Ken Rosenthal: Soriano 90% a Cub next year (Cubs.com rumor)

[Backtobanks]

I sure can. 5/75 was his ceiling for Beltran, who was also coming off of a career year going into a big contract. Which, coincidentily, here are each lines in said contract year.

 

.267/.367/.548/.915 (Beltran)

.293/.362/.597/.959 (Soriano)

 

No doubt in my mind that Hendry views both equally and will probably think 5/75 is a steal.

 

I think Hendry might go to 4/50, but Hendry knows he needs to sign at least ARam and an expensive pitcher, so any other free agents might be the cheaper variety (Durham, Loretta, Craig Wilson, etc.)

[C.C.]

I sure can. 5/75 was his ceiling for Beltran, who was also coming off of a career year going into a big contract. Which, coincidentily, here are each lines in said contract year.

 

.267/.367/.548/.915 (Beltran)

.293/.362/.597/.959 (Soriano)

 

No doubt in my mind that Hendry views both equally and will probably think 5/75 is a steal.

 

I think Hendry might go to 4/50, but Hendry knows he needs to sign at least ARam and an expensive pitcher, so any other free agents might be the cheaper variety (Durham, Loretta, Craig Wilson, etc.)

 

 

The Cubs will bid just enough to finish 2nd or 3rd place in the FA market.

[Guest]

which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA

 

I don't think that's true jehrico. Seattle is a terrible park for hitters.

 

The real question is whether Soriano can maintain his .084 ISOD. That has driven his obp into acceptable territory. I think he will maintain his power for a couple years. Can he play CF?

Maybe I exaggerated the difference, but LA is possibly the worst hitters park in the league. I didn't mean to imply Seattle is hitter friendly. You shouldn't expect a drop going from LA to Seattle.

 

Seattle is the worst in the league. 921 to LA's 951.

 

Washington is a horrible place for hitters for the sake of this argument. I don't see Soriano mimicking Beltre.

[Jehrico]

which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA

 

I don't think that's true jehrico. Seattle is a terrible park for hitters.

 

The real question is whether Soriano can maintain his .084 ISOD. That has driven his obp into acceptable territory. I think he will maintain his power for a couple years. Can he play CF?

Maybe I exaggerated the difference, but LA is possibly the worst hitters park in the league. I didn't mean to imply Seattle is hitter friendly. You shouldn't expect a drop going from LA to Seattle.

 

Seattle is the worst in the league. 921 to LA's 951.

 

Washington is a horrible place for hitters for the sake of this argument. I don't see Soriano mimicking Beltre.

 

What stat is that? That's not last years park factor, is it?

[cheapseats]

there's no good reason that explains his numbers drop in Seattle, which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA, which is perhaps one of the top two-or-three pitchers parks in the league.

 

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883.

 

Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years.

[Jehrico]

there's no good reason that explains his numbers drop in Seattle, which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA, which is perhaps one of the top two-or-three pitchers parks in the league.

 

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883.

 

Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years.

Six years is a little subjective. LA was tougher last year (which is where I got my info), Safeco was tougher in '04, LA in 03, etc. Some date ranges favor them, and others LA.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

[cheapseats]

there's no good reason that explains his numbers drop in Seattle, which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA, which is perhaps one of the top two-or-three pitchers parks in the league.

 

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883.

 

Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years.

Six years is a little subjective. LA was tougher last year (which is where I got my info), Safeco was tougher in '04, LA in 03, etc. Some date ranges favor them, and others LA.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

 

Any time frame is subjective, but going with six years is better than going with one year. Why did you pick last year instead of this year, when LA is actually the 5th best hitter's park in the league?

 

As for Beltre, I'm not so naive as to believe that there's a 0% chance that he had used PED's, but PECOTA projected him to decline, just as I imagine it will predict Soriano to decline this year. It's not unusual for a player to have a career year and never come close to it again.

 

Which, by the way, is another reason Hendry really failed this past offseason. If DLee repeated his 2005, the Cubs had a shot at being a .500 team, but the odds are that Lee, while being a very good player, will never have a year like 2005.

 

I'm afraid that Hendry will expect similar numbers from Barrett next year, for example, when making decisions. Chances are that Barrett will be one of the better offensive catchers next year but will not be as good as he was this year.

[CubColtPacer]

there's no good reason that explains his numbers drop in Seattle, which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA, which is perhaps one of the top two-or-three pitchers parks in the league.

 

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883.

 

Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years.

Six years is a little subjective. LA was tougher last year (which is where I got my info), Safeco was tougher in '04, LA in 03, etc. Some date ranges favor them, and others LA.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

 

Any time frame is subjective, but going with six years is better than going with one year. Why did you pick last year instead of this year, when LA is actually the 5th best hitter's park in the league?

