Uh-Oh: Cubs offer for Jones confirmed

[jjgman21]

the thing is, using the zips projections posted above, all we need is a .350 OPB out of rightfield and you'll have 7 regulars with OBPs over .345ish, with Cedeno as the only one below. that's real close to what you wished for. thus, I don't see a need for an "impact bat" or a "difference maker" (whatever those terms mean). we just need a solid OF that can put up .350 OBP / .800ish OPS, and we have the team everyone seems to have wanted, Dusty proofing arguments aside.

 

Will Cedeno be a regular. Zips projections also show Neifi Perez with 450 at bats. If that's the case, we're down to 6 guys with OBP's at .345+. If the right fielder is Jacque Jones, we're down to 5.

 

The line up I would have liked to have seen (assuming that Giles was unattainable and using career OBP's) is:

 

Bradley-.350

Wilkerson- .365

Lee-.363

Ramirez-.358 (using last year's since it's likely a closer projection)

Walker-.348

Murton-.350 (assuming a lower one for him, but still respectable)

Barrett-.340 (using something closer to last year as a closer projection)

Cedeno-.330

 

Furcal as a replacement at SS-.348

Cliff Floyd platooning with Wilkerson and Murton-.361

 

Could be regression from any of the players listed above. Could be progression (see Derrek Lee's 2005) from the numbers listed. But, it's a solid line up that was most certainly attainable, except maybe Furcal and the ridiculous contract LA gave him.

 

Using the 8 players in that line up, the Cubs still have enough money left over to sign Millwood, which bulks up the pitching staff and likely replaces Jerome Williams, who was probably involved in the Wilkerson deal.

 

That line up isn't that far off from what we have now, honestly. Pierre could match that OBP next year, though he does give up quite a bit in SLG. Finding someone to provide what Wilkerson could in RF will be the tricky part. Of course, Wilkerson is still available in trade, but what will it take to get him?

 

oh, I am not a Jones advocate, believe me. but as I think you are coming to believe, a Wilkerson or Huff or Green or perhaps even a Sanders/Jones platoon probably gives you pretty close to the team that you wanted, minus the power in the leadoff hole. we're not that far off from not only being a very competetive team for 2005, but set for a few years with a good young core of players.

 

that's why I don't understand all the ranting. disagree with his methods, but we are not all that far away from the team everyone wants.

 

and I would flip flop Wilkerson and Walker in your lineup, but that's just my opinion.

[NewUserName]

I have been critical of the Cubs giving a big lone term deal to JJones. I still would not want to get him for more than 1 year. However he did set a career high in Walks last year. If he was able to duplicate that and get his average up to .275 and get his doubles total back into the 30s, he would then be a decent player. Of course we would need another MVP type year out of Lee and some added production out of ARam, Murton, Pierre and Barrett to have a really good offense. Also since we have already added a player that we hope rebounds from a bad season(Pierre), and relying on a couple of unproven players(cedeno, murton and if dusty will play them) this would seem like we are taking way to many risks.

 

For some reason I think that if the Cardinals added him he would be that 275 33 doubles 23 hr 350 obp guy. If we added him I feel like he would probably be the 245 23 doubles 28 hr 318 obp guy that he has been the last couple of years

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I have been critical of the Cubs giving a big lone term deal to JJones. I still would not want to get him for more than 1 year. However he did set a career high in Walks last year. If he was able to duplicate that and get his average up to .275 and get his doubles total back into the 30s, he would then be a decent player. Of course we would need another MVP type year out of Lee and some added production out of ARam, Murton, Pierre and Barrett to have a really good offense. Also since we have already added a player that we hope rebounds from a bad season(Pierre), and relying on a couple of unproven players(cedeno, murton and if dusty will play them) this would seem like we are taking way to many risks.

 

So you're basically OK with him as long as everyone else has a career year? :wink:

[BigbadB]

that's why I don't understand all the ranting. disagree with his methods, but we are not all that far away from the team everyone wants.

 

and I would flip flop Wilkerson and Walker in your lineup, but that's just my opinion.

 

The ranting is because I felt he overspent for Pierre, and might now overspend for Huff. Guzman and Wellemeyer is way too much. Tampa doesn't want to pay Huff 7.5m next year. Not only do they have guys who can fill his spot with + production (based on Huff's 2005 season), but they are a small market team that saw him have an off year.

 

1. 7.5m is a horrible small market contract if you can get equal production from Delmon Young at league minimum or whatever his major league contract pays him when he makes the team.

 

2. Delmon Young is disgruntled that he hasn't been called up yet. Not a good thing for Tampa, IMO.

 

3. Huff isn't the last available option.

 

4. How many other teams (honestly) have the money available to afford to trade for a corner outfielder coming off a bad year?

