Sun Times Article on Possible FA Acquisitions

[UK1679666180]

Banks...Sosa...maybe now Lee. I see a very bad pattern here. Cub fans can not fall in love with a player so much that they would go crazy if he is dealt during his peak to improve the team. I'm sick of the Cubs hanging onto one marquee player and no real supporting cast.

 

So the Cubs should have traded Sosa after 98??

 

Unlike years ago, the Cubs spend some money nowadays. Lee will have a supporting cast around him. They just need to discontinue spending money on guys likely to breakdown (Nomar).

 

The Cubs won in 98. I think Sosa should have been dealt in 2000.

 

The broken down players is what the Cubs do. They look for bargins to go with their superstar marquee players. I want a team of good players not one superstar to bring in the sheep. If the Cubs actually decided to go after good players to go with with Lee then yeah...I agree with you but history has shown they do not.

 

Do you remember the trade proposals the Yankees gave us for Sammy? A bunch of crap for the #1 slugger in the game. Wonder why we didn't take that. :roll:

didn't they offer Soriano?

 

Iirc it was Soriano, Ledee and a couple of garbage pitching prospects.

 

If Soriano was offered, Sosa would've been on the Yanks. Soriano is the reason why the deal fell thru, the Yankees did not want to give him up and offered Jimenez instead. The deal was based around Ted Lilly, Ledee, and Soriano/Jimenez.

[goonys evil twin]

Banks...Sosa...maybe now Lee. I see a very bad pattern here. Cub fans can not fall in love with a player so much that they would go crazy if he is dealt during his peak to improve the team. I'm sick of the Cubs hanging onto one marquee player and no real supporting cast.

 

So the Cubs should have traded Sosa after 98??

 

Unlike years ago, the Cubs spend some money nowadays. Lee will have a supporting cast around him. They just need to discontinue spending money on guys likely to breakdown (Nomar).

 

The Cubs won in 98. I think Sosa should have been dealt in 2000.

 

The broken down players is what the Cubs do. They look for bargins to go with their superstar marquee players. I want a team of good players not one superstar to bring in the sheep. If the Cubs actually decided to go after good players to go with with Lee then yeah...I agree with you but history has shown they do not.

 

Do you remember the trade proposals the Yankees gave us for Sammy? A bunch of crap for the #1 slugger in the game. Wonder why we didn't take that. :roll:

didn't they offer Soriano?

 

Iirc it was Soriano, Ledee and a couple of garbage pitching prospects.

 

If Soriano was offered, Sosa would've been on the Yanks. Soriano is the reason why the deal fell thru, the Yankees did not want to give him up and offered Jimenez instead. The deal was based around Ted Lilly, Ledee, and Soriano/Jimenez.

 

The bigger benefit would have been the enormous amount of free cash flow that would have opened up to use on better players. I was a trade Sammy guy since 99, when it became obvious the 98 success would not be back for quite a while, and the team was years from greatness. There is no reason to hold onto expensive aging stars on a crappy team.

[UK1679666180]

I was excited about getting Soriano and Lilly, Ledee did nothing for me. I was not for or against it at the time, I would not have opposed a trade to Sosa, but I thought the Cubs handled it poorly. There could've been a great chance to create a bidding war (Did Sosa's 10-5 kick in?) but they seemed settled to trade him to the Yankees while there appeared to be a smear campaign from within.

[goonys evil twin]

I was excited about getting Soriano and Lilly, Ledee did nothing for me. I was not for or against it at the time, I would not have opposed a trade to Sosa, but I thought the Cubs handled it poorly. There could've been a great chance to create a bidding war (Did Sosa's 10-5 kick in?) but they seemed settled to trade him to the Yankees while there appeared to be a smear campaign from within.

