The $100M 2006 Cubs - includes Giles, Furcal, Wagner, Zito

[frostwyrm]

But in your original post you stated that you would rather have Burnett and Cedeno over Furcal and Zito.

 

No, those are not the complete choices I listed. You left some important stuff out. I originally wrote the following:

 

1) Zito, Furcal, Pie in CF, and losing several valuable minor leaguers(to get Zito).

 

or

 

2) Burnett, Cedeno at SS, stopgap CF, retaining all valuable minor leaguers.

Right. Like I said no mention of Giles.

 

Why would I mention Giles in the original post? He's an RF. I was comparing Hoop's package of SP, SS, and CF to my plan for those positions. RF is a different matter. For some reason you implied I wanted Klesko in RF, so I felt compelled to mention that that was not the case. My original post didn't cover RF.

We're talking in circles here. Anyway, I was just responding to your original post by saying I would rather have Zito, Furcal, and Patterson, than Burnett, Cedeno, and a stopgap CF.

 

I think Patterson is outta here. We are less than one year away from Pie taking over in CF and the whole organization just seems disenchanted with Corey. What I hope to see is Corey do great in winter ball, which should restore some of his trade value.

[nick23]

But in your original post you stated that you would rather have Burnett and Cedeno over Furcal and Zito.

 

No, those are not the complete choices I listed. You left some important stuff out. I originally wrote the following:

 

1) Zito, Furcal, Pie in CF, and losing several valuable minor leaguers(to get Zito).

 

or

 

2) Burnett, Cedeno at SS, stopgap CF, retaining all valuable minor leaguers.

Right. Like I said no mention of Giles.

 

Why would I mention Giles in the original post? He's an RF. I was comparing Hoop's package of SP, SS, and CF to my plan for those positions. RF is a different matter. For some reason you implied I wanted Klesko in RF, so I felt compelled to mention that that was not the case. My original post didn't cover RF.

We're talking in circles here. Anyway, I was just responding to your original post by saying I would rather have Zito, Furcal, and Patterson, than Burnett, Cedeno, and a stopgap CF.

 

I think Patterson is outta here. We are less than one year away from Pie taking over in CF and the whole organization just seems disenchanted with Corey. What I hope to see is Corey do great in winter ball, which should restore some of his trade value.

Well I hope not. I would hate to see us repeat last offseason's mistakes and trade away talent for not much in return.

[CuseCubFan69]

Farnsworth=Patterson

 

It stinks because I'm not sure Patterson can ever be a success with the Cubs again so they'll never get the return they could have a year or two ago.

Edited August 31, 2005 by CuseCubFan69

[jtownie]

has the article about the Cubs asking Corey to play Winter ball been posted? I guess he isn't very happy about it...

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I'm sick of having no offense. Who's going to lead off for this team, Todd Walker? I don't care about his OBP. You need some speed at the top of the order. Even if he leads off the game with a hit or walk it's going to take 3 more hits to get him home. I'm also not quite sure what doesn't impress you about Furcal. Is it the great defense? Or maybe the career .350obp. Or maybe the fact that he rarely strikes out. Or it could be the fact that at 27 he's about to hit his peak years. What is not impressive about him?

 

Now that's just ridiculous. Walker is more than capable of hitting leadoff. And he's more than capable of reaching home with less than 3 hits after him. That's just absurd talk that completely belittles the rest of your message.

 

I'm not impressed with Furcal because he's not very good. He's fine, but he's no $8 million difference maker. He's a career .346 OBP player, and that's acceptable, but hardly impressive. He's also got a drinking problem, that, unlike Kyle Farnsworth, has actually gotten him in serious legal trouble. If Furcal is your primary offensive improvement in the offseason, you will still be severaly lacking on offense. The OF must be addressed. The Cubs have options at SS, but they don't have anything for the OF.

