Brad Wilkerson vs. Adam Dunn

Diffusion · September 20, 2005

LF Murton, 2B Walker, 1B Lee, 3B Rammy, RF Giles, SS Nomar, CF Cameron, C Barrett.

That's been my favoured arrangement for the last few days, but IF we could get Wilkerson, I'd very gladly scrap it in favour of...

CF Wilkerson, 2B Walker, 1B Lee, 3B Rammy, RF Giles, SS Nomar, LF Murton, C Barrett.

Now that's a really nice offence. Really nice. Wilkerson also gives the Cubs a backup 1B option to spell Lee from time to time, which is useful.

Trouble is I don't think getting Wilkerson is that likely. What kind of return would the Nationals be looking for? I think it'd be pretty steep considering that Wilkerson is still two years removed from free agency (FA after 2007), only due to earn about $3-4m next year and a good, productive player. I think we'd have to overwhelm.

Now it may just be worth doing that, but I think the chances of it happening are slim. Though not as slim as the chances of Adam Dunn, which are very slim.

BigbadB · September 21, 2005

My pick depends on how the rest of the team sorts out. If we sign Giles early, then I'd rather have Wilkerson. If we don't get a good lefty power bat, then I want Dunn. Also, it will be hard to afford to do anything else if you sign Giles and trade for Dunn. It also limits who can hit at the top of the order for all the big bats.

If you got Giles, Dunn AND Wilkerson, this team wouldn't have a very good outfield defense and you'd have essentially no speed at all at the top of the order, but you sure would have an incredible increase in OBP and OPS on offense:

Wilkerson
Walker
Giles
Lee
Dunn
Aramis
Nomar
Barrett

Everyone all the way down to Nomar has OBP's of .360+, and a few guys with 1.000+ OPS. Nomar's is respectable enough given his AVG. and OPS for a shortstop. I like that line up. You just need an idiot proof bench and the offense is all set. It might be the worst defensive team to ever play the game, though.

I'll take it! Email this to Hendry!

Worst defensive team ever? Well if that is the goal then we can trade wilkerson and whoever the heck the red sox want and put Manny on the team. Now that is a bad defensive team....

Also, does Dunn make that much that after signing for Giles (10-11 mil) and trading for Wilkerson (4 Mil i think) that we are out of flexibility financially? I was hoping that would leave us some money left over for atleast one more big signing since the only real signing (and hence big expensive deal) would be Giles (unless i am wrong and Dunn makes over 4 mill).

I was thinking more in terms of when the time comes to give Zambrano and Prior their cash. Maddux will be off the books then, but Dunn will get what Maddux gets. Giles will cost a small fortune since we are outbidding about 10 teams.

brinoch · September 21, 2005

I'd be okay w/ Wilk if we had a corner OF like Dunn.

That said, I think Wilk is their Kotsay and he ain't going aywhere.

Maybe not, but I bet that you could sorely tempt Bowden with some combination of Patterson, Cedeno, Mitre and Leicester. The Nats sorely need an upgrade at SS. Vinny Castilla and Christian Guzman have been awful for them, and Cedeno would be a powerful chip to them. In addition, Patterson's tools would attract Bowden and his defense would be very valuable to them. They have Sledge coming back from injury, and they are interesting in keeping Guillen and/or Wilson.

In the pitching department, Mitre would do very well in RFK, and the defense of Cedeno and Vidro would be very solid up the middle. They could use more pitching since they have little starting depth beyond Loiaza, Hernandez and Patterson.

In addition, I look for the Nats to try and upgrade 3B via trade or FA (Harris would be better than Castilla right now) if possible.

We know Hendry covets Wilkerson. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Hendry acquired him. All in all, it's a lot more likely than the Reds trading Dunn to the Cubs.

biittner77 · September 22, 2005

My pick depends on how the rest of the team sorts out. If we sign Giles early, then I'd rather have Wilkerson. If we don't get a good lefty power bat, then I want Dunn. Also, it will be hard to afford to do anything else if you sign Giles and trade for Dunn. It also limits who can hit at the top of the order for all the big bats.

If you got Giles, Dunn AND Wilkerson, this team wouldn't have a very good outfield defense and you'd have essentially no speed at all at the top of the order, but you sure would have an incredible increase in OBP and OPS on offense:

Wilkerson
Walker
Giles
Lee
Dunn
Aramis
Nomar
Barrett

Everyone all the way down to Nomar has OBP's of .360+, and a few guys with 1.000+ OPS. Nomar's is respectable enough given his AVG. and OPS for a shortstop. I like that line up. You just need an idiot proof bench and the offense is all set. It might be the worst defensive team to ever play the game, though.

I'll take it! Email this to Hendry!
If the Cubs had Nomar, Giles, Lee, Dunn, Ramirez, Walker, Barrett as 2-8 in the order, I could hit leadoff and they'd still score a ton of runs.

