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

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Understood. I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

 

My stance on it is that I think there's a decent chance that someone like a Kevin Hart will emerge to take a spot if/when Dempster sucks if he does wind up getting the 5th spot. Someone usually does, right? I'm not saying we should just leave it at that, but it's something to take into account. Also, we're obviously hearing the possibility that Hendry will still go after another SP and that he might use DeRosa to do it. That being the case, since Gallagher and Marshall are only as valuable to us as they are because of our crappy bottom end of the rotation situation, we wouldn't be able to judge a Roberts deal fully until Hendry has had a chance to solidify that.

 

There's little chance Marquis is dropped. There's some chance a better pitcher is acquired and Marquis becomes your fifth starter. That's probably the best case. If it came down to a worst case of having nobody emerge, nobody acquired, and Dempster as the fifth starter all year, then yea, that would probably suck pretty bad.

[David]

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.

 

Having the worst (or second worst if Pie really sucks) hitter in your lineup at the top of the order qualifies as one of the "ridiculous extreme examples," in my book. The blame would fall on Lou if that ultimately wound up being the case. And yes, I understand that Theriot hit toward the top of the order much of the time on last year's team.

[BigbadB]

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

 

And if all I ever did was ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics, then I might agree that I was being Morganish. However, I'm not ignoring extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics.

 

I just don't place as much weight on the difference between a 30 year old and a 33 year old. And I place more weight on OPS+ than I do WARP.

 

It's a marginal upgrade. Period. I want to hear Goony tell me it's more than that.

[BigbadB]

No, the Morganish part is saying you don't have to look at the numbers or their ages.

 

Then basically what you are saying is that you weren't paying attention to the whole conversation and probably shouldn't have said what you said.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

One mans marginalizing is another mans rationalizing.

 

We aren't talking about taking some way above average starting pitcher and moving him to the bullpen. We aren't even talking about an everyday player. DeRosa, even when he plays more than he's ever played in the majors, is not an everyday guy. He is a sub 600 PA player who has shown some tendencies to decline with lots of playing time, albeit in just two years of actually playing a lot. He's 33, well past any sort of prime age, and we've probably seen the best he has to offer. He can still be pretty useful, but he's not anything close to an irreplacable cog.

 

I've been touting the importance of improving SS for a very long time. I would much rather see the Cubs improve SS than fiddle with 2B. But even in his solid 2007, DeRosa wasn't even the Cubs everyday 2B, and the Cubs got nothing more than average production from the position. If I have to take away 150-200 PA from DeRosa in order to give 90%+ of the 2B playing time to Brian Roberts, I'm betting I'll be more than happy with the end result. Brian Roberts, with a little Mark DeRosa mixed in is going to be much better than DeRosa, with a fair amount of God knows what mixed in.

 

 

Furthermore, DeRosa as the versatile utility guy should make people ecstatic when compared with the versatile players they used to employ. DeRosa wouldn't be the new Macias, DeRosa would be the fill-in Macias (and others) never stood a chance of being.

 

I don't like all the emphasis on looking for versatility, but at least when you have DeRosa filling that role, you put a stop to Hendry looking for others and possibly filling it with incompetence.

[David]

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

 

And if all I ever did was ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics, then I might agree that I was being Morganish. However, I'm not ignoring extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics.

 

I just don't place as much weight on the difference between a 30 year old and a 33 year old. And I place more weight on OPS+ than I do WARP.

 

It's a marginal upgrade. Period. I want to hear Goony tell me it's more than that.

 

Care to explain why you'd place more weight on the stat that encompasses less than the other?

[mdwilla]

No to Jay Payton. Yes to Kevin Millar. He can handle the corner outfield spots and first base. He bring the Cubs some needed Power from the right side of the plate off the bench , who can get on base at a decent clip.

[mdwilla]

No to Jay Payton. Yes to Kevin Millar. He can handle the corner outfield spots and first base. He bring the Cubs some needed Power from the right side of the plate off the bench , who can get on base at a decent clip.

[David]

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

 

And if all I ever did was ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics, then I might agree that I was being Morganish. However, I'm not ignoring extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics.

 

I just don't place as much weight on the difference between a 30 year old and a 33 year old. And I place more weight on OPS+ than I do WARP.

 

It's a marginal upgrade. Period. I want to hear Goony tell me it's more than that.

 

 

You said..."I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages."

 

BTW, 3 years, especially at that point in their careers, is a pretty significant difference in the span of a major leaguer's career.