Speaking of ridiculous. I would love to hear your explantion on why Furcal is "not very good". I'm also wondering how you know Furcal has a drinking problem. And isn't the point of a leadoff man to not only get on base, but also get himself into scoring position?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that he was arrested for DUI.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm sick of having no offense. Who's going to lead off for this team, Todd Walker? I don't care about his OBP. You need some speed at the top of the order. Even if he leads off the game with a hit or walk it's going to take 3 more hits to get him home. I'm also not quite sure what doesn't impress you about Furcal. Is it the great defense? Or maybe the career .350obp. Or maybe the fact that he rarely strikes out. Or it could be the fact that at 27 he's about to hit his peak years. What is not impressive about him?

 

Now that's just ridiculous. Walker is more than capable of hitting leadoff. And he's more than capable of reaching home with less than 3 hits after him. That's just absurd talk that completely belittles the rest of your message.

 

I'm not impressed with Furcal because he's not very good. He's fine, but he's no $8 million difference maker. He's a career .346 OBP player, and that's acceptable, but hardly impressive. He's also got a drinking problem, that, unlike Kyle Farnsworth, has actually gotten him in serious legal trouble. If Furcal is your primary offensive improvement in the offseason, you will still be severaly lacking on offense. The OF must be addressed. The Cubs have options at SS, but they don't have anything for the OF.

Speaking of ridiculous. I would love to hear your explantion on why Furcal is "not very good". I'm also wondering how you know Furcal has a drinking problem. And isn't the point of a leadoff man to not only get on base, but also get himself into scoring position?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that he was arrested for DUI.

 

So driving a car on the sidewalk isn't ok where you live either?

[1908]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that he was arrested for DUI.

I think more than one, too. He served jail time for his latest one.

[YearofDaCubs]

Was his DUIs during the season?

[sethuel1]

Was his DUIs during the season?

At least one of them was.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I think that means he has a drinking problem. Although, it could just be me.

[CubfaninCA]

. . . I'm sick of having no offense. . . .

 

No offense to you, nick23, but that's a widespread misperception on this board. The Cubs are first in BA in the NL, second in HRs, lead in total bases, and are 6th in runs scored. That's hardly 'no offense.'

 

The Cubs' problem is that they allow more runs than they score. Period. That's a function of bad pitching, bad pitching, bad pitching and bad pitching, with some bad fielding thrown in.

 

Stand pat on the hitting, improve the fielding (especially up the middle) and add one good starter, 2 good relievers and one great closer, and I guarantee you the Cubs will be a playoff team.

 

That having been said, I agree with you about Furcal. He makes this team better with his defense alone.

 

It was awfully brave of you to take on the groupthink here w/ stats. Rather ironic too. "No offense" and "bad offense" do not describe this Cub lineup. It's middle of the road, just like the pitching and the defense. The Cubs need to improve all 3 areas and get a new manager, and hope for some luck for a change.

[CubfaninCA]

SS is a dangerous question for the Cubs. With regard to Furcal, I don't see $8M worth of production there. Further, why in the world would the market even reach $8M? Because of Renteria and Cabrera last year? I don't think there will be a number of teams looking to pay that kind of money for Rafeal. If there are, let them have him.

 

I would try to bring back Nomar, personally. I know, I know. Of course, it would be a contract even more incentive laden than his current one. However, if I brought back Nomar, I'd make certain that Neifi was no longer a member of the Cubs, nor Macias. That way, Cedeno could get time to back-up Nomar. I think the risk is worth it that Nomar could return to a plus player at the SS position.

 

That being said, I don't expect Nomar to resign with the Cubs. I suspect San Diego may make another run at him for 2B with a multi-year contract. If so, Nomar would be hard pressed not to take it in light of his repaired hamstring.

 

Nomar probably ends up playing 3b on the west coast.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

. . . I'm sick of having no offense. . . .

 

No offense to you, nick23, but that's a widespread misperception on this board. The Cubs are first in BA in the NL, second in HRs, lead in total bases, and are 6th in runs scored. That's hardly 'no offense.'