But I was a slap hitting switch hitter with dubious speed. Therefore, if Baker is still manager I would lead off.

don_kessinger_was_good · September 22, 2005

BTW - would we be considering Wilkerson for CF? Murton, Wilkerson, Giles would look awfully nice. Wilkerson could also hit leadoff for this team, which would be a bonus.

Murton, Lofton or Pierre, Wilkerson would look pretty nice, too. And a lot cheaper, leaving tons of $$ for the likes of Furcal, Ryan and Burnett.

Tim · September 22, 2005

BTW - would we be considering Wilkerson for CF? Murton, Wilkerson, Giles would look awfully nice. Wilkerson could also hit leadoff for this team, which would be a bonus.

Murton, Lofton or Pierre, Wilkerson would look pretty nice, too. And a lot cheaper, leaving tons of $$ for the likes of Furcal, Ryan and Burnett.

No OF with Pierre in it is going to look good to me.

Magnetic Curses · September 22, 2005

BTW - would we be considering Wilkerson for CF? Murton, Wilkerson, Giles would look awfully nice. Wilkerson could also hit leadoff for this team, which would be a bonus.

Murton, Lofton or Pierre, Wilkerson would look pretty nice, too. And a lot cheaper, leaving tons of $$ for the likes of Furcal, Ryan and Burnett.
No OF with Pierre in it is going to look good to me.

the idea of pierre at wrigley kind of scares me as well.

i think that lofton would come pretty cheap. and believe me, i'm not one of those "bring back lofton because he's the awesomest leadoff hitter we've ever had and single-handedly won us the division in 2003"-guys. i like his OBP, and we can bridesmaid dress-him in 2007, provided pie is ready, uninjured and successful.

Transmogrified Tiger · September 22, 2005

Lofton's BABIP:

2003: .302

2004: .291

2005: .365

Career(thru 2004): .322

That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725.

*.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS

I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.

UK1679666180 · September 22, 2005

http://www.protrade.com/insight/InsightArticleDesjardinsBestOutfieldArm.html

Interesting article concerning arm strength...

Notice the btm 3 and their potential impact on the FA market.

vance_the_cubs_fan · September 22, 2005

Lofton's BABIP:

2003: .302
2004: .291
2005: .365

Career(thru 2004): .322

That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725.

*.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS

I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.

Even with your projections the OBP is at 350. While that's not great, it's doable as a lead-off option. Lofton would come cheap and provides a perfect stop-gap until Pie is ready. I'm quite aware that his numbers won't look anything like his 2005, but I could live with him at your projections if we upgrade in right and keep Nomar at short. Signing Lofton for 1.5 million or somewhere in that range answers the lead-off question and CF question and takes the pressure off having to sign Furcal or miscasting someone else in the lead-off role.

brinoch · September 22, 2005

http://www.protrade.com/insight/InsightArticleDesjardinsBestOutfieldArm.html

Interesting article concerning arm strength...

Notice the btm 3 and their potential impact on the FA market.

Yet another reason not to want Pierre...

4.9k · September 22, 2005

http://www.protrade.com/insight/InsightArticleDesjardinsBestOutfieldArm.html

Interesting article concerning arm strength...

Notice the btm 3 and their potential impact on the FA market.

Ichiro! :D

Diffusion · September 22, 2005

Lofton's BABIP:

2003: .302
2004: .291
2005: .365

Career(thru 2004): .322

That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725.

*.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS

I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.

Here's a closer look at Lofton's BABIP numbers. Can you see a trend?

1991-95: .343 BABIP

1992-96: .345 BABIP

1993-97: .361 BABIP

1994-98: .346 BABIP

1995-99: .342 BABIP

1996-00: .334 BABIP

1997-01: .320 BABIP

1998-02: .301 BABIP

1999-03: .301 BABIP

2000-04: .291 BABIP

2001-05: .302 BABIP

The reason for looking at things in five-year trends is primarily because it gets rid of sample size issues. A single slump or hot streak can throw an entire season's worth numbers.

I think there are two plausible things you can project from here onwards.

1) 2000-04 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP has stabilised around .300

2) 2001-05 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP can be expected to continue to decline as had been the case from 1993-07 onwards.

Anyway, there's basically no case for using Lofton's career BABIP mark of .327 (that's updated through 2005) as a sort of baseline for 2006 projections.

I think you're looking instead at a figure between .280 and .300, depending upon which of the two options above is true. Personally, I'm heavily inclined to learn towards the latter, option 2.

Of course, the trouble with projecting a certain number is year-to-year variance. Saying that if Lofton played his 2006 season 10000 times he'd average a .285 BABIP doesn't mean that when Lofton plays his 2006 season once (as he will) he won't have a BABIP of .350 or a BABIP of .220.