Edited January 7, 2008 by David

[BigbadB]

I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

 

The reason it is only a marginal upgrade is because Roberts isn't that much of a better player than DeRosa. A significant upgrade is Derrek Lee over Eric Karros, Hee Seop Choi and Randall Simon. A significant upgrade is Aramis Ramirez over Jose Hernandez, Mark Bellhorn and Lenny Harris. A significant upgrade is Alfonso Soriano over Todd Hollandsworth and Jason Dubois.

 

Significant is when you are not getting valuable production at a particular position and you acquire some who gives you valuable production at a particular position. Significant is when you are getting average production at a particular position and you acquire someone who gives you astronomical production at that particular position.

 

Right now, this Cub team is only looking at a marginal improvement offensively with the addition of Fukudome. If Soto and Fukudome are better than advertised, DeRosa plays SS and Roberts is at 2b, then I would upgrade marginal to significant improvement.

 

Maybe you are just putting too much emphasis on the word marginal?

[jersey cubs fan]

No, the Morganish part is saying you don't have to look at the numbers or their ages.

 

Then basically what you are saying is that you weren't paying attention to the whole conversation and probably shouldn't have said what you said.

 

 

No I'm not saying that. What you wrote in that post was Morganish. I didn't quote everything you wrote in the thread, and I'm not saying your entire opinion is as valid as a Joe Morgan opinion. I'm saying the part about not needing to look at the numbers being very reminicsent of the type of talk Joe Morgan would use.

 

 

OPS is nice, but flawed. OPS+ is probably nicer, but also flawed. Don't you see the value in looking at the deeper numbers, when possible? It may not be as easy to find, but when it's there, why not use it as part of the discussion?

 

When Roberts' name surfaced in the beginning of the offseason, I was not excited. I thought at the time there were much better opportunities to improve the team than by going after a second baseman. However, it's January now, and the 2008 Chicago Cubs lineup looks far to similar to the mediocre Chicago Cubs lineup that ended 2007 (with Fukudome replacing Floyd/Murton's decent OBP and somewhat lacking power). I don't see any realistic SS options on the horizon, but if I did, I'd take those over Roberts in a heartbeat. The Cubs still need to get better. Roberts is not the ideal way to go about getting better, but he would very definitely make them better.

[BigbadB]

You said..."I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages."

 

BTW, 3 years, especially at that point in their careers, is a pretty significant difference in the span of a major leaguer's career.

 

Jesus Christ, dude. Whatever. I'm done with this. There is a 3 year old girl missing in my neighborhood right now and you want to win a pissing contest I really never should have bothered entering. ROBERTS IS A MARGINAL UPGRADE OVER DEROSA regardless of the 3 year difference in age, the difference in their WARP, OPS+, the length of their hair and any other stat you want to throw out there. I'm done with this.

[David]

I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

 

The reason it is only a marginal upgrade is because Roberts isn't that much of a better player than DeRosa. A significant upgrade is Derrek Lee over Eric Karros, Hee Seop Choi and Randall Simon. A significant upgrade is Aramis Ramirez over Jose Hernandez, Mark Bellhorn and Lenny Harris. A significant upgrade is Alfonso Soriano over Todd Hollandsworth and Jason Dubois.

 

Significant is when you are not getting valuable production at a particular position and you acquire some who gives you valuable production at a particular position. Significant is when you are getting average production at a particular position and you acquire someone who gives you astronomical production at that particular position.

 

Right now, this Cub team is only looking at a marginal improvement offensively with the addition of Fukudome. If Soto and Fukudome are better than advertised, DeRosa plays SS and Roberts is at 2b, then I would upgrade marginal to significant improvement.

 

Maybe you are just putting too much emphasis on the word marginal?

 

It's inherently an ambiguous and arbitrary label.

 

That said, I don't see how you can say that a guy who will at worst be slightly worse than DeRosa (and I mean MARGINALLY worse if DeRosa is at his reasonable best and Roberts is at his reasonable worst), at best will be 6 or 7 wins better (if DeRo really regresses and Roberts at his best, which, FWIW, I believe to be more likely than the former scenario due to their ages), and probably winds up being ~3 wins better (if both perform to reasonable expectations) a "marginal" improvement. 3 wins is a lot in itself. 6 or 7 would be huge.

[David]

You said..."I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages."

 

BTW, 3 years, especially at that point in their careers, is a pretty significant difference in the span of a major leaguer's career.

 

Jesus Christ, dude. Whatever. I'm done with this. There is a 3 year old girl missing in my neighborhood right now and you want to win a pissing contest I really never should have bothered entering. ROBERTS IS A MARGINAL UPGRADE OVER DEROSA regardless of the 3 year difference in age, the difference in their WARP, OPS+, the length of their hair and any other stat you want to throw out there. I'm done with this.

