Options for the DL and roster moves
Bradley has been down since 4/24 (today is 4/27) 15 days takes him to May 10th or 11th (Milwaukee series) missing travel to AZ, FLA, SF, Hou and then MIL. They could leave Milton to in AZ at the training facility. Groins and I have had them are often a month long ordeal if not treated. DLee he was out for a week, in '07 with the same thing (he says) he could be out until May 12th as well against SD. Options are to bring up Jake Fox who is tearing up AAA and have him take Hoffpauir's role in the OF or 1B, your poison but still the Cubs probably need another OF'er or IF'er (well they don't have another IF'er) on the 40-man and only have Sam Fuld.... meaning they would have to drop someone from the 40-man if they sign someone.
7 months ago
Ivy Walls
71 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
No one would have to be dropped to add an infielder...
As the 40-man roster has only 34 names on it.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 2:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
you are correct.
I think Ivy means someone would have to be dropped from the 25-man.
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doubtful, given the subject of the post...
I took it to mean he was referring to the need to drop someone from the 40-man to add someone who’s not on the 40-man currently, considering the reference to the fact that we have no other IF on the 40-man roster and Fox and Fuld are the only other position players on the 40-man roster.
It would be obvious that we’d have to move someone off the 25-man roster to make room for someone else on the 25-man roster. And Ivy was specifically talking about replacements for DLed players. So I’d be surprised if he was referring to the 25-man roster there.
Regardless, if there’s someone available and we need to DL someone, there’s room on the 40-man roster to do it.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 40 man only has 34 people on it?
Wow you’re right, just realized that. I didn’t even realize that was possible.
by kanderber on Apr 27, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure it is.
There’s no minimum.
What this DOES mean is that players not now on the 40-man who are in the lower levels of the organization could be added if the Cubs want to call them up. Lou has several times since he has been manager, called up people from Double-A.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Apr 27, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many teams don't carry the full 40 players...
it gives them flexibility to add roster guys via trade (or in the case of injury, like this).
Though I’d imagine that most teams have more than 34 – I’d guess high 30s is more common.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't count and that is correct.
WOW….Cubs have left room to make additions.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
by Ivy Walls on Apr 27, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
roster yes, but salary?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's some room.
not a ton. It’s next year that’s really tight.
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt we'd be adding anyone for much more than the minimum...
so I’d bet the organization would be fine.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
minimum plus a few hundred thousand out of respect
but the question is whom?
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
by Ivy Walls on Apr 27, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Micah Hoffpauir doesn't (or shouldn't) have a role in the outfield.
And, from what I understand, Fox is a poorer defender at first base. Therefore, as nice as it is to see Jake hitting so well, I don’t really see how much value he can bring the club aside from a Hail Mary pinch hitting appearance here or there.
And if Aramis is coming back tonight, I don’t think the team needs to do much at third base for the moment. A better backup there (and at SS) would be nice, but it doesn’t seem like the organization has one at the moment.
Last, the team has plenty of outfielders, so Bradley’s absence really isn’t a problem defensively. Naturally, the team needs to do something to replace his offense, but how do you do that on April 27?
I’m starting to understand why they haven’t put anyone on the DL: Because there’s really no one to bring up who would make that much of a difference. Someone tell me what I’m missing here.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it makes sense
everyone is day to day. If you DL someone, you lose productive time. Plus, can you imagine the havoc if Gameboard were DL’d?
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they had DL'd him after the original injury...
… he’d be eligible to come off the DL today, probably would be close to ready, would have avoided the dustup with Larry Vanover, and everyone would probably have been a lot more understanding.
They made a big mistake by keeping him active, during which time he has started one game and pinch-hit in three others.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Apr 27, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
or maybe the reaction would have been over the top.
Either way, they didn’t. Gotta deal with what we got…
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's true.
I wonder whether there’s more here than meets the eye. Maybe the Cubs feared the media uproar of putting Bradley on the DL so soon. Maybe BLou is right and Bradley misled the club somehow – or resisted the idea of going on the DL. Maybe his recovery has just gone more slowly than they initially anticipated. Or maybe he’s on the verge of rejoining the lineup.
I’d say, “I hope they’ve learned their lesson,” but that would imply that this is going to happen all over again at some point. And I don’t even want to go there.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Ramirez is ready and Lee is really day-to-day...
then I agree that the DL approach is unnecessary NOW.
However, in retrospect they should have DLed Bradley immediately. He’s been useless for about 2 weeks, and Piniella has been willing to play Johnson or Hoffpauir in RF in the meantime.
