Infielder or Outfielder - What's the Roster Move?

[Backtobanks]

I don't necessarily agree. Ward was signed strictly as a pinch hitter, Derosa was signed to play everyday at 2B, nobody was sure (and still aren't) whether Pie is ready this year, and Floyd was signed to an incentive-laden contract because he has a long history of being injury prone. If Floyd's past shows up and Pie really struggles, then all of a sudden everyone is after Hendry to get another OF. The "problem" has arisen because Floyd has remained healthy and Pie has shown flashes of brilliance.

 

If Floyd wasn't here and Pie wasn't up, the OF would be Soriano, Murton and Jones, and I don't think many people would be clamoring for another guy. And if it was, it wouldn't be the redundent Floyd.

 

 

Hendry bashers blame him for everything that goes wrong on the team, but what about signing Lilly and Marquis and absolutely refusing to trade Hill last year. Soriano will come around, Zambrano will straighten out, Jones will be traded and the Cubs will be okay.

 

Hendry bashers blame Hendry for the sub .500 record during his tenure because he is responsible for everything. Excusing him for one bad signing because he made another good one makes no sense.

 

Exactly. The Floyd signing was unneccessary because we had sooo many guys that could play the corners. The fact that Jones can play CF made him more valuable so had I been in Hendry's shoes, I'd have passed on Floyd altogether. If you subtract Floyd and Pie, you still have 6 guys that can play the OF in Murton, Soriano, Jones, Theriot, DeRosa, and Ward.

 

At the time though, the team didn't know if Theriot could play the OF or not, and I don't think anyone was counting on Ward to play OF.

 

The Floyd signing looks poor now only because Pie came up so quickly (which was partly due to the Soriano injury). If Pie had been held off until June or July (which looked very possible in the offseason) and Floyd had not been signed, the bench would have been Ward/Theriot/Pagan/Cedeno/Blanco. That's not a strong bench at all, and there would have been plenty of complaints that the bench was not producing whatsoever.

 

When Hendry signed Floyd, it basically was a signal that Pie would not be up until Jones was traded. Pie's hot start, Soriano struggling a bit in CF, and Soriano's injury changed all that.

 

That was my point. As I've stated before hindsight is always 20/20. The situation you mentioned above about the weak bench would have had Hendry bashers howling about the fact he did nothing about the bench. The numbers have shown that the Cubs should have a much better record than they do now, so let's give them a chance to become more consistent at the plate and see what happens. Being in the NL Central, if they're at .500 at the All-Star break, they will have more money and trade bait at their disposal to contend the rest of the way.

[davearm]

Am I really hearing this?

 

Folks complaining because the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players?

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

[jersey cubs fan]

Am I really hearing this?

 

Folks complaining because the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players?

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

 

I don't hear that. The problem is they don't have enough quality starting position players, so they have to mix and match with a bunch of less than ideal parts.

[davearm]

Am I really hearing this?

 

Folks complaining because the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players?

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

 

I don't hear that. The problem is they don't have enough quality starting position players, so they have to mix and match with a bunch of less than ideal parts.

What I'm hearing is that Floyd was a bad signing, given the rest of the roster. The implication is that the Cubs would be better off without him.

 

Ergo, the problem with Floyd is that he gives the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players.

[jersey cubs fan]

Am I really hearing this?

 

Folks complaining because the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players?

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

 

I don't hear that. The problem is they don't have enough quality starting position players, so they have to mix and match with a bunch of less than ideal parts.

What I'm hearing is that Floyd was a bad signing, given the rest of the roster. The implication is that the Cubs would be better off without him.

 

Ergo, the problem with Floyd is that he gives the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players.

 

No, he gives the Cubs another not quite starting caliber, but decent if he platoons player, but with no platoon partner. The problem with Jones is he should only face righties. The problem with Floyd is he shouldn't play much. The problem with Murton is that while he's a nice OF at a cheap price, you should really have some serious quality in the other spots. They don't have a real CF on the roster without Pie, so they almost feel forced to put him out there, despite being a potential black hole bat. Soriano in left is the only guy you should feel comfortable starting no matter who else is starting in the other 2 spots.

