The 2006 Thread, Current topic: Center Field

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

[CubsWin]

Well its decided, FOur years is the way to go. So how much will we pay giles over the four years.

My official answer is whatever it takes.

 

But if I have to give a number, I think the Cubs could afford 50 million over 4 years, and I think Giles would be worth it. My only concern is his range in RF. But I am confident that his bat will remain productive at a level comparable to his career averages for the first 3 years of this contract.

[BigbadB]

Well its decided, FOur years is the way to go. So how much will we pay giles over the four years.

My official answer is whatever it takes.

 

But if I have to give a number, I think the Cubs could afford 50 million over 4 years, and I think Giles would be worth it. My only concern is his range in RF. But I am confident that his bat will remain productive at a level comparable to his career averages for the first 3 years of this contract.

 

He's played plenty of LF as well, so it shouldn't be a problem. Heck, he can still play a little CF when you need an offensive boost. He played 17 games there last year.

[Illini Iceman]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

At that cost and his age I would have to say no thanks. I would much rather they throw a lot of minor league talent at someone like the Reds for Dunn or Phillies for Abreu and then sign that player to a long term deal.

 

Nothing against Giles, but it just seems like he is going to be overvalued due to the free agent class he is in.

[Roast]

.299/.413/.542 career stats are overrated?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

At that cost and his age I would have to say no thanks. I would much rather they throw a lot of minor league talent at someone like the Reds for Dunn or Phillies for Abreu and then sign that player to a long term deal.

 

Nothing against Giles, but it just seems like he is going to be overvalued due to the free agent class he is in.

 

In an isolated sense, I will agree that 5/50 is overpaying. On the other hand, there's no guarantee that Dunn or Abereu are even on the market or that the Cubs have the young players to get a deal done. I personally don't think the Cubs have the players to match up with the Reds, even if they were inclined to trade Dunn. I'm not even sure the Phillies want to trade Abereu.

 

Based on all that, we can't afford to go into 2006 with an outfield of Murton, Preston Wilson, and Jaque Jones.

 

We just have to bite the bullet and pay for Giles.

[Jazz]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

At that cost and his age I would have to say no thanks. I would much rather they throw a lot of minor league talent at someone like the Reds for Dunn or Phillies for Abreu and then sign that player to a long term deal.

 

Nothing against Giles, but it just seems like he is going to be overvalued due to the free agent class he is in.

 

In an isolated sense, I will agree that 5/50 is overpaying. On the other hand, there's no guarantee that Dunn or Abereu are even on the market or that the Cubs have the young players to get a deal done. I personally don't think the Cubs have the players to match up with the Reds, even if they were inclined to trade Dunn. I'm not even sure the Phillies want to trade Abereu.

 

Based on all that, we can't afford to go into 2006 with an outfield of Murton, Preston Wilson, and Jaque Jones.

 

We just have to bite the bullet and pay for Giles.

 

I think that Giles is a gamble that the cubs have to be willing to take in order to be succesfful this offseason. Unless the Hendry can work some magic and land Bradley (who I think is more and more likely to become a Cub by the day), and someone like Dunn or Abreu, Giles is the power bat we desperetly need in RF. There is no excuse for the cubs to get him unless some idiot team like the Nationals throws 5 years at him (which i dont believe will happen). Even worse tho, if a division rival snags him, and Hendry lets it happen under his watch, he doesnt deserve the positin as Cubs GM, regardless of his past "accomplishments"

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

[imb]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year.

[imb]

I think that if we actually start signing the right players, we might.

[UK1679666180]

The Cubs are a couple quality players away from having a legit shot at the division or the WC.

[mg420]

I think that if we actually start signing the right players, we might.

 

not to mention baker using them in the most productive ways (unlike he did last year). hopefully hendry will have some/more say in these matters in the future-especially in the usage of young players.

[CubsWin]

Well its decided, FOur years is the way to go. So how much will we pay giles over the four years.

My official answer is whatever it takes.

 

But if I have to give a number, I think the Cubs could afford 50 million over 4 years, and I think Giles would be worth it. My only concern is his range in RF. But I am confident that his bat will remain productive at a level comparable to his career averages for the first 3 years of this contract.

 

He's played plenty of LF as well, so it shouldn't be a problem. Heck, he can still play a little CF when you need an offensive boost. He played 17 games there last year.

Right, but it isn't a question of whether Giles can play other positions than RF. It is a question of whether the Cubs will have anyone who can be a better defensive RF than Giles.

 

Right now, it is unclear whether Murton has the arm to play RF, but I doubt he does. Giles isn't a protypical CFer, thats for sure, so, if signed, he will be stuck playing RF unless the Cubs decide to sit or trade Murton. That is the only reason why I bring up Giles' arm strength.

 

As far as trading Murton, I love the kid, but depending on who you can get in return, it might not be a terrible idea to trade him for a good offensive and defensive RFer. I don't see that happening, but that would be the only condition I can think of in which I would agree to trade Murton.

[MPrior]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year.

 

There is some wisdom in that, except for a few things:

 

1, if things go right this offseason, we very well might be contending next year, as has already been said.

