Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[RedFlash]

im not saying it does. dont put words in my mouth please. fact is hoffpauir isnt very good as a starter. limited upside and huge risk. it's dumb to give him the job.

 

Micah wouldn't be the worst LH portion of a platoon at first, and I definately like him as a backup who gives the starter a breather every 10-15 games, but as a starter.....no. If the Cubs trade Lee they had BETTER have a 1st baseman lined up to take over, say a certain former Reds/DBacks slugger. (Note: the Cubs won't be players for Tex hence the reason I went to possibly the 2nd best 1st base option on the market.)

[DonnieD]

Assuming we need salary relief in order to be able to add Peavy though the question is would you rather have Marquis in the rotation and Lee at 1B or Peavy in the rotation and Hoffpauir at 1B. I'd take the latter.

[JeffH]

im not saying it does. dont put words in my mouth please. fact is hoffpauir isnt very good as a starter. limited upside and huge risk. it's dumb to give him the job.

 

Micah wouldn't be the worst LH portion of a platoon at first, and I definately like him as a backup who gives the starter a breather every 10-15 games, but as a starter.....no. If the Cubs trade Lee they had BETTER have a 1st baseman lined up to take over, say a certain former Reds/DBacks slugger. (Note: the Cubs won't be players for Tex hence the reason I went to possibly the 2nd best 1st base option on the market.)

 

Adam Dunn is a much better defender in the outfield than he is at first base.

 

Let us pause momentarily to consider the sheer magnitude of that statement.

[Cubswin11]

Assuming we need salary relief in order to be able to add Peavy though the question is would you rather have Marquis in the rotation and Lee at 1B or Peavy in the rotation and Hoffpauir at 1B. I'd take the latter.

I would rather have Peavy in the rotation and Lee at 1B and Marquis pitching on another team :grin:

[RedFlash]

im not saying it does. dont put words in my mouth please. fact is hoffpauir isnt very good as a starter. limited upside and huge risk. it's dumb to give him the job.

 

Micah wouldn't be the worst LH portion of a platoon at first, and I definately like him as a backup who gives the starter a breather every 10-15 games, but as a starter.....no. If the Cubs trade Lee they had BETTER have a 1st baseman lined up to take over, say a certain former Reds/DBacks slugger. (Note: the Cubs won't be players for Tex hence the reason I went to possibly the 2nd best 1st base option on the market.)

 

Adam Dunn is a much better defender in the outfield than he is at first base.

 

Let us pause momentarily to consider the sheer magnitude of that statement.

 

I understand that, but my point was if the Cubs were to trade Lee that have to replace Lee with an significant upgrade with the bat, and that isn't Hoffpauir. Which means it is doubt Lee gets dealt this offseason, and we have to hope Lee can rebound in 2009.

[Guest]

Thats a interesting thought, would you guys trade Harden to a contender in a three way deal, if it means getting Peavy?

 

 

Based on expected return vs. real value, I think Rich Harden would be the last player in the organization I would trade.

Soto?

[17 Seconds]

Thats a interesting thought, would you guys trade Harden to a contender in a three way deal, if it means getting Peavy?

 

 

Based on expected return vs. real value, I think Rich Harden would be the last player in the organization I would trade.

Soto?

 

He's saying based on the level of true value we'd get for him. He's not saying he's the last guy he'd want to trade

[SouthSideRyan]

Thats a interesting thought, would you guys trade Harden to a contender in a three way deal, if it means getting Peavy?

 

 

Based on expected return vs. real value, I think Rich Harden would be the last player in the organization I would trade.

Soto?

 

He's saying based on the level of true value we'd get for him. He's not saying he's the last guy he'd want to trade

 

Yep, we'd get a mint in return for Soto. We wouldn't get a fair return for one of the best pitchers in baseball because of injury concerns.

[Clem Fandango]

What do you mean "the last 2 seasons"?

 

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code.

 

No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career.

 

Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good.

 

Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee

 

You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games.

 

2007 Lee:

150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB

 

2008 Lee:

155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB

 

5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size

[DonnieD]

What do you mean "the last 2 seasons"?

 

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code.

 

No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career.

 

Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good.

 

Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee

 

You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games.

 

2007 Lee:

150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB

 

2008 Lee:

155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB

 

5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size

 

EXACTLY. Somehow he must have went 0 for 56 in those 5 games though.

[UMFan83]

As awesome as Peavy is, and as much of an improvement he'd be for the Cubs, if it was between getting a player of Milton Bradley's caliber and Peavy, I'd take Badley right now. Our rotation will most likely still thrive without Peavy, but I worry about our offense without a LH power bat in there.

 

That said, I would have held off on signing Dempster until I gave a great attempt at getting Peavy, even if I ran the risk of losing Demp to another team.

[Clem Fandango]

What do you mean "the last 2 seasons"?

 

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code.

 

No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career.

 

Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good.

 

Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee

 

You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games.

 

2007 Lee:

150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB

 

2008 Lee:

155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB

 

5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size

 

EXACTLY. Somehow he must have went 0 for 56 in those 5 games though.

 

Well, quite simple really. Assume he got at least 4 AB in those 5 games, that's 20AB right there, then assume that with the Cubs high powered and OBP crazy offense, he got 36 extra AB throughout the year via high scoring games. Fairly simple. And with Lee, it's not hard to imagine he went 0-4 over an extra 5 games in each game.

