Re: Cubs on verge of signing Lieber

[soapy]

If your #5 starter can give you a great shot at an ERA under 5, that's typically better than most teams. Lieber has had an ERA under 5 each of the last 11 years. He is regressing, but at the same time he is moving from a horrible ballpark to pitch in and a ballpark he always struggled in, and he's moving to a ballpark he dominated in.

 

His away numbers the last 3 years:

 

2005: 4.05 ERA, 115.2 IP, 111 H, 81:21 K/BB, 1.25 HR/9, .251/.288/.422 OPS against

2006: 4.64 ERA, 77.2 IP, 90 H, 43:15 K/BB, 1.39 HR/9, .289/.325/.460 OPS against

2007: 4.19 ERA, 38.2 IP, 36 H, 25:15 K/BB, 0.46 HR/9, .248/.327/.366 OPS against

 

Even if he put up his 2006 away numbers or even worse than that, he'd still be a pretty good option for the 5th starter. When you look at his home half of his starts, a good note would be that Lieber was significantly better in Wrigley Field than outside of Wrigley Field when he was a Cub. Wrigley has a great shot to improve his numbers once again just like Philadelphia devalued his numbers.

 

Now, the concern with Lieber. The declining K/BB rate, and the injuries. He is definitely regressing, but the injuries may have made his regression on the K:BB rate artificially inflated. The injuries are still a concern though, and I doubt Lieber gets through the full season without spending some time on the DL. With just a somewhat low priced one year deal though, that's fine. He'll still be a good 5th starter option for this team, even without the nostalgia factor, and the two biggest reasons why are consistency and park factors.

So if he's a pretty good option for a 5th starter, what is Marquis? The whole basis for people supporting him seems to have been, "he's okay for a 5th starter". So I guess now we have two?

 

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but I don't care to see both Lieber and Marquis in the same rotation.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

seriously, i don't like marquis or dempster, but i'd rather have either of them than lieber.

 

Why? Why is it so upsetting to everyone to get 100 innings of league average production from the 5 spot as opposed to 200 innings of below average production?

 

seriously? where are the other 100 innings that lieber can't go coming from?

 

also, i don't think it's written in stone that a fat, oft-injured, 38 year old lieber is league average.

 

Gallagher? Marshall? Hart?

 

and are those guys going to be league average or better?

 

you can't just say 100 average innings is better than 200 below average innings without taking into consideration the necessary 100 innings in the first scenario are probably going to be below average.

 

You can't bash the alternatives for the "other" 100 IP as a reason not to get Lieber, because they're the ones going for 200 IP if we don't have him.

[moorecg]

If your #5 starter can give you a great shot at an ERA under 5, that's typically better than most teams. Lieber has had an ERA under 5 each of the last 11 years. He is regressing, but at the same time he is moving from a horrible ballpark to pitch in and a ballpark he always struggled in, and he's moving to a ballpark he dominated in.

 

His away numbers the last 3 years:

 

2005: 4.05 ERA, 115.2 IP, 111 H, 81:21 K/BB, 1.25 HR/9, .251/.288/.422 OPS against

2006: 4.64 ERA, 77.2 IP, 90 H, 43:15 K/BB, 1.39 HR/9, .289/.325/.460 OPS against

2007: 4.19 ERA, 38.2 IP, 36 H, 25:15 K/BB, 0.46 HR/9, .248/.327/.366 OPS against

 

Even if he put up his 2006 away numbers or even worse than that, he'd still be a pretty good option for the 5th starter. When you look at his home half of his starts, a good note would be that Lieber was significantly better in Wrigley Field than outside of Wrigley Field when he was a Cub. Wrigley has a great shot to improve his numbers once again just like Philadelphia devalued his numbers.

 

Now, the concern with Lieber. The declining K/BB rate, and the injuries. He is definitely regressing, but the injuries may have made his regression on the K:BB rate artificially inflated. The injuries are still a concern though, and I doubt Lieber gets through the full season without spending some time on the DL. With just a somewhat low priced one year deal though, that's fine. He'll still be a good 5th starter option for this team, even without the nostalgia factor, and the two biggest reasons why are consistency and park factors.

So if he's a pretty good option for a 5th starter, what is Marquis? The whole basis for people supporting him seems to have been, "he's okay for a 5th starter". So I guess now we have two?

