Trib Suggests that Furcal Will Be Offseason Target

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Except Walker gets more extra base hits than Furcal, so he doesn't always have to steal a base to get into scoring position. I'm not sure that kind of money is worth some stolen bases.

 

Also, the Braves don't want him back. If they felt he was that important to their team, I think they'd find a way to keep him around. They usually aren't wrong about these types of things.

 

Are they going to put Wilson Betemit @ SS??

 

I think that is likely.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

 

 

I don't disagree with that. I like speed as much as anyone. But signing him for big bucks ($8MM+) for a .340 OBP? That's not solving our problems. The bottom line is that he just doesn't get on base like an $8MM leadoff hitter should.

 

Just for the sake of perspective, Lou Brock's career OBP was 0.346.

[nilodnayr]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Except Walker gets more extra base hits than Furcal, so he doesn't always have to steal a base to get into scoring position. I'm not sure that kind of money is worth some stolen bases.

 

Also, the Braves don't want him back. If they felt he was that important to their team, I think they'd find a way to keep him around. They usually aren't wrong about these types of things.

 

It's not about if they think he's important or not. It's about whether they think they can compete with their funds allocated elsewhere. Do you think they thought Sheffield was done when they got rid of him? Or JD Drew? They got rid of them because they thought they could maintain their level of success by replacing them for less money and using what was left over to strengthen another need on the team.

 

If they don't re-sign Furcal, it will be because they believe they can go with a cheaper alternative and make up the production elsewhere, not because they feel they don't need him.

 

See bold. Which is exactly what we should do with Ronny Cedeno. We all know what the market is for shortstops, thats why we really need to give a $350K option a shot. 8M in the OF gets you a whole lot more than 8M at shortstop. The braves are smart, they dont need to resign furcal because they have betemit, if we sign furcal with cedeno its just another example of how poorly this organization is run.

[CubfaninCA]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Except Walker gets more extra base hits than Furcal, so he doesn't always have to steal a base to get into scoring position. I'm not sure that kind of money is worth some stolen bases.

 

Also, the Braves don't want him back. If they felt he was that important to their team, I think they'd find a way to keep him around. They usually aren't wrong about these types of things.

 

It's not about if they think he's important or not. It's about whether they think they can compete with their funds allocated elsewhere. Do you think they thought Sheffield was done when they got rid of him? Or JD Drew? They got rid of them because they thought they could maintain their level of success by replacing them for less money and using what was left over to strengthen another need on the team.

 

If they don't re-sign Furcal, it will be because they believe they can go with a cheaper alternative and make up the production elsewhere, not because they feel they don't need him.

 

See bold. Which is exactly what we should do with Ronny Cedeno. We all know what the market is for shortstops, thats why we really need to give a $350K option a shot. 8M in the OF gets you a whole lot more than 8M at shortstop. The braves are smart, they dont need to resign furcal because they have betemit, if we sign furcal with cedeno its just another example of how poorly this organization is run.

 

So why not put Cedeno @ 2b then?? It sounds like he's pretty versatile, and Furcal's > Walker in the long run. Furcal gives the Cubs someone they can pencil into the lineup for the next 4-8 years, who fills a need, leadoff, and plays good d at a key spot, SS. I see no reason to penny pinch when this is big market team, w/ several major needs.

[nilodnayr]

So why not put Cedeno @ 2b then?? It sounds like he's pretty versatile, and Furcal's > Walker in the long run. Furcal gives the Cubs someone they can pencil into the lineup for the next 4-8 years, who fills a need, leadoff, and plays good d at a key spot, SS. I see no reason to penny pinch when this is big market team, w/ several major needs.

 

Because we are also getting extremely good production for the price at that position. We dont need to overpay at ss this year to solve second base in 2007. For example, Jeff Kent is making 8.5M, would you rather take Kent's production or Furcals? If you have a cheap shortstop you count your blessings as weve seen the market for good defense and 750 OPS players is 8-10M. Plus, what happens with EPatt if youve inked Furcal and slid ronny over to second. If Furcal had a better OBP, maybe id think twice, but 340 is nothing great. I am not penny pinching, I just dont think its a good allocation of funds. Would you not agree that Ronny, Walker, and Giles is better than Furcal, Ronny, and Holla?

[CubfaninCA]

So why not put Cedeno @ 2b then?? It sounds like he's pretty versatile, and Furcal's > Walker in the long run. Furcal gives the Cubs someone they can pencil into the lineup for the next 4-8 years, who fills a need, leadoff, and plays good d at a key spot, SS. I see no reason to penny pinch when this is big market team, w/ several major needs.

 

Because we are also getting extremely good production for the price at that position. We dont need to overpay at ss this year to solve second base in 2007. For example, Jeff Kent is making 8.5M, would you rather take Kent's production or Furcals? If you have a cheap shortstop you count your blessings as weve seen the market for good defense and 750 OPS players is 8-10M. Plus, what happens with EPatt if youve inked Furcal and slid ronny over to second. If Furcal had a better OBP, maybe id think twice, but 340 is nothing great. I am not penny pinching, I just dont think its a good allocation of funds. Would you not agree that Ronny, Walker, and Giles is better than Furcal, Ronny, and Holla?

