Derrek Lee worth $100M??

[AramisRamirez]

Lee has next year under contract and should he go crazy again, how high are we willing to go to keep him here? I think him and Aramis are cornerstone type players. Aramis got his $42M, now we can start to think about Lee.

 

This year he'll probably finish with 40-45 HR and 115-120 RBI with a .340 BA. those are ridiculous numbers, no doubt. and should he come relatively close to repeating such a feat, we could be looking at a 6-year deal for him.

 

I think $100M, as jay mariotti mentioned recently, for Derrek Lee is a little excessive --though I do think he'll get a bigger deal than Aramis got. $75M over 6 year is pretty reasonable for a protype 3-hole hitter like him. His numbers are serious, and while others in the past have put together massive single seasons (Beltre last year had like 48 HR's) i think Lee's everyday defense is likely to stay Gold Glove caliber.

 

Potential outline for a 6-year/$75M deal:

 

year 1: $10M

year 2: $11M

year 3: $12M

year 4 $13M

year 5 $14M

year 6: $15M

[1908]

Lee would need to duplicate or improve upon this season next year before I'd even consider giving him a 6/$75M deal.

[YearofDaCubs]

First of all I wouldnt give him a 6 year deal anyways. If we can get by with a 3-4 year deal we would be better off.

[ToupeeOnFire]

Lee has next year under contract and should he go crazy again, how high are we willing to go to keep him here? I think him and Aramis are cornerstone type players. Aramis got his $42M, now we can start to think about Lee.

 

This year he'll probably finish with 40-45 HR and 115-120 RBI with a .340 BA. those are ridiculous numbers, no doubt. and should he come relatively close to repeating such a feat, we could be looking at a 6-year deal for him.

 

I think $100M, as jay mariotti mentioned recently, for Derrek Lee is a little excessive --though I do think he'll get a bigger deal than Aramis got. $75M over 6 year is pretty reasonable for a protype 3-hole hitter like him. His numbers are serious, and while others in the past have put together massive single seasons (Beltre last year had like 48 HR's) i think Lee's everyday defense is likely to stay Gold Glove caliber.

 

Potential outline for a 6-year/$75M deal:

 

year 1: $10M

year 2: $11M

year 3: $12M

year 4 $13M

year 5 $14M

year 6: $15M

 

No way in hell would I give Derrek Lee a $100 mil deal. Even the 6/$75 you outline above seems excessive. By the time you get to year 6, he'll be 36 years old and while it's possible he still may be a quality player at that age, I can guarantee you he won't be worth $15 mil.

 

A three year deal with a team option would seem like a good deal. Of course, I suppose a lot depends on what he does next year.

 

Oh yeah, Mariotti is a complete idiot.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A MAXIMUM of 4 years(Ideally 3 + team option), with a maximum of 12 million in any of those years.

[frostwyrm]

He's only had one season of superstar type numbers. I don't want to give him the huge contract and then see him go back to being just very good and not great.

[USSoccer]

No way do I give Lee a deal worth more than Aramis' deal.

 

He's had one excellent season. It very well may be (and is likely to be) a career year. I'd actually consider trading him before I gave him a new deal for more than 4/40.

[CubinNY]

Lee is having the definition of a career year. I would let him play out his contract and look at his numbers over the course of the contract before I start to throw money like that around. Besides he is 28 (I think), by the time the contract is done he will be vastly overpaid.

 

My opinion of Lee is the same as it was before the year began. He is a good, not great first baseman.

[Mike Aller]

Yea, Lee is clearly having a career year. But if perchance next year he would happen to have numbers around .300/35/120, then he will get paid major money. You may not want to pay him 75-100 mil, but I guarentee you someone will.

[treebird]

if someone wants to pay that much to a guy whos probably not going to be one of the top five at his position after this year, derrek should leave

[NewUserName]

We have a couple of options in the minor leagues, So before I would pay Lee alot of money I would like to see him do it again. If he does sign him to a 3 year deal tops. If someone else offers him more the money could be used elsewhere.

[CarolinaCubFan]

if someone wants to pay that much to a guy whos probably not going to be one of the top five at his position after this year, derrek should leave

 

I don't expect Lee to put up the same type of numbers next year, but he will still be one of the top 1B in the game. I'm interested to know what five 1B you feel will "probably" be better than Lee.

[Bote McBoteface]

Even before this season I considered Derrek Lee to be one of the best at 1st base. His career numbers are dampered by his notorious crappy April-May. His great numbers this year are a product of him having a good beginning in April-May. I don't have the exact stats, but I would almost guarentee that Lee is about .310 BA the past couple years from June-Sept/Oct. I might not be so keen on giving him a 6 year 75 million dollar deal, but one way or another he is getting a big raise after next year.

