MacPhail: Deal is dead (p. 297), stop posting, go outside

[SouthSideRyan]

Why not a Roberts-Fukudome 1-2 punch? Or if DeRosa can play short competently, a Roberts-DeRosa one?

 

I would do Roberts/Fukudome.

 

While I want Derosa to get a shot at SS, I would put the odds of him being able to stay there defensively at minimal at best.

 

I think most agree DeRosa would probably be a below average defensive SS, but I don't think he'll be Brendan Harris out there. I think DeRosa's offense + defense > Theriot's offense + defense.

 

Of course it's dumb for me to bring up cause there's no way they do it.

[David]

I would agree with this as well. You can skew the numbers all you want, but in the end there's really not much difference between the two if they both have "average" years for themselves. They're very comparable players.

 

While Roberts gives you more speed. DeRo gives you alot more versatility. I really wish DeRo could play SS everyday......

 

 

Skew the numbers?

 

Again, in 2006, Roberts had what most here are calling an off, or bad, year. His WARP was 4.2. DeRosa had his best year of his career in 2007, his WARP was 4.5.

 

Am I not getting at something here, or what??

[Guest]

Why not a Roberts-Fukudome 1-2 punch? Or if DeRosa can play short competently, a Roberts-DeRosa one?

 

I would do Roberts/Fukudome.

 

While I want Derosa to get a shot at SS, I would put the odds of him being able to stay there defensively at minimal at best.

I'd do that, as well, but the Cubs are pursuing lefties with the oft-expressed idea of using them to break up the right handers, so I strongly doubt they'll hit 1-2.

 

If Roberts hits leadoff, then there's no real obvious candidate for #2 other than Theriot, which I'd hate to see from a production standpoint.

 

So, as I've said often, we're likely to see a lineup with Soriano, Roberts, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soto, Pie, Theriot as the order. I think to move Soriano down in the order it would take Pie to really step up his game and be qualified to hit in one of the top two spots in the order. Or trading for Figgins in addition to everything else.

[BigbadB]

I'm pretty sure he has only done that once in his whole career, and a big reason for it was that he was intentionally walked eleventy billion times.

 

And you would be incorrect, sir.

 

OBP as a lead off hitter in 2007: .345

OBP as a lead off hitter in 2006: .368

 

Twice in the last two years he's put up .345 or better. He was NOT walked eleventy billion times last year, either. 4 times is how many times he was intentionally walked last year.

[Ryno is God 23]

Why not a Roberts-Fukudome 1-2 punch? Or if DeRosa can play short competently, a Roberts-DeRosa one?

 

I would do Roberts/Fukudome.

 

While I want Derosa to get a shot at SS, I would put the odds of him being able to stay there defensively at minimal at best.

I'd do that, as well, but the Cubs are pursuing lefties with the oft-expressed idea of using them to break up the right handers, so I strongly doubt they'll hit 1-2.

 

If Roberts hits leadoff, then there's no real obvious candidate for #2 other than Theriot, which I'd hate to see from a production standpoint.

 

So, as I've said often, we're likely to see a lineup with Soriano, Roberts, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soto, Pie, Theriot as the order. I think to move Soriano down in the order it would take Pie to really step up his game and be qualified to hit in one of the top two spots in the order. Or trading for Figgins in addition to everything else.

 

I had a crazy thought of maybe Lee hitting second.

[David]

Roberts

2005 - 9.4 WARP Age 27

2006 - 4.2 WARP Age 28

2007 - 7.1 WARP Age 29

 

DeRosa

2005 - 0.8 WARP Age 30*

2006 - 4.3 WARP Age 31

2007 - 4.5 WARP Age 32

 

*Granted, it's not fair considering the circumstances, but I'm including it because I included 2005 for Roberts.

[David]

I'm pretty sure he has only done that once in his whole career, and a big reason for it was that he was intentionally walked eleventy billion times.

 

And you would be incorrect, sir.

