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

[series65cubsfan]

I guess, it was a matter of time before I posted in the thread after reading 200+ pages. And I say no. I'd rather keep the minor league system intact than to trade for a limited time of Roberts. How much do y'all think the Tribune (or whomever acquires the Cubs) will be willing to spend on payroll in the long term? I just can't see constricting the future for a 'shot' this year. Furthermore, extending Roberts will be expensive. Without the pieces to help rebuild.

 

Perhaps, I'm just tired of the whole thing and just need some baseball. I don't think the terms of the contract (as I've heard them during the last 200+ pages) are equitable.

[rawaction]

So, it looks like Gallagher, Ronny, E-Patt, and Veal. From Peace21 the O's want to look at Veal longer. FWIW Peace21 likes that trade, but hes not AM.

 

I'm lukewarm on it. Gallagher still has some development left to do, but he could be an asset to this team if injury/sucktitude problems hit by mid-season. I don't like the way the Cubs are looking at SS coming into next season if they don't have Cedeno in there. E-Patt and Veal I won't feel too bad about seeing go.

 

I'd do it in a second. I'm not that high on Veal and Patterson anymore. Gallagher is the quality prospect of the group, but the Cubs aren't gonna trade for Roberts without giving up at least 1 real quality young player. Cedeno only hurts because Theriot isn't good.

 

The best thing about this deal is that it keeps Murton around. He's the only player out of the 5 listed that would contribute to the 2008 team anyway, and his contribution could be quite huge as a 4th OF, top RH bat off the bench.

[David]

I guess, it was a matter of time before I posted in the thread after reading 200+ pages. And I say no. I'd rather keep the minor league system intact than to trade for a limited time of Roberts. How much do y'all think the Tribune (or whomever acquires the Cubs) will be willing to spend on payroll in the long term? I just can't see constricting the future for a 'shot' this year. Furthermore, extending Roberts will be expensive. Without the pieces to help rebuild.

 

Perhaps, I'm just tired of the whole thing and just need some baseball. I don't think the terms of the contract (as I've heard them during the last 200+ pages) are equitable.

 

 

Honestly, I don't see that as one of the big issues with this deal. This team is obviously built to win now, and while, at 31, I wouldn't look at Roberts as much of a long term option, anyway (maybe the two additional years on his deal plus 2-3 more), I've never been one to really worry a whole lot about the Cubs keeping important players around (at least, not recently). They usually don't have much trouble getting guys re-signed when they want/need to (even in the middle of this uncertain ownership situation, thus far). I don't think we need to worry a whole lot about payroll at this point. Again, though, Roberts, like much of this team, is in the 30-31 range, like much of this team's core group. It's not like he's a player just entering his prime that we'll be looking to acquire and lock up for years and years.

 

My concern (as is the concern of many others here) with this deal isn't so much mortgaging the future (or "constricting it," as you put it), but giving up all of our trade-able assets for Roberts, who is definitely a good player and an upgrade, when we could be using it to try solidify the rotation or the SS position, which are much bigger holes. It appears, though, that Hendry is happy with those two spots and isn't looking at upgrading them at all, unfortunately.

 

It does bring up an interesting question, though. What will the Cubs be doing in the next 4-5 years as this team collectively ages it's way out of its prime years?

[ThePenguin11]

I guess, it was a matter of time before I posted in the thread after reading 200+ pages. And I say no. I'd rather keep the minor league system intact than to trade for a limited time of Roberts. How much do y'all think the Tribune (or whomever acquires the Cubs) will be willing to spend on payroll in the long term? I just can't see constricting the future for a 'shot' this year. Furthermore, extending Roberts will be expensive. Without the pieces to help rebuild.

 

Perhaps, I'm just tired of the whole thing and just need some baseball. I don't think the terms of the contract (as I've heard them during the last 200+ pages) are equitable.

 

 

Honestly, I don't see that as one of the big issues with this deal. This team is obviously built to win now, and while, at 31, I wouldn't look at Roberts as much of a long term option, anyway (maybe the two additional years on his deal plus 2-3 more), I've never been one to really worry a whole lot about the Cubs keeping important players around (at least, not recently). They usually don't have much trouble getting guys re-signed when they want/need to (even in the middle of this uncertain ownership situation, thus far). I don't think we need to worry a whole lot about payroll at this point. Again, though, Roberts, like much of this team, is in the 30-31 range, like much of this team's core group. It's not like he's a player just entering his prime that we'll be looking to acquire and lock up for years and years.