[CarolinaCubFan]

Even before this season I considered Derrek Lee to be one of the best at 1st base. His career numbers are dampered by his notorious crappy April-May. His great numbers this year are a product of him having a good beginning in April-May. I don't have the exact stats, but I would almost guarentee that Lee is about .310 BA the past couple years from June-Sept/Oct. I might not be so keen on giving him a 6 year 75 million dollar deal, but one way or another he is getting a big raise after next year.

 

I agree. My impression of Lee before this season was always that he'd be a consistant .300 hitter, 30-40 hr, 100-120 rbi, 20-30 SB, and a gold glove. If he found the whole in his swing, I think we'll see this as the norm out of Lee, SB's decreasing of course.

 

I was a HUGE Choi fan and upset to see him go, but the fact that we got DLee in return eased the pain. I don't put him in the class of Pujols, but we have a good thing in Lee.

 

A good point was made about having cheaper alternatives in the minors. When they are ready, we have trade bait. If Lee stays consistent, he'll fetch a good return in trade. A stud minor leaguer wouldn't be bad trade bait as well. 4-40M sounds like a good ballpark guess in my book. We may have competition for his services though at that rate.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

if someone wants to pay that much to a guy whos probably not going to be one of the top five at his position after this year, derrek should leave

 

I don't expect Lee to put up the same type of numbers next year, but he will still be one of the top 1B in the game. I'm interested to know what five 1B you feel will "probably" be better than Lee.

 

Off the top of my head:

 

Delgado

Pujols

Helton

Sexson

Teixeira

N. Johnson

 

All have a decent shot at being as good or better than Lee going forward.

[Cubzfan64]

Imagine the RBI total Lee would have if he actually had OBP guys in front of him like he SHOULD have!

 

Lee is just at the end of being "young" or maybe starting his "middle age" as a baseball player. He's certainly above average defensively if not outstanding and he provides very good power and a very decent avg. I don't see how anyone could NOT consider him one of the top 5 first basemen.

 

That said, if you look around at MLB, there are a number of teams who will be in the market for 1B soon (either next year or in 2007). I've said it before and I truly believe that D Lee would be absolutely foolish to sign a 3-4 year contract with the Cubs without testing the free agent market - especially if he has an above average or even average offensive season for him next year. If I were in his shoes (and I can only WISH I were in his shoes!!), I would watch closely to see how committed the Cubs are to building a championship caliber team in 2006, and if things go badly I definitely test the free agent market at the end of the year and look to hook up with a top tier team in need of a 1B like Boston, Houston, NYY etc...

 

All those reasons I state above are why I would seriously consider trading him this offseason if you can get someone desparate enough to overpay. The fact is, Lee is indeed having a career year and although there's little reason to think he'll drop down to being below average next year and thereafter, the Cubs need to learn to sell high and buy low.

[AramisRamirez]

well, alot of you missed the important assumption that he comes relatively close to repeating this years offensive numbers. in 2006 if he goes .340 BA, .381 OBP, 38 HR, 117 RBI, and 14 SB he will be in-line massive contract. I am suprised that under those circumstances, some of you still wont go higher than 4/$40M.

 

6/$75M may sound excessive and im still cubs brass feel it will be no matter what numbers he puts up, but i respectful disagree. i cant say i agree with the notion that the afformentioned five 1B who are supposedly better than Derrek Lee actually are (with the exception of pujos). id take Dlee over nick johnson, delgado, and even probably sexson at this point. texiera is a monster though and talk about over-paid, then helton is your guy.

[sonofsamiam]

I think a 6-year deal would be crazy, and I think they're crazy for just about everyone. But the implication that Lee was just a slightly above-average player before this year isn't really true.

 

I wish I had Win Shares info at the ready now, which bears out this statement, but I don't. Suffice to say that Lee led the '03 Marlins in Win Shares (yes, he had more than Pudge and Pierre and Lowell and Castillo), and that he has had over 20 WS a season for many years straight now. Oh yeah, he's currently leading the MLB.