Edited November 20, 2008 by The Logan

[17 Seconds]

What do you mean "the last 2 seasons"?

 

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code.

 

No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career.

 

Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good.

 

Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee

 

You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games.

 

2007 Lee:

150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB

 

2008 Lee:

155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB

 

5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size

 

umm, what the hell are you talking about? you're obviously joking but i don't get it

[17 Seconds]

What do you mean "the last 2 seasons"?

 

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code.

 

No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career.

 

Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good.

 

Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee

 

You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games.

 

2007 Lee:

150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB

 

2008 Lee:

155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB

 

5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size

 

EXACTLY. Somehow he must have went 0 for 56 in those 5 games though.

 

Well, quite simple really. Assume he got at least 4 AB in those 5 games, that's 20AB right there, then assume that with the Cubs high powered and OBP crazy offense, he got 36 extra AB throughout the year via high scoring games. Fairly simple. And with Lee, it's not hard to imagine he went 0-4 over an extra 5 games in each game.

 

you can't be serious right now

[Clem Fandango]

umm, what the hell are you talking about? you're obviously joking but i don't get it

 

No, not joking. You're talking about how Lee was SO much better in 2007, but he only seems better in 2007 because he had less AB to fail or succeed. He put up the exact same production numbers in almost every offensive category in 2008 as he did in 2007. His AVG/OBP/SLG looks better because he had fewer AB over a slightly lesser amount of games, and also due to a less potent offense in 2007. It's not hard to understand. What's hard to understand is the notion that Lee has lost it, despite putting up nearly the exact same numbers from 2007.

[SouthSideRyan]

BUT HE WENT 0 FOR 56 IN THOSE "EXTRA" ABs IS IT HONESTLY YOUR BELIEF THAT IF LEE HAD 56 MORE ABs THAT YEAR HE'D HAVE GONE 0 FOR 56 IN THEM???

 

AHHHHHHHHH

Edited November 20, 2008 by SouthSideRyan

[imb]

uhh, he went hitless in 50 extra at bats, i dont think you're doing this right

[Clem Fandango]

BUT HE WENT 0 FOR 56 IN THOSE "EXTRA" ABs

 

probably not. extreme exaggeration. but that's hitless in 56 AB over a 623AB scale, I'm not saying he went 0-56 over the course of 5 straight games. 56AB spreado ut over a full season where he didn't get a hit. That's all

[imb]

BUT HE WENT 0 FOR 56 IN THOSE "EXTRA" ABs

 

probably not. extreme exaggeration. but that's hitless in 56 AB over a 623AB scale, I'm not saying he went 0-56 over the course of 5 straight games. 56AB spreado ut over a full season where he didn't get a hit. That's all

 

that's like 1/12th of his season total, it's pretty significant

[17 Seconds]

oh dear god he's serious.

 

so why are all his rate numbers SO much better.

 

you really shouldn't ever be allowed to post again. if those extra 56 at-bats came at the beginning of the season than he'd have had a .790 OPS.

 

that is seriously some of the worst logic i have ever encountered in any baseball discussion.

 

you're right, lee was exactly the same in 2007 and 2008. it's just that the offense gave him 56 at-bats, in which an 0-56 was thrust upon him by the baseball gods. how cruel of them. the fact that he has a .759 ops from may 1st on was just a another cruel joke by the gods.

 

seriously though, do you believe what you're saying? so if a guy has 30 home runs in 300 at-bats it's the same as 30 home runs in 600 at-bats? why are you assuming as though going 0-56 in those extra at-bats was not lee's fault? why am i even bothering respond to this?

 

the reality is that it TOOK lee and extra 56 at-bats to reach those 07 stat totals because he was significantly worse. i really don't get why you're looking at counting stats as opposed to rate stats when he had so many extra at-bats. not to mention the fact that he walked at a lesser rate.

 

basically what you're saying is that it's not lee's fault he went like 0-56 in those extra ABs

Edited November 20, 2008 by 17 Seconds

[17 Seconds]

this is like the stuff of cubs.com message board lore

[Clem Fandango]

seriously though, do you believe what you're saying? so if a guy has 30 home runs in 300 at-bats it's the same as 30 home runs in 600 at-bats?

 

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Because 300 extra AB is the same as 56. Look it up in the brittanica, it's there somewhere

[OleMissCub]

I have no idea what The Logan is attempting to do.

 

However, BP doesn't seem to have much difference in Lee in 07 and 08. If you put any stock in WARP3, Lee rated at 7.8 in 07 and 7.4 in 08.

[17 Seconds]

seriously though, do you believe what you're saying? so if a guy has 30 home runs in 300 at-bats it's the same as 30 home runs in 600 at-bats?

 

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Because 300 extra AB is the same as 56. Look it up in the brittanica, it's there somewhere

 

it's obviously an exaggerated example but it's the same exact principle and is just as ridiculous as what you're saying.

 

it's not lee's fault he went 0-56 in those extra at-bats, so we shouldn't fault him for that. brilliant

[Clem Fandango]

I have no idea what The Logan is attempting to do.

 

However, BP doesn't seem to have much difference in Lee in 07 and 08. If you put any stock in WARP3, Lee rated at 7.8 in 07 and 7.4 in 08.

 

SLAM!