 

OBP as a lead off hitter in 2007: .345

OBP as a lead off hitter in 2006: .368

 

Twice in the last two years he's put up .345 or better. He was NOT walked eleventy billion times last year, either. 4 times is how many times he was intentionally walked last year.

 

Are we seriously using "as a leadoff hitter" splits?

 

I usually look at overall numbers, not meaningless lineup position splits.

 

And I never said he was intentionally walked many times last year.

Edited January 7, 2008 by David

[UMFan83]

I see the speed debate is back again. Didn't the 2006 Cubs teach anyone anything?

[craig]

...And if we do keep DeRosa after the Roberts trade, don't be so quick to dismiss the effect he'll have as a backup. It's not just pinch-hitting. There are a ton of backup AB's that he will get over far inferior players. That is definitely significant.....

 

2007 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2007.shtml

2006 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2006.shtml

2005 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2005.shtml

2004 stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2004.shtml

 

I think it's helpful to look at season stats sometimes to realize how many AB's are absorbed every year by guys who were not intended to be starters. If this year is like every recent years, there will be tons of AB's that could be taken by deRosa (if he's having a good year) rather than other subs.

 

Of course, it's not clear at how many positions DeRo really would be the primary backup. 2B and 3B, obviously. 1B, possible but maybe Ward. RF probable, but maybe Murton. LF possible, but probably Murton. SS possible, but not certain.

 

Still, if the premise is that DeRosa is really a good, valuable lineup guy and that he's safe to have a really good offensive season, it's pretty unlikely that acquiring Roberts would make it impossible for DeRosa to get a lot of AB's, if he's so good that they prefer him to subs like Ward and Murton.

 

I also understand that there may be fewer bench AB when the starters are established expensive producers (Lee, Roberts, Aram, Alf, Fuku), compared to when you're starting the year with Hollandsworth in left or Hairston at 2nd or Jacque-and-Floyd in right. But the point remains that whether it's 300 AB or 500 AB's that DeRosa would be taking instead of Bynum or Macias or Hairston or Cedeno or Neifi or Tom Goodwin or Jason Dubois or Angel Pagan type subs, it will probably be a meaningful upgrade. (Assuming Derosa has a good year. And if he doesn't, then Roberts versus DeRosa at 2nd would be more than a marginal upgrade.)

Edited January 7, 2008 by craig

[anabiono]

78 and nothing

[SouthSideRyan]

Mark DeRosa isn't a really good option as a backup LF, RF, or 1B. He's a really good option as a backup 2B or 3B, and a pretty good option as a right handed pinch hitter. Moving DeRosa to a utility role so he can take time away from Daryle Ward isn't my idea of optimizing your abilities. Remember how widely the Phillies were ridiculed for moving Brett Myers to the closer role. That's what we're trying to to do with DeRosa. This way we can have him get 1 or 2 ABs a game instead of a full 4. BRILLIANT!

[SouthSideRyan]

78 and nothing

 

Oh, we're going 100 even if nothing ever happens. If an actual trade takes place, this is setting non-game thread records.

[David]

Mark DeRosa isn't a really good option as a backup LF, RF, or 1B. He's a really good option as a backup 2B or 3B, and a pretty good option as a right handed pinch hitter. Moving DeRosa to a utility role so he can take time away from Daryle Ward isn't my idea of optimizing your abilities. Remember how widely the Phillies were ridiculed for moving Brett Myers to the closer role. That's what we're trying to to do with DeRosa. This way we can have him get 1 or 2 ABs a game instead of a full 4. BRILLIANT!

 

 

I'm confused.

 

This analogy would make sense if Roberts weren't better than DeRosa. He is.

 

I expect better from you, SSR.

[BigbadB]

Are we seriously using "as a leadoff hitter" splits?

 

I usually look at overall numbers, not meaningless lineup position splits.

 

And I never said he was intentionally walked many times last year.

 

Considering the fact that we are comparing his ability to hit lead off, yes, I am using his lead off numbers. Is it that far-fetched? I used Brian Roberts' lead off numbers as well.