 

As for Beltre, I'm not so naive as to believe that there's a 0% chance that he had used PED's, but PECOTA projected him to decline, just as I imagine it will predict Soriano to decline this year. It's not unusual for a player to have a career year and never come close to it again.

 

Which, by the way, is another reason Hendry really failed this past offseason. If DLee repeated his 2005, the Cubs had a shot at being a .500 team, but the odds are that Lee, while being a very good player, will never have a year like 2005.

 

I'm afraid that Hendry will expect similar numbers from Barrett next year, for example, when making decisions. Chances are that Barrett will be one of the better offensive catchers next year but will not be as good as he was this year.

 

I would agree that Soriano, Lee, and Barrett would probably never reach their career year-but I think that Lee, and then Barrett has a better chance. Why? They have both made adjustments to actually how they approach the at-bat. The change of stance for Lee was the biggest cause of his numbers. Because of that, he is far more likely to come closer to 2005 than other players when he has overcome his biggest weakness. This can compare to Sosa who overcame his biggest weakness (improved pitch selection) and had several years of career numbers.

 

Barrett has been a much better hitter this year for a good reason. When he came to the Cubs he was a dead pull hitter-everything was right down the third base line. He has really worked on hitting to all fields, and that has made his numbers go up each of the last 3 years, including his height in 2006. I think that will probably be his best year, but I also think he has the approach needed to put up a few more years close to his 2006.

 

As far as I know, Soriano has not changed anything in his approach, but instead is just having an amazing season (same as Beltre did). These examples are far more likely to regress to their previous norms-the only thing that gives me hope for Soriano is that it is not all tied to his hitting this year, but still I believe Soriano is much less likely to come close to his career year than Lee or Barrett are.

[Jehrico]

there's no good reason that explains his numbers drop in Seattle, which is MUCH friendlier to hitters than LA, which is perhaps one of the top two-or-three pitchers parks in the league.

 

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883.

 

Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years.

Six years is a little subjective. LA was tougher last year (which is where I got my info), Safeco was tougher in '04, LA in 03, etc. Some date ranges favor them, and others LA.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

 

Any time frame is subjective, but going with six years is better than going with one year. Why did you pick last year instead of this year, when LA is actually the 5th best hitter's park in the league?

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there. I usually put a good amount of weight into OPS+ and ERA+, but seeing such a large variation in park factor this year, which is weighed into OPS+ and ERA+, has me doubting their validity as stats now. Nothing has changed with Dodger Stadium in the last year to justify that kind of jump that I know of, unless they moved the fences in or something of that nature that I'm not aware of.

[cheapseats]

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there.

 

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size.

[treebird]

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there.

 

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size.

 

park factors actually do jump around quite a bit. using anything less than three years is generally considered a bad idea.

[Jehrico]

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there.

 

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size.

 

I didn't use 6 years because all I knew was the last three, which favored LA :oops:

[Jehrico]

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there.

 

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size.

 

park factors actually do jump around quite a bit. using anything less than three years is generally considered a bad idea.

 

That kind of defies common sense, and undermines what the stat is supposed to do, doesn't it? It seems that way to me anyways...

[Guest]

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there.

 

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size.

 

park factors actually do jump around quite a bit. using anything less than three years is generally considered a bad idea.

 

That kind of defies common sense, and undermines what the stat is supposed to do, doesn't it? It seems that way to me anyways...

 

like most statistics, the larger the sample size the better. luck plays a very key role in baseball. anyway, beltre didn't gain any advantage moving to seattle. I don't think Soriano is moving down that path. his 3-year batting average is .280 and this year is .293 - not a huge jump that can't be sustained. his double and homerun percentages went up slightly but mostly he started taking walks. there is no particular reason he should regress from that. even if he reverts to three year numbers, he is nearly as good as carlos lee. to me this is definitely worth the risk although any analysis should consider the marginal costs. I don't think I want Soriano at 2b although that is clearly the position that absolutely must be improved.

[Soriano12]

I am so sorry to do this, but I heard this over at Cubs.com. Yes I know the general opinion about that place over here. But someone claimed he said it on fox sports a couple of days ago. Did anyone catch him saying that he thinks it's highly likely Soriano will be a Cub next year?

 

The reason I post this is because Soriano would be my #1 choice because it gets us our big bat and replaces a very unproductive Cedeno and keeps Murton in LF. It's the most logical choice.

 

There is probably no statistical data to back up my hunch, but I view Soriano in his walk year as equivalent to Adrian Beltre in his walk year. Beltre was fairly mediocre OBP wise with the bat for most of his career, had the huge year in free agency year, got the huge contract in free agency, and well, you know the rest... basically a bust w.r.t. to the dollar value. Maybe Soriano has had better numbers in his first 5 seasons, but I still can't fathom he'd live up to a 5 year $70M deal. Somebody will pay it, but if I were Hendry, I'd steer clear.

 

Beltre juiced. Soriono's 07 #'s might decline a bit...but nothing Beltre like

[Jehrico]

I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there.

 

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size.

 

park factors actually do jump around quite a bit. using anything less than three years is generally considered a bad idea.

 

That kind of defies common sense, and undermines what the stat is supposed to do, doesn't it? It seems that way to me anyways...

 

like most statistics, the larger the sample size the better. luck plays a very key role in baseball. anyway, beltre didn't gain any advantage moving to seattle. I don't think Soriano is moving down that path. his 3-year batting average is .280 and this year is .293 - not a huge jump that can't be sustained. his double and homerun percentages went up slightly but mostly he started taking walks. there is no particular reason he should regress from that. even if he reverts to three year numbers, he is nearly as good as carlos lee. to me this is definitely worth the risk although any analysis should consider the marginal costs. I don't think I want Soriano at 2b although that is clearly the position that absolutely must be improved.

Soriano was putting up Neifiesque OPSs on the road when he was away from Arlington. I don't think his 3 year stats are in the Carlos Lee range. His home stats alone might support that, but not his combined or his road stats. This year is a definite spike. His OBP and SLG (and hence, OPS) are career highs. His OPS is 87 points over his career best, and over 130 points better than last year when he was in a better hitters park. His OPS had declined from 02 to 03 to 04 to 05 before this years spike. He's over 30 now, there's no reason to expect him to sustain these numbers when he's had a solid 4 year slide and he's at the end of his prime. His walk rates are nearly double anything he's done in his career, and that's a big part of his spike, but it's going to take more than a year to show me that this is legit and not a fluke.

[erik316wttn]

Soriano has been far too up and down in his career to justfiy a big-money deal, IMO.

[Monco]

In 2000 the proposed trade was Sammy to the Yankees for Soriano and garbage, right?

IIRC, it was Sosa for Soriano, Nick Johnson, Ricky Ledee, and I think Ted Lilly. Just imagine if we had pulled that off.

 

Yeah, just imagine--you'd be plenty upset. Sosa almost got the team in the playoffs in 01, and he was our biggest bat in the 03 run. He also put up some mighty fine numbers in 02 and wasn't bad in 04 even, at least until the last month and a half or so.

 

Meanwhile, Soriano has been hot and cold, Nick Johnson is always hurt, Ricky Ledee is a deadbeat, and Ted Lilly is a dime-a-dozen #4 starter.

 

Sometimes, the best trades are the ones not made after all....

 

Nick Johnson wasn't involved. The other player was Jake Westbrook. I believe the Cubs actually preferred Jimenez to Soriano but he had an injury (car accident?). Jackson Melian was being mentioned as a 5th but the Yanks were against giving up 5.

[TarzanJoeWallis]

In 2000 the proposed trade was Sammy to the Yankees for Soriano and garbage, right?

IIRC, it was Sosa for Soriano, Nick Johnson, Ricky Ledee, and I think Ted Lilly. Just imagine if we had pulled that off.

 

Yeah, just imagine--you'd be plenty upset. Sosa almost got the team in the playoffs in 01, and he was our biggest bat in the 03 run. He also put up some mighty fine numbers in 02 and wasn't bad in 04 even, at least until the last month and a half or so.

 

Meanwhile, Soriano has been hot and cold, Nick Johnson is always hurt, Ricky Ledee is a deadbeat, and Ted Lilly is a dime-a-dozen #4 starter.

 

Sometimes, the best trades are the ones not made after all....

 

Nick Johnson wasn't involved. The other player was Jake Westbrook. I believe the Cubs actually preferred Jimenez to Soriano but he had an injury (car accident?). Jackson Melian was being mentioned as a 5th but the Yanks were against giving up 5.

 

Okay, now here's how I remember it...Soriano, Melian, Drew Henson, and Alex Gramen (I think that is his name...a left-handed pitcher).

[David]

In 2000 the proposed trade was Sammy to the Yankees for Soriano and garbage, right?

IIRC, it was Sosa for Soriano, Nick Johnson, Ricky Ledee, and I think Ted Lilly. Just imagine if we had pulled that off.

 

Yeah, just imagine--you'd be plenty upset. Sosa almost got the team in the playoffs in 01, and he was our biggest bat in the 03 run. He also put up some mighty fine numbers in 02 and wasn't bad in 04 even, at least until the last month and a half or so.

 

Meanwhile, Soriano has been hot and cold, Nick Johnson is always hurt, Ricky Ledee is a deadbeat, and Ted Lilly is a dime-a-dozen #4 starter.

 

Sometimes, the best trades are the ones not made after all....

 

QFT