 

1. Kent's getting old.

 

2. Why am I given the choice of Holla??

 

3. Maybe the Cubs are getting sick of Walker's big mouth??

 

4. Has EPatt made it past Double A yet?

 

5. There aren't a lot of prolific leadoff obp guys, and Furcal steals lots of bases.

[cubweiser03]

Furcal's realistic market are these teams: Cubs, Chisox, Seattle, Atlanta?, Dbax?, Houston. All the big market teams are locked in on SS: NYY,Os,Sox,LAA, NYM, LAD, Phi, Was, SF, STL. I think that will somewhat keep the bidding war from going out of control. Of course Kenny W is a pretty crazy guy but dont forget nomar is going to be on the market too and an AL team could use him as a DH. Even though the market is small i think not having the big markets in there helps the Cubs get Furcal at a more affordable price.

[Warren Brusstar]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

 

 

I don't disagree with that. I like speed as much as anyone. But signing him for big bucks ($8MM+) for a .340 OBP? That's not solving our problems. The bottom line is that he just doesn't get on base like an $8MM leadoff hitter should.

 

Just for the sake of perspective, Lou Brock's career OBP was 0.346.

 

And, for further perspective, Lou Brock is one of the most overrated players in the history of major league baseball.

[LoneStarCubFan]

Walker's leaving this week so everybody needs to get used to the fact he won't be around next year.

 

The Cubs need a leadoff hitter. Furcal is the best available option.

 

I'd much rather overpay for a 27-year-old shortstop who gives the Cubs the leadoff threat they need than overpay for 36-year-old Brian Giles, who is the epitome of every free agent the Cubs signed during the 90s. A big name guy on the downside of his career who the Cubs would grossly overpay to acquire and won't earn his money.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Walker's leaving this week so everybody needs to get used to the fact he won't be around next year.

 

The Cubs need a leadoff hitter. Furcal is the best available option.

 

I'd much rather overpay for a 27-year-old shortstop who gives the Cubs the leadoff threat they need than overpay for 36-year-old Brian Giles, who is the epitome of every free agent the Cubs signed during the 90s. A big name guy on the downside of his career who the Cubs would grossly overpay to acquire and won't earn his money.

 

Giles won't be 36 until early 2007, and he also dwarfs Furcal's offensive production.

 

EDIT: Heck, Walker's a better leadoff option than Furcal. Higher OBP, higher SLG, his EQA has been 10 points better than Furcal each of the last 2 years. He's got Furcal beat in RC this year too.

Edited August 29, 2005 by Transmogrified Tiger

[Tim]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base?

 

(btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base?

 

(btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't)

 

A little while back I did a similar case study with Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo, since they spend the vast majority of their time hitting 1-2 over the last few years. IIRC, Castillo every year had worse numbers with runners on than without, and when Pierre's numbers went up from year to year, Castillo's went down, and vice versa. It was almost a perfect ratio with their OPS.

[Tim]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base?

 

(btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't)

 

A little while back I did a similar case study with Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo, since they spend the vast majority of their time hitting 1-2 over the last few years. IIRC, Castillo every year had worse numbers with runners on than without, and when Pierre's numbers went up from year to year, Castillo's went down, and vice versa. It was almost a perfect ratio with their OPS.

I've done such a thing, as well and came to the same results.

 

However, I've seen a much more comprehensive study that found that the top few basestealers in the league actually can have a measureable impact on the game. But it's along the lines of a few points better instead of 100.

 

In other words, it was a measurable difference but one that I felt showed that it wasn't really worth that much anyway.

[frostwyrm]

Furcal won't even come close to giving us the same bang for our buck that Cedeno can give at $350K. I'd much rather spend Furcal's 8M on AJ Burnett

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Furcal won't even come close to giving us the same bang for our buck that Cedeno can give at $350K. I'd much rather spend Furcal's 8M on AJ Burnett

 

Speaking of bang for the buck, I don't think there's any way you get Burnett for 8 mil, although you may not have been implying that. Millwood will give you similar numbers for a lower price if you want a SP.

[UK1679666180]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base?

 

(btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't)

 

A little while back I did a similar case study with Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo, since they spend the vast majority of their time hitting 1-2 over the last few years. IIRC, Castillo every year had worse numbers with runners on than without, and when Pierre's numbers went up from year to year, Castillo's went down, and vice versa. It was almost a perfect ratio with their OPS.

I've done such a thing, as well and came to the same results.

 

However, I've seen a much more comprehensive study that found that the top few basestealers in the league actually can have a measureable impact on the game. But it's along the lines of a few points better instead of 100.

 

In other words, it was a measurable difference but one that I felt showed that it wasn't really worth that much anyway.

 

Interesting, was that study done with the fast runner on base vs. the pitcher in the wind-up or was it done with a fast runner on base vs. a slow runner on base?