 

2, Giles' discipline is not likely to decline. His power numbers and average might, but he'll probably always be posting a pretty decent OBP, and hitting for better than average power, especially in Wrigley. Plus, he seems to be in very good shape, so I think that decline that people are anticipating won't be as steep as you think.

 

3, Given the above point, he will always have some value - if not to us, then to somebody else who can take on that kind of contract (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.).

[BigbadB]

Well its decided, FOur years is the way to go. So how much will we pay giles over the four years.

My official answer is whatever it takes.

 

But if I have to give a number, I think the Cubs could afford 50 million over 4 years, and I think Giles would be worth it. My only concern is his range in RF. But I am confident that his bat will remain productive at a level comparable to his career averages for the first 3 years of this contract.

 

He's played plenty of LF as well, so it shouldn't be a problem. Heck, he can still play a little CF when you need an offensive boost. He played 17 games there last year.

Right, but it isn't a question of whether Giles can play other positions than RF. It is a question of whether the Cubs will have anyone who can be a better defensive RF than Giles.

 

Right now, it is unclear whether Murton has the arm to play RF, but I doubt he does. Giles isn't a protypical CFer, thats for sure, so, if signed, he will be stuck playing RF unless the Cubs decide to sit or trade Murton. That is the only reason why I bring up Giles' arm strength.

 

As far as trading Murton, I love the kid, but depending on who you can get in return, it might not be a terrible idea to trade him for a good offensive and defensive RFer. I don't see that happening, but that would be the only condition I can think of in which I would agree to trade Murton.

 

I agree. A trade for Murton would have to yield a really good player. Murton will be inexpensive for the next several years. You just don't trade good production guys that make league minimum unless the return would have an immediate AND long term impact.

[donobr]

Where is Nic Jackson?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

Does someone have the numbers that compare what the team OBP would have been this year if you replaced Burnitz with Giles?

 

I think just adding Giles to the team could make that much difference. That's why I pay him.

 

Also, not to start an argument, but in your sig...no way 3/39 gets Giles off the Left Coast.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Also, not to start an argument, but in your sig...no way 3/39 gets Giles off the Left Coast.

 

Most likely not... that's why it's bold! :D

[USSoccer]

I think I would go 4/$52. That a serious bid, and might get it done.

[CubsWin]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

At that cost and his age I would have to say no thanks. I would much rather they throw a lot of minor league talent at someone like the Reds for Dunn or Phillies for Abreu and then sign that player to a long term deal.

 

Nothing against Giles, but it just seems like he is going to be overvalued due to the free agent class he is in.

True, he might be overvalued because there are so few impact FAs this off season, but is that any reason not to sign him? Not every player can be had on the cheap if your team is going to get to the playoffs.

 

Look, players get overvalued every year for a variety of reasons. If a player is shown interest by the Yankees, he automatically has the leverage to ask for more than he otherwise would be worth. If a bidding war breaks out on a certain player, he, too, will be "overvalued" due simply to the facts of how free agency works.

 

The question is, whether he is overvalued or not, will signing Brian Giles bring the Cubs legitimately closer to the playoffs? In essence, is he worth overpaying for?

 

To answer this accurately, we will have to examine what the Cubs' needs are this off season. Clearly, they need a RFer. Luckily, Giles is one. They need a left-handed bat. He is one of those, too. They need OBP. He has consistently provided OBP at or around the .400 mark throughout his career. They need OPS. He was second in that catagory among all major league RFers last season behind only Vlad Guerrero. They need someone who is not injury-prone. Giles's history is solid in that regard. They need hard-nosed gritty players with good leadership skills. That describes Giles to a tee. They need players that are hungry to win. Giles has played his entire career in Pittsburgh and San Diego. I think he is hungry enough. Do the Cubs need to get younger? No. If Giles's numbers fall off a little from his career norms, will he still be among the top 15-20 OFers in the game offensively? Yes.

 

After asking the right questions, he appears to be the perfect match for what the Cubs need despite being 34 years old. Now we need to figure out how much money the Cubs have to spend. According to this website, the Cubs have committed around 50 million next season leaving them with about 50 million to spend. If they chose to take 12-13 of those 50 million and get a guy who fills so many of their needs, I wouldn't call that overspending. I would call that trying to win.

 

Seriously asking now, for those that don't believe doing whatever it takes to sign Brian Giles is the right idea, what more do you need to hear to be convinced? What other questions do you need answered?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year.

 

There is some wisdom in that, except for a few things:

 

1, if things go right this offseason, we very well might be contending next year, as has already been said.

 

2, Giles' discipline is not likely to decline. His power numbers and average might, but he'll probably always be posting a pretty decent OBP, and hitting for better than average power, especially in Wrigley. Plus, he seems to be in very good shape, so I think that decline that people are anticipating won't be as steep as you think.

 

3, Given the above point, he will always have some value - if not to us, then to somebody else who can take on that kind of contract (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.).

 

 

Frist off, good post.