 

I'm pretty certain his 10/5 were in place by '98. There wasn't much of a market, Sosa openly said he'd like to go to the NYY. The seeds for the post 2004 smear campaign were sowed during this story. Andy, in his infinite wisdom, apparantly thinks its more important to please the fringe fans who make up the difference between a ho-hum 2.5 million attendance and 3.0 million attendence season. They clearly put way too much emphasis on fan backlash than baseball decisions. The trade could have been made, with or without Soriano, and it could have greatly benefitted the 2001-2005 Cubs.

[SouthSideRyan]

I was excited about getting Soriano and Lilly, Ledee did nothing for me. I was not for or against it at the time, I would not have opposed a trade to Sosa, but I thought the Cubs handled it poorly. There could've been a great chance to create a bidding war (Did Sosa's 10-5 kick in?) but they seemed settled to trade him to the Yankees while there appeared to be a smear campaign from within.

 

I'm pretty certain his 10/5 were in place by '98. There wasn't much of a market, Sosa openly said he'd like to go to the NYY. The seeds for the post 2004 smear campaign were sowed during this story. Andy, in his infinite wisdom, apparantly thinks its more important to please the fringe fans who make up the difference between a ho-hum 2.5 million attendance and 3.0 million attendence season. They clearly put way too much emphasis on fan backlash than baseball decisions. The trade could have been made, with or without Soriano, and it could have greatly benefitted the 2001-2005 Cubs.

 

Not if the money was blown on Hampton, as was rumored. And I really doubt the Cubs are better in '01 if Sammy had been traded.

[goonys evil twin]

Not if the money was blown on Hampton, as was rumored. And I really doubt the Cubs are better in '01 if Sammy had been traded.

 

True on the Hampton front. I don't think they would have been better in 2001, but my point is they could have been better from 2000-2005 had they traded him. I don't think they're any worse in 2003, and could have been better. Assuming halfway decent use of that money, they could have been much better in 2004 and 2005, when he they didn't come close to getting value.

[CuseCubFan69]

I wonder if the Cubs would have went after Vlad if they had Sammy off the books?

[rawaction]

I wonder if the Cubs would have went after Vlad if they had Sammy off the books?

 

NO. The Cubs could have never had Vlad. Don't make me think of the possibilities.

[CuseCubFan69]

I wonder if the Cubs would have went after Vlad if they had Sammy off the books?

 

NO. The Cubs could have never had Vlad. Don't make me think of the possibilities.

 

Sorry Raw. I shouldn't bring up the past like that.

[Tim]

To paraphrase the greatest GM in the history of the game (Branch Rickey):

 

It's better to trade a player too soon than too late.

[Guest]

65 wins = having Choi @ 1b and whatever 2nd tier FA they bring in due to Lee's savings. :o

Adjusting for opportunity, the difference between Lee and Choi this season works out to be about 55 runs, or 5-6 wins. In your proposed scenario, I'd say that a Cubs team with Choi+$8 million worth of produciton elsewhere would finish 3-4 games behind the Cubs with Lee manning first. Worse, but not radically so. Sub in Tracy for Choi, and difference dwindles down to a game or less...

[Backtobanks]

 

First, why does everyone think Lee is going to regress back to his career norms. He worked hard to make adjustments in his swing and plate coverage, so there isn't much of a reason to think he will revert back to a .270 hitter.

 

B/c this year's numbers are so far out of line of his past numbers. This year he got off to an incredible start and has faded toward the end. Normally he starts off poor and then heats up. Be that as it may, he is 30 and at his peak but for him to have another season like this year would be remarkable. As I originally stated, he still is a top 5 1st baseman even at his career norms.

 

Secondly, what guarantee that any young players we get in return for Lee will be the superstars that everyone is making them out to be. Finally, will a team like the Diamondbacks trade 3 very promising, young players for one excellent player when they are in a rebuilding situation.

 

There is no guarantee that any of the young players would be superstars, but I don't reacall anyone stating that they would. Maybe I need to re-read the thread. And as I stated above, I don't think the D-backs would make the deal. Nevertheless, it is fun to talk about it.

