would be sought after by other teams.

Zambrano and Barrett are free agents.

The Cubs could theoretically trade every player except Soriano and the arbitration eligible players and the players who aren't yet arbitration eligible. They won't get much in return considering their contracts, but it could easily be done.

by Maddog on Apr 28, 2007 2:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

Not sure it can happen with the key guys

Soriano and Ramirez have a no-trade, and I imagine DLee does as well. But Lilly, Marquis, Jones, Blanco, Howry, Dempster, and Eyre all have contracts through 2008, with value of close to $40 million (and Marquis and Lilly are on contract after that).

And with the young pitching prospects theoretically coming of age in the next few years, the pitchers would be expendable. And with Murton developing, Jones will be expendable.

So if that's what they mean by fire sale, I could see that. But when you sign guys to 5+ year deals, they become highly untradable.

by SouthernCub on Apr 28, 2007 12:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

And DeRosa...

Come to think of it, this might be the GOOD kind of fire sale. :)

by SouthernCub on Apr 28, 2007 12:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

A must read on Prior....

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2851466&sportCat=mlb

Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

by JB 23 on Apr 28, 2007 11:49 AM CDT 0 recs

What?

FIRE SALE and revamping the team are decidedly different. Carroll's thoughts don't hold a lot of weight with me.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Apr 28, 2007 1:09 PM CDT 0 recs

Yes...

no one is paying a billion dollars to then throw away all of the proven players. That makes no sense. This isn't like the Marlins or Expos, where the team makes no money. This is one of the most profitable teams in baseball.

The team might go in a different direction (i.e., move some of the bad contracts), but Lee, Soriano, and Ramirez have full no-trade clauses. Considering that and their contracts, trading those three will be nearly impossible.

by SouthernCub on Apr 28, 2007 1:34 PM CDT up 0 recs

The new owner

wouldn't be paying a billion dollars to throw away the players on the team. Zell would "throw them away" and then sell the team for more money.

It makes a lot of sense. The spending spree never made any sense to begin with. The fewer contracts on the team...the more money you get when you sell the team. That's the bottom line. Zell is a businessman and he certainly understands that.

by Maddog on Apr 28, 2007 2:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

Well...

they still can't sell off Lee, Ramirez, or Soriano. So that's not much of a fire sale.

by SouthernCub on Apr 28, 2007 5:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

Why?

I agree that Soriano isn't tradeable with his contract, but both Lee and Ramirez are. Lee will only have 3 years and $39 million left on his contract and Ramirez will have only 4 years left. Of course those guys could be traded.

by Maddog on Apr 28, 2007 7:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

Not impossible...

just very unlikely. Ramirez has 4 years left. Lee has three. And both have complete no-trade clauses. While that doesn't guarantee a trade won't happen, it makes a trade very complicated.

by SouthernCub on Apr 28, 2007 8:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

It's yet to be seen

just how smart Zell is about baseball ownership and value. Certainly he has had success in the area of real estate but that doesn't necessarily translate into baseball biz.

Finally, the $300M figure must be measured in terms of annual salary to determine if it's excessive. Certainly this year's payroll is well within limits.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Apr 28, 2007 3:00 PM CDT 0 recs

Right away

Soriano needs to be fined

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Apr 28, 2007 3:02 PM CDT 0 recs

Wonder if Will Carroll

could supply us with any examples of pitchers who've come back successfully from labrum surgery. Anyway you could contact him, Al?

by bleacher on Apr 28, 2007 8:36 PM CDT 0 recs

Carpenter is one.

n/t

by cwyers on Apr 28, 2007 9:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

Robb Nen

is another one.

Nevermind. He never made it back.

by Maddog on Apr 28, 2007 11:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

Between 2000 and 2004

36 pitchers had surgery on their labrums. Only Rocky Biddle and Chris Carpenter have returned to the form they once had. 34 other pitchers either never returned or were never nearly as good as they once were.

by Maddog on Apr 28, 2007 11:23 PM CDT up 0 recs

Will's original article...

... that I posted in this diary confirms that -- he wrote that Biddle was the only one to that date (the article was from 2004). Since then Carpenter is the only one added to the list.

Prior, thus, has a long uphill climb. IF he makes it back, I wouldn't expect him to be effective till at least 2009.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 29, 2007 3:23 AM CDT up 0 recs