 

My concern (as is the concern of many others here) with this deal isn't so much mortgaging the future (or "constricting it," as you put it), but giving up all of our trade-able assets for Roberts, who is definitely a good player and an upgrade, when we could be using it to try solidify the rotation or the SS position, which are much bigger holes. It appears, though, that Hendry is happy with those two spots and isn't looking at upgrading them at all, unfortunately.

 

It does bring up an interesting question, though. What will the Cubs be doing in the next 4-5 years as this team collectively ages it's way out of its prime years?

 

The Cubs have to make deals now, for this year, because they need to win now. The window for success can change at any moment. Look at the 2004 Cubs. Who thought the young Bears and Bulls were primed to be great for years to come? You can't bank on the perception that we've got a lot of talent. We're an arm injury to Zambrano or a knee injury to Lee or Ramirez away from mediocrity. You can't build a team coming off a playoff year saying, "We can't put everything we've got toward winning a world series." If it's in reach you mortgage any of it to get you there. (Notice I did not say ALL of it). I get what people are saying is more about Roberts, and I wish we were actually looking for a SS. But adding Roberts does make us better and deeper. It gets us closer to a ring. I'm obviously okay with it.

Edited February 28, 2008 by ThePenguin11

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So, it looks like Gallagher, Ronny, E-Patt, and Veal. From Peace21 the O's want to look at Veal longer. FWIW Peace21 likes that trade, but hes not AM.

Personally, I think that's a bit much considering we already have an acceptable secondbaseman.

 

I have no problem giving up Patterson, but I like Gallagher a lot. If I'm giving up Gallagher, I'd rather not give up Veal. Veal may or may not be anything special, but to throw him into the deal to get a player that while an upgrade is not a huge upgrade is a little much.

 

I can understand why the Orioles want to make out like bandits, and this is probably one of those trades where it may be best for both parties to walk away.

 

Sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make.

[soapy]

i'd do it if they are willing to try Derosa or Roberts at SS. if they plan on simply benching Derosa, i wouldn't want to give up that much.

 

ugh...i hadn't posted in this thread for like the last 100 pages. now i feel all dirty again.

[Old Style]

So, it looks like Gallagher, Ronny, E-Patt, and Veal. From Peace21 the O's want to look at Veal longer. FWIW Peace21 likes that trade, but hes not AM.

Personally, I think that's a bit much considering we already have an acceptable secondbaseman.

 

I have no problem giving up Patterson, but I like Gallagher a lot. If I'm giving up Gallagher, I'd rather not give up Veal. Veal may or may not be anything special, but to throw him into the deal to get a player that while an upgrade is not a huge upgrade is a little much.

 

I can understand why the Orioles want to make out like bandits, and this is probably one of those trades where it may be best for both parties to walk away.

 

Sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make.

I agree. That is way too much to give up, IMO.

[nick23]

I would surmise that the reason soriano scored more runs that roberts is because he was in a superior lineup. The o's lineup was made up of an overaging group. Even Tejada has fallen off over time. The only real way to know would be to see roberts in the top spot w/ this lineup behind him...including soriano. It is very clear that Soriano's running ability has been compromised based on last year's numbers & this year's accounts of his health in camp. Roberts is in the prime of his career as shown last year w/ 51 steals & a high .300's obp. I never said anything about hitting soriano 6th. In fact, i would put fuko second & soriano third w/ followed by lee & ramirez. I think we'd have as good a 1-5 as any in baseball & score many runs for our 3-5 pitchers that will need every run we can muster. Here's to hoping we get roberts for as little as possible, the soriano's leg comes around & that derosa's health issues come to resolution. We will need all the improving we can get in order to break the 100-yr cycle.

 

I used the Lineup Analysis tool at Baseball Musings: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

If you take the Cubs splits from 2007 for the 2nd through 9th spots in the order and plug in Soriano's numbers in the leadoff spot, you get 4.712 runs per game, which equals 763 runs over the course of a 162 game season. It's not that far off considering the Cubs scored 752 last year. If you take the same splits for the Cubs but substitute Roberts' numbers for Soriano's, you also get 4.712 runs per game. Probably a bit of a crude method, but to me it shows that a .377/.432 line out of the leadoff spot is not going to yield a significant number of runs over what a .337/.560 line would, even if you factor speed into the equation.

 

So what do you get when you plug Roberts into the leadoff spot and plug Soriano's numbers into the 2 thru 9 position?

