Trading Soriano

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i'll take the under on bill james' projected batting line for sappelt.

 

I will too. But not so much under that he's not still a useful starter.

 

Even at 270/310/390, he's pretty close to a wash with Soriano because of his defensive advantage and upside.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

 

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better.

[Little Slide Rooter]

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

 

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better.

 

They don't so much know better as they're more willing to give them a chance. If it's a sunk season why throw 3-4 years and $25-35 mil at someone who's not their type of guy like Kubel or Willingham when you can audition a handful of these young so called 4th outfielders in hopes that one is a pleasant surprise. If not, acquire someone who fits into their plans next year or when they become available. Most of NSBB doesn't seem to like Ethier, but Theo does and he should be available next year.

 

Side note: Apparently, I know less about sabermetrics than I thought. Ethier won a gold glove last year, but it says that his dWAR was -0.8.

[Backtobanks]

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

 

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better.

 

I don't have a problem with giving prospects a chance, but there aren't many people in baseball that wouldn't call Lahair and Stewart question marks, Sappelt and Johnson 4th or 5th OFs, and Wells/Volstad/wood #4 or #5 starters. "Our guys" are throwing them out there and hoping for the best while looking for their replacements in 2013.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

 

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better.

 

I don't have a problem with giving prospects a chance, but there aren't many people in baseball that wouldn't call Lahair and Stewart question marks, Sappelt and Johnson 4th or 5th OFs, and Wells/Volstad/wood #4 or #5 starters. "Our guys" are throwing them out there and hoping for the best while looking for their replacements in 2013.

 

The existence of people in baseball who think of Sappelt as a 4th OFer, and *especially* Wood as a No. 4 or 5 starter, is the reason why "our guys" are brilliant and their guys are not.

 

It's very lazy thinking, it ignores several decades of brilliant statistical analysis and research, and it's just plain wrong.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Nothing wrong with the brilliant statistical analysis and research method of building a team, but eventually they'll need to add the big money no brainers to the mix in order to be successful. "Moneyball" alone was just swell for Billy Beane until teams that had money to spend started doing both, once again leaving the small market teams in their dust.

[Guest]

Nothing wrong with the brilliant statistical analysis and research method of building a team, but eventually they'll need to add the big money no brainers to the mix in order to be successful. "Moneyball" alone was just swell for Billy Beane until teams that had money to spend started doing both, once again leaving the small market teams in their dust.

 

Whose/What point are you responding to?

[bukie]

Nothing wrong with the brilliant statistical analysis and research method of building a team, but eventually they'll need to add the big money no brainers to the mix in order to be successful. "Moneyball" alone was just swell for Billy Beane until teams that had money to spend started doing both, once again leaving the small market teams in their dust.

 

Whose/What point are you responding to?

He's not. A thought comes into his head, and he has to immediately post it. No context, no research, no thought about whether it's worth posting.

 

Idea to post in ten seconds. That is the WSR way.

[Sammy Sofa]

And then he complains about people responding negatively. Seems like a blog would be a swell thing for him to look into.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

It might be a little generous to say thought is involved at any juncture.

[treebird]

And then he complains about people responding negatively. Seems like a blog would be a swell thing for him to look into.

 

we'll be reading him on longform.org in no time

[Tracer Bullet]

5 responses is probably more than enough. Ok?

[treebird]

5 responses is probably more than enough. Ok?

 

Sorry, I just post the first thing that pops into my head, but I'll try to be more careful about it in the future, and I really mean that, I mean, I really don't want to defy the mods and get in trouble, but I also want to be able to participate actively, so I'll do my best and, hey, you please keep me in line, I don't want to be a hassle, and if I have to change things, I am willing to do that, but I am always going to stay myself, so don't expect me to change too much, but I am sure we can work something out, if we all want to.

[Tracer Bullet]

5 responses is probably more than enough. Ok?

 

Sorry, I just post the first thing that pops into my head, but I'll try to be more careful about it in the future, and I really mean that, I mean, I really don't want to defy the mods and get in trouble, but I also want to be able to participate actively, so I'll do my best and, hey, you please keep me in line, I don't want to be a hassle, and if I have to change things, I am willing to do that, but I am always going to stay myself, so don't expect me to change too much, but I am sure we can work something out, if we all want to.

 

I will punch you in the face before I read this.

[Guest]

5 responses is probably more than enough. Ok?

 

Sorry, I just post the first thing that pops into my head, but I'll try to be more careful about it in the future, and I really mean that, I mean, I really don't want to defy the mods and get in trouble, but I also want to be able to participate actively, so I'll do my best and, hey, you please keep me in line, I don't want to be a hassle, and if I have to change things, I am willing to do that, but I am always going to stay myself, so don't expect me to change too much, but I am sure we can work something out, if we all want to.

 

hahaha

[Little Slide Rooter]

My point is that it's great to use advanced sabermetrics to find value in players that would be as obvious, but if you're going to compete you're going to want to mix in some established stars as well when the right ones become available, and that's what I'm thinking that Theos doing. My response was to an exchange between B2B and Kyle just above my post.

[Clem Fandango]

Quoting davell from the FA thread...