 

 

Um, ok? How was I even to know this, and why is it at all relevant? It's not. I hope she's found and gets home safe, though.

[anabiono]

after all of this bickering, roberts better deliver or else we are going to be mighty mighty pissed off...

 

i hope he realizes this too

 

8-[

[Guest]

Understood. I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

I don't see how calling Roberts a modest upgrade is belittling him. Other people may perceive his value to the Cubs differently than you do, but that doesn't make them mean-spirited or irrational. Otherwise one could make a similar argument in your case when you say that Gallagher/Marshall have little to no value other than as insurance policies against poor performances by Marquis/Dempster.

[BigbadB]

No, the Morganish part is saying you don't have to look at the numbers or their ages.

 

Then basically what you are saying is that you weren't paying attention to the whole conversation and probably shouldn't have said what you said.

 

 

No I'm not saying that. What you wrote in that post was Morganish. I didn't quote everything you wrote in the thread, and I'm not saying your entire opinion is as valid as a Joe Morgan opinion. I'm saying the part about not needing to look at the numbers being very reminicsent of the type of talk Joe Morgan would use.

 

 

OPS is nice, but flawed. OPS+ is probably nicer, but also flawed. Don't you see the value in looking at the deeper numbers, when possible? It may not be as easy to find, but when it's there, why not use it as part of the discussion?

 

When Roberts' name surfaced in the beginning of the offseason, I was not excited. I thought at the time there were much better opportunities to improve the team than by going after a second baseman. However, it's January now, and the 2008 Chicago Cubs lineup looks far to similar to the mediocre Chicago Cubs lineup that ended 2007 (with Fukudome replacing Floyd/Murton's decent OBP and somewhat lacking power). I don't see any realistic SS options on the horizon, but if I did, I'd take those over Roberts in a heartbeat. The Cubs still need to get better. Roberts is not the ideal way to go about getting better, but he would very definitely make them better.

 

If I wanted to, I'm sure I could dig and find a post that you have made at one point or another that I could call Morganish or Morganesque. If you want to take a post out of context, that's your prerogative, and that's exactly what you did. In a previous post, I pointed out how Roberts has up and down years and by the formula presents itself, he "could" have another down year. I'm not saying I necessarily buy into up years and down years being a norm, but the original argument was that DeRosa is likely to have a down year and Roberts will not, and I don't buy into that either. Hell, Roberts can fall down and break his ankle on day 1, which would make 2008 a pretty down year.

 

I'm on board with bringing in Roberts. I have been since the first day he was mentioned. I'm not opposed to him at all. In fact, I'd love to see Roberts at 2b and DeRosa at SS. I'm all for improving the team.

 

However, I don't like giving up Cedeno, Gallagher and Marshall to get him, and he's only a marginal upgrade over DeRosa when looking at the 2b position and I'd much rather see a significant upgrade made at SS. I'm on board with the original offer of Patterson, Murton and Gallagher for Roberts.

[David]

Understood. I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

I don't see how calling Roberts a modest upgrade is belittling him. Other people may perceive his value to the Cubs differently than you do, but that doesn't make them mean-spirited or irrational. Otherwise one could make a similar argument in your case when you say that Gallagher/Marshall have little to no value other than as insurance policies against poor performances by Marquis/Dempster.

 

There BK goes introducing another of these awesome subjective words to the discussion. :wink:

 

FWIW, I think modest is better than marginal. :lol:

 

Also, FWIW, I'd start both Marshall and Gallagher over Marquis and Dempster. The Cubs never would, though. They might start one of them over Dempster, though. Or they might start someone else over them. Too early to say.

[Guest]

FWIW, I think modest is better than marginal. :lol:

Modest is moderately better than marginal. :wink:

Edited January 7, 2008 by Anonymous

[jersey cubs fan]

You said..."I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages."

 

BTW, 3 years, especially at that point in their careers, is a pretty significant difference in the span of a major leaguer's career.

 

Jesus Christ, dude. Whatever. I'm done with this. There is a 3 year old girl missing in my neighborhood right now and you want to win a pissing contest I really never should have bothered entering. ROBERTS IS A MARGINAL UPGRADE OVER DEROSA regardless of the 3 year difference in age, the difference in their WARP, OPS+, the length of their hair and any other stat you want to throw out there. I'm done with this.

 

Geez man, ease up. Was he supposed to know about this girl? How does that have anything to do with anything? And how is he any more guilty of pissing contests than you, or anybody else? He's laid out an argument that I don't completely agree with, but that I believe if fairly constructed and defended. That's exactly what this site is about at its best.