 

My response was to his claim that Soriano only scored more runs due to a superior lineup. I used the Lineup Analysis tool to show that there isn't much of a difference between Soriano leading off and Roberts leading off. Soriano's clear advantage in slugging pretty much makes up for Roberts' advantage in OBP. The question remains, would Roberts leading off and Soriano in the middle of the order be better than Soriano leading off and Roberts batting second? Probably, but I doubt the difference between the two lineups would be very big.

 

I think it would be a nice dilemma to have. I know Sorianio's numbers have been a little better from the leadoff spot and this could be debated forever. If he hits 40 homers from the 4-6 spots he's going to have more RBI's than if he hits 40 homers while batting leadoff. I guess it depends on whether you believe he'll hit worse from down in the order. Personally I think if he was moved down and left there he would be a force and I would not mind seeing him hit between Lee and Aram. Pitchers would have to throw hittable pitches to one of them. If we don't get Roberts, and I don't believe we will, I'd leave him in the leadoff spot because without Roberts there is no one else nearly as good at it as he is. This is all just an opinion though. No sources to prove any of it.

There's a good article on BP right now explaining how dumb it is batting Soriano leadoff. It's free also.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7184

[JGalt73]

B-Rob be gone?

Roberts is scheduled to start at second base and bat leadoff for the Orioles today, a mild upset considering MacPhail has engaged in trade talks with the Chicago Cubs about the two-time All-Star for months.

 

The Orioles will dispatch a scout to Mesa, Ariz., site of the Cubs' training facility, next week to get a closer look at some of the players the two teams have discussed. It's expected that infielder Ronny Cedeno and pitching prospect Sean Gallagher would be in the deal, but the third and/or fourth player still hasn't been decided. Both sides remain optimistic that a deal could get done.

 

"I don't really think much about it anymore," Roberts said. "I know a little bit about the situation, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it."

[David]

While this is hardly a rigorous sample size, it’s interesting to note that in the four years Soriano has batted leadoff, his teams have scored an average of 818 runs, but their unadjusted Equivalent Runs—the number of runs the team should have scored based on their totals of singles, doubles, home runs, walks, etc.—averaged 828.5 runs. In the two seasons Soriano batted in the heart of the Rangers lineup, the Rangers averaged 862.5 runs, even though their unadjusted EqR was only 841.5 runs. In other words, when Soriano batted leadoff, his teams underperformed their run expectations by an average of 10.5 runs. When he batted in the middle of the lineup, they outperformed their run expectations by an average of 21 runs.

 

Soriano is certainly an unusual player, but he’s all the more unusual because of the role he’s used in. There’s a reason it’s unusual to see a player with his talents leading off: it’s the wrong lineup spot for him, and the Cubs would benefit greatly if they used him in a more traditional role.

[JGalt73]

There's a good article on BP right now explaining how dumb it is batting Soriano leadoff. It's free also.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7184

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46955

[Post Count Padder]

Nothing really new, but:

 

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Orioles will scout players in Cubs camp next week to prepare for a possible deal involving Brian Roberts.

 

Rumors about Roberts heading to Chicago have been swirling for months now. The newspaper speculates that Ronny Cedeno and Sean Gallagher would be included in the deal, but notes that "the third and/or fourth player still hasn't been decided."

Source: Baltimore Sun

[UMFan83]

Nothing really new, but:

 

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Orioles will scout players in Cubs camp next week to prepare for a possible deal involving Brian Roberts.

 

Rumors about Roberts heading to Chicago have been swirling for months now. The newspaper speculates that Ronny Cedeno and Sean Gallagher would be included in the deal, but notes that "the third and/or fourth player still hasn't been decided."

Source: Baltimore Sun

 

What the crap does this have to do with Soriano leading off?

[Post Count Padder]

Nothing really new, but:

 

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Orioles will scout players in Cubs camp next week to prepare for a possible deal involving Brian Roberts.

 

Rumors about Roberts heading to Chicago have been swirling for months now. The newspaper speculates that Ronny Cedeno and Sean Gallagher would be included in the deal, but notes that "the third and/or fourth player still hasn't been decided."

Source: Baltimore Sun

 

What the crap does this have to do with Soriano leading off?

I thought this was the immortal Brian Roberts thread.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Nothing really new, but:

 

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Orioles will scout players in Cubs camp next week to prepare for a possible deal involving Brian Roberts.

