Trib Suggests that Furcal Will Be Offseason Target

[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.

That's debatable.

 

Walker's been a better hitter by nearly every metric. He gets on base more, he hits for more power. Even stats that incorporate SBs that Furcal has still favor Walker over him.

[treebird]

i only want to sign furcal if he promises to commit more crimes, because they force him to be super clutch if he's given sentences that don't take effect until after his team is eliminated from the playoffs.

[YearofDaCubs]

First of all signing Furcal is not contigent on Walker being here or not IMO. I would like to have both of them and would put Furcal at the top of the order. When you are down by 1 run and you have Furcal at first you have the option to steal 2nd. You do not have that option with Walker. At least successfully you don't.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

First of all signing Furcal is not contigent on Walker being here or not IMO. I would like to have both of them and would put Furcal at the top of the order. When you are down by 1 run and you have Furcal at first you have the option to steal 2nd. You do not have that option with Walker. At least successfully you don't.

 

I was responding to the guy who implied that we have no leadoff hitter yet considered Furcal a legit leadoff hitter. It's true that Furcal gives you the SB option, but Walker is more likely than Furcal to reach first base, and more likely to hit a double, triple, or HR, making the SB unnecessary.

[goonys evil twin]

First of all signing Furcal is not contigent on Walker being here or not IMO. I would like to have both of them and would put Furcal at the top of the order. When you are down by 1 run and you have Furcal at first you have the option to steal 2nd. You do not have that option with Walker. At least successfully you don't.

 

There's really no point in talking those obscure specific situations when thinking about how to structure a team. Yeah, Furcal can steal. Everybody knows that, but how often will you be down by 1 late with Furcal on base? The key is getting on base in the first place, and Furcal isn't particularly good at that job. Instead of worrying about specific instances when somebody like Furcal is preferable to somebody like Walker, you have to think of the players' production as a whole. Furcal would have to provide $8-10m worth of production above and beyond Cedeno to justify signing him, and you would have to find equivalent production from the other positions where that money will not be going to.

 

As things stand now, it appears the Cubs only have two cheap internal options for next season, Cedeno and Murton. They have to fill holes at all 3 OF spots, SS and possibly 2B. If they don't use Cedeno, then that's another spot that has to be filled externally, which is always more costly.

[treebird]

for those who care, furcal's ld% is 20.6, but his babip is .299, below the level you'd expect to see for a guy with his speed.

 

i dont think it'd be that unreasonable to see him be a little less unlucky next year and see his obp hit .365.

[wastra]

First of all signing Furcal is not contigent on Walker being here or not IMO. I would like to have both of them and would put Furcal at the top of the order. When you are down by 1 run and you have Furcal at first you have the option to steal 2nd. You do not have that option with Walker. At least successfully you don't.

 

There's really no point in talking those obscure specific situations when thinking about how to structure a team. Yeah, Furcal can steal. Everybody knows that, but how often will you be down by 1 late with Furcal on base? The key is getting on base in the first place, and Furcal isn't particularly good at that job. Instead of worrying about specific instances when somebody like Furcal is preferable to somebody like Walker, you have to think of the players' production as a whole. Furcal would have to provide $8-10m worth of production above and beyond Cedeno to justify signing him, and you would have to find equivalent production from the other positions where that money will not be going to.

 

As things stand now, it appears the Cubs only have two cheap internal options for next season, Cedeno and Murton. They have to fill holes at all 3 OF spots, SS and possibly 2B. If they don't use Cedeno, then that's another spot that has to be filled externally, which is always more costly.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Don't forget about the bullpen...there's bound to be one or two new faces there as well who need to be paid.

[YearofDaCubs]

Good points. I agree that Furcal shouldnt be our #1 priority. We have so many holes right now that it would be crazy to fix the SS problem first. I personally would like to see us trade for a good OF if possible. Our OF stinks right now and if we dont get that fixed 2006 might be another "wait til next year" season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

for those who care, furcal's ld% is 20.6, but his babip is .299, below the level you'd expect to see for a guy with his speed.

 

i dont think it'd be that unreasonable to see him be a little less unlucky next year and see his obp hit .365.

 

Interestingly, his BABIP was .299 last year as well, except with a 15.3 LD%.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Good points. I agree that Furcal shouldnt be our #1 priority. We have so many holes right now that it would be crazy to fix the SS problem first. I personally would like to see us trade for a good OF if possible. Our OF stinks right now and if we dont get that fixed 2006 might be another "wait til next year" season.

 

I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think the Cubs see it as fixing the SS problem as much as they see it targeting a lead-off hitter. That, in itself, could be erroneneous thinking, but that's what I think is happening here.

