Ramirez has the highest OPS among 3B

[Guest]

The weird thing about the 3B position this year is that it's roughly equivalent to the SS position offensively, which hasn't been the case since before 1990. If the team can be confident that trend will continue into the near future, then I'd feel better letting Ramirez walk and spend the money on the more offensively dominant positions, like corner OF and 1B, hoping that a Baker/Flaherty platoon will provide above-average offense at the position.

 

 

The fact that third basemen aren't hitting just means that Ramirez's bat is even more valuable compared to years past. I think we need to ask if the drop from Ramirez-Baker/Flaherty is bigger than Fielder-Pena or whatever other big bat possibilities there are out there, along with any other considerations such as cost and durability.

Well, you also have to look at having Fielder to build around for 5-6 years versus milking one last productive season from Aramis.

[davearm2]

I'd lay some pretty serious money that Baker/Flaherty would not be above average at third next year.

 

The Rays have the 15th highest 3B OPS in the majors right now, at .704. There are two teams posting a 3B OPS above .800 - the Cubs (.861) and Red Sox (.822). There are 11 teams with a .600-.699 3B OPS and four teams with a .500-.599 3B OPS. Third base OPS is way, way down this year and if it stays that way, it really wouldn't be very hard to have an above average or better OPS there. Especially when you consider that Baker is almost a lock to give us an .850-900 OPS as one part of the platoon.

 

This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation.

 

All we really need to know is this:

 

The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense.

 

What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now.

[Guest]

I'd lay some pretty serious money that Baker/Flaherty would not be above average at third next year.

 

The Rays have the 15th highest 3B OPS in the majors right now, at .704. There are two teams posting a 3B OPS above .800 - the Cubs (.861) and Red Sox (.822). There are 11 teams with a .600-.699 3B OPS and four teams with a .500-.599 3B OPS. Third base OPS is way, way down this year and if it stays that way, it really wouldn't be very hard to have an above average or better OPS there. Especially when you consider that Baker is almost a lock to give us an .850-900 OPS as one part of the platoon.

 

This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation.

 

All we really need to know is this:

 

The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense.

 

What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now.

Unless of course, the upgrade is bigger than the downgrade.

[davearm2]

I'd lay some pretty serious money that Baker/Flaherty would not be above average at third next year.

 

The Rays have the 15th highest 3B OPS in the majors right now, at .704. There are two teams posting a 3B OPS above .800 - the Cubs (.861) and Red Sox (.822). There are 11 teams with a .600-.699 3B OPS and four teams with a .500-.599 3B OPS. Third base OPS is way, way down this year and if it stays that way, it really wouldn't be very hard to have an above average or better OPS there. Especially when you consider that Baker is almost a lock to give us an .850-900 OPS as one part of the platoon.

 

This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation.

 

All we really need to know is this:

 

The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense.

 

What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now.

Unless of course, the upgrade is bigger than the downgrade.

Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else?

 

If not, then you're pointing that out for no other reason than disagreeing with me is the trendy thing to do around here.

[chopsx9]

(Who was the dude from the Padres - I think he was on their '84 team - he took a kick at the can one year too I believe)

You're probably thinking of Luis Salazar, who was with the Padres in 84 and was acquired by the Cubs (along with Marvell Wynne) in a post-deadline waiver deal in 89.

 

I think he's really thinking of Ron Cey who came from the Dodgers, rather than the Padres.

Could be; I could be thinking backwards on which team he meant by "their" 84 team.

 

 

Luis Salazar was who I was trying to recall. Ronnie was around for 3 or 4 years if I recall. Anybody recall his inside the park homerun? I'd to love to compare his time to Campanna's.

[dew1679666265]

Keep in mind that Zimmerman, Wright, ARod, Beltre, and Longoria have all been injured with down numbers this year. Then there's guys like McGhee and Rolen who have fallen off a cliff.

 

That plus the past couple of years have been runs short all around.

 

Unless they trade for Wright or something, Ramirez is probably someone they should look to keep.

 

Those guys were healthy the past 2-3 years when 3B offense was down as well. This is a trend and it's possible it may continue - and if it does then we can afford to lose a little offense at third to gain a lot of offense at first and add an elite starting pitcher.

[dew1679666265]

Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else?