 

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but I don't care to see both Lieber and Marquis in the same rotation.

 

 

But isn't the question whether you'd rather see Marquis and Dempster v. Marquis and Lieber?

[Soul]

There's a reward of him becoming an effective btm of the rotation and the risk of him is the same as the risk of Marquis.

 

It seems a bit desperate to hope he'll be good, at this age with his injury last year and all the wear on his arm.

[DenverCubs]

This deal just gives us a few more options. If Jim needed to sign Lieber so he'd feel ok about dealing Dempster or Marquis, then it's a good move. I'm still assuming we're on the market for a serious SP upgrade I guess. Lieber's not our answer, but this deal can only help us.

[UK1679666180]

It was a foot injury, I'm not sure it if it was an injury to his stride or pivot foot, which might've impacted his drive and his velo, movement, etc.

 

Wishful thinking has me hoping that his foot problem is cured and the injury impacted his play that month of the year (he had one strong out towards the end though followed by poor ones).

 

Realist in me has me thinking, he'll be a mid 4s pitcher that will throw 85-95 pitches.

Edited January 16, 2008 by UK

[Soul]

This deal just gives us a few more options. If Jim needed to sign Lieber so he'd feel ok about dealing Dempster or Marquis, then it's a good move. I'm still assuming we're on the market for a serious SP upgrade I guess. Lieber's not our answer, but this deal can only help us.

 

On the other hand, if this is Hendry's idea of a solution for the back of our rotation...

[CubColtPacer]

If your #5 starter can give you a great shot at an ERA under 5, that's typically better than most teams. Lieber has had an ERA under 5 each of the last 11 years. He is regressing, but at the same time he is moving from a horrible ballpark to pitch in and a ballpark he always struggled in, and he's moving to a ballpark he dominated in.

 

His away numbers the last 3 years:

 

2005: 4.05 ERA, 115.2 IP, 111 H, 81:21 K/BB, 1.25 HR/9, .251/.288/.422 OPS against

2006: 4.64 ERA, 77.2 IP, 90 H, 43:15 K/BB, 1.39 HR/9, .289/.325/.460 OPS against

2007: 4.19 ERA, 38.2 IP, 36 H, 25:15 K/BB, 0.46 HR/9, .248/.327/.366 OPS against

 

Even if he put up his 2006 away numbers or even worse than that, he'd still be a pretty good option for the 5th starter. When you look at his home half of his starts, a good note would be that Lieber was significantly better in Wrigley Field than outside of Wrigley Field when he was a Cub. Wrigley has a great shot to improve his numbers once again just like Philadelphia devalued his numbers.

 

Now, the concern with Lieber. The declining K/BB rate, and the injuries. He is definitely regressing, but the injuries may have made his regression on the K:BB rate artificially inflated. The injuries are still a concern though, and I doubt Lieber gets through the full season without spending some time on the DL. With just a somewhat low priced one year deal though, that's fine. He'll still be a good 5th starter option for this team, even without the nostalgia factor, and the two biggest reasons why are consistency and park factors.

So if he's a pretty good option for a 5th starter, what is Marquis? The whole basis for people supporting him seems to have been, "he's okay for a 5th starter". So I guess now we have two?

 

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but I don't care to see both Lieber and Marquis in the same rotation.

 

Lieber's actually fine for a 4th starter. A good 4th starter is league average, and a lower end 4th starter is a little below league average. That's Lieber, and he's consistently there. Projecting him for a 4.75 ERA or so would put him as an average 4th starter.

 

Marquis jumps around. Last year he was a #3 starter. He's had years where he shouldn't have been in a rotation at all. It's hard to project what Marquis is because of his huge inconsistency.

 

Lieber and Marquis as the #4 and #5 will likely outproduce most of the #4's and #5's around the National League, unless 1 of 2 things happen:

 

1) Marquis absolutely collapses (another season above 5.50 ERA)

2) Lieber gets hurt, only pitches 70 innings again, and his replacement from the minors is awful.

 

If #2 happens, then it would have happened anyway because the alternative is that replacement from the minors getting all 200 innings. We just have to hope #1 doesn't happen.

