The 2006 Thread, Current topic: Center Field

CubsWin · October 24, 2005

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?

Two can play at that game.

Can you expect Patterson to be as bad next year as he was this year? Can you expect Murton to perform as poorly as Hollandsworth and Dubois did? Can you expect Prior to go 11-7 again next season? If the Cubs re-sign Nomar and get the median amount, the expectable amount of games played out of him (125-130), can you expect him to perform as poorly as Neifi Perez did?

That knife cuts both ways.

USSoccer · October 24, 2005

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.

The only player I don't expect to miss as much time is Aramis. Everyone else you listed is a legit question mark, and the Cubs need to prepare accordingly. If they do that, they can contend.

MPrior · October 24, 2005

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?

I'm glad someone said this. This is more or less exactly the train of thought that I've had for the last month or so - well said. Giles fills every need we have very, very well, and also happens to be available.

CardsFanInChiTown · October 24, 2005

Two can play at that game.

Can you expect Patterson to be as bad next year as he was this year? Can you expect Murton to perform as poorly as Hollandsworth and Dubois did? Can you expect Prior to go 11-7 again next season? If the Cubs re-sign Nomar and get the median amount, the expectable amount of games played out of him (125-130), can you expect him to perform as poorly as Neifi Perez did?

That knife cuts both ways.

All teams have nice surpises and tough luck. I expect the Cubs will have both next season.

BigbadB · October 24, 2005

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?

Now you're arguing with the wrong guy. I always felt when Dempster came to Chicago that he would be an awesome closer.

Back to Derrek Lee. He wouldn't need to be the best hitter in baseball if everyone was healthy. With Nomar and Aramis picking up a lot of the lost production power wise and with Hairston and Walker hitting at the top of the order over Patterson and Perez, Lee could have been the typical Derrek Lee and they would have scored a bunch of runs.

I think they can expect most of these guys to be healthy next year. They've had plenty of extra time to recover at the end of this season and this offseason. With that extra time, I would expect management to be working with these guys on a regular workout regimen, so that they are in better shape coming into Spring Training.

CaliforniaRaisin · October 24, 2005

Where is Nic Jackson?

Probably rehabbing that shoulder.

BigbadB · October 24, 2005

I should also add that Dempster doesn't necessarily have to be as good as he was last year.

The real question should have been, will Dempster be as good as Hawkins and Dempster were last year? Because Hawkins was HORRIBLE.

CardsFanInChiTown · October 24, 2005

Now you're arguing with the wrong guy. I always felt when Dempster came to Chicago that he would be an awesome closer.

Back to Derrek Lee. He wouldn't need to be the best hitter in baseball if everyone was healthy. With Nomar and Aramis picking up a lot of the lost production power wise and with Hairston and Walker hitting at the top of the order over Patterson and Perez, Lee could have been the typical Derrek Lee and they would have scored a bunch of runs.

I think they can expect most of these guys to be healthy next year. They've had plenty of extra time to recover at the end of this season and this offseason. With that extra time, I would expect management to be working with these guys on a regular workout regimen, so that they are in better shape coming into Spring Training.

That's cool, again if that's the expectations then I think over paying for Giles makes a lot of sense. Just trying the help frame the debate.

USSoccer · October 24, 2005

Now you're arguing with the wrong guy. I always felt when Dempster came to Chicago that he would be an awesome closer.

Back to Derrek Lee. He wouldn't need to be the best hitter in baseball if everyone was healthy. With Nomar and Aramis picking up a lot of the lost production power wise and with Hairston and Walker hitting at the top of the order over Patterson and Perez, Lee could have been the typical Derrek Lee and they would have scored a bunch of runs.

I think they can expect most of these guys to be healthy next year. They've had plenty of extra time to recover at the end of this season and this offseason. With that extra time, I would expect management to be working with these guys on a regular workout regimen, so that they are in better shape coming into Spring Training.

That's cool, again if that's the expectations then I think over paying for Giles makes a lot of sense. Just trying the help frame the debate.

CardFan,

Keep in mind that the day Aramis Ramirez got hurt, he was leading the Cubs in HR's, and RBI. If he works with his trainers this winter, and regression from Lee will more than likely be picked up and then some by Ramirez.

BigbadB · October 24, 2005

Now you're arguing with the wrong guy. I always felt when Dempster came to Chicago that he would be an awesome closer.