 

Again, this does not take into account that Lee has changed his swing and plate coverage. With those improvements, he is not the same hitter he was when he set those career averages. I think he could very well hit .310/40 HR/105-110 RBI for the next few years. The Cubs have a ton of money to spend and lots of spare parts (resign Walker and Rusch) to trade without talking about trading one of the building blocks of the team. With players like Walker, Patterson, Rusch/Williams, Mitre, Hall, Welly, plus prospects, the Cubs ought to be able to fill one OF position plus a pitcher (starter or reliever). Spend the big money on big-time free agent (Furcal, Giles, etc.). Plan on starting Murton and Cedeno (at 2B or SS). Don't mess with Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano, and Barrett.

[CubfaninCA]

65 wins = having Choi @ 1b and whatever 2nd tier FA they bring in due to Lee's savings. :o

Adjusting for opportunity, the difference between Lee and Choi this season works out to be about 55 runs, or 5-6 wins. In your proposed scenario, I'd say that a Cubs team with Choi+$8 million worth of produciton elsewhere would finish 3-4 games behind the Cubs with Lee manning first. Worse, but not radically so. Sub in Tracy for Choi, and difference dwindles down to a game or less...

 

I find that hard to believe given Choi has a lot less at bats than Lee.

[Jazz]

Well i think we should look at it this way.

 

Lee's value could never possibly be higher, but for how long should we look to reep off his surge to the top? Id really like to see if he can duplicate his production next year ,or even close to it, because even though the number say it was, Lee looked more patient, and switched mechanics as was talked about with his long swing. Id look to trade him at the beginning of NEXT offseason, but we may be sorry if he sinks considerably this year. Its a tossup, but whats the FA crop look like next year?

 

Edit: after looking at a resource for 2007 Free Agents, it looks pretty deep, but no real superstars (though that could change)

 

C: Kendall, Schneider, Barrett

1B: Sweeney, Wilkerson, Clark, Hafner (Team Option)

2B: Giles

3B: C. Jones, Koskie

SS: Guillen, Young, Izturis, Eckstein

LF: Jenkins, Dunn, Byrnes

CF: A. Jones, Bradley, Wels, Clark

RF: Abreu (Team Option), Suzuki, Green, Kielty

 

RH Starter: L. Hernandez, Vazquez, Clement, Colon, Garcia, Halladay, Benson, J. Wright, J. Fogg, V. Zambrano, C. Zambrano :(, Beckett, Arroyo, Oswalt, Carpenter (Team Option)

 

LH Starter: Milton, R. Johnson, O. Perez, Sabathia, D. Davis

 

Relievers: Marte (team option), Grybowksi, Linebrink,. Julio, Vizcaino, Benitez, Kolb, Jason Isringhausen (Team Option), Joe Nathan (Team Option),

 

 

Managers :): Ron Gardenhire, Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre, John Gibbons, Bruce Bochy

 

Looking at this I might want to hold back on signing Giles unless its for a short term deal. Maybe find an outfielder in a trade whos contract ends soon, and sign Pitching?

Edited September 28, 2005 by Jazz

[CubfaninCA]

 

First, why does everyone think Lee is going to regress back to his career norms. He worked hard to make adjustments in his swing and plate coverage, so there isn't much of a reason to think he will revert back to a .270 hitter.

 

B/c this year's numbers are so far out of line of his past numbers. This year he got off to an incredible start and has faded toward the end. Normally he starts off poor and then heats up. Be that as it may, he is 30 and at his peak but for him to have another season like this year would be remarkable. As I originally stated, he still is a top 5 1st baseman even at his career norms.

 

Secondly, what guarantee that any young players we get in return for Lee will be the superstars that everyone is making them out to be. Finally, will a team like the Diamondbacks trade 3 very promising, young players for one excellent player when they are in a rebuilding situation.