[davearm]

Am I really hearing this?

 

Folks complaining because the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players?

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

 

I don't hear that. The problem is they don't have enough quality starting position players, so they have to mix and match with a bunch of less than ideal parts.

What I'm hearing is that Floyd was a bad signing, given the rest of the roster. The implication is that the Cubs would be better off without him.

 

Ergo, the problem with Floyd is that he gives the Cubs have too many quality, starting-caliber players.

 

No, he gives the Cubs another not quite starting caliber, but decent if he platoons player, but with no platoon partner. The problem with Jones is he should only face righties. The problem with Floyd is he shouldn't play much. The problem with Murton is that while he's a nice OF at a cheap price, you should really have some serious quality in the other spots. They don't have a real CF on the roster without Pie, so they almost feel forced to put him out there, despite being a potential black hole bat. Soriano in left is the only guy you should feel comfortable starting no matter who else is starting in the other 2 spots.

Well to clarify, I realize that you're not arguing that Floyd gives the Cubs too many quality starting position players.

 

But some other folks here certainly are.

 

Hendry shouldn't have signed Floyd without first trading Jones. If he was going to keep Jones, there was no need to sign Floyd at all since we had already signed another lefty OF, Daryle Ward. It's that simple. Hendry continues to be one of the worst GMs in all of baseball and whether the Cubs win or lose this year, I hope the new owner this offseason fires him immediately.

I agree completely. Hendry has done a terrible job and has overstocked the OF. He just doesn't get it.

 

The Floyd signing was unneccessary because we had sooo many guys that could play the corners.

 

The Floyd signing looked bad at the time because they already had Ward and there's really no reason to carry 2 different LH defensive liability OFs.

That's four quotes from three separate posters implying that the Cubs would be better off without Floyd, absent any other changes/additions to the roster.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's four quotes from three separate posters implying that the Cubs would be better off without Floyd, absent any other changes/additions to the roster.

 

Imply what you want, but I don't think any of them are complaining about too many good players. The problem is too many flawed players.

[frostwyrm]

Soriano's failure in CF is what really mucked things up. With Soriano as a longterm CF Pie would've been very easy to trade and would've brought a nice return. Instead we have Sori at LF creating a horrible logjam at both corners and preventing us from cashing in on Pie's high trade value. I have to blame Hendry for this because we came into the season not knowing if Soriano could hack it in CF, so his failure can't be regarded as a surprise.

[jersey cubs fan]

Soriano's failure in CF is what really mucked things up. With Soriano as a longterm CF Pie would've been very easy to trade and would've brought a nice return. Instead we have Sori at LF creating a horrible logjam at both corners and preventing us from cashing in on Pie's high trade value. I have to blame Hendry for this because we came into the season not knowing if Soriano could hack it in CF, so his failure can't be regarded as a surprise.

 

Anytime you give franchise superstar money to a guy without knowing what position he'll play, and without any reasonable assurance that he'll produce at an elite level regardless of position, you're doing it wrong.

[davearm]

That's four quotes from three separate posters implying that the Cubs would be better off without Floyd, absent any other changes/additions to the roster.

 

Imply what you want, but I don't think any of them are complaining about too many good players. The problem is too many flawed players.

I'm not interested in debating whether Floyd is a "good" player or a "flawed" player. He's probably both, actually. They're not mutually exclusive terms, after all.

 

But I come back to my original question.

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

[frostwyrm]

Soriano's failure in CF is what really mucked things up. With Soriano as a longterm CF Pie would've been very easy to trade and would've brought a nice return. Instead we have Sori at LF creating a horrible logjam at both corners and preventing us from cashing in on Pie's high trade value. I have to blame Hendry for this because we came into the season not knowing if Soriano could hack it in CF, so his failure can't be regarded as a surprise.

 

Anytime you give franchise superstar money to a guy without knowing what position he'll play, and without any reasonable assurance that he'll produce at an elite level regardless of position, you're doing it wrong.

 

Hendry's whole plan for the 2007 OF seems to have been contructed around the idea that Soriano could be a longterm CF, which was never more than wishful thinking.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

 

It's not really opposite though. It's similar, in that it's an unsettled OF situation, with guys playing roles they shouldn't have. Matt Murton was their best OF last year. I like Murton, but that's not good. They've gone from Pierre to Pie, and I'm not sure we'll see any more production.

 

The opposite of last year's OF would be an established highly productive LF, and RF who does not need to be platooned against LHP, and a CF that at least gets on base a lot. The only way it's opposite is CF defense. Otherwise, it remains highly flawed, with no ideal OFers.

[CubColtPacer]

Soriano's failure in CF is what really mucked things up. With Soriano as a longterm CF Pie would've been very easy to trade and would've brought a nice return. Instead we have Sori at LF creating a horrible logjam at both corners and preventing us from cashing in on Pie's high trade value. I have to blame Hendry for this because we came into the season not knowing if Soriano could hack it in CF, so his failure can't be regarded as a surprise.

 

Anytime you give franchise superstar money to a guy without knowing what position he'll play, and without any reasonable assurance that he'll produce at an elite level regardless of position, you're doing it wrong.

 

Hendry's whole plan for the 2007 OF seems to have been contructed around the idea that Soriano could be a longterm CF, which was never more than wishful thinking.

 

If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway. It just so happens that because of the injury Pie came up way early, and before Jones was traded, which has caused the huge logjam in the corner outfield.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not interested in debating whether Floyd is a "good" player or a "flawed" player. He's probably both, actually. They're not mutually exclusive terms, after all.

 

No, they aren't. But you implied that he was both good and starting caliber. He is not.

 

Soriano is an everyday type of LF, but he's not elite.

 

Pie is an everyday CF, if both your corner OF spots are highly productive, the Cubs' are not.

 

Jones is a decent platoon option, if the rest of your OF is settled.

 

Murton is a nice cheap corner OF with decent production, if the rest of your OF is settled.

 

Floyd is a good role player who can help out in LF if CF and RF are settled.

 

Most really good offenses have at least one everyday natural OF who routinely puts up 900+ OPS numbers, and at least one guy who, if he isn't great in the OPS department, does have really good OBP. The Cubs have nobody that fits either bill, and the closest they do have is currently the 5th OF (Murton with the OBP). They could easily go through 2007 without a single OF putting up an OPS+ in excess of 105-110 (above average).

[jersey cubs fan]

If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway.

 

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie.

[CubColtPacer]

If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway.

 

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie.

 

 

The Soriano will play one position all year talk mysteriously vanished after Soriano agreed to play CF. The team tried half the winter to not have Soriano play CF, they weren't exactly going to reverse course and have him play CF all year just because he started the year there, and I'm sure that they explained that to him before they accepted his volunteering to play the position.

[davearm]

 

Have people already forgotten what happened last year when we had the opposite problem?

 

It's not really opposite though. It's similar, in that it's an unsettled OF situation, with guys playing roles they shouldn't have. Matt Murton was their best OF last year. I like Murton, but that's not good. They've gone from Pierre to Pie, and I'm not sure we'll see any more production.

 

The opposite of last year's OF would be an established highly productive LF, and RF who does not need to be platooned against LHP, and a CF that at least gets on base a lot. The only way it's opposite is CF defense. Otherwise, it remains highly flawed, with no ideal OFers.

I wasn't limiting the query about last year to the OF situation.

 

Last year the Cubs were perilously thin basically everywhere. A few injuries and underperformances sent the team to an absolutely dismal season because their depth was horrible and completely ill-equipped to handle these contingencies.

 

Now they've got greatly improved depth (albeit imperfect depth), and people want to complain about that, too, because there's some minor redundancy in guys like Ward and Floyd, and/or Floyd and Jones.

 

The point is that if people were willing to take a step back and consider the alternative, they might just reach the conclusion that a little redundancy is worth living with.

[biittner77]

Last year the Cubs were perilously thin basically everywhere. A few injuries and underperformances sent the team to an absolutely dismal season because their depth was horrible and completely ill-equipped to handle these contingencies.

 

Now they've got greatly improved depth (albeit imperfect depth), and people want to complain about that, too, because there's some minor redundancy in guys like Ward and Floyd, and/or Floyd and Jones.