 

The Cubs' problem is that they allow more runs than they score. Period. That's a function of bad pitching, bad pitching, bad pitching and bad pitching, with some bad fielding thrown in.

 

Stand pat on the hitting, improve the fielding (especially up the middle) and add one good starter, 2 good relievers and one great closer, and I guarantee you the Cubs will be a playoff team.

 

That having been said, I agree with you about Furcal. He makes this team better with his defense alone.

 

It was awfully brave of you to take on the groupthink here w/ stats. Rather ironic too. "No offense" and "bad offense" do not describe this Cub lineup. It's middle of the road, just like the pitching and the defense. The Cubs need to improve all 3 areas and get a new manager, and hope for some luck for a change.

 

Hey look, more unnecessary labeling!

 

The Cubs are middle of the road on offense, and it's something they have to improve upon. Lee won't keep up this pace, and we have holes at all 3 OF positions plus SS.

 

The Cubs pitching has been middle of the pack, but there's reason for optimism, since Prior missed the time he did, Dempster was only in the pen for part of the year, plus Wood is still a talented pitcher when he comes back. The pen could stand some revampment, but with 3 of the rotation spots in stone with Wood likely to come back into one, adding a starter is not an absolute necessity IMO.

 

To my surprise, the Cubs are near the top of the NL(2nd or 3rd I believe) in defensive efficiency. It's not necessarily an area that I'd target to downgrade or upgrade intentionally, although I wouldn't let below average defense in certain areas prevent me from going after a superior offensive player.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Oh come on, everybody loves some good old fashioned groupthinking. That was what this site was built on, wasn't it.

[imb]

ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

[CubfaninCA]

. . . I'm sick of having no offense. . . .

 

No offense to you, nick23, but that's a widespread misperception on this board. The Cubs are first in BA in the NL, second in HRs, lead in total bases, and are 6th in runs scored. That's hardly 'no offense.'

 

The Cubs' problem is that they allow more runs than they score. Period. That's a function of bad pitching, bad pitching, bad pitching and bad pitching, with some bad fielding thrown in.

 

Stand pat on the hitting, improve the fielding (especially up the middle) and add one good starter, 2 good relievers and one great closer, and I guarantee you the Cubs will be a playoff team.

 

That having been said, I agree with you about Furcal. He makes this team better with his defense alone.

 

It was awfully brave of you to take on the groupthink here w/ stats. Rather ironic too. "No offense" and "bad offense" do not describe this Cub lineup. It's middle of the road, just like the pitching and the defense. The Cubs need to improve all 3 areas and get a new manager, and hope for some luck for a change.

 

Hey look, more unnecessary labeling!

 

The Cubs are middle of the road on offense, and it's something they have to improve upon. Lee won't keep up this pace, and we have holes at all 3 OF positions plus SS.

 

The Cubs pitching has been middle of the pack, but there's reason for optimism, since Prior missed the time he did, Dempster was only in the pen for part of the year, plus Wood is still a talented pitcher when he comes back. The pen could stand some revampment, but with 3 of the rotation spots in stone with Wood likely to come back into one, adding a starter is not an absolute necessity IMO.

 

To my surprise, the Cubs are near the top of the NL(2nd or 3rd I believe) in defensive efficiency. It's not necessarily an area that I'd target to downgrade or upgrade intentionally, although I wouldn't let below average defense in certain areas prevent me from going after a superior offensive player.

 

Oh cmon. The same ol crap about "no offense" is thrown out ad naseum here. The facts speak for themselves, and some people are just plain wrong. I guess I should apologize for using the word "some" now. :o

[imb]

The offense may be 2nd in OPS, but they are 8th in OBP, and that won't cut it, seeing as OBP is more valuable than SLG.

 

The pitching definitely needs help, but ignoring our woeful OF while stocking up on pitching will not solve our problems. One quick stroke won't fix anything, it's going to take several brushes over the entire team canvas.