 

Orioles on verge of multi year deal with Wei Yen Chen.

 

I know it's been downplayed and we've discussed it at length already, but maybe this will open them up to a Soriano deal involving Tillman, assuming we eat a huge chunk of that salary? I know Tillman has his issues with velocity and all that, but he fits the mold of the type of guys Theo and Jed have been targeting, and I'd much prefer him (issues or not) over what I would think would be a lackluster minor leaguer. Since Tillman is probably the one of their young pitchers with the least amount of upside/most amount of failure, I imagine he'd be the first one they'd shop.

 

He had an obscenely high BABIP (.348) and his FIP/xFIP were much lower than his ERA (5.52 ERA - 4.83 xFIP - 3.99 FIP), granted it was in limited time last season.

 

It's all conjecture on my part, but if we're trying to move Soriano to the O's, I imagine/hope they'd be targeting someone like Tillman and not trying to get whatever they can off the scrap heap in an effort to move the salary

[Backtobanks]

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

 

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better.

 

I don't have a problem with giving prospects a chance, but there aren't many people in baseball that wouldn't call Lahair and Stewart question marks, Sappelt and Johnson 4th or 5th OFs, and Wells/Volstad/wood #4 or #5 starters. "Our guys" are throwing them out there and hoping for the best while looking for their replacements in 2013.

 

The existence of people in baseball who think of Sappelt as a 4th OFer, and *especially* Wood as a No. 4 or 5 starter, is the reason why "our guys" are brilliant and their guys are not.

 

It's very lazy thinking, it ignores several decades of brilliant statistical analysis and research, and it's just plain wrong.

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3. I haven't read anything that suggests Sappelt is more than a 4th OF on a decent team. If he plays regularly, it means we're not very good not that he is good.

[CubColtPacer]

4th OF seems to fit in the description of the whole Cubs's roster - 4th/5th/platoon OFs, #4 or #5 starters, question mark corner IFs, etc.

 

That's the way the Walt Jockettys and Jim Hendrys of the world see them. Our guys know better.

 

I don't have a problem with giving prospects a chance, but there aren't many people in baseball that wouldn't call Lahair and Stewart question marks, Sappelt and Johnson 4th or 5th OFs, and Wells/Volstad/wood #4 or #5 starters. "Our guys" are throwing them out there and hoping for the best while looking for their replacements in 2013.

 

The existence of people in baseball who think of Sappelt as a 4th OFer, and *especially* Wood as a No. 4 or 5 starter, is the reason why "our guys" are brilliant and their guys are not.

 

It's very lazy thinking, it ignores several decades of brilliant statistical analysis and research, and it's just plain wrong.

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3. I haven't read anything that suggests Sappelt is more than a 4th OF on a decent team. If he plays regularly, it means we're not very good not that he is good.

 

What does a #3 starter look like to you? What type of ERA does a #3 put up normally? (or use FIP or xFIP if you would like).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3.

 

Career FIP- 92.

 

He's a strong No. 3 right now. This has nothing to do with his potential. He's already performed at an above-average level for a starting pitcher.

 

This is what Moneyball was all about, and it's amazing that a decade later our front office is still able to take such great advantage of it. Lazy thinkers try to slap labels on guys instead of getting down into the nitty-gritty of what they have produced and what they project to produce in the future.

[Guest]

=

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3. I haven't read anything that suggests Sappelt is more than a 4th OF on a decent team. If he plays regularly, it means we're not very good not that he is good.

 

Because no very good teams have any substandard starters. Terrible logic.

 

 

 

That's not to say anything about Sappelt's ability (nor is it, obviously, to imply that this is a very good team).

[jersey cubs fan]

=

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3. I haven't read anything that suggests Sappelt is more than a 4th OF on a decent team. If he plays regularly, it means we're not very good not that he is good.

 

Because no very good teams have any substandard starters. Terrible logic.

 

 

 

That's not to say anything about Sappelt's ability (nor is it, obviously, to imply that this is a very good team).

 

Yeah, any good team can hide a second rate player as long as you have others picking up the slack. I don't think the Cubs currently have the ability to hide somebody, but that's a different situation.

[treebird]

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3.

 

Career FIP- 92.

 

He's a strong No. 3 right now. This has nothing to do with his potential. He's already performed at an above-average level for a starting pitcher.

 

number three starters/above-average starters throw more than a hundred innings a year. i'm a big fan of travis wood and think he's going to do well, but let's not go crazy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Can I get an actual case for Sappelt being a substandard MLB starter, and not just the generic label?

 

Project his slash line, project his defense, and tell me where that would have ranked among MLB LF starters last year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Wood might have potential to be a #3.

 

Career FIP- 92.

 

He's a strong No. 3 right now. This has nothing to do with his potential. He's already performed at an above-average level for a starting pitcher.

 

number three starters/above-average starters throw more than a hundred innings a year. i'm a big fan of travis wood and think he's going to do well, but let's not go crazy.

 

He threw 202 innings two years ago, and 158 last year. It's not his fault that the Dusty Bakers of the world would rather trot out Bronson "Shawn Estes" Arroyo.