 

You can call line up position splits meaningless if you like, but just because they are meaningless to you doesn't make them meaningless to everyone else. It's not like Soriano only hit in the lead off spot 20 or 30 times over the last 2 years. We're talking over 1200 PA leading off, which is not a small sample size by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Some players believe they hit better if they are hitting in a certain line up spot. Soriano is one of those guys. He wants to lead off. And if Soriano tells Piniella that the addition of Roberts doesn't change the fact Soriano wants to continue leading off, I have a feeling the 130m player can give a convincing enough argument to carry a bit of weight. I also wouldn't put it past a guy like Soriano to not try as hard to be successful at the plate if he isn't hitting where he wants to hit in the line up. He pulled a fairly similar stunt in Washington when they moved him to the outfield. They called his bluff, but he wasn't the proud owner of a long term commitment when he said he wouldn't play the OF, so he caved in.

 

Are you really going to tell me that Roberts/Theriot would be more suitable to you than Soriano/Roberts? Would you really be happy seeing Ryan Theriot get 100 more plate appearances in 2008 than Alfonso Soriano because of their spot in the batting order?

[Derwood]

can we stop pulling out Lofton '03 crap again? The Cubs offense was not statistically better after adding Lofton. It was pretty much a push.

[jersey cubs fan]

Look at their WARPs. Look at their ages.

 

I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages. You can't justify that one guy is likely to regress and say they other won't. You just can't do it.

 

It's a marginal upgrade no matter how you slice it. There is POTENTIAL for it to be a significant upgrade if Roberts were to repeat his career year 4 years ago, but I don't think we should assume that anymore than we should assume Mark DeRosa will all of a sudden forget everything he accomplished in the last 2 years.

 

Wait, what? I don't have to look at WARPs or their ages? Sounds a little Morganish to me.

 

Their ages matter, especially when talking about the likelihood of a guy regressing. DeRosa is about to turn 33. Roberts just turned 30. Roberts has a much better resume from which to judge his ability to maintain a certain level of production. Any projection of the two has to assume DeRosa will decline first.

[CubColtPacer]

Mark DeRosa isn't a really good option as a backup LF, RF, or 1B. He's a really good option as a backup 2B or 3B, and a pretty good option as a right handed pinch hitter. Moving DeRosa to a utility role so he can take time away from Daryle Ward isn't my idea of optimizing your abilities. Remember how widely the Phillies were ridiculed for moving Brett Myers to the closer role. That's what we're trying to to do with DeRosa. This way we can have him get 1 or 2 ABs a game instead of a full 4. BRILLIANT!

 

The only way it would be comparable to the Myers situation is if the Cubs said they were going to have Mike Fontenot start in order to have DeRosa move around. The main part of the problem was not that they were minimizing Myers impact, but they were letting vastly inferior players get the extra playing time. In the Roberts case, the Cubs limit DeRosa's personal impact a little bit, but they get better both at second base and get better on the bench.

 

The one good thing about Cedeno leaving is that if Theriot bombs, Lou might get more desperate without Cedeno backing him up, and that might lead to DeRosa getting time there or a trade during the season. Last season showed that if Lou doesn't have an obvious option in front of him, he tends to get creative. And I don't see how DeRosa is a bad corner outfielder backup. His bat isn't terrible for the position and his defense is pretty good there (remember Texas thought that RF was his best defensive position).

[SouthSideRyan]

Mark DeRosa isn't a really good option as a backup LF, RF, or 1B. He's a really good option as a backup 2B or 3B, and a pretty good option as a right handed pinch hitter. Moving DeRosa to a utility role so he can take time away from Daryle Ward isn't my idea of optimizing your abilities. Remember how widely the Phillies were ridiculed for moving Brett Myers to the closer role. That's what we're trying to to do with DeRosa. This way we can have him get 1 or 2 ABs a game instead of a full 4. BRILLIANT!

 

 

I'm confused.

 

This analogy would make sense if Roberts weren't better than DeRosa. He is.

 

I expect better from you, SSR.