[CubfaninCA]

The offense may be 2nd in OPS, but they are 8th in OBP, and that won't cut it, seeing as OBP is more valuable than SLG.

 

The pitching definitely needs help, but ignoring our woeful OF while stocking up on pitching will not solve our problems. One quick stroke won't fix anything, it's going to take several brushes over the entire team canvas.

 

All that matters is how many runs they score and they rank 6th in the NL. Whereas their ERA is ranked 10th. Hmmmmm, guess the hitting is the main culprit.

 

Just a little factoid, in 2003 the Cubs ranked 3rd in ERA and 9th in runs scored. So contrary to popular belief the offense has got better.

[nick23]

The offense may be 2nd in OPS, but they are 8th in OBP, and that won't cut it, seeing as OBP is more valuable than SLG.

 

The pitching definitely needs help, but ignoring our woeful OF while stocking up on pitching will not solve our problems. One quick stroke won't fix anything, it's going to take several brushes over the entire team canvas.

 

All that matters is how many runs they score and they rank 6th in the NL. Whereas their ERA is ranked 10th. Hmmmmm, guess the hitting is the main culprit.

 

Just a little factoid, in 2003 the Cubs ranked 3rd in ERA and 9th in runs scored. So contrary to popular belief the offense has got better.

See this is where I desagree. Runs scored mean nothing if you score 8 runs on one day and 2 runs the next. This team cannot consistently score runs day in and day out. Basically, at the end of the season just looking at runs scored isn't goint to tell you much at all.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The offense may be 2nd in OPS, but they are 8th in OBP, and that won't cut it, seeing as OBP is more valuable than SLG.

 

The pitching definitely needs help, but ignoring our woeful OF while stocking up on pitching will not solve our problems. One quick stroke won't fix anything, it's going to take several brushes over the entire team canvas.

 

All that matters is how many runs they score and they rank 6th in the NL. Whereas their ERA is ranked 10th. Hmmmmm, guess the hitting is the main culprit.

 

Just a little factoid, in 2003 the Cubs ranked 3rd in ERA and 9th in runs scored. So contrary to popular belief the offense has got better.

 

I pointed out the reasons to be concerned with our offense(Lee regression, a complete lack of production from the OF) and reasons to think our pitching will improve(No freak injury for Prior, Dempster for a full season, healthy Wood, etc.).

 

In 2003 the Cubs scored 724 runs. This year they are on pace for 725. I guess you could consider that improvement.

[wastra]

Anyone with time could do a simple mathematical projection to compare our average runs per game and the standard deviation vs. other teams'.

 

 

Basically...If we score 12 runs one day, and 3 runs the followign day and 3 runs the day after, we're averaging 6 runs per game, but barring stellar pitching, we're likely 1-2.

 

Another team who scores 5-5-5 with jsut "decent" pitching is averaging fewer runs per game, but probably has a better chance to win 2 or 3 games.

 

 

Obviously, you would prefer to have a team that scores 4-5 runs EVERY game than one that scores either 10 or 0, even though the totals and average of runs per game are going to be similar.

 

So if anyone had the time or inclination to enter in # of runs in each game a team scores into excel, they can run a "mean" and "standard deviation" calculation and tell us if our total runs scored is a smokescreen for an INCONSISTANT offense day-to-day.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think that means he has a drinking problem. Although, it could just be me.

 

Here's an article on Furcal's second DUI.

 

Furcal, 26, was arrested Sept. 10 in Atlanta and charged with driving under the influence, his second such arrest in four years. He had faced from three days to a year in jail for the second offense within five years.

 

 

So, yes it was his second offense in four years. It occurred on Sept 10, 2004, so yes it happened during the season.

 

I doubt it affects his market value, but it should at least factor into any club's decision to sign him.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

. . . I'm sick of having no offense. . . .