 

WARP3 is somewhat like Win Shares in measuring overall value. Here are WARP3 stats for premier first basemen over the last 4 years:

 

Lee

 

2002 07.6

2003 08.5

2004 07.2

2005 11.4

TOTL 34.7

 

Pujols

 

2002 08.4

2003 11.8

2004 10.5

2005 09.1

TOTL 39.8

 

Helton

 

2002 08.8

2003 12.4

2004 12.2

2005 07.2

TOTL 40.6

 

Delgado

 

2002 08.2

2003 08.8

2004 06.9

2005 05.2

TOTL 29.1

 

Sexson

 

2002 08.0

2003 09.8

2004 01.2

2005 06.4

TOTL 25.4

 

Konerko

 

2002 04.3

2003 01.9

2004 05.7

2005 07.2

TOTL 19.1

 

Teixeira

 

2002 DNP

2003 03.7

2004 06.4

2005 07.5

TOTL 17.6

 

Overbay

 

2002 -00.2

2003 02.8

2004 07.0

2005 06.1

TOTL 15.7

 

N. Johnson

 

2002 02.6

2003 04.3

2004 01.9

2005 06.6

TOTL 15.4

 

Choi

 

2002 -00.1

2003 01.5

2004 03.8

2005 02.2

TOTL 07.4

 

The only guys ahead of Lee over this period cumulatively are Helton and Pujols, and Helton is already on a bit of a downswing. Now some of these guys lost time to injury, but I doubt, looking at the numbers, that they would have overtaken Lee in this metric even given full seasons. I agree that Nick Johnson and Teixiera are excellent young players, but the former is always injured, and the latter plays in something of a bandbox. None of these guys is as good all-around as Lee, though of course Pujols is the best player of the group.

 

What I'm trying to say is that Lee was underrated before this year, and was always valuable. His numbers were always killed by playing in Florida -- he hit nearly twice as many HRs on the road as at home during those years. We should try to lock him in to something, without going too insane.

[Derwood]

Based on this year, however, don't you think Lee's agent(s) will try to push for an extension before he hits any type of career statistical correction in 2006?

[sonofsamiam]

Based on this year, however, don't you think Lee's agent(s) will try to push for an extension before he hits any type of career statistical correction in 2006?

 

They certainly will. My point was that, even with a "statistical correction", he's a very, very good player. His '04 season was actually his worst since '01; it just doesn't look like it, due to ballpark effects.

 

Plus, I'm of the opinion that he's actually turned the corner, and isn't likely to regress TOO much. His approach at the plate is much better. His strikeouts are way down from previous, he's taking more walks again (though not as many as in '02-'03 -- stupid Cubs philosophy!), and, most important of all, he hasn't had a bad month, which always was a problem in the past. In fact, his worst OPS for a single month this year is July's 1.048.

 

Based on this, while I doubt he'll have another year as good as this, whatever adjustments he's made have helped both his pitch recognition and his consistency. Those things are likely to help him continue at a higher level than as in previous seasons to this one, IMO.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Based on this year, however, don't you think Lee's agent(s) will try to push for an extension before he hits any type of career statistical correction in 2006?

 

They certainly will. My point was that, even with a "statistical correction", he's a very, very good player. His '04 season was actually his worst since '01; it just doesn't look like it, due to ballpark effects.

 

Plus, I'm of the opinion that he's actually turned the corner, and isn't likely to regress TOO much. His approach at the plate is much better. His strikeouts are way down from previous, he's taking more walks again (though not as many as in '02-'03 -- stupid Cubs philosophy!), and, most important of all, he hasn't had a bad month, which always was a problem in the past. In fact, his worst OPS for a single month this year is July's 1.048.

 

Based on this, while I doubt he'll have another year as good as this, whatever adjustments he's made have helped both his pitch recognition and his consistency. Those things are likely to help him continue at a higher level than as in previous seasons to this one, IMO.

 

Lee may not regress back to his career norms, but I still have my doubts about him being a 1.000 OPS guy in coming years. With all the talent at 1B, it might be better served not to extend Derrek, and even capitalize on his inflated value by trading him. Also, and I'd expect you'd already know this, Derrek's had a great string of luck this year, BABIP-wise. Without his good fortune, Lee's OPS goes down a minimum of 60 points.

[badgercub]

Based on this year, however, don't you think Lee's agent(s) will try to push for an extension before he hits any type of career statistical correction in 2006?

 

They certainly will. My point was that, even with a "statistical correction", he's a very, very good player. His '04 season was actually his worst since '01; it just doesn't look like it, due to ballpark effects.

 

Plus, I'm of the opinion that he's actually turned the corner, and isn't likely to regress TOO much. His approach at the plate is much better. His strikeouts are way down from previous, he's taking more walks again (though not as many as in '02-'03 -- stupid Cubs philosophy!), and, most important of all, he hasn't had a bad month, which always was a problem in the past. In fact, his worst OPS for a single month this year is July's 1.048.