 

As I said in another thread, the Cubs were #2 in the NL in their starting rotation last year. Their #5 spot had a combined 5.10 ERA (Miller, Guzman, Marshall, and Trachsel). Z is not likely to drop off much more and might improve back to numbers of a previous year. Lilly will drop off. Hill will likely get a little better. Marquis might stay the same, might drop off a little bit, might drop off significantly. Lieber and anybody who replaces him will likely do better than a 5.10 ERA, so the #5 spot will be better than last year.

 

That makes this rotation of Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and Lieber almost as good as last year. The rotation will likely be top 5 in the NL once again.

Edited January 16, 2008 by CubColtPacer

[nilodnayr]

It was a foot injury, I'm not sure it if it was an injury to his stride or pivot foot, which might've impacted his drive and his velo, movement, etc.

 

Wishful thinking has me hoping that his foot problem is cured and the injury impacted his play that month of the year (he had one strong out towards the end though followed by poor ones).

 

Realist in me has me thinking, he'll be a mid 4s pitcher that will throw 85-95 pitches.

 

Ruptured tendon in his right foot, so its the pushoff foot.

[AlwaysaCub]

This deal just gives us a few more options. If Jim needed to sign Lieber so he'd feel ok about dealing Dempster or Marquis, then it's a good move. I'm still assuming we're on the market for a serious SP upgrade I guess. Lieber's not our answer, but this deal can only help us.

 

Agreed. Marquis is still a problem as the 4th starter in that he's essentially below average, but Lieber is a n upgrade over Dempster and will be a well above average 5th starter, especially in the national league. Obviously we could use an upgrade over Marquis, but there are no better FA starters, and very few teams have depth at pitching.

 

I'm crossing my fingers for this rotation: Z, Lilly, Hill, Marshall, Lieber. I know Lou has a beef for whatever reason with Marshall, but the dude put up a 3.92 era last year and improved his k/bb to almost 2.

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

Dag nab it..the whole Roberts fiasco forced me to avoid the transaction forum, so I compleltly missed on this until now... ](*,)

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

--- I just hope that this is NOT the big annoncement (the signing of J.Lieber) that Hendry and the Cubs, are planning to make before the Convention.

[nilodnayr]

If your #5 starter can give you a great shot at an ERA under 5, that's typically better than most teams. Lieber has had an ERA under 5 each of the last 11 years. He is regressing, but at the same time he is moving from a horrible ballpark to pitch in and a ballpark he always struggled in, and he's moving to a ballpark he dominated in.

 

His away numbers the last 3 years:

 

2005: 4.05 ERA, 115.2 IP, 111 H, 81:21 K/BB, 1.25 HR/9, .251/.288/.422 OPS against

2006: 4.64 ERA, 77.2 IP, 90 H, 43:15 K/BB, 1.39 HR/9, .289/.325/.460 OPS against

2007: 4.19 ERA, 38.2 IP, 36 H, 25:15 K/BB, 0.46 HR/9, .248/.327/.366 OPS against

 

Even if he put up his 2006 away numbers or even worse than that, he'd still be a pretty good option for the 5th starter. When you look at his home half of his starts, a good note would be that Lieber was significantly better in Wrigley Field than outside of Wrigley Field when he was a Cub. Wrigley has a great shot to improve his numbers once again just like Philadelphia devalued his numbers.

 

Now, the concern with Lieber. The declining K/BB rate, and the injuries. He is definitely regressing, but the injuries may have made his regression on the K:BB rate artificially inflated. The injuries are still a concern though, and I doubt Lieber gets through the full season without spending some time on the DL. With just a somewhat low priced one year deal though, that's fine. He'll still be a good 5th starter option for this team, even without the nostalgia factor, and the two biggest reasons why are consistency and park factors.

So if he's a pretty good option for a 5th starter, what is Marquis? The whole basis for people supporting him seems to have been, "he's okay for a 5th starter". So I guess now we have two?

 

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but I don't care to see both Lieber and Marquis in the same rotation.

 

Lieber's actually fine for a 4th starter. A good 4th starter is league average, and a lower end 4th starter is a little below league average. That's Lieber, and he's consistently there. Projecting him for a 4.75 ERA or so would put him as an average 4th starter.

 

Marquis jumps around. Last year he was a #3 starter. He's had years where he shouldn't have been in a rotation at all. It's hard to project what Marquis is because of his huge inconsistency.