 

The point is that if people were willing to take a step back and consider the alternative, they might just reach the conclusion that a little redundancy is worth living with.

 

So basically, since the Cubs were completely terrible last year we should feel better about being merely bad so far this year.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm not interested in debating whether Floyd is a "good" player or a "flawed" player. He's probably both, actually. They're not mutually exclusive terms, after all.

 

 

Most really good offenses have at least one everyday natural OF who routinely puts up 900+ OPS numbers, and at least one guy who, if he isn't great in the OPS department, does have really good OBP. The Cubs have nobody that fits either bill, and the closest they do have is currently the 5th OF (Murton with the OBP). They could easily go through 2007 without a single OF putting up an OPS+ in excess of 105-110 (above average).

 

The Yankees haven't had an OF reach .900 either of the last two years, although they have had players close.

Cleveland had one OF reach .900 in 2006, and the highest OF in 2005 was .832.

The White Sox had one OF over .900 in 2006, but both of their other OF's were under .700.

The Phillies have had a couple OF's just a little under .900, but hasn't had an OF reach .900 each of the last 2 years.

Atlanta didn't have anybody in the OF reach .900 last year, although they had one close. Two of the other 3 OF's with significant playing time though had a .742 and a .727.

Texas had a couple OF's somewhat near .900 (although none over and one of them was Carlos Lee for less than half the year).

The Mets had one great OF that was well over .900, but the rest were less than spectacular easily being under .800.

The Tigers had a good part-time OF at .882, but their best full-time OF was at 827.

Boston had a great OF-one guy well over 1.000, one over .800, and the rest between .700 and .800.

The Dogers were also pretty good-one a little under .900, and then several between .750 and .900.

 

I see the Cubs as the most similar to a team like the Dodgers. They didn't have anybody spectacular in their OF, but they didn't have all that many at-bats go to terrible players either. There simply aren't that many .900+ outfielders though, especially ones on the better offenses, and there especially isn't that many people who are almost a lock to put up 900 or over.

[frostwyrm]

If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway.

 

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie.

 

 

The Soriano will play one position all year talk mysteriously vanished after Soriano agreed to play CF. The team tried half the winter to not have Soriano play CF, they weren't exactly going to reverse course and have him play CF all year just because he started the year there, and I'm sure that they explained that to him before they accepted his volunteering to play the position.

 

I have to agree with Jersey's view. Nobody gives a player $136M and then asks him to play out of position for half a season for the sake of a prospect who may or may not come up and take the position. I think Hendry really believed that Soriano could be a good longterm CF.

[Backtobanks]

Last year the Cubs were perilously thin basically everywhere. A few injuries and underperformances sent the team to an absolutely dismal season because their depth was horrible and completely ill-equipped to handle these contingencies.

 

Now they've got greatly improved depth (albeit imperfect depth), and people want to complain about that, too, because there's some minor redundancy in guys like Ward and Floyd, and/or Floyd and Jones.

 

The point is that if people were willing to take a step back and consider the alternative, they might just reach the conclusion that a little redundancy is worth living with.

 

So basically, since the Cubs were completely terrible last year we should feel better about being merely bad so far this year.

 

No you should feel better because:

1. The Cubs have legitimate starters in the rotation at #2, #3, #4 and aren't running out AA pitchers for 80% of the rotation.

2. Soriano and Zambrano will improve during the season.

3. Lee and Soriano have proven track records as power hitters, which they haven't shown yet.

4. The Cubs have a deep bench and bullpen.

5. The Cubs have the means (players to trade and money) to improve their team more than any other NL Central team.

[CubColtPacer]

If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway.

 

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie.

 

 

The Soriano will play one position all year talk mysteriously vanished after Soriano agreed to play CF. The team tried half the winter to not have Soriano play CF, they weren't exactly going to reverse course and have him play CF all year just because he started the year there, and I'm sure that they explained that to him before they accepted his volunteering to play the position.

 

I have to agree with Jersey's view. Nobody gives a player $136M and then asks him to play out of position for half a season for the sake of a prospect who may or may not come up and take the position. I think Hendry really believed that Soriano could be a good longterm CF.