Back to Derrek Lee. He wouldn't need to be the best hitter in baseball if everyone was healthy. With Nomar and Aramis picking up a lot of the lost production power wise and with Hairston and Walker hitting at the top of the order over Patterson and Perez, Lee could have been the typical Derrek Lee and they would have scored a bunch of runs.

I think they can expect most of these guys to be healthy next year. They've had plenty of extra time to recover at the end of this season and this offseason. With that extra time, I would expect management to be working with these guys on a regular workout regimen, so that they are in better shape coming into Spring Training.

That's cool, again if that's the expectations then I think over paying for Giles makes a lot of sense. Just trying the help frame the debate.

If the Cubs brought back Walker and Nomar, then went with Giles and Lofton, and then played them everyday like this:

Lofton/Hairston

Walker

Giles

Lee

Aramis

Nomar

Murton

Barrett

This offense along with healthy pitching could beat St. Louis in the standings next year. It wasn't power that Chicago was lacking, but rather the ability to get runners on base. Every guy in that line up can put up .350+ OBP. The problem will be whether or not Cub management can see that, or will want to do that.

CubsWin · October 24, 2005

Two can play at that game.

Can you expect Patterson to be as bad next year as he was this year? Can you expect Murton to perform as poorly as Hollandsworth and Dubois did? Can you expect Prior to go 11-7 again next season? If the Cubs re-sign Nomar and get the median amount, the expectable amount of games played out of him (125-130), can you expect him to perform as poorly as Neifi Perez did?

That knife cuts both ways.

All teams have nice surpises and tough luck. I expect the Cubs will have both next season.

As will the Cardinals and most other teams.

So you admit then that your previous post in which you questioned Lee's and Dempster's ability to repeat their '05 performances was pointless? Because you just countered your own argument.

We are getting off topic for this thread. If you want to continue this conversation, lets take it to rivalries.

CardsFanInChiTown · October 24, 2005

Two can play at that game.

Can you expect Patterson to be as bad next year as he was this year? Can you expect Murton to perform as poorly as Hollandsworth and Dubois did? Can you expect Prior to go 11-7 again next season? If the Cubs re-sign Nomar and get the median amount, the expectable amount of games played out of him (125-130), can you expect him to perform as poorly as Neifi Perez did?

That knife cuts both ways.

All teams have nice surpises and tough luck. I expect the Cubs will have both next season.
As will the Cardinals and most other teams.

So you admit then that your previous post in which you questioned Lee's and Dempster's ability to repeat their '05 performances was pointless? Because you just countered your own argument.

We are getting off topic for this thread. If you want to continue this conversation, lets take it to rivalries.

My point was the Cubs had failures while having both good and bad luck last year.

Roast · October 24, 2005

eh........so back on topic, do we have a kinda-sorta consensus on Salary so i can go set up a poll yet?

vance_the_cubs_fan · October 24, 2005

eh........so back on topic, do we have a kinda-sorta consensus on Salary so i can go set up a poll yet?

I think 4/50 is a good ballpark figure.

donobr · October 24, 2005

What if Sosa offered the Cubs the same deal Dawson did?

imb · October 24, 2005

1 year 1 dollar

BigbadB · October 24, 2005

What if Sosa offered the Cubs the same deal Dawson did?

Nothing beats paying someone nearly 20m to play just about anywhere else, which is what the Cubs did last year. No thanks on anything related to Sammy Sosa. He's done.

indifferent · October 24, 2005

When are you guys switching to CF?

mg420 · October 24, 2005

Now you're arguing with the wrong guy. I always felt when Dempster came to Chicago that he would be an awesome closer.

Back to Derrek Lee. He wouldn't need to be the best hitter in baseball if everyone was healthy. With Nomar and Aramis picking up a lot of the lost production power wise and with Hairston and Walker hitting at the top of the order over Patterson and Perez, Lee could have been the typical Derrek Lee and they would have scored a bunch of runs.

I think they can expect most of these guys to be healthy next year. They've had plenty of extra time to recover at the end of this season and this offseason. With that extra time, I would expect management to be working with these guys on a regular workout regimen, so that they are in better shape coming into Spring Training.

That's cool, again if that's the expectations then I think over paying for Giles makes a lot of sense. Just trying the help frame the debate.