 

To me, I don't see any validity in comparing a fast runner on base vs. no one on, there are too many variables; Pitching from the stretch vs. wind-up and the variation of a good start vs. a bad one.

 

If the leadoff hitter goes 3-4 with 2 runs scored and the following hitter goes 2-4, did the second go 2-4 b/c of the leadoff hitter or b/c the pitcher didn't throw well? Of course, if both the leadoff hitter and second hitter go a combined 0-8, did the second hitter not hit well b/c no one was on base distracting the pitcher or b/c the pitcher had real good stuff.

 

Personally, the variable of the pitcher's performance weighs more heavily in the outcome of the 2nd hitter than the theory of runner distraction.

[hardcorecubfan]

Anyone think Furcal's DWI problems will drive his market down?

 

Nah, look the drinking problem never hurt Eckersly....wait it, did but that was only with the Cubs

[Tim]

Furcal's not going to just sit @ first base when he gets there like a Walker or a Bellhorn. He's going to steal a lot of bases and distract the opposing pitcher. This may make some uncomfy, but he's a good intangible player. Sorry, I can't present a stat for how much he'll distract opposing pitchers.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base?

 

(btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't)

 

A little while back I did a similar case study with Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo, since they spend the vast majority of their time hitting 1-2 over the last few years. IIRC, Castillo every year had worse numbers with runners on than without, and when Pierre's numbers went up from year to year, Castillo's went down, and vice versa. It was almost a perfect ratio with their OPS.

I've done such a thing, as well and came to the same results.

 

However, I've seen a much more comprehensive study that found that the top few basestealers in the league actually can have a measureable impact on the game. But it's along the lines of a few points better instead of 100.

 

In other words, it was a measurable difference but one that I felt showed that it wasn't really worth that much anyway.

 

Interesting, was that study done with the fast runner on base vs. the pitcher in the wind-up or was it done with a fast runner on base vs. a slow runner on base?

 

To me, I don't see any validity in comparing a fast runner on base vs. no one on, there are too many variables; Pitching from the stretch vs. wind-up and the variation of a good start vs. a bad one.

 

If the leadoff hitter goes 3-4 with 2 runs scored and the following hitter goes 2-4, did the second go 2-4 b/c of the leadoff hitter or b/c the pitcher didn't throw well? Of course, if both the leadoff hitter and second hitter go a combined 0-8, did the second hitter not hit well b/c no one was on base distracting the pitcher or b/c the pitcher had real good stuff.

 

Personally, the variable of the pitcher's performance weighs more heavily in the outcome of the 2nd hitter than the theory of runner distraction.

It's in the baseball forum somewhere. Mark Peel posted a link to it, I think back in 2003.

[Uber]

I like Raffy. that is all.

[YearofDaCubs]

Furcal won't even come close to giving us the same bang for our buck that Cedeno can give at $350K. I'd much rather spend Furcal's 8M on AJ Burnett

AJ Burnett? Now we are talking. I am not a fan of Millwood and maybe it's best for him to stay in the AL. He was bad last year with the Phillies and ok the year prior to that. Pay the extra 2-4 mil and grab Burnett. He's good.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I have no qualms going after Furcal as long as the resources are there to fill other needs. We definitely will also need to add one major bat in the outfield and fill the closer spot, whether that's with Ryan, Wagner, or keeping Dempster.

 

I'd like to see Hendry attempt to address this issue early on and then make some aggressive trades to help us in other areas. We're going to be facing a rule V crunch, and a number of those players could be packaged to bring in a major league outfielder.

[frostwyrm]

I'd like to go cheap with Murton and Cedeno and get in the bidding for Giles and Burnett. Starting some rookies at the league minimum is vastly preferrable to 2nd tier mediocrities like Burnitz at 5M.

[cubbyvirus00]

I'd like to go cheap with Murton and Cedeno and get in the bidding for Giles and Burnett. Starting some rookies at the league minimum is vastly preferrable to 2nd tier mediocrities like Burnitz at 5M.

 

ok. :roll: whos going to leadoff for the Cubs next season? A bonafied leadoff hitter in Furcal, is what the Cubs NEED. And hes an ex-brave which means hes learned to play the game right.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'd like to go cheap with Murton and Cedeno and get in the bidding for Giles and Burnett. Starting some rookies at the league minimum is vastly preferrable to 2nd tier mediocrities like Burnitz at 5M.

 

ok. :roll: whos going to leadoff for the Cubs next season? A bonafied leadoff hitter in Furcal, is what the Cubs NEED.

 

Todd Walker is a better leadoff hitter than Furcal.

[YearofDaCubs]

I'd like to go cheap with Murton and Cedeno and get in the bidding for Giles and Burnett. Starting some rookies at the league minimum is vastly preferrable to 2nd tier mediocrities like Burnitz at 5M.

 

ok. :roll: whos going to leadoff for the Cubs next season? A bonafied leadoff hitter in Furcal, is what the Cubs NEED.

 

Todd Walker is a better leadoff hitter than Furcal.

That's debatable.