But it means that he's most likely to have something around .285, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that he can't have a .360 BABIP again, it doesn't mean that he won't, it just means that's it's not likely.

What does a BABIP of .285 for Lofton's 2006 mean? Basically, it means that he's thoroughly useless as a baseball player, and we shouldn't sign him.

Now really I should do the five-year segments thing to come up for a proper AVG/OBP/SLG projection with a .285 BABIP, but for now I'll just roughly translate Lofton's 2005 numbers...

.256/.322/.319

Just say no.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Diffusion

biittner77 · September 22, 2005

http://www.protrade.com/insight/InsightArticleDesjardinsBestOutfieldArm.html

Interesting article concerning arm strength...

Notice the btm 3 and their potential impact on the FA market.

Why do I get the feeling that the Cubs would consider signing Bernie Williams for his veteran presence and winning attitude?

UK1679666180 · September 22, 2005

I'll throw a name out there...

Jason Michaels-Phillies.

Everyone talks about Lofton, but what if Lofton re-ups with them as he has worked with Manuel in the past. They also have Victorino in the minors and Golson down the road.

Michaels might be the odd man out and combined with his recent legal troubles could be had for a starter (hopefully Rusch).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/michaja01.shtml

AAApittsburgh · September 22, 2005

I'll throw a name out there...

Jason Michaels-Phillies.

Everyone talks about Lofton, but what if Lofton re-ups with them as he has worked with Manuel in the past. They also have Victorino in the minors and Golson down the road.

Michaels might be the odd man out and combined with his recent legal troubles could be had for a starter (hopefully Rusch).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/michaja01.shtml

I didn't even realize Michaels was that good.

UK1679666180 · September 22, 2005

Michaels has flown under the radar and might be avail. this off-season.

Transmogrified Tiger · September 22, 2005

Lofton's BABIP:

2003: .302
2004: .291
2005: .365

Career(thru 2004): .322

That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725.

*.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS

I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.

Here's a closer look at Lofton's BABIP numbers. Can you see a trend?

1991-95: .343 BABIP
1992-96: .345 BABIP
1993-97: .361 BABIP
1994-98: .346 BABIP
1995-99: .342 BABIP
1996-00: .334 BABIP
1997-01: .320 BABIP
1998-02: .301 BABIP
1999-03: .301 BABIP
2000-04: .291 BABIP
2001-05: .302 BABIP

The reason for looking at things in five-year trends is primarily because it gets rid of sample size issues. A single slump or hot streak can throw an entire season's worth numbers.

I think there are two plausible things you can project from here onwards.

1) 2000-04 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP has stabilised around .300

2) 2001-05 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP can be expected to continue to decline as had been the case from 1993-07 onwards.

Anyway, there's basically no case for using Lofton's career BABIP mark of .327 (that's updated through 2005) as a sort of baseline for 2006 projections.

I think you're looking instead at a figure between .280 and .300, depending upon which of the two options above is true. Personally, I'm heavily inclined to learn towards the latter, option 2.

Of course, the trouble with projecting a certain number is year-to-year variance. Saying that if Lofton played his 2006 season 10000 times he'd average a .285 BABIP doesn't mean that when Lofton plays his 2006 season once (as he will) he won't have a BABIP of .350 or a BABIP of .220.

But it means that he's most likely to have something around .285, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that he can't have a .360 BABIP again, it doesn't mean that he won't, it just means that's it's not likely.

What does a BABIP of .285 for Lofton's 2006 mean? Basically, it means that he's thoroughly useless as a baseball player, and we shouldn't sign him.

Now really I should do the five-year segments thing to come up for a proper AVG/OBP/SLG projection with a .285 BABIP, but for now I'll just roughly translate Lofton's 2005 numbers...

.256/.322/.319

Just say no.

Well I said that it might be generous to give him that....:D

Thanks for following through with the numbers, that's the point I was getting at. Lofton's '05 is way out of line from what we should expect.

fromthestretch · September 22, 2005

I'll throw a name out there...

Jason Michaels-Phillies.

Everyone talks about Lofton, but what if Lofton re-ups with them as he has worked with Manuel in the past. They also have Victorino in the minors and Golson down the road.

Michaels might be the odd man out and combined with his recent legal troubles could be had for a starter (hopefully Rusch).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/michaja01.shtml

His OBP would be a welcome addition to the top of the order. However, he would most likely rot away batting seventh because Dusty would view him as not having enough speed to lead off.

nilodnayr · September 22, 2005

I'll throw a name out there...

Jason Michaels-Phillies.

Everyone talks about Lofton, but what if Lofton re-ups with them as he has worked with Manuel in the past. They also have Victorino in the minors and Golson down the road.