 

There is no guarantee that any of the young players would be superstars, but I don't reacall anyone stating that they would. Maybe I need to re-read the thread. And as I stated above, I don't think the D-backs would make the deal. Nevertheless, it is fun to talk about it.

 

Again, this does not take into account that Lee has changed his swing and plate coverage. With those improvements, he is not the same hitter he was when he set those career averages. I think he could very well hit .310/40 HR/105-110 RBI for the next few years. The Cubs have a ton of money to spend and lots of spare parts (resign Walker and Rusch) to trade without talking about trading one of the building blocks of the team. With players like Walker, Patterson, Rusch/Williams, Mitre, Hall, Welly, plus prospects, the Cubs ought to be able to fill one OF position plus a pitcher (starter or reliever). Spend the big money on big-time free agent (Furcal, Giles, etc.). Plan on starting Murton and Cedeno (at 2B or SS). Don't mess with Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano, and Barrett.

 

Jmo but don't touch Z, Prior and Lee. After that everybodies available for a certain price.

 

I wouldn't mind them dealing off ARam for another real good player or two. If there was some multi-player deal where the Cubs got back Chipper Jones and Giles, I wouldn't mind. Yes Ramirez is 27, and is entering his prime, but it sounds like he's not big on conditioning, so he could have problems down the line. Already, he'll miss 39 games this year and was banged up last year w/ a groin problem. Also, he's not an all around player like Lee.

 

I'm not a huge Barrett fan.

[hawkeyecub]

65 wins = having Choi @ 1b and whatever 2nd tier FA they bring in due to Lee's savings. :o

Adjusting for opportunity, the difference between Lee and Choi this season works out to be about 55 runs, or 5-6 wins. In your proposed scenario, I'd say that a Cubs team with Choi+$8 million worth of produciton elsewhere would finish 3-4 games behind the Cubs with Lee manning first. Worse, but not radically so. Sub in Tracy for Choi, and difference dwindles down to a game or less...

 

I just have an incredibly hard time buying that. Downgrading at 1st base from the most productive player in baseball this year, to a much poorer defensive first baseman who has a sub-.800 OPS would only cost us 5-6 games?

 

Wouldn't that be comprable to saying that if we had Vlad or Manny in LF this year, we would only have been 3-4 games better? It's only a .230 differential in OPS as opposed to roughly 300 points in the case of Lee/Choi.

 

I guess I just have a difficult time believing that if Vlad or Manny were our everyday LF and no other changes to the lineup were made, we would only have been able to win roughly 4 additional games.

Things like that are just seem incredibly difficult to measure in my opinion.

[Guest]

I find that hard to believe given Choi has a lot less at bats than Lee.

Adjusting for opportunity, the difference between Lee and Choi this season works out to be about 55 runs, or 5-6 wins.

By that I meant if Choi had a similar number of PA's as Lee he'd produce about 55 fewer runs.

[Guest]

Wouldn't that be comprable to saying that if we had Vlad or Manny in LF this year, we would only have been 3-4 games better? It's only a .230 differential in OPS as opposed to roughly 300 points in the case of Lee/Choi.

 

I guess I just have a difficult time believing that if Vlad or Manny were our everyday LF and no other changes to the lineup were made, we would only have been able to win roughly 4 additional games.

Things like that are just seem incredibly difficult to measure in my opinion.

4-5 wins may not sound like much, but when you're talking about one single player it really is. (Particularly when the person you're comapring him to really isn't all that bad. A .794 OPS from a first baseman isn't anything to write home about, but it's not like it's terrible, either.)

 

It's just an illustration of the baseball fact that one player can only do so much. Adding one player to the Cubs -- even an outstanding player such as Manny or Vlad -- would have only helped so much. This team would have still had many problems; a banged-up pitching staff, black-holes playing SS and CF, a horrible bench, etc. Yes, we'd have won a few, maybe several more ballgames, but its' doubtful a single player could have vaulted us into contention from where we currently sit. Baseball is still a team game, even though it's dominated by individual performances.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Anonymous

[Larry Horse]

 

First, why does everyone think Lee is going to regress back to his career norms. He worked hard to make adjustments in his swing and plate coverage, so there isn't much of a reason to think he will revert back to a .270 hitter.