 

The Cubs are 6th in the NL in wOBA (.319) and tied for 6th in the NL in OPS (.727). They're slightly above average to average on offense, not below average. A fairly significant upgrade at first and a slight to moderate downgrade at third could have a big impact on the offensive production.

 

Then you can also include adding one of the best pitchers in the majors to the rotation because of that downgrade.

[Guest]

This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation.

 

All we really need to know is this:

 

The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense.

 

What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now.

Unless of course, the upgrade is bigger than the downgrade.

Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else?

 

If not, then you're pointing that out for no other reason than disagreeing with me is the trendy thing to do around here.

Be fair now...I started disagreeing with you long before it was trendy.

[bukie]

Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else?

 

The Cubs are 6th in the NL in wOBA (.319) and tied for 6th in the NL in OPS (.727). They're slightly above average to average on offense, not below average. A fairly significant upgrade at first and a slight to moderate downgrade at third could have a big impact on the offensive production.

 

Then you can also include adding one of the best pitchers in the majors to the rotation because of that downgrade.

I'd say the only thing they're clearly below average in is walks, and Ramirez doesn't exactly boost that.

[Guest]

The Cubs are 6th in the NL in wOBA and 8th in wRC+. Incremental improvement of the offense would decidedly push them to "above average".

 

For reference:

 

Ramirez: .369 wOBA, 128 wRC+ (career .357, 114)

Pena: .347, 113

 

Fielder: .410, 162 (career .390, 140)

Pujols: .380, 143 (career .431, 167)

 

Flaherty MiLB: .341, 106

LeMahieu MiLB: .352, 112

[dew1679666265]

Well, you also have to look at having Fielder to build around for 5-6 years versus milking one last productive season from Aramis.

 

This is a really good point and one I should have brought up earlier. Bringing back Aramis is a 1-2 year thing tops, whereas both Fielder/Pujols and Wilson can help us quite a bit over the next 3-8 years.

 

Simply put, bringing back Aramis is an all or nothing move for next year, whereas investing in Fielder/Pujols and Wilson can help us next year and in the future. Even if the overall upgrade next year were minimal, the 1B/P option helps us down the road, whereas bringing Aramis back does not.

[davearm2]

This is a misguided and overly complicated way to look at the situation.

 

All we really need to know is this:

 

The Cubs have a below average offense. Upgrade at 1B (Pena to Fielder/Pujols), downgrade at 3B (Ramirez to Baker/Flaherty), leave the rest mostly unchanged, and they'll still have a below average offense.

 

What sort of production the rest of the league is getting out of their 3Bs doesn't really matter. What matters is improving the lineup the Cubs are rolling out there now.

Unless of course, the upgrade is bigger than the downgrade.

Are you arguing that the net effect of those two counterbalancing moves is so large as to transform the entire offense from below average to something else?

 

If not, then you're pointing that out for no other reason than disagreeing with me is the trendy thing to do around here.

Be fair now...I started disagreeing with you long before it was trendy.

:) Yes, indeed you did

[17 Seconds]

up to .886

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

up to .886

 

Laziest, most loafing .886 in history.

[UMFan83]

up to .886

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that would be his 2nd lowest season OPS as a Cub?

[Tryptamine]

up to .886

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that would be his 2nd lowest season OPS as a Cub?

 

All this lazy talk and having to defend him from meat heads has actually led me to one realization. Ramirez is a heck of a lot better player than I had realized. Of course this makes it even more idiotic that people want him chased out of town as part of a purging of the "old regime".

[fromthestretch]

up to .886

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that would be his 2nd lowest season OPS as a Cub?

 

Currently tied for his career high in OPS+ though.

[UMFan83]

up to .886

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that would be his 2nd lowest season OPS as a Cub?

 

Currently tied for his career high in OPS+ though.

 

Amazing what a radical shift we've seen over the last 5-7 years.

[fromthestretch]

up to .886

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that would be his 2nd lowest season OPS as a Cub?

 

Currently tied for his career high in OPS+ though.

 

Amazing what a radical shift we've seen over the last 5-7 years.

 

Hell, it's been a pretty big shift just from last year to this year in terms of league-wide offensive production.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Well, you also have to look at having Fielder to build around for 5-6 years versus milking one last productive season from Aramis.

 

This is a really good point and one I should have brought up earlier. Bringing back Aramis is a 1-2 year thing tops, whereas both Fielder/Pujols and Wilson can help us quite a bit over the next 3-8 years.