The Cubs could have called up Fox for pinch-hitting and DLed Bradley. That would have avoided the need for wasting a pinch runner every time Bradley got on base as a pinch hitter.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mebbe...
tho Jake isn’t exactly greased lightning on the basepaths.
How long should we give sig lines at the bottom of the comments?
Bradley watch -- out 7 games of 17
by znohitter on Apr 27, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't need to be...
Bradley literally could not run. That’s the only reason he was pinch run for.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would have avoided the need for wasting a pinch runner every time Bradley got on base as a pinch hitter.
true, but why else do we have Gathright? he cannot hit and is not exactly steller in the field
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think Gathright is not a good fielder?
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wasnt saying he is bad
just not great. I am going 100% off opinion, and hvae not looked up URZ, RF, etc. Please educate me if I am incorrect.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
His UZR numbers reveal him to be a very good centerfielder.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, thanks for clearing that up then
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a fan of getting rid of Gathright
That would free up a spot for a backup infielder. Hendry could acquire SOMEONE by trade or off waivers (I don’t think that’s much of a stretch) and the Cubs would still have five outfielders (Sori, Milton, Reed, Dome and Micah). Granted, Micah and Sori can only really play left.
If the Cubs think they can get by with the infielders they have, they really ought to sign Edmonds after getting rid of Gathright. Edmonds will get at-bats given the nagging injuries to Bradley and D-Lee.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 4:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Micah Hoffpauir
is NOT an outfielder. That having been said, I don’t think we need five. We need someone to back up short and third.
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Micah
… could probably hack it in left — at least as well as Daryle Ward did. I agree with you otherwise, though.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley may be back by the time Edmonds is ready to play.
And I think picking up a backup infielder whose value exceeds Joey Gathright’s might be a just a little bit more difficult than you make it sound.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you mean financially?
Because Rosenthal reported last week that Edmonds is itching to play.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
itching to play and being ready to contribute...
are two very different things. We’re talking about a guy who had no spring training whatsoever. He’s two months behind other players. Remember how slow he started last year? What’s to say this year would be different? And who’s to say that he’ll be productive at all? Remember his 2006 and 2007?
And once Bradley is healthy, Edmonds’ marginal impact plummets, as he becomes a pinch hitter and no longer an everyday player.
I do agree that getting a backup SS/3B would be ideal, but that’s not necessarily going to be easy.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yabut
I think the same article said that Edmunds would need a couple weeks after being signed to be ready to play
"Respect" ~ Ryne Sandberg
by gwood on Apr 27, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was responding to Daver's comment ...
about it being “a bit more difficult” to pick up Edmonds. I understand that it could take some time to get him ready.
But who cares? Gathright flat sucks, and Edmonds can back up at all three outfield positions AND first base. Considering that he’s available, that the Cubs outfielders (Sori and Bradley, at least) have injury histories AND D-Lee is hurting, why not make the move if you can do it?
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Daver
was talking about picking up a backup infielder who value exceeds Gathright’s as a backup outfield would be difficult.
I do think that Edmunds could have a lot of value to the Cubs because he can play all of those positions. Signing him at the moment would do little to help the Cubs as by the time Edmunds is ready to play, everyone will be back and (presumably) healthy
"Respect" ~ Ryne Sandberg
by gwood on Apr 27, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. Thank you.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is what I was referring to.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, you weren't saying that the act of signing him would be difficult?
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I assume signing Edmonds would be relatively easy.
But he apparently needs at least a couple more weeks to get “game ready.” And by the time he is, Bradley may be back. Then what do you do with Edmonds?
And I think you’re seriously undervaluing Joey Gathright. Yes, he’s a terrible hitter. But he’s a better centerfielder than Jim Edmonds at this point and he’s the only player on this team with truly dangerous speed.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Gathright has much value
And he hardly plays, anyway.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could be our
[insert the name of the guy for Boston who stole a base in the series against the Yankees to come around and score the tying run, helping the Red Sox overcome a 3-0 series deficit]. Granted that means Joey would have to not get picked off.
"Respect" ~ Ryne Sandberg
by gwood on Apr 27, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except Dave Roberts was good
Joey Gathright is not.
Roberts’ career line: .266 / .342 / .366
Gathright’s career line: .262 / .327 / .303
Do you realize how bad a .303 slugging average is? Pierre’s lifetime slugging is .371.
by rlpete on Apr 27, 2009 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's all well and good
I have no delusions that Gathright is good offensively. I was simply making the point, with an attempt at sarcasm, that Gathright has speed, so we could keep him to come into those situations where we need to get a runner into scoring position with a stolen base.
"Respect" ~ Ryne Sandberg
by gwood on Apr 27, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
given our depth issues
I think the Cubs would be better served using that roster spot for a backup infielder or Edmonds.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The backup infielder issue was beaten to death during spring training.
Unless you want to name names, there’s not a lot to discuss on that front.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you've appointed yourself
… referee for what’s worth discussing? That’s nice.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all.
Go ahead and discuss. I’m just saying that it’s all well and good to say, “Hendry should get the Cubs a backup infielder!” But if you can’t name names, the discussion isn’t going to go anywhere.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gathright's not here to hit.
At least he shouldn’t be.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lord knows
if he is, we’re deeply in the sh!t.
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 7:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roberts' value to the Sox was not his hitting...
it was as a pinch runner and defensive sub. He was an extremely good baserunner, and a solid defensive player. Gathright is extremely fast, but his baserunning skills are debatable. His defense is pretty good, but Piniella seems to refuse to use him in that role.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big difference though
The Red Sox in the AL have a lot less need for a pinch-hitter. They could afford a defensive speed guy. The Cubs with their short bench cannot afford a hitter as bad as Gathright. He is as bad or worse than anyone from the Dusty days.
by rlpete on Apr 27, 2009 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem is magnified...
by the injuries and offensive struggles we’ve had. But yes, there is a difference between Roberts in Boston and Gathright in Chicago.
My point was to note that the respective hitting prowess of those two hitters is largely irrelevant with regard to the idea of Gathright being our version of the Sox’s Dave Roberts.
by SouthernCub on Apr 27, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as you can get to his secret moonbase....
How long should we give sig lines at the bottom of the comments?
Bradley watch -- out 7 games of 17
by znohitter on Apr 27, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i am itching to play
and I will play for less than Edmonds I bet. Doesnt mean it is a smart idea for Hendry to offer me a contract.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you hit 19 HRs last year?
Didn’t think so.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had more
on MLB2K7
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hehe
I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt that Edmonds would be worth a small contract and a backup role. Do you?
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but...
…how do we know Edmonds wants to settle for a small contract and a backup role? Is he going to want to bust his ass to get into shape just so Lou can sit him on the bench once Bradley is back on the team? How do we know he’s not looking at a team that already has five outfielders (including Gathright at present) and saying, “Do I really want to wind up sitting next to Micah Hoffpauir in the pecking order?”
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's an idea
Why not ask Edmonds if he’s willing to have that kind of role? He might prefer it to working out at his house.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's a fine idea.
Maybe Hendry’s already doing that. I just don’t see how Edmonds fits on this team long-term, unless they’re already declaring Milton Bradley a wash.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well ...
they could figure they need another quality hitter because Milton will play around 75 games. Sort of a middleground move.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't Reed Johnson fill that role?
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Apr 27, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or as i have said before
offer a minor league contract, and see what he says. that gives him time to get game ready, and allows the Cubs (and the other 29 teams) time to evaluate what he can do to help the MLB squad
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could do that, too.
I’m just not sure Jim Edmonds wants to start the summer in Des Moines.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
by dat cubfan daver on Apr 27, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he has to start at AAA for someone
no one is going to throw him right out there when he has not seen live pitching since October
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 27, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kinda agree with that
If Gathright is the only reason Hendry can’t sign Edmonds to the major league club, then Hendry should dump Gathright.
That said, I realize there could be other factors in play.
by elgato on Apr 27, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Edmonds
Edmonds is not the answer. As been pointed out several times on various posts on here Edmonds would take weeks, I would think 3-4 at least, before he is game ready, If everyone is not back and playing by then an Edmonds signing would do little to help.
Anyone remember Gary Gaetti? Cubs signed him, don’t remember the year, and Gaetti had a good month-month and a half. Instead of looking for a 3B over the winter the Cubs resigned Gaetti thinking he was still a MLB 3B. He wasn’t….I see Edmonds being a repeat of the same kind of misguided, let your heart make a decision mistake as resigning Gaetti several years ago.
If there are not options with the minor league system to cover minor injuries (by minor I mean injuries that require a 15 day DL stinit) here and there then maybe the Cubs don’t deserve to be a contender. Good teams are more than a 25 man roster. Usually teams that win are lucky enough to go through a season with few injuries but, no team goes through a season using the same 25 guys that break camp in March.
I think it’s to early to panic…lots of baseball left. But, isn’t it one of the many great things about baseball that we can all debate, discuss and maybe even argue about what our team should do to play better baseball?
by Rkfd Die Hard on Apr 27, 2009 8:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Gaetti
added laste 98, signed for 99
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 28, 2009 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