 

B/c this year's numbers are so far out of line of his past numbers. This year he got off to an incredible start and has faded toward the end. Normally he starts off poor and then heats up. Be that as it may, he is 30 and at his peak but for him to have another season like this year would be remarkable. As I originally stated, he still is a top 5 1st baseman even at his career norms.

 

Secondly, what guarantee that any young players we get in return for Lee will be the superstars that everyone is making them out to be. Finally, will a team like the Diamondbacks trade 3 very promising, young players for one excellent player when they are in a rebuilding situation.

 

There is no guarantee that any of the young players would be superstars, but I don't reacall anyone stating that they would. Maybe I need to re-read the thread. And as I stated above, I don't think the D-backs would make the deal. Nevertheless, it is fun to talk about it.

 

Again, this does not take into account that Lee has changed his swing and plate coverage. With those improvements, he is not the same hitter he was when he set those career averages. I think he could very well hit .310/40 HR/105-110 RBI for the next few years. The Cubs have a ton of money to spend and lots of spare parts (resign Walker and Rusch) to trade without talking about trading one of the building blocks of the team. With players like Walker, Patterson, Rusch/Williams, Mitre, Hall, Welly, plus prospects, the Cubs ought to be able to fill one OF position plus a pitcher (starter or reliever). Spend the big money on big-time free agent (Furcal, Giles, etc.). Plan on starting Murton and Cedeno (at 2B or SS). Don't mess with Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano, and Barrett.

 

If a trade is on the table that would improve the Cubs, then no one is untouchable. How can a team that hasn't won a World Series in 97 years have any "untouchables"?

 

But then again, I don't trust the people making the personnel decisions anyway.

[CarolinaCubFan]

 

First, why does everyone think Lee is going to regress back to his career norms. He worked hard to make adjustments in his swing and plate coverage, so there isn't much of a reason to think he will revert back to a .270 hitter.

 

B/c this year's numbers are so far out of line of his past numbers. This year he got off to an incredible start and has faded toward the end. Normally he starts off poor and then heats up. Be that as it may, he is 30 and at his peak but for him to have another season like this year would be remarkable. As I originally stated, he still is a top 5 1st baseman even at his career norms.

 

Secondly, what guarantee that any young players we get in return for Lee will be the superstars that everyone is making them out to be. Finally, will a team like the Diamondbacks trade 3 very promising, young players for one excellent player when they are in a rebuilding situation.

 

There is no guarantee that any of the young players would be superstars, but I don't reacall anyone stating that they would. Maybe I need to re-read the thread. And as I stated above, I don't think the D-backs would make the deal. Nevertheless, it is fun to talk about it.

 

Again, this does not take into account that Lee has changed his swing and plate coverage. With those improvements, he is not the same hitter he was when he set those career averages. I think he could very well hit .310/40 HR/105-110 RBI for the next few years. The Cubs have a ton of money to spend and lots of spare parts (resign Walker and Rusch) to trade without talking about trading one of the building blocks of the team. With players like Walker, Patterson, Rusch/Williams, Mitre, Hall, Welly, plus prospects, the Cubs ought to be able to fill one OF position plus a pitcher (starter or reliever). Spend the big money on big-time free agent (Furcal, Giles, etc.). Plan on starting Murton and Cedeno (at 2B or SS). Don't mess with Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano, and Barrett.

 

If a trade is on the table that would improve the Cubs, then no one is untouchable. How can a team that hasn't won a World Series in 97 years have any "untouchables"?

 

But then again, I don't trust the people making the personnel decisions anyway.