 

5. Will Huff make or break the Cubs offseason? I like Huff and think that his 2005 season was an aberration (I know, exact opposite that I think about Pierre's 2005 season), but is he enough to call it an offseason? Personally, I don't think so. Depth will be a big problem for this team. If one of Pierre, Murton or Huff got hurt, it's Pie or Hairston or Patterson. Ughh.

 

Huff with Floyd works. But, what will it cost? Can the Cubs afford both? Yes, it will definitely take away a lot of Murton at bats, but if Cedeno is playing everyday, I don't think Dusty will be in favor of BOTH Cedeno and Murton playing everyday anyway. It's honestly a shame that we have to think like this, but Dusty is Dusty and we've seen how he operates.

 

Yes, the current line up IS close to what I hoped for. But, I don't think it will be enough. Oh, and if Murton is playing everyday, I would fully expect Neifi to get more at bats at SS than Cedeno. It will likely be one way or the other. Murton sits more while Cedeno plays, or Cedeno sits more while Murton plays. Call me a pessimist, but I really don't like our chances of Dusty playing Cedeno and Murton over Neifi and some veteran outfielder that the Cubs add that isn't named Mabry. Murton WILL start over Mabry. But, will he start over any 4th outfielder the Cubs pick up when Cedeno is playing over Neifi?

 

That being the case, a combination of Bradley and Huff, Floyd and Huff, Bradley and Wilkerson, etc... gives Dusty a line up he can use that doesn't hurt the team.

[CubFanPhilly]

Why would Hendry even be thinking about J. Freaking Jones?!?!? I really can't figure out what Hendry is thinking. He's not acting like his job is on the line. Nor does he seem to be thinking long-term. I just don't get it.

 

Hate to say, but I get it. I get it because JJones is the quintessential Jim Hendry move.

 

If you're right Hendry needs to go. (I'm beginning to believe you're right.)

[Coach.]

Jacque Jones

 

Year   AB    R    H    HR   RBI   BB   SB   BA     OBP    SLG    OPS

2005 523 74 130 23 73 51 13 .249 .319 .438 .757

2004 555 69 141 24 80 40 13 .254 .315 .427 .742

2003 517 76 157 16 69 21 13 .304 .333 .464 .797

2002 577 96 173 27 85 37 6 .300 .341 .511 .852

2001 475 57 131 14 49 39 12 .276 .335 .417 .751

2000 523 66 149 19 76 26 7 .285 .319 .463 .782

1999 322 54 93 9 44 17 3 .289 .330 .460 .789

[Fred Hornkohl]

Zips 2006 projection for J Jones.....

 

Name               P    AVG   OBP   SPC   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS 
Jones*             rf  .261  .319  .433 145 541  71 141 26  2 21  76  42 121 11  7 

[RockTheIvy]

Zips 2006 projection for J Jones.....

 

Name               P    AVG   OBP   SPC   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS 
Jones*             rf  .261  .319  .433 145 541  71 141 26  2 21  76  42 121 11  7 

 

Pretty nice K/BB rate...for a pitcher.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Jacque Jones

 

Year   AB    R    H    HR   RBI   BB   SB   BA     OBP    SLG    OPS

2005 523 74 130 23 73 51 13 .249 .319 .438 .757

2004 555 69 141 24 80 40 13 .254 .315 .427 .742

2003 517 76 157 16 69 21 13 .304 .333 .464 .797

2002 577 96 173 27 85 37 6 .300 .341 .511 .852

2001 475 57 131 14 49 39 12 .276 .335 .417 .751

2000 523 66 149 19 76 26 7 .285 .319 .463 .782

1999 322 54 93 9 44 17 3 .289 .330 .460 .789

 

I'll take 2002 for the win...

[YearofDaCubs]

Zips 2006 projection for J Jones.....

 

Name               P    AVG   OBP   SPC   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS 
Jones*             rf  .261  .319  .433 145 541  71 141 26  2 21  76  42 121 11  7 

Abysmal...

[Fred Hornkohl]

Zips 2006 projection for J Jones.....

 

Name               P    AVG   OBP   SPC   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS 
Jones*             rf  .261  .319  .433 145 541  71 141 26  2 21  76  42 121 11  7 

Abysmal...

 

Yeah.... it's pretty bad. But ya know the hell of it.... that putrid walk rate of Jones' is still .002 BB/PA better than the CUBS' 2005 team average !!!