 

Lieber and Marquis as the #4 and #5 will likely outproduce most of the #4's and #5's around the National League, unless 1 of 2 things happen:

 

1) Marquis absolutely collapses (another season above 5.50 ERA)

2) Lieber gets hurt, only pitches 70 innings again, and his replacement from the minors is awful.

 

If #2 happens, then it would have happened anyway because the alternative is that replacement from the minors getting all 200 innings. We just have to hope #1 doesn't happen.

 

As I said in another thread, the Cubs were #2 in the NL in their starting rotation last year. Their #5 spot had a combined 5.10 ERA (Miller, Guzman, Marshall, and Trachsel). Z is not likely to drop off much more and might improve back to numbers of a previous year. Lilly will drop off. Hill will likely get a little better. Marquis might stay the same, might drop off a little bit, might drop off significantly. Lieber and anybody who replaces him will likely do better than a 5.10 ERA, so the #5 spot will be better than last year.

 

That makes this rotation of Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and Lieber almost as good as last year. The rotation will likely be top 5 in the NL once again.

 

But if you loop at Marquis' FIP he was a pretty good 5th starter last year, not a 3rd starter.

 

This really is a deal banking on health. When Lieber is healthy hes a low to mid 4s FIP pitcher. Marquis is a high 4-5 FIP pitcher (save 2006).

 

Seems like a low risk (3.5M or so, with adequate options if hes not healthy), medium reward type move. I don't mind it at all.

[UMFan83]

If your #5 starter can give you a great shot at an ERA under 5, that's typically better than most teams. Lieber has had an ERA under 5 each of the last 11 years. He is regressing, but at the same time he is moving from a horrible ballpark to pitch in and a ballpark he always struggled in, and he's moving to a ballpark he dominated in.

 

His away numbers the last 3 years:

 

2005: 4.05 ERA, 115.2 IP, 111 H, 81:21 K/BB, 1.25 HR/9, .251/.288/.422 OPS against

2006: 4.64 ERA, 77.2 IP, 90 H, 43:15 K/BB, 1.39 HR/9, .289/.325/.460 OPS against

2007: 4.19 ERA, 38.2 IP, 36 H, 25:15 K/BB, 0.46 HR/9, .248/.327/.366 OPS against

 

Even if he put up his 2006 away numbers or even worse than that, he'd still be a pretty good option for the 5th starter. When you look at his home half of his starts, a good note would be that Lieber was significantly better in Wrigley Field than outside of Wrigley Field when he was a Cub. Wrigley has a great shot to improve his numbers once again just like Philadelphia devalued his numbers.

 

Now, the concern with Lieber. The declining K/BB rate, and the injuries. He is definitely regressing, but the injuries may have made his regression on the K:BB rate artificially inflated. The injuries are still a concern though, and I doubt Lieber gets through the full season without spending some time on the DL. With just a somewhat low priced one year deal though, that's fine. He'll still be a good 5th starter option for this team, even without the nostalgia factor, and the two biggest reasons why are consistency and park factors.

So if he's a pretty good option for a 5th starter, what is Marquis? The whole basis for people supporting him seems to have been, "he's okay for a 5th starter". So I guess now we have two?

 

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but I don't care to see both Lieber and Marquis in the same rotation.

 

Lieber's actually fine for a 4th starter. A good 4th starter is league average, and a lower end 4th starter is a little below league average. That's Lieber, and he's consistently there. Projecting him for a 4.75 ERA or so would put him as an average 4th starter.

 

Marquis jumps around. Last year he was a #3 starter. He's had years where he shouldn't have been in a rotation at all. It's hard to project what Marquis is because of his huge inconsistency.

 

Lieber and Marquis as the #4 and #5 will likely outproduce most of the #4's and #5's around the National League, unless 1 of 2 things happen:

 

1) Marquis absolutely collapses (another season above 5.50 ERA)

2) Lieber gets hurt, only pitches 70 innings again, and his replacement from the minors is awful.

 

If #2 happens, then it would have happened anyway because the alternative is that replacement from the minors getting all 200 innings. We just have to hope #1 doesn't happen.

 

As I said in another thread, the Cubs were #2 in the NL in their starting rotation last year. Their #5 spot had a combined 5.10 ERA (Miller, Guzman, Marshall, and Trachsel). Z is not likely to drop off much more and might improve back to numbers of a previous year. Lilly will drop off. Hill will likely get a little better. Marquis might stay the same, might drop off a little bit, might drop off significantly. Lieber and anybody who replaces him will likely do better than a 5.10 ERA, so the #5 spot will be better than last year.