 

Rumors about Roberts heading to Chicago have been swirling for months now. The newspaper speculates that Ronny Cedeno and Sean Gallagher would be included in the deal, but notes that "the third and/or fourth player still hasn't been decided."

Source: Baltimore Sun

 

What the crap does this have to do with Soriano leading off?

I thought this was the immortal Brian Roberts thread.

it was 215 pages ago

[cubfan1955]

I would surmise that the reason soriano scored more runs that roberts is because he was in a superior lineup. The o's lineup was made up of an overaging group. Even Tejada has fallen off over time. The only real way to know would be to see roberts in the top spot w/ this lineup behind him...including soriano. It is very clear that Soriano's running ability has been compromised based on last year's numbers & this year's accounts of his health in camp. Roberts is in the prime of his career as shown last year w/ 51 steals & a high .300's obp. I never said anything about hitting soriano 6th. In fact, i would put fuko second & soriano third w/ followed by lee & ramirez. I think we'd have as good a 1-5 as any in baseball & score many runs for our 3-5 pitchers that will need every run we can muster. Here's to hoping we get roberts for as little as possible, the soriano's leg comes around & that derosa's health issues come to resolution. We will need all the improving we can get in order to break the 100-yr cycle.

 

I used the Lineup Analysis tool at Baseball Musings: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

If you take the Cubs splits from 2007 for the 2nd through 9th spots in the order and plug in Soriano's numbers in the leadoff spot, you get 4.712 runs per game, which equals 763 runs over the course of a 162 game season. It's not that far off considering the Cubs scored 752 last year. If you take the same splits for the Cubs but substitute Roberts' numbers for Soriano's, you also get 4.712 runs per game. Probably a bit of a crude method, but to me it shows that a .377/.432 line out of the leadoff spot is not going to yield a significant number of runs over what a .337/.560 line would, even if you factor speed into the equation.

 

So what do you get when you plug Roberts into the leadoff spot and plug Soriano's numbers into the 2 thru 9 position?

 

My response was to his claim that Soriano only scored more runs due to a superior lineup. I used the Lineup Analysis tool to show that there isn't much of a difference between Soriano leading off and Roberts leading off. Soriano's clear advantage in slugging pretty much makes up for Roberts' advantage in OBP. The question remains, would Roberts leading off and Soriano in the middle of the order be better than Soriano leading off and Roberts batting second? Probably, but I doubt the difference between the two lineups would be very big.

 

I think it would be a nice dilemma to have. I know Sorianio's numbers have been a little better from the leadoff spot and this could be debated forever. If he hits 40 homers from the 4-6 spots he's going to have more RBI's than if he hits 40 homers while batting leadoff. I guess it depends on whether you believe he'll hit worse from down in the order. Personally I think if he was moved down and left there he would be a force and I would not mind seeing him hit between Lee and Aram. Pitchers would have to throw hittable pitches to one of them. If we don't get Roberts, and I don't believe we will, I'd leave him in the leadoff spot because without Roberts there is no one else nearly as good at it as he is. This is all just an opinion though. No sources to prove any of it.

There's a good article on BP right now explaining how dumb it is batting Soriano leadoff. It's free also.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7184

 

Thanks, great article. I especially like this paragraph:

 

Leading off a player who’s a threat to rap 100 extra-base hits in a season is crazy as it is, but it’s certifiably insane in the NL. Not only does the pitcher make outs 85 percent of the time, but he’s going to bunt a runner on first base over to scoring position as often as he can, negating the advantage of the extra-base hit over the single. Sure enough, last season, despite 33 homers, 42 doubles, and five triples, Soriano finished the season with just 70 RBI. In major league history, no player with 75 or more extra-base hits has ever finished with so few

[Post Count Padder]

Nothing really new, but:

 

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Orioles will scout players in Cubs camp next week to prepare for a possible deal involving Brian Roberts.

 

Rumors about Roberts heading to Chicago have been swirling for months now. The newspaper speculates that Ronny Cedeno and Sean Gallagher would be included in the deal, but notes that "the third and/or fourth player still hasn't been decided."

Source: Baltimore Sun

 

What the crap does this have to do with Soriano leading off?

I thought this was the immortal Brian Roberts thread.

it was 215 pages ago

Oh ok.