[NorthsideAvenger]

I'm am so glad to know that this board has alot of people who can control the market for certain players. I mean, come on...it's easy to say Wilkerson/Dunn/Huff/Tejada, etc are available but th question is "how available?" I mean, Wilkerson was available, but Soriano's "percieved value" was apparently worth more to Jim Bowden thant what the Cubs could/would offer. You can't blame Hendry if Bowden is an idiot, who's in love with toolsy player. I seriously doubt Dunn was available, period. Huff, who knows if he is available, but I do know...whoever the GM is...he learn from Lemar. Hendry, IMO, is trying to compare "perceived value" a player has (in reference to how much it will take to get him) to "real value" (how much improvement would that said player would bring). I hate to break it down to people but there isn' an impact OF bat available. Abreu is not available to the Cubs, unless Zambrano or Prior is going to Philly. What I am trying to say is....there is NOT ONE OFer who is rumored (excluding Abreu, seeing as he isn't available to the Cubs for less then Z/Prior) to be on the market that is considered an "impact bat."

 

Personally, I'd offr Jacques a 1 yr deal, with a mutal option (with no incentives, b/c we all know Baker loves to get his players to reach their incentives, don't we). If that don't make it happen, then I would try and sign Reggie Sanders to a 2yr deal.

[TXCubsFan]

If the Cubs sign Jones, Dusty needs to be fitted with an electroshock device that will activate any time he tries to write Jones' name in the lineup against a LHP.

 

Time to pass the hat at NSBB. :D

 

This signing will work better than most people think. Even a platoon with Hairston will be an upgrade from last year.

[anemic offense]

This is why I get frustrated (again not you just in general) when so many people get "tunnel vision" when it comes to OBP. There are so many things that can make a player better that stats don't quantify to where its idiotic to judge players solely on these stats (which is why I usually try not to comment on players I haven't see play). Things such as defense, awareness, baseball acumen, and fundamental hitting are such an imortant part of the game. OBP is EXTREMELY important too, its just not the only thing. Fact is this team was SOOOO BAADDD at so many things that every one contributed to its demise. If we can improve, not solve, all of these things this team will be pretty good. And I may also be in the minority in saying it may not take a whole lot. Young, seemingly fundamental palyers like Cedeno, Pierre, and Murton seem like a start, but they're definately not the finish. Then again we won't really know until June or July...if even then.

 

OBP isn't just extremely important. it's the most important stat in the game.

 

there is no stat that is more directly related to the scoring of runs than the one that reflects the failure to make an out. a team gets 27 outs in a game-giving them away is like moving your back pieces in a game of checkers.

 

I never said that either. All I'm saying is that there are other supplementary aspects that factor hugely into games. OBP is without a dount a HUGE part of offesnive success. But you're making it out like I'm saying the Cards are strictly a small ball team. I didn't. What I'm saying is you have a baseball team that is adept at getting on base AND at playing small ball when they have to. Maybe its' not Rolen, Pujols, or Edmonds doing this specifically, but they're the ones who benefit when the other guys do. Furthermore you can't honestly tell me this Cub team didn't blow a TON of runs because they simply couldnt' move guys over (to get them into scoring position). You can try to diminish the importance of that all you want but it cost this team games. It may not have been the sole cause (it obviously wasn't and I've conceded that) but it hurt just the same. It's an area this team definately need to improve in.

 

On the same token, I'll also concede it's IMPOSSIBLE to imperically quantify (wins losses wise) the importance of executing small ball (when you have to). Then again, I'm also a huge believer in chaos theory. One small change in events can cause a dramatic change later on. When you can eke out a run in a two run, one run, or tied game, it could mean the difference between a BP hack or a BP stud. And although your BP stud is going to blow some games sometimes, you've surely increased your odds of winning. This may only win you a handful of games (again I never made it out be the #1 reason for winning games), but as we've all seen every game is important. If this team can improve in some of these areas I GUARANTEE you (providing the pitching doesn't totally drop off) it will translate into wins. The exact number is completely abitrary but it will help. To deny this would be laugable.

 

This is what I was trying to point out. Stats are an invaluable tool that go a long way to determining a players worth. While its the main thing, its not the only thing. There are some people on this board (and elsewhere) who get so enamored with a players stats, they totally neglect to factor in anything else. Take David Eckstein for example. In some areas his stats don't always jump out at you (although his OBP certainly was great last year). But when you watch him play you realize he plays pretty solid D, is heady on the basepaths, makes the pitcher work his a** off, and can situational hit when he needs to. Now the OBP (for a guy in his position) is the MOST important thing, but its the other things he does in conjuncture with that really make him stand apart. There in lies the issue. You need to SEE the players play as well as crunch their stats. Only then can you appreciate the player as whole. OBP may be the heart that runs the body (of offensive baseball) but its the other things that allow it to move. That's all I'm saying.

[anemic offense]

BTW, this was a GREAT discussion. :) Can't get this stuff ANYWHERE else.