[BigbadB]

Understood. I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

I don't see how calling Roberts a modest upgrade is belittling him. Other people may perceive his value to the Cubs differently than you do, but that doesn't make them mean-spirited or irrational. Otherwise one could make a similar argument in your case when you say that Gallagher/Marshall have little to no value other than as insurance policies against poor performances by Marquis/Dempster.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Welcome back, BTW.

 

I think what is lost is that what one person considers marginal may not be the same as someone else's marginal. So, let me put this another way and maybe this will be more clear. Marginal isn't really measurable.

 

Brian Roberts is a significant upgrade over crappy 2b's.

Brian Roberts is a marginal upgrade over decent 2b's.

Brian Roberts is not as good as that dude in Philadelphia, period.

 

Mark DeRosa is a decent 2b.

[David]

If I wanted to, I'm sure I could dig and find a post that you have made at one point or another that I could call Morganish or Morganesque. If you want to take a post out of context, that's your prerogative, and that's exactly what you did. In a previous post, I pointed out how Roberts has up and down years and by the formula presents itself, he "could" have another down year. I'm not saying I necessarily buy into up years and down years being a norm, but the original argument was that DeRosa is likely to have a down year and Roberts will not, and I don't buy into that either. Hell, Roberts can fall down and break his ankle on day 1, which would make 2008 a pretty down year.

 

I'm on board with bringing in Roberts. I have been since the first day he was mentioned. I'm not opposed to him at all. In fact, I'd love to see Roberts at 2b and DeRosa at SS. I'm all for improving the team.

 

However, I don't like giving up Cedeno, Gallagher and Marshall to get him, and he's only a marginal upgrade over DeRosa when looking at the 2b position and I'd much rather see a significant upgrade made at SS. I'm on board with the original offer of Patterson, Murton and Gallagher for Roberts.

 

That's really not the argument, BBB. In fact, I've said (and backed up) several times that DeRosa could have an up year and he'd only be barely better than Roberts in a down year (i.e. DeRosa's 2007 vs. Roberts's 2006). That said, due to their ages, I would say it is more likely that DeRo would have a down 2008 than Roberts, but we obviously won't know that until they play.

 

But I really don't want to keep going in circles about it like this anymore.

[jersey cubs fan]

If I wanted to, I'm sure I could dig and find a post that you have made at one point or another that I could call Morganish or Morganesque. If you want to take a post out of context, that's your prerogative, and that's exactly what you did.

 

Sorry man, but you're wrong. You said you don't need to look at WARP and their ages, even though both are very valid data points to consider for the discussion that was taking place. That's not out of context, it's what you said.

[David]

Understood. I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

I don't see how calling Roberts a modest upgrade is belittling him. Other people may perceive his value to the Cubs differently than you do, but that doesn't make them mean-spirited or irrational. Otherwise one could make a similar argument in your case when you say that Gallagher/Marshall have little to no value other than as insurance policies against poor performances by Marquis/Dempster.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Welcome back, BTW.

 

I think what is lost is that what one person considers marginal may not be the same as someone else's marginal. So, let me put this another way and maybe this will be more clear. Marginal isn't really measurable.

 

Brian Roberts is a significant upgrade over crappy 2b's.

Brian Roberts is a marginal upgrade over decent 2b's.

Brian Roberts is not as good as that dude in Philadelphia, period.

 

Mark DeRosa is a decent 2b.

 

Roberts has averaged 1 win less than Chase the last 3 years. That one might be a marginal upgrade. (I'm kidding...............sort of) :wink:

 

Roberts, at his best, can hang with Chase, though.

[davearm2]

I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade.

 

The reason it is only a marginal upgrade is because Roberts isn't that much of a better player than DeRosa. A significant upgrade is Derrek Lee over Eric Karros, Hee Seop Choi and Randall Simon. A significant upgrade is Aramis Ramirez over Jose Hernandez, Mark Bellhorn and Lenny Harris. A significant upgrade is Alfonso Soriano over Todd Hollandsworth and Jason Dubois.

 

Significant is when you are not getting valuable production at a particular position and you acquire some who gives you valuable production at a particular position. Significant is when you are getting average production at a particular position and you acquire someone who gives you astronomical production at that particular position.

 

Right now, this Cub team is only looking at a marginal improvement offensively with the addition of Fukudome. If Soto and Fukudome are better than advertised, DeRosa plays SS and Roberts is at 2b, then I would upgrade marginal to significant improvement.

 

Maybe you are just putting too much emphasis on the word marginal?

This is truly a silly semantic argument, but surely there must be something in between a little (marginal) and a lot (significant), no?

 

And I'll go ahead and point out that in 3 of the past 5 seasons, the Cubs were either in or out of the playoffs by two wins or less. So marginal can be significant. ;)