 

That makes this rotation of Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and Lieber almost as good as last year. The rotation will likely be top 5 in the NL once again.

 

I think the problem that some posters have with Lieber and the likes is that Cubs fans were spoiled with Zambrano, Wood, Prior, Clement, Maddux (or at least the concept of them all being healthy and pitching to potential) and expect every pitcher in the rotation to have a sub-4.00 ERA. Reality is, this is not the case. Obviously, I'd love for us to have this happen, but if we are projecting an above average offense with Fukudome and possibly Roberts, we might have to deal with an average to slightly above average rotation. Combined with a very good bullpen and a good bench, thats a NL Central winning ballclub most likely.

[WrigleyField 22]

This sucks.

[abuck1220]

seriously, i don't like marquis or dempster, but i'd rather have either of them than lieber.

 

Why? Why is it so upsetting to everyone to get 100 innings of league average production from the 5 spot as opposed to 200 innings of below average production?

 

seriously? where are the other 100 innings that lieber can't go coming from?

 

also, i don't think it's written in stone that a fat, oft-injured, 38 year old lieber is league average.

 

Gallagher? Marshall? Hart?

 

and are those guys going to be league average or better?

 

you can't just say 100 average innings is better than 200 below average innings without taking into consideration the necessary 100 innings in the first scenario are probably going to be below average.

 

You can't bash the alternatives for the "other" 100 IP as a reason not to get Lieber, because they're the ones going for 200 IP if we don't have him.

 

not necessarily. i'm guessing it'd be 200 innings of dempster/marquis vs. 100 innings of lieber and 100 innings of hart/marshall/gallagher.

[Clem Fandango]

The only thing cool about this is that Jon Lieber can drive his truck to Wrigely and show it off.

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/391492541_09236fa6ed_o.jpg

[WrigleyinEngland]

"We're going to try to be real aggressive the next three, four weeks before camp and try to come up with somebody else before we get there,"Cubs GM Jim Hendry.

 

Guessing we may still see a move for Roberts...........

[PrimeTime]

"We're going to try to be real aggressive the next three, four weeks before camp and try to come up with somebody else before we get there,"Cubs GM Jim Hendry.

 

Guessing we may still see a move for Roberts...........

 

 

When and where did he say that?

 

nevermind found it on Cubs.com good to hear..

Edited January 16, 2008 by PrimeTime

[nilodnayr]

seriously, i don't like marquis or dempster, but i'd rather have either of them than lieber.

 

Why? Why is it so upsetting to everyone to get 100 innings of league average production from the 5 spot as opposed to 200 innings of below average production?

 

seriously? where are the other 100 innings that lieber can't go coming from?

 

also, i don't think it's written in stone that a fat, oft-injured, 38 year old lieber is league average.

 

Gallagher? Marshall? Hart?

 

and are those guys going to be league average or better?

 

you can't just say 100 average innings is better than 200 below average innings without taking into consideration the necessary 100 innings in the first scenario are probably going to be below average.

 

You can't bash the alternatives for the "other" 100 IP as a reason not to get Lieber, because they're the ones going for 200 IP if we don't have him.

 

not necessarily. i'm guessing it'd be 200 innings of dempster/marquis vs. 100 innings of lieber and 100 innings of hart/marshall/gallagher.

 

So then you'll be trading dempster or moving him back to the bullpen, both would be good things.

[Schwarber Fan]

Thread title can be changed

 

So our new rotation looks like:

 

Zambrano

Lilly

Lieber

Hill

Dempster/Marquis

 

?

 

Man, I wish Wood could still start.

[anabiono]

Thread title can be changed

 

So our new rotation looks like:

 

Zambrano

Lilly

Lieber

Hill

Dempster/Marquis

 

?

 

Man, I wish Wood could still start.

 

i honestly don't think dempster is going to sniff the rotation

[Butterscup1679666578]

I'm ok with this.

[nilodnayr]

Thread title can be changed

 

So our new rotation looks like:

 

Zambrano

Lilly

Lieber

Hill

Dempster/Marquis

 

?

 

Man, I wish Wood could still start.

 

Just be happy that he can raise his hand above his shoulder.

[chicago chop]

This sucks.

 

Care to elaborate? :-k