 

It's more my annoyance that we(not we we, the royal we, the idiot we) have been trying to marginalize DeRosa all offseason just for this purpose of making him our new Jose Macias. It's another sign of Cubs management fixing a hole that isn't there. Must get a leadoff hitter. Must get shiny happy clubhouse people. Must get a Japanese guy. Must get a lefty.

 

Again, as I mentioned Roberts is better than DeRosa. Probably by a couple wins. But IMO, Gallagher and Marshall are better than Dempster and Marquis. Cedeno is better than Theriot. The original trade I wasn't that upset with(Marshall, Murton, Patterson?) Giving up 2 major league ready starting pitchers when you have holes in your major league starting rotation is nutty unless you're getting a huge upgrade in return. We are not.

[David]

Are we seriously using "as a leadoff hitter" splits?

 

I usually look at overall numbers, not meaningless lineup position splits.

 

And I never said he was intentionally walked many times last year.

 

Considering the fact that we are comparing his ability to hit lead off, yes, I am using his lead off numbers. Is it that far-fetched? I used Brian Roberts' lead off numbers as well.

 

You can call line up position splits meaningless if you like, but just because they are meaningless to you doesn't make them meaningless to everyone else. It's not like Soriano only hit in the lead off spot 20 or 30 times over the last 2 years. We're talking over 1200 PA leading off, which is not a small sample size by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Some players believe they hit better if they are hitting in a certain line up spot. Soriano is one of those guys. He wants to lead off. And if Soriano tells Piniella that the addition of Roberts doesn't change the fact Soriano wants to continue leading off, I have a feeling the 130m player can give a convincing enough argument to carry a bit of weight. I also wouldn't put it past a guy like Soriano to not try as hard to be successful at the plate if he isn't hitting where he wants to hit in the line up. He pulled a fairly similar stunt in Washington when they moved him to the outfield. They called his bluff, but he wasn't the proud owner of a long term commitment when he said he wouldn't play the OF, so he caved in.

 

Are you really going to tell me that Roberts/Theriot would be more suitable to you than Soriano/Roberts? Would you really be happy seeing Ryan Theriot get 100 more plate appearances in 2008 than Alfonso Soriano because of their spot in the batting order?

 

I don't happen to believe that players, in the grand scheme, perform any different from one lineup spot to another.

 

It makes a whole lot more sense to me to attribute the anomaly that are Soriano's leadoff splits to the fact that he happened to be hitting leadoff most of the time when he had his career year. Also, his OBP was helped greatly that season because he was in a terrible lineup and was subsequently intentionally walked many, many times.

 

This non-far-fetched happenstance explanation makes 100x more sense to me than some inexplicable psychological effect that hitting first once a game has on Soriano.

 

I'm not sure what the last sentence mentioning Theriot is all about. Lineup positioning matters to the extent that you obviously want to have your best hitters get more PAs than your worst hitters. Even then, it doesn't make a massive difference over the course of the season. The real key is having the right hitters. Ridiculous extreme examples aside, their order doesn't matter all that much.

[BigbadB]

Wait, what? I don't have to look at WARPs or their ages? Sounds a little Morganish to me.

 

Their ages matter, especially when talking about the likelihood of a guy regressing. DeRosa is about to turn 33. Roberts just turned 30. Roberts has a much better resume from which to judge his ability to maintain a certain level of production. Any projection of the two has to assume DeRosa will decline first.

 

Oh, so because I think Roberts is only a marginal upgrade to DeRosa, I'm Morganish? Wow.

 

Have I not heard you say the same exact thing or are you of the impression that Roberts is a significant upgrade to DeRosa?

[David]

Wait, what? I don't have to look at WARPs or their ages? Sounds a little Morganish to me.

 

Their ages matter, especially when talking about the likelihood of a guy regressing. DeRosa is about to turn 33. Roberts just turned 30. Roberts has a much better resume from which to judge his ability to maintain a certain level of production. Any projection of the two has to assume DeRosa will decline first.

 

Oh, so because I think Roberts is only a marginal upgrade to DeRosa, I'm Morganish? Wow.

 

Have I not heard you say the same exact thing or are you of the impression that Roberts is a significant upgrade to DeRosa?