If the Cubs brought back Walker and Nomar, then went with Giles and Lofton, and then played them everyday like this:

Lofton/Hairston
Walker
Giles
Lee
Aramis
Nomar
Murton
Barrett

This offense along with healthy pitching could beat St. Louis in the standings next year. It wasn't power that Chicago was lacking, but rather the ability to get runners on base. Every guy in that line up can put up .350+ OBP. The problem will be whether or not Cub management can see that, or will want to do that.

i would prefer:

lofton/jhjr

murton

lee

giles or floyd

aram

walker

cedeno

barrett

Roast · October 25, 2005

Allrighty, lets keep the discussion on Right field. I'm gonna go set up a poll for salary again........

As of right now (untill we see officially if giles was signed by SD or not, then we will continue with what we are doing. If he is indeed signed, we will hvae to decide if we want to accept that and make a different right field selection, or just pretend it never happened in the world of this little thread.

Fred Hornkohl · October 25, 2005

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.

Vance.... here's a quick approximation for you:

Given that Giles & Burnitz had nearly identical plate appearances (664 AB+BB to 662 AB+BB), and Giles had an OBP of .423 to Burnitz's .322 ....... that's a difference of .101 for RF. If you divide that by 9 positions on the team, that's a difference to the team rate of .011. The net effect then would be:

CUBS with                      Burnitz       Giles

OBP                               .324        ,335
League Rank                         11           5
Difference from mean             -.006        .005
Z Score (# std dev from mean)     -.78         .59

Giles alone would have leap frogged us past half the league. Doing similar calculations on Burnitz & Giles' SLG, the net effect on OPS would bring the CUBS from .764 (4th place) to .780 (2nd place) just .005 behind league leading Cincinnati.

I don't have the formulas to extrapolate all this to additional runs and expected wins, but you get the idea. I'd certainly be willing to pay an additional 7 or 8 million per annum for this kind of additional production.

vance_the_cubs_fan · October 25, 2005

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.

Vance.... here's a quick approximation for you:

Given that Giles & Burnitz had nearly identical plate appearances (664 AB+BB to 662 AB+BB), and Giles had an OBP of .423 to Burnitz's .322 ....... that's a difference of .101 for RF. If you divide that by 9 positions on the team, that's a difference to the team rate of .011. The net effect then would be:
CUBS with                      Burnitz       Giles

OBP                               .324        ,335
League Rank                         11           5
Difference from mean             -.006        .005
Z Score (# std dev from mean)     -.78         .59
Giles alone would have leap frogged us past half the league. Doing similar calculations on Burnitz & Giles' SLG, the net effect on OPS would bring the CUBS from .764 (4th place) to .780 (2nd place) just .005 behind league leading Cincinnati.

I don't have the formulas to extrapolate all this to additional runs and expected wins, but you get the idea. I'd certainly be willing to pay an additional 7 or 8 million per annum for this kind of additional production.

Thanks, Fred. So if I'm interpreting those numbers correctly, even with the injuries and the left-field debacle, had the 2004 Cubs had Giles in the place of Burnitz, we would have been a top 5 offense. That would have definitely put us in contention for the wild card.

Giles, please!

RockTheIvy · October 25, 2005

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.

Vance.... here's a quick approximation for you:

Given that Giles & Burnitz had nearly identical plate appearances (664 AB+BB to 662 AB+BB), and Giles had an OBP of .423 to Burnitz's .322 ....... that's a difference of .101 for RF. If you divide that by 9 positions on the team, that's a difference to the team rate of .011. The net effect then would be:
CUBS with                      Burnitz       Giles

OBP                               .324        ,335
League Rank                         11           5
Difference from mean             -.006        .005
Z Score (# std dev from mean)     -.78         .59
Giles alone would have leap frogged us past half the league. Doing similar calculations on Burnitz & Giles' SLG, the net effect on OPS would bring the CUBS from .764 (4th place) to .780 (2nd place) just .005 behind league leading Cincinnati.

I don't have the formulas to extrapolate all this to additional runs and expected wins, but you get the idea. I'd certainly be willing to pay an additional 7 or 8 million per annum for this kind of additional production.

:shock: =D>

That's awesome!

Any chance you could tell us what Dunn would have done for us?

Fred Hornkohl · October 26, 2005

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.