 

Simply put, bringing back Aramis is an all or nothing move for next year, whereas investing in Fielder/Pujols and Wilson can help us next year and in the future. Even if the overall upgrade next year were minimal, the 1B/P option helps us down the road, whereas bringing Aramis back does not.

 

Well another way to look at it is that if theyre going to splurge on Fielder/Pujols + Wilson then why not splurge to bring back Ramirez in for a couple more seasons and bakery's team the best it can possibly be?

 

I think some of this comes down to Soriano/Zambrano and what happens to them. This is just going to be a ridiculously busy offseason for the Cubs.

[dew1679666265]

Well another way to look at it is that if theyre going to splurge on Fielder/Pujols + Wilson then why not splurge to bring back Ramirez in for a couple more seasons and bakery's team the best it can possibly be?

 

I think some of this comes down to Soriano/Zambrano and what happens to them. This is just going to be a ridiculously busy offseason for the Cubs.

 

Do you mean add Wilson and Fielder/Pujols and then re-sign Aramis? I'd be all for that, but it'd take a huge bump in payroll to do it. If you mean bring Aramis back for 2-3 more seasons instead of adding Wilson, I still don't think that's the right move. Aramis is a great player, but he's had some injury issues (especially of late) and is 33 years old. You'd be re-signing him for his age 34 and 35 seasons, which could be fine but could also end up being a pretty bad contract if he declines the entire contract and/or gets hurt again.

 

Wilson is 31, but he was a reliever all but 2 years of his major league career, so the mileage on his arm is much lower than most 31 year old starters - meaning he should stay highly productive for longer. And while Aramis will probably only help us greatly for 1-2 more years, Wilson could be highly productive for 3-4 years. So the point still stands, even if Aramis might be the better option next year, the Wilson + Pujols/Fielder route could easily be better next year and will be better long term.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Well another way to look at it is that if theyre going to splurge on Fielder/Pujols + Wilson then why not splurge to bring back Ramirez in for a couple more seasons and bakery's team the best it can possibly be?

 

I think some of this comes down to Soriano/Zambrano and what happens to them. This is just going to be a ridiculously busy offseason for the Cubs.

 

Do you mean add Wilson and Fielder/Pujols and then re-sign Aramis? I'd be all for that, but it'd take a huge bump in payroll to do it. If you mean bring Aramis back for 2-3 more seasons instead of adding Wilson, I still don't think that's the right move. Aramis is a great player, but he's had some injury issues (especially of late) and is 33 years old. You'd be re-signing him for his age 34 and 35 seasons, which could be fine but could also end up being a pretty bad contract if he declines the entire contract and/or gets hurt again.

 

Wilson is 31, but he was a reliever all but 2 years of his major league career, so the mileage on his arm is much lower than most 31 year old starters - meaning he should stay highly productive for longer. And while Aramis will probably only help us greatly for 1-2 more years, Wilson could be highly productive for 3-4 years. So the point still stands, even if Aramis might be the better option next year, the Wilson + Pujols/Fielder route could easily be better next year and will be better long term.

 

I don't mean subtracting Wilson for Ramirez. I mean if you're going after two big name FAs why not keep the strong veteran player and open the window on '12 and '13 a little properly wider? If they're already spending the money...

[dew1679666265]

I don't mean subtracting Wilson for Ramirez. I mean if you're going after two big name FAs why not keep the strong veteran player and open the window on '12 and '13 a little properly wider? If they're already spending the money...

 

Ah, I see. I'd love to see them do that, but in my planning I'm assuming they hold payroll steady at around $130 million. If they do that, they can't afford Wilson, Ramirez, and Fielder/Pujols. They'd have to add something like $7-12 million to the payroll to be able to afford all three - something Ricketts may well do, but I'm not expecting it.

 

It'd be a great decision, though, because bringing Aramis back in and of itself is a good decision.

[Careless]

Ramirez has a .704 OBP over the last seven days and, I believe, a .909 SLG.

 

It's been a good week for him.

[J.R.]

Hard to believe that Aramis could walk unnoticed into just about any 7-Eleven in the country.

 

He plays for arguably the most visible team in the NL in a huge market.

 

He filled a famous positional void for said most-visible team.

 

He was a part of the most-visible team's best run in decades.

 

Colossal marketing fail for the Cubs and (one of many) for MLB. This guy is a star.