 

I have to agree with Backtobanks on this to an extent. If the right offer is made, any trade that makes the team better has to be made. I'm not as confident in Hendry as I once was, but he has put together a good core. Aram, Lee, and Barrett are what most everyone is screaming about. For their positions, they are well above the league average offensivly and are OBP guys with some pop.

 

This team is close, but Hendry has failed to land the final pieces of the puzzle. The brothers Giles would be huge to our offense and Marcus falls into line with our core of under 30 with OBP. If Epatt continues his tear, I'm sure we could get a nice return for either and be set at 2nd base. Brian could have a couple great seasons left in him at Wrigley, anchoring our outfield until we develop Harvey or other.

 

I'm partially excited about next year, but then I remember Baker.

[CubfaninCA]

I find that hard to believe given Choi has a lot less at bats than Lee.

Adjusting for opportunity, the difference between Lee and Choi this season works out to be about 55 runs, or 5-6 wins.

By that I meant if Choi had a similar number of PA's as Lee he'd produce about 55 fewer runs.

 

That's just assuming he doesn't get manhandled in his 200 additional PA's. There's a reason why he sits so much.

 

Still can't believe 55 runs = only 5-6 games.

[Guest]

Still can't believe 55 runs = only 5-6 games.

Believe it or not, a 10-run swing in a team's differential translates into about one win. The exact formula for Runs Per Win (RPW) is as follows:

 

RPW = 10 * SQRT[(RS+RA)/(G*9)]

 

That method for getting a W-L record from a team's differential actually works out to be more accurate than James' Pythagorean method. (Mostly because it adjusts for run environment... the fewer runs a team scores/allows, the fewer it needs to win ballgames.)

[CubfaninCA]

Still can't believe 55 runs = only 5-6 games.

Believe it or not, a 10-run swing in a team's differential translates into about one win. The exact formula for Runs Per Win (RPW) is as follows:

 

RPW = 10 * SQRT[(RS+RA)/(G*9)]

 

That method for getting a W-L record from a team's differential actually works out to be more accurate than James' Pythagorean method. (Mostly because it adjusts for run environment... the fewer runs a team scores/allows, the fewer it needs to win ballgames.)

 

So how many games has Neifi cost us this year?? 1 or 2?

[Guest]

Still can't believe 55 runs = only 5-6 games.

Believe it or not, a 10-run swing in a team's differential translates into about one win. The exact formula for Runs Per Win (RPW) is as follows:

 

RPW = 10 * SQRT[(RS+RA)/(G*9)]

 

That method for getting a W-L record from a team's differential actually works out to be more accurate than James' Pythagorean method. (Mostly because it adjusts for run environment... the fewer runs a team scores/allows, the fewer it needs to win ballgames.)

 

So how many games has Neifi cost us this year?? 1 or 2?

It depends on what you're comparing him to. If you compare him to a typical big-league hitter, then yes, his poor offensive production has cost us about a game and a half. (That's in a career year, mind you.) If you compare him to other SS, however, he's probably only cost us 1.1 - 1.2 games in the standings.

[Tim]

Still can't believe 55 runs = only 5-6 games.

Believe it or not, a 10-run swing in a team's differential translates into about one win. The exact formula for Runs Per Win (RPW) is as follows:

 

RPW = 10 * SQRT[(RS+RA)/(G*9)]

 

That method for getting a W-L record from a team's differential actually works out to be more accurate than James' Pythagorean method. (Mostly because it adjusts for run environment... the fewer runs a team scores/allows, the fewer it needs to win ballgames.)

 

So how many games has Neifi cost us this year?? 1 or 2?

It depends on what you're comparing him to. If you compare him to a typical big-league hitter, then yes, his poor offensive production has cost us about a game and a half. (That's in a career year, mind you.) If you compare him to other SS, however, he's probably only cost us 1.1 - 1.2 games in the standings.

And compared to a full-strength Nomar?