 

 

1. If this is the belief then by all mean by all mean over pay, I was just trying to help frame debate. I guess I'm of the opinion the Cubs might contend but I doubt it. Again, not to sounds like a troll\CardsHomer but this is a team that finished 10 games out of the WC and 4th place in the central. BTW, I don't want to hijack the thread with this part of my post.

 

2. That is true, I would just worry about injury and what not. Guys in their mid 30's and up tend to break down more and have sharper declines. Again, its worth it if you believe this team will be a contender next year.

 

3. I have a feeling those teams are going to do a better job of not taking on overpaid old guys in the future. That said if Giles has a slow decline then yes, they could might be able to unload him. But as a said before guys in their mid to late 30's tend to have (but not always) nastier declines.

 

 

I thought the Maddux signing in 04 was a good one even though he was old and I knew they were overpaying because the Cubs had a great shot for the WS. I'm not so sure I would feel the same way for the 06 Cubs.

 

The Cubs have a tough offseason, lots of $ and a lousy FA class. It should be interesting.

Edited October 24, 2005 by CardsFanInChiTown

[BigbadB]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year.

 

There is some wisdom in that, except for a few things:

 

1, if things go right this offseason, we very well might be contending next year, as has already been said.

 

2, Giles' discipline is not likely to decline. His power numbers and average might, but he'll probably always be posting a pretty decent OBP, and hitting for better than average power, especially in Wrigley. Plus, he seems to be in very good shape, so I think that decline that people are anticipating won't be as steep as you think.

 

3, Given the above point, he will always have some value - if not to us, then to somebody else who can take on that kind of contract (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.).

 

 

Frist off, good post.

 

 

1. If this is the belief then by all mean by all mean overpay, I was just trying to help frame debate. I guess I'm of the opinion the Cubs might contend but I doubt it. Again, not to sounds like a troll\CardsHomer but this is a team that finished 10 games out of the WC and 4th place in the central. BTW, I don't want to hijack the thread with this part of my post.

 

2. That is true, I would just worry about injury and what not. Guys in their mid 30's and up tend to break down more and have sharper declines. Again, its worth it if you believe this team will be a contender next year.

 

3. I have a feeling those teams are going to better job of not taking on overpaid old guys in the future. That said is Giles has a slow decline then yes, they could prolly get rid of him. As a said before guys in their mid to late 30's tend to have (but not always) nastier declines.

 

 

I thought the Maddux signing in 04 was a good one even tho he was old and I knew they were overpaying because going in to the season they had a great shot for the WS. I'm not so sure, I would feel the same for the Cubs going in to 06.

 

The Cubs have a tough offseason, lots of $ and a lousy FA class. It should be interesting.

 

Not to poke holes in your debate, but you and I both know the Cubs would have been a much better team if Walker, Aramis, Prior, Wood and Nomar. Being healthy would have made the Cubs a threat to at least take the wild card.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Let's say 4/50. That's a good ballpark figure.

 

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series.

 

That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year.

 

There is some wisdom in that, except for a few things:

 

1, if things go right this offseason, we very well might be contending next year, as has already been said.

 

2, Giles' discipline is not likely to decline. His power numbers and average might, but he'll probably always be posting a pretty decent OBP, and hitting for better than average power, especially in Wrigley. Plus, he seems to be in very good shape, so I think that decline that people are anticipating won't be as steep as you think.

 

3, Given the above point, he will always have some value - if not to us, then to somebody else who can take on that kind of contract (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.).

 

 

Frist off, good post.

 

 

1. If this is the belief then by all mean by all mean overpay, I was just trying to help frame debate. I guess I'm of the opinion the Cubs might contend but I doubt it. Again, not to sounds like a troll\CardsHomer but this is a team that finished 10 games out of the WC and 4th place in the central. BTW, I don't want to hijack the thread with this part of my post.

 

2. That is true, I would just worry about injury and what not. Guys in their mid 30's and up tend to break down more and have sharper declines. Again, its worth it if you believe this team will be a contender next year.

 

3. I have a feeling those teams are going to better job of not taking on overpaid old guys in the future. That said is Giles has a slow decline then yes, they could prolly get rid of him. As a said before guys in their mid to late 30's tend to have (but not always) nastier declines.

 

 

I thought the Maddux signing in 04 was a good one even tho he was old and I knew they were overpaying because going in to the season they had a great shot for the WS. I'm not so sure, I would feel the same for the Cubs going in to 06.

 

The Cubs have a tough offseason, lots of $ and a lousy FA class. It should be interesting.

 

Not to poke holes in your debate, but you and I both know the Cubs would have been a much better team if Walker, Aramis, Prior, Wood and Nomar. Being healthy would have made the Cubs a threat to at least take the wild card.

 

Sure if the Cubs are completely heathly things would have been better. Can you expect that next year? Can you expect DLee to be the best hitter in baseball again? How about Demp being a good closer?

[UK1679666180]

Sure if the Cubs are completely heathly things would have been better. Can you expect that next year? Can you expect DLee to be the best hitter in baseball again? How about Demp being a good closer?

 

The Cubs will go into the offseason with the expectations of Lee doing well, Wood healthy, Dempster repeating his performance, etc.

 

I don't agree with that, I'd take the opposite approach.