[BigbadB]

I would surmise that the reason soriano scored more runs that roberts is because he was in a superior lineup. The o's lineup was made up of an overaging group. Even Tejada has fallen off over time. The only real way to know would be to see roberts in the top spot w/ this lineup behind him...including soriano. It is very clear that Soriano's running ability has been compromised based on last year's numbers & this year's accounts of his health in camp. Roberts is in the prime of his career as shown last year w/ 51 steals & a high .300's obp. I never said anything about hitting soriano 6th. In fact, i would put fuko second & soriano third w/ followed by lee & ramirez. I think we'd have as good a 1-5 as any in baseball & score many runs for our 3-5 pitchers that will need every run we can muster. Here's to hoping we get roberts for as little as possible, the soriano's leg comes around & that derosa's health issues come to resolution. We will need all the improving we can get in order to break the 100-yr cycle.

 

I used the Lineup Analysis tool at Baseball Musings: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

If you take the Cubs splits from 2007 for the 2nd through 9th spots in the order and plug in Soriano's numbers in the leadoff spot, you get 4.712 runs per game, which equals 763 runs over the course of a 162 game season. It's not that far off considering the Cubs scored 752 last year. If you take the same splits for the Cubs but substitute Roberts' numbers for Soriano's, you also get 4.712 runs per game. Probably a bit of a crude method, but to me it shows that a .377/.432 line out of the leadoff spot is not going to yield a significant number of runs over what a .337/.560 line would, even if you factor speed into the equation.

 

So what do you get when you plug Roberts into the leadoff spot and plug Soriano's numbers into the 2 thru 9 position?

 

My response was to his claim that Soriano only scored more runs due to a superior lineup. I used the Lineup Analysis tool to show that there isn't much of a difference between Soriano leading off and Roberts leading off. Soriano's clear advantage in slugging pretty much makes up for Roberts' advantage in OBP. The question remains, would Roberts leading off and Soriano in the middle of the order be better than Soriano leading off and Roberts batting second? Probably, but I doubt the difference between the two lineups would be very big.

 

I think it would be a nice dilemma to have. I know Sorianio's numbers have been a little better from the leadoff spot and this could be debated forever. If he hits 40 homers from the 4-6 spots he's going to have more RBI's than if he hits 40 homers while batting leadoff. I guess it depends on whether you believe he'll hit worse from down in the order. Personally I think if he was moved down and left there he would be a force and I would not mind seeing him hit between Lee and Aram. Pitchers would have to throw hittable pitches to one of them. If we don't get Roberts, and I don't believe we will, I'd leave him in the leadoff spot because without Roberts there is no one else nearly as good at it as he is. This is all just an opinion though. No sources to prove any of it.

There's a good article on BP right now explaining how dumb it is batting Soriano leadoff. It's free also.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7184

 

Thanks, great article. I especially like this paragraph:

 

Leading off a player who’s a threat to rap 100 extra-base hits in a season is crazy as it is, but it’s certifiably insane in the NL. Not only does the pitcher make outs 85 percent of the time, but he’s going to bunt a runner on first base over to scoring position as often as he can, negating the advantage of the extra-base hit over the single. Sure enough, last season, despite 33 homers, 42 doubles, and five triples, Soriano finished the season with just 70 RBI. In major league history, no player with 75 or more extra-base hits has ever finished with so few

 

Score one for Wrigley23 with Baseball Prospectus on his side. However, I see a changing of the guard in regards to the conventional or prototypical lead off hitter. I think the biggest reason Soriano only had 70 RBI in 2007 had more to do with how pathetic the bottom of the order actually was. Ignoring for a moment that Soriano missed nearly a months worth of games, he was hitting behind the pitcher, Bowen, Koyie Hill, Henry Blanco, Cesar Izturis among others.

 

Cubs 2007 #7 hitters: .321 OBP

Cubs 2007 #8 hitters: .294 OBP

Cubs 2007 #9 hitters: .227 OBP

 

The Cubs (if they get Roberts) should have a much better bench with DeRosa, Murton, Ward and Cintron to improve the PH role in the 9 spot, and if they have Theriot hitting 8th all year, there should be improvement in that spot as well. Also, a full season of Soto and continued development of Pie and I think Soriano drives in over 100 runs while also scoring well over 100 runs.

 

That's a pretty good problem to have for your lead off hitter if you also have Roberts, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soto and Pie in your line up regularly. Add in DeRosa grabbing some starts at SS and I think you have a great offensive line up on those days.

 

Jimmy Rollins isn't exactly an OBP machine. Neither is Chris Young or Curtis Granderson. Put good hitters all the way through the line up and I don't really think it matters all that much where people hit.