 

That's the thing-the Cubs didn't ask Soriano to do this. That view doesn't fit the available evidence-here goes:

 

1) Soriano is signed-Bruce Miles reports that Soriano has been signed to play one of the corners, not CF.

2) Reports come out that Henry is trying to trade for a stop-gap CF and trade Jones. The quotes were constant "We are not going to do anything to block Pie" "We feel he can be something special, and we are not going to tie up CF long-term"

3. Soriano suddenly volunteers to play CF a month and a half after he signs-the trade talks with Jones stop, and so do the statements that they are not going to move Soriano around between positions.

4. After just a few games, they move Soriano out of CF, even though he didn't look nearly as bad as some of the other converted CF's around the league (Bill Hall for example).

 

None of this supports that they wanted Soriano to be the long-term CF all along.

[YearofDaCubs]

If by long-term you mean three months, then I would agree. They knew that Pie would be up soon, and so they first tried to get a stop-gap CF-but when they couldn't find one of those, they turned to Soriano playing CF-but he would have moved to one of the corners when Pie came up for good anyway.

 

Then what was with all the "Soriano will play one position all year" talk? I think the plan, once they moved him to CF, was to keep him in CF. They blamed his slow start on the move and used the injury as an excuse to bail on that plan. But I don't think they ever planned on playing Soriano in CF until Pie was ready. You don't give a franchise caliber contract to a guy who you expect to keep a spot warm for a rookie.

 

 

The Soriano will play one position all year talk mysteriously vanished after Soriano agreed to play CF. The team tried half the winter to not have Soriano play CF, they weren't exactly going to reverse course and have him play CF all year just because he started the year there, and I'm sure that they explained that to him before they accepted his volunteering to play the position.

 

I have to agree with Jersey's view. Nobody gives a player $136M and then asks him to play out of position for half a season for the sake of a prospect who may or may not come up and take the position. I think Hendry really believed that Soriano could be a good longterm CF.

 

That's the thing-the Cubs didn't ask Soriano to do this. That view doesn't fit the available evidence-here goes:

 

1) Soriano is signed-Bruce Miles reports that Soriano has been signed to play one of the corners, not CF.

2) Reports come out that Henry is trying to trade for a stop-gap CF and trade Jones. The quotes were constant "We are not going to do anything to block Pie" "We feel he can be something special, and we are not going to tie up CF long-term"

3. Soriano suddenly volunteers to play CF a month and a half after he signs-the trade talks with Jones stop, and so do the statements that they are not going to move Soriano around between positions.

4. After just a few games, they move Soriano out of CF, even though he didn't look nearly as bad as some of the other converted CF's around the league (Bill Hall for example).

 

None of this supports that they wanted Soriano to be the long-term CF all along.

I think you're right. They wanted Sori to play a corner not CF. They were surprised he said he wanted to play CF and that's why he was trying it out in ST.

[davearm]

Last year the Cubs were perilously thin basically everywhere. A few injuries and underperformances sent the team to an absolutely dismal season because their depth was horrible and completely ill-equipped to handle these contingencies.

 

Now they've got greatly improved depth (albeit imperfect depth), and people want to complain about that, too, because there's some minor redundancy in guys like Ward and Floyd, and/or Floyd and Jones.

 

The point is that if people were willing to take a step back and consider the alternative, they might just reach the conclusion that a little redundancy is worth living with.

 

So basically, since the Cubs were completely terrible last year we should feel better about being merely bad so far this year.

That so badly misses the point that I can hardly believe you're being serious.

 

Look at *why* the Cubs were terrible last year. No depth, and no ability to weather storms of injury and ineffectiveness.

 

Hendry has rectified that problem by arguably *overstocking* this year's roster, thereby virtually assuring that the roster depth problems of last year will not be revisited this year.

 

The downside (if you can even call it a downside) is the redundancy you and others are railing against.

 

What I'm saying is quit complaining long enough to recognize that the alternative to redundancy, namely vacancy, is far worse, as we saw last season.

[MPrior]

I have nothing to add except that I find it hilarious that someone referenced the Marquis signing as a defense of Hendry.