 

No offense to you, nick23, but that's a widespread misperception on this board. The Cubs are first in BA in the NL, second in HRs, lead in total bases, and are 6th in runs scored. That's hardly 'no offense.'

 

The Cubs' problem is that they allow more runs than they score. Period. That's a function of bad pitching, bad pitching, bad pitching and bad pitching, with some bad fielding thrown in.

 

Stand pat on the hitting, improve the fielding (especially up the middle) and add one good starter, 2 good relievers and one great closer, and I guarantee you the Cubs will be a playoff team.

 

That having been said, I agree with you about Furcal. He makes this team better with his defense alone.

 

It was awfully brave of you to take on the groupthink here w/ stats. Rather ironic too. "No offense" and "bad offense" do not describe this Cub lineup. It's middle of the road, just like the pitching and the defense. The Cubs need to improve all 3 areas and get a new manager, and hope for some luck for a change.

 

Oooh boy. I always love threads that bring up the "group think."

 

Hey guys...I forgot to mention. Sandwitches and group think at my house this Friday night.

[barrettismyidol]

. . . I'm sick of having no offense. . . .

 

No offense to you, nick23, but that's a widespread misperception on this board. The Cubs are first in BA in the NL, second in HRs, lead in total bases, and are 6th in runs scored. That's hardly 'no offense.'

 

The Cubs' problem is that they allow more runs than they score. Period. That's a function of bad pitching, bad pitching, bad pitching and bad pitching, with some bad fielding thrown in.

 

Stand pat on the hitting, improve the fielding (especially up the middle) and add one good starter, 2 good relievers and one great closer, and I guarantee you the Cubs will be a playoff team.

 

That having been said, I agree with you about Furcal. He makes this team better with his defense alone.

 

It was awfully brave of you to take on the groupthink here w/ stats. Rather ironic too. "No offense" and "bad offense" do not describe this Cub lineup. It's middle of the road, just like the pitching and the defense. The Cubs need to improve all 3 areas and get a new manager, and hope for some luck for a change.

 

Oooh boy. I always love threads that bring up the "group think."

 

Hey guys...I forgot to mention. Sandwitches and group think at my house this Friday night.

 

Woo, party on the patio!

[Guest]

Anyone with time could do a simple mathematical projection to compare our average runs per game and the standard deviation vs. other teams'.

 

 

Basically...If we score 12 runs one day, and 3 runs the followign day and 3 runs the day after, we're averaging 6 runs per game, but barring stellar pitching, we're likely 1-2.

 

Another team who scores 5-5-5 with jsut "decent" pitching is averaging fewer runs per game, but probably has a better chance to win 2 or 3 games.

 

 

Obviously, you would prefer to have a team that scores 4-5 runs EVERY game than one that scores either 10 or 0, even though the totals and average of runs per game are going to be similar.

 

So if anyone had the time or inclination to enter in # of runs in each game a team scores into excel, they can run a "mean" and "standard deviation" calculation and tell us if our total runs scored is a smokescreen for an INCONSISTANT offense day-to-day.

Without commenting on th consistency of the 2005 Cubs, it does appear that consistency in scoring does help a team win more games than they otherwise should.

 

Using the handy Retrosheet game logs, I computed standard deviation in scoring runs, winning percentage, and expected winning percentage for every major league team from 1955-2003. I then ran a correlation between the standard deviation (expressed as a percentage of the mean) and how much better or worse a team did as compared to its expected record. It turns out that the R of that correlation is -.23. Not a strong relationship, in other words, but its definitely there. This suggests that more consistent offenses perform better than you'd expect given the team's run differential.

 

That being said, I'm not sure how useful this information is. As I previously stated the relationship isn't all that strong. Decreasing your standard deviation by a full run (no small feat) would only net a team a couple extra wins a year. What's more, is there any way to reliably improve your team's ability to score runs more consistently? I'm not sure, but it may be worth further study.