 

Based on this, while I doubt he'll have another year as good as this, whatever adjustments he's made have helped both his pitch recognition and his consistency. Those things are likely to help him continue at a higher level than as in previous seasons to this one, IMO.

 

Lee may not regress back to his career norms, but I still have my doubts about him being a 1.000 OPS guy in coming years. With all the talent at 1B, it might be better served not to extend Derrek, and even capitalize on his inflated value by trading him. Also, and I'd expect you'd already know this, Derrek's had a great string of luck this year, BABIP-wise. Without his good fortune, Lee's OPS goes down a minimum of 60 points.

 

Trade him for what? Young talent? Lee and Ramirez are the two guys you need as your cornerstones to make a run at a world series. With these two in the fold and Prior and Z the Cubs should have a 4 or 5 year timetable to make a run at a world series. I wouldn't think of trading him away unless you are getting a Miguel Cabrera type player back in return that you can lock up for 4-5 years. Which there is no way any team is going to trade their superstar, already producing at the ML level, cheap talent for something similar with a much higher price tag. Why would we trade away our best players when we haven't won a thing in almost a century?

[goonys evil twin]

Why would we trade away our best players when we haven't won a thing in almost a century?

 

If you came to the conclusion that you weren't close to winning with those players and/or didn't want to resign them when they become free agents.

 

Unless the Cubs make massive improvements in at least 2 of the LF, CF, RF, SS positions, their chances will be slim. They also need significant improvement in the starting rotation, bullpen and bench. With a weak free agent class, and possibly very little on the trade market, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the Cubs cannot make the moves necessary to improve drastically by next year, therefore justifying trading off their best players.

 

Likewise, if you didn't have a good chance to win next year, and one of your best players was going to be a free agent after the season (Lee) then it would not be unreasonable to deal him in order to better position yourself for the following season.

 

I'm not advocating this strategy, but it's perfectly logical and a possibility that should not be ignored.

[treebird]

Based on this year, however, don't you think Lee's agent(s) will try to push for an extension before he hits any type of career statistical correction in 2006?

 

They certainly will. My point was that, even with a "statistical correction", he's a very, very good player. His '04 season was actually his worst since '01; it just doesn't look like it, due to ballpark effects.

 

Plus, I'm of the opinion that he's actually turned the corner, and isn't likely to regress TOO much. His approach at the plate is much better. His strikeouts are way down from previous, he's taking more walks again (though not as many as in '02-'03 -- stupid Cubs philosophy!), and, most important of all, he hasn't had a bad month, which always was a problem in the past. In fact, his worst OPS for a single month this year is July's 1.048.

 

Based on this, while I doubt he'll have another year as good as this, whatever adjustments he's made have helped both his pitch recognition and his consistency. Those things are likely to help him continue at a higher level than as in previous seasons to this one, IMO.

 

Lee may not regress back to his career norms, but I still have my doubts about him being a 1.000 OPS guy in coming years. With all the talent at 1B, it might be better served not to extend Derrek, and even capitalize on his inflated value by trading him. Also, and I'd expect you'd already know this, Derrek's had a great string of luck this year, BABIP-wise. Without his good fortune, Lee's OPS goes down a minimum of 60 points.

 

I'd like to see the Cubs trade Lee.

[Cubzfan64]

Why would we trade away our best players when we haven't won a thing in almost a century?

 

If you came to the conclusion that you weren't close to winning with those players and/or didn't want to resign them when they become free agents.

 

Unless the Cubs make massive improvements in at least 2 of the LF, CF, RF, SS positions, their chances will be slim. They also need significant improvement in the starting rotation, bullpen and bench. With a weak free agent class, and possibly very little on the trade market, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the Cubs cannot make the moves necessary to improve drastically by next year, therefore justifying trading off their best players.

 

Likewise, if you didn't have a good chance to win next year, and one of your best players was going to be a free agent after the season (Lee) then it would not be unreasonable to deal him in order to better position yourself for the following season.

 

I'm not advocating this strategy, but it's perfectly logical and a possibility that should not be ignored.

 

Your logic is very eloquently written and expresses exactly why I would at the very least CONSIDER trading D Lee. It has nothing to do with not liking him or thinking he isn't a good player because I don't think either of those things. I just don't feel comfortable that we can position ourselves to have a championship team in 2006 and I'm nervous that we'll feel forced to overpay Lee both in years and $ making it that much more difficult to get what we need to compete in 2007 and beyond.

 

I certainly don't advocate trading Lee for nothing, but a reasonable person has to put his name out there and see if there is someone who desperately wants him and is willing to overpay. At that point you simply have to hope the Cub organization can evaluate talent well enough to get more in return than they give up by trading him.