[swordsman]

Forgive my ignorance, but, what is LD%?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Forgive my ignorance, but, what is LD%?

 

Line Drive %

 

When used in conjunction with BABIP(Batting Average on Balls In Play), it serves as a means to help determine how lucky a hitter has been. When BABIP is well over 100-110 points better than LD%, then a player probably has been lucky, and isn't likely to repeat those BABIP numbers again.

 

EDIT: You can find LD% and BABIP info at The Hardball Times

[Fred Hornkohl]

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.

 

I would not argue with you the point that Brock is overrated.... but to say that he's "one of the most overrated in history...." is blatant hyperbole, not perspective.

[treebird]

for those who care, furcal's ld% is 20.6, but his babip is .299, below the level you'd expect to see for a guy with his speed.

 

i dont think it'd be that unreasonable to see him be a little less unlucky next year and see his obp hit .365.

 

Interestingly, his BABIP was .299 last year as well, except with a 15.3 LD%.

 

i was too lazy to look that up.

 

15.3 paired with.299 doesnt seem too far off of what you'd expect for a guy with furcal's speed.

[mul21]

Instead of hamstrining themselves with big contracts at positions that can be filled internally, there should be emphasis on filling needs (yes, this has been said a million times). Let Cedeno play SS, put Murton in LF, sign Randy Winn for 2 years until Pie is ready for sure. You then have a leadoff guy and 2 relatively cheap position players. Fill in the RF hole with Giles and you've got a solid lineup. Plenty of pop with Lee, ARam, and Gile in the middle, OBP with Winn and Cedeno at the top and a lot of contact and avg. power at the bottom with Walker, Murton, and Barrett. Plus it leaves money to fill the pitching needs and give raises to guys over the next couple of years.

[AramisRamirez]

id offer up 4-years/$32M and see if he accepts. thats renteria money. furcal has been a big part of atlanta's sucess. he'd do great here, giving us a nice 1-4 with him, walker, lee, and aramis.

 

but we'd still need to add giles or a legit threat other than burnzy. good bye burnzy!

[YearofDaCubs]

id offer up 4-years/$32M and see if he accepts. thats renteria money. furcal has been a big part of atlanta's sucess. he'd do great here, giving us a nice 1-4 with him, walker, lee, and aramis.

 

but we'd still need to add giles or a legit threat other than burnzy. good bye burnzy!

I'd rather have Furcal over Renteria.

[JeffH]

id offer up 4-years/$32M and see if he accepts. thats renteria money.

 

How is that Renteria money?

[Balsa]

For the newbie here:

 

How bad are Furcal's off-field antics?

 

What has he done in the past?

[imb]

a couple dui's.

[nilodnayr]

id offer up 4-years/$32M and see if he accepts. thats renteria money.

 

How is that Renteria money?

 

Renteria got 4/43 (including buyout)

 

OCab got 4/36 (including signing bonus)

[JeffH]

My point exactly.

[JC]

Can anyone tell me what the market for Furcal is? Who are the high spending teams this year that will be in search of a SS?

 

$8M/yr for Furcal is crazy.

[Guest]

I'd shy away from Furcal this offseason, particularly given the fact he's projected to make Derrek Lee money. Without a doubt the Cubs have some serious offensive issues to deal with next year, but is Furcal the most cost-effective way of dealing with them? Most certainly not.

 

First of all, his production numbers really aren't that great as others have pointed out. A .750 OPS is decent for a shortstop, but really isn't that much better than what Nomar/Neifi/Ronny have given us in 2005. (Particularly if that production comes with an annual salary of $8M+.) By and large, the biggest black holes in the 2005 lineup have come from our outfielders. Our infield, on the other hand, is outstanding. With the exception of Neifi, each of our starting infielders rates among the top hitters at his respective position. That being the case, we could afford having a less-than-productive shortsop... provided he's cheap, that is.

 

I'd focus on (vastly) improving the outfield for 2006. You'll get a lot more production for your dollar from a high-end outfielder than you would from a mid-range SS like Furcal. Make a run at Giles for a 3-year deal or so, perhaps even trying to work a trade for another decent outfielder. Try to sign Nomar to another (heavily) incentive-laden deal with a base of $4-$5 million. If he stays healthy, great; we should have an extremely productive shortstop for relatively cheap. If not, he still won't have tied up much cash and we'll just throw Cedeno into the fire, relying on the rest of our infield and outfield improvements to carry the offense.

[CuseCubFan69]

Perez will be the starting SS for the Cubs in 2006.