[David]

That's a pretty good problem to have for your lead off hitter if you also have Roberts, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soto and Pie in your line up regularly. Add in DeRosa grabbing some starts at SS and I think you have a great offensive line up on those days.

 

I don't think we'd ever see that. Barring injuries leading to it as an emergency plan in one game, at least.

[BigbadB]

That's a pretty good problem to have for your lead off hitter if you also have Roberts, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soto and Pie in your line up regularly. Add in DeRosa grabbing some starts at SS and I think you have a great offensive line up on those days.

 

I don't think we'd ever see that. Barring injuries leading to it as an emergency plan in one game, at least.

 

Probably not. But a guy can wish, can't he?

[mul21]

Score one for Wrigley23 with Baseball Prospectus on his side. However, I see a changing of the guard in regards to the conventional or prototypical lead off hitter. I think the biggest reason Soriano only had 70 RBI in 2007 had more to do with how pathetic the bottom of the order actually was. Ignoring for a moment that Soriano missed nearly a months worth of games, he was hitting behind the pitcher, Bowen, Koyie Hill, Henry Blanco, Cesar Izturis among others.

 

Cubs 2007 #7 hitters: .321 OBP

Cubs 2007 #8 hitters: .294 OBP

Cubs 2007 #9 hitters: .227 OBP

 

 

This was my exact thought when I read that. Has there ever been a hitter with numbers similar to Soriano's last year that had the absolute crap hiting in front of him that Soriano did last year? Even if you figure in the pitcher's spot being terrible, you have to expect at least a .330 OBP out of the 7 spot and a .320 OBP out of the 8 spot. Just those minor improvements have to add 10-15 RBI apiece.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd imagine those OBPs are about average for the 7-8-9 spots.

[CubColtPacer]

I'd imagine those OBPs are about average for the 7-8-9 spots.

 

That's an interesting question.

 

2007 average OBP's

7 spot: AL .326, NL .326

8 spot: AL .301, NL .325

9 spot AL .302, NL .241

 

Then again, the NL is kind of weird. The 3 highest OBP spots? 3rd, 4th, and 6th. 3rd and 4th makes sense, but 6th higher than all the others is very strange IMO.

[jersey cubs fan]

This was my exact thought when I read that. Has there ever been a hitter with numbers similar to Soriano's last year that had the absolute crap hiting in front of him that Soriano did last year? Even if you figure in the pitcher's spot being terrible, you have to expect at least a .330 OBP out of the 7 spot and a .320 OBP out of the 8 spot. Just those minor improvements have to add 10-15 RBI apiece.

 

Wait, hold on a second.

 

You have to expect at least a .330 OBP out of the 7 spot and a .320 out of the 8? Are you talking about any team in general, or specifially the 2008 Cubs?

 

In 2007, the average NL team had a .326 OBP. 6 teams were over .330, the Cubs were 7th in the NL, below average but above the median level. The average 8 spot was .325, with 7 teams below .320. The Cubs were tied for last at .294.

 

I'm not sure why people are insinuating Soriano was somehow "screwed over" by the lack of help at the bottom. But I'm also not sure why anybody would expect him to have many more opportunities. They are almost certain to have Felix Pie and some other people providing an extremely limited amount of OBP at the 8 spot. Without Roberts around, they are probably going to have the catcher spot in the 7 hole, which probably means 100-120 games of Soto and 40-60 games of Blanco or Hill. And that probably leaves them with an OBP somewhere around .305-325. Probably average of below average. The 9 spot is the 9 spot and it doesn't matter much, as the Cubs will likely continue to be in the .220s. Their bench is probably not going to be any better than it was last year. Soriano is not going to get many more opportunities to drive in runs than last year.

 

Soriano at leadoff is clearly a waste of his talents, and he's always going to have fewer RBI than he should, given his productivity.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd imagine those OBPs are about average for the 7-8-9 spots.

 

That's an interesting question.

 

2007 average OBP's

7 spot: AL .326, NL .326

8 spot: AL .301, NL .325

9 spot AL .302, NL .241

 

Then again, the NL is kind of weird. The 3 highest OBP spots? 3rd, 4th, and 6th. 3rd and 4th makes sense, but 6th higher than all the others is very strange IMO.

 

Well, the NL is the league with a team dumb enough to bat a 6 hitter like Soriano in the leadoff spot. ;)