Michaels might be the odd man out and combined with his recent legal troubles could be had for a starter (hopefully Rusch).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/michaja01.shtml
I didn't even realize Michaels was that good.

UK has been all over Michaels for a while (it has been you, right? I know someone here has). He has put up some surprising numbers vs lefties, but I dont see why the Phils would let him go. I guess 1.2M or so that hed make next year would be a decent chunk for a 4th OF, but if they are keeping Lofton he will be very useful to platoon. Victorino is a switch hitter, but has been used exclusively as a LHB this year and the majority of his stint with SD in 2003, so he probably wont be a good platoon partner with Lofton. But if they could get some one decent for Michaels, theyd listen. I dont know if theyd be interested in Rusch and his tendency to give up the long ball. Plus who would they drop from the rotation? Not that they have a ton of great starters, but they have enough to fill a rotation. But with Wolf, Leiber, Lidle signed and Padilla, Myers arbi eligible and Tejada looking to have secured himself a good chance at being in the 2006 rotation, they are one man up, rather than one man short. IMO Padilla gets released.

nilodnayr · September 22, 2005

http://www.protrade.com/insight/InsightArticleDesjardinsBestOutfieldArm.html

Interesting article concerning arm strength...

Notice the btm 3 and their potential impact on the FA market.

That article tells me that that having a great arm in the OF is way overrated.

Tim · September 22, 2005

http://www.protrade.com/insight/InsightArticleDesjardinsBestOutfieldArm.html

Interesting article concerning arm strength...

Notice the btm 3 and their potential impact on the FA market.

Interesting methodology they use. However, I'd be interested in how they account for ballpark configuration in their grids. It would seem that Damon, for example, could be at a huge disadvantage with the way that Fenway juts out to right center.

Not that he has a strong arm at all, but it could be made to look worse if the oddities of Fenway aren't incorporated.

UK1679666180 · September 22, 2005

I'll throw a name out there...

Jason Michaels-Phillies.

Everyone talks about Lofton, but what if Lofton re-ups with them as he has worked with Manuel in the past. They also have Victorino in the minors and Golson down the road.

Michaels might be the odd man out and combined with his recent legal troubles could be had for a starter (hopefully Rusch).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/michaja01.shtml
I didn't even realize Michaels was that good.

UK has been all over Michaels for a while (it has been you, right? I know someone here has). He has put up some surprising numbers vs lefties, but I dont see why the Phils would let him go. I guess 1.2M or so that hed make next year would be a decent chunk for a 4th OF, but if they are keeping Lofton he will be very useful to platoon. Victorino is a switch hitter, but has been used exclusively as a LHB this year and the majority of his stint with SD in 2003, so he probably wont be a good platoon partner with Lofton. But if they could get some one decent for Michaels, theyd listen. I dont know if theyd be interested in Rusch and his tendency to give up the long ball. Plus who would they drop from the rotation? Not that they have a ton of great starters, but they have enough to fill a rotation. But with Wolf, Leiber, Lidle signed and Padilla, Myers arbi eligible and Tejada looking to have secured himself a good chance at being in the 2006 rotation, they are one man up, rather than one man short. IMO Padilla gets released.

Victorino was the IL AAA player of the year, switch hitter, could leadoff for them even if they don't bring Lofton back. Wolf is out b/c of injury and not likely to start in '06 after TJS and I don't see Padilla coming back, Rusch could fill in nicely at the btm of the rotation cheaply.

But, I've never really pushed for Michaels until recently, that was someone else.

Diffusion · September 22, 2005

Lofton's BABIP:

2003: .302
2004: .291
2005: .365

Career(thru 2004): .322

That BABIP drops to career norms(which may be generous considering the previous years and that he's 38 next year) and his line looks like .290/.350/.375*/.725.

*.375 is max SLG, and therefore .725 is max OPS

I would like Milton Bradley to play CF please.
............

.256/.322/.319

Just say no.

Well I said that it might be generous to give him that....:D

Thanks for following through with the numbers, that's the point I was getting at. Lofton's '05 is way out of line from what we should expect.

Sorry, should have made it clearer that what I wrote wasn't so much having a go as you as just trying to add to what you'd written.

Anyway, I did some five-year trend things with Lofton's peripheral numbers, and a revised projection for his 2006 season could be...

.268/.338/.371

So 2005 points to .256/.322/.319

And 2001-05 points to .268/.338/.371

But I'm worried that 2005 is too small a sample size and that the trends it implies aren't established (those trends being a massive power dropoff, and strikeouts edging upwards), but worried that the 2001-05 thing is understating his decline with numbers that aren't relevant any more.

I'll go halfway.

.262/.330/.345

That's my best guess for Lofton's 2006.

Steer well clear, in other words.

Brad Wilkerson vs. Adam Dunn

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs