Walker (2B) - 25.9
Matos (CF) - 7.8

Walker is almost 2 wins better than Matos with the bat. Looks like a slam dunk for ol' Todd. But let's throw in BP's defensive numbers just for fun (which I believe are FRAA):

Walker - (-8)
Matos - (+7)

A run prevented is as good as a run scored, so the defensive numbers give Matos a 15 run advantage with the glove, almost entirely offsetting the difference in their offense. Now, I'm not saying that this trade would be a brilliant move by Hendry by any means, and certainly downgrading your starting lineup to improve your bench may not be the best long term strategy. But if Matos can post a .280/.350/.450 line like he did in 2003 (and given that power is one of the last things to develop, he could certainly still see some real improvement in that area, especially as a righty in Wrigley), he'd be at least as useful as Walker with the bat, and definitely more useful defensively. Todd Walker is a useful player, no doubt, but he's definitely on the wrong side of the aging curve, so there's very little chance for him to get materially better.

Graffanino is basically the definition of a solid utility infielder. He's certainly not going to make or break anyone's team, but he'd be a much better pine-rider than most of the jokers that the Cubs have filled out their roster with the last few years. He's probably worth a B/B- prospect, which is what a guy in the 6-10 range is likely to be, so I'd say a trade of that nature is probably fair. Whether or not it's a good move for the Cubs is another story.

2006: Luis Matos .273/.327/.402; -2.09 pNRAA; -1.80 pNRAA/GP

Luis Matos comes in at below average for a left fielder (in centerfield, he is projected to be +3.50 pNRAA), but light years ahead of the 2005 results from Larry Bigbie, Eric Byrnes, and B.J. Surhoff. When .248/.314/.374 is the standout line from the candidates at left, there is a serious issue. I like Matos more than most; if he can stay healthy, he should be league average. I feel like the projection given here cheats him defensively somewhat, which would more than account for the negative run value presented here. A serious improvement for the 06' squad either way.

Oh yeah, if you haven't seen pNRAA yet Derek, its positionally adjusted Net Runs Above Average, my new toy. If you want a copy of the spreadsheet let me know.

And, yes Mark, spreadsheet please. ;)

So far, these rumors about what the Cubs want to do are coming from the Orioles' newspapers. Whoever the source they're referring to is (the Sun referred to "industry sources" and the WaPo referred to a "baseball source"), he's unlikely to have a close connection to the Cubs. As a result, we're likely getting what the Cubs are thinking from an east coast reporter, who's getting it from a source on the east coast, who's getting it from the Orioles GM or an assistant to the GM, who's getting it from someone in the Cubs organization. It wouldn't be surprisingly at all if the Cubs' actual intent is getting muddled along the way.

Thanks.

I think Hendry's alleged interest in Matos can be explained as a desire to flip him to the Nationals for either Soriano or Vidro. Frankly, I take the suggestion that Matos is worth a No. 6 to No. 10 prospect as laughable and I think Hendry would agree. However, he may be willing to flip Matos and that No. 6 to No. 10 prospect to Bowden for Vidro or Soriano. As for which Hendry would take, my gut says Soriano, but they are both players that Hendry tends to favor: Vidro, a good player with a bad injury history; or Soriano, an overrated toolsy player that can currently be bought low.

Not that this is a good idea, mind you, but I think it explains the situation.

And remember, Matos' defensive superiority over Walker is moot since Matos should never see the field for the Cubs, or at least not enough to make an impact. I sure hope there's nowhere for him to play with Murton, Pierre and Jones in the outfield.