Vance.... here's a quick approximation for you:

Given that Giles & Burnitz had nearly identical plate appearances (664 AB+BB to 662 AB+BB), and Giles had an OBP of .423 to Burnitz's .322 ....... that's a difference of .101 for RF. If you divide that by 9 positions on the team, that's a difference to the team rate of .011. The net effect then would be:
CUBS with                      Burnitz       Giles

OBP                               .324        ,335
League Rank                         11           5
Difference from mean             -.006        .005
Z Score (# std dev from mean)     -.78         .59
Giles alone would have leap frogged us past half the league. Doing similar calculations on Burnitz & Giles' SLG, the net effect on OPS would bring the CUBS from .764 (4th place) to .780 (2nd place) just .005 behind league leading Cincinnati.

I don't have the formulas to extrapolate all this to additional runs and expected wins, but you get the idea. I'd certainly be willing to pay an additional 7 or 8 million per annum for this kind of additional production.
Thanks, Fred. So if I'm interpreting those numbers correctly, even with the injuries and the left-field debacle, had the 2004 Cubs had Giles in the place of Burnitz, we would have been a top 5 offense. That would have definitely put us in contention for the wild card.

Giles, please!

Yes, that's top 5 in OBP and #2 in OPS.

Fred Hornkohl · October 26, 2005

Any chance you could tell us what Dunn would have done for us?

Rock.... here's a quick approximation for you:

Our left fielders (Hollandsworth, Dubois, Lawton & Murton) had about 20 more plate appearances (roughly 3%) than Adam Dunn, so there will be a greater degree of inaccuracy with this one. Also, I've made no adjustments for games that these 4 players played somewhere else other than LF or for any other players playing left field for us. Here's what their lines look like:

04/04 - 10/02      AB    R    H   2B   3B   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Hol/Dub/Mur/Law   632   65  166   34    4   20  268   76   45  132  0.263  0.315  0.424  0.739
Dunn              543  107  134   35    2   40  293  101  114  168  0.247  0.387  0.540  0.927

The gain in OBP is .072 for left field, or divided by 9, .008 for the team totals. OPS gain .188 for left field, or .021 for the team total. The net effect then, would look like this:

CUBS with              Hol/Dub/Mur/Law        Dunn

OBP                               .324        .332
League Rank                         11           8
Difference from mean             -.006        .002
Z Score (# std dev from mean)     -.78         .16

The effect on OPS is even more dramatic.........

CUBS with              Hol/Dub/Mur/Law        Dunn

OPS                               .764        .785
League Rank                          4           1
Difference from mean              .020        .041
Z Score (# std dev from mean)      .90        1.66

Now for the ultimate what if question...... What if the CUBS had traded Burnitz for Giles AND Hollandsworth/Dubois/Murton/Lawton for Adam Dunn a year ago ???? In addition to adding the appriopriate gain to the CUBS' line, let's also make the appropriate reduction from the stat lines of Cincinnati & San Diego. This is what the league totals would look like......

10/02            BA    OBP    SLG    OPS							
Chicago       0.273  0.343  0.458  0.801							
Philadelphia  0.270  0.348  0.423  0.771							
Atlanta       0.265  0.333  0.435  0.768							
Cincinnati    0.263  0.331  0.433  0.764							
St. Louis     0.270  0.339  0.423  0.762							
Milwaukee     0.259  0.331  0.423  0.754							
Arizona       0.256  0.332  0.421  0.753							
Florida       0.272  0.339  0.409  0.748							
Colorado      0.267  0.333  0.411  0.744							
NY Mets       0.258  0.322  0.416  0.738							
Houston       0.256  0.322  0.408  0.730							
Pittsburgh    0.259  0.322  0.400  0.722							
Los Angeles   0.253  0.326  0.395  0.721							
San Francisco 0.261  0.319  0.396  0.715							
San Diego     0.252  0.322  0.386  0.708							
Washington    0.252  0.322  0.386  0.708							

Maximum       0.273  0.348  0.458  0.801							
Minimum       0.252  0.319  0.386  0.708							
Average       0.262  0.330  0.414  0.744

Notice, that now we have the CUBS leading the lead in BA, SLG & OPS, and trailing only Philadelphia by .005 in OBP. That difference can easily be overcome by replacing Corey with Hairston. In any case, Mr Hendry, you have your work cut out for you.

Go CUBS !!

The 2006 Thread, Current topic: Center Field

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