 

 

The Morganish part is probably wanting to ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics.

[Soul]

I love how if the deal doesn't get done by 50 pages, we devolve into bickering at each other. :mrgreen:

[CubColtPacer]

Mark DeRosa isn't a really good option as a backup LF, RF, or 1B. He's a really good option as a backup 2B or 3B, and a pretty good option as a right handed pinch hitter. Moving DeRosa to a utility role so he can take time away from Daryle Ward isn't my idea of optimizing your abilities. Remember how widely the Phillies were ridiculed for moving Brett Myers to the closer role. That's what we're trying to to do with DeRosa. This way we can have him get 1 or 2 ABs a game instead of a full 4. BRILLIANT!

 

 

I'm confused.

 

This analogy would make sense if Roberts weren't better than DeRosa. He is.

 

I expect better from you, SSR.

 

It's more my annoyance that we(ot we we, the royal we, the idiot we) have been trying to marginalize DeRosa all offseason just for this purpose of making him our new Jose Macias. It's another sign of Cubs management fixing a hole that isn't there. Must get a leadoff hitter. Must get shiny happy clubhouse people. Must get a Japanese guy. Must get a lefty.

 

Again, as I mentioned Roberts is better than DeRosa. Probably by a couple wins. But IMO, Gallagher and Marshall are better than Dempster and Marquis. Cedeno is better than Theriot. The original trade I wasn't that upset with(Marshall, Murton, Patterson?) Giving up 2 major league ready starting pitchers when you have holes in your major league starting rotation is nutty unless you're getting a huge upgrade in return. We are not.

 

The Cubs not playing Cedeno or Marshall is a mistake.

 

The Cubs not recognizing that they won't play Cedeno and Marshall and not getting value for them is an even bigger mistake.

 

Maybe the absolute best Cubs team has Cedeno at short, Marshall in the rotation, and DeRosa at second. If the Cubs don't get another starter after the Roberts deal, that alignment would almost certainly be better. If the Cubs do get a starter, then it becomes a much tougher equation.

 

If the team makes one mistake though and have given up on them, does it make any sense to keep them in limited roles just to hope for the small chance that they may get back in the good graces of the manager? I'd rather they get value now rather than sap any value they have by not playing them for another season or two. Then the Cubs would finally deal them, and the complaints would begin that the Cubs dealt them at their lowest possible value.

[BigbadB]

I'm not sure what the last sentence mentioning Theriot is all about. Lineup positioning matters to the extent that you obviously want to have your best hitters get more PAs than your worst hitters. Even then, it doesn't make a massive difference over the course of the season. The real key is having the right hitters. Ridiculous extreme examples aside, their order doesn't matter all that much.

 

It does make a massive difference over the course of the season. The #2 hitter in the line up can end up with somewhere in the vicinity of 100 more at bats over the course of a season than the #6 hitter in the lineup.

 

So, I ask you if you would rather see Ryan Theriot get 100 more plate appearances than Alfonso Soriano in 2008, because that's what you'll likely be getting if you have Theriot batting 2nd.

 

Last year, the Cubs lead off hitter had 765 plate appearances and the Cubs #6 hitter had 682 plate appearances.

[jersey cubs fan]

Wait, what? I don't have to look at WARPs or their ages? Sounds a little Morganish to me.

 

Their ages matter, especially when talking about the likelihood of a guy regressing. DeRosa is about to turn 33. Roberts just turned 30. Roberts has a much better resume from which to judge his ability to maintain a certain level of production. Any projection of the two has to assume DeRosa will decline first.

 

Oh, so because I think Roberts is only a marginal upgrade to DeRosa, I'm Morganish? Wow.

 

Have I not heard you say the same exact thing or are you of the impression that Roberts is a significant upgrade to DeRosa?

 

No, the Morganish part is saying you don't have to look at the numbers or their ages. I think all these subjective terms, significant, marginal, minimal, really muddy the waters when discussing exactly what Roberts would mean. I happen to believe he'll be a marginally significant upgrade.......