What's wrong with Lofton?

[MPrior]

So Lofton is on the decline. We all know this. But 2004 was considered a down year for him, and he still put up .275/.346/.395 like Sulleymon said, which would be great. A .346 OBP out of our leadoff hitter would be fine by me (considering this year our leadoff hitters combined for about a .300 OBP). Also remember that, at most, he's a stopgap cf, meant to temporarily and cheaply fill one of our holes so we can put more money and effort into filling bigger ones.

 

However, in the thread Tim posted, someone suggested looking into Jason Michaels, and if he could be had (I don't think it likely), I'd rather have him than Lofton.

[CuseCubFan69]

Honestly...to beat the beast you must think like the beast. Baker is here to stay for some ungodly reason and you need a true type of leadoff hitter to displace Perez and if the Cubs do not guess who will be leading off? By gettting a leadoff hitter IMO, it's the only way Perez can not be signed. If the Cubs go with a young guy from the organization Baker will want Perez around in case that player fails in their first 10 AB's.

 

And most importantantly....never argue with a stubburn Cub manager with a mancrush!

 

I just don't understand this logic. Dusty doesn't control the signings. If Hendry doesn't want to resign Perez, he doesn't have to. Perez does not have to return, no matter how much Dusty wants it to happen. You're entire theory relies exclusively on the assumption that Dusty has the final say on Neifi this offseason and that's just not accurate.

 

I think Baker has a lot more impact then you think he does regarding Hendry. Also, do we know how Hendry feels about Perez? What if he too is content with him at the leadoff and goes after a slugger to fill a corner OF spot? I really believe that Perez is an option if a leadoff guy isn't signed and that Baker/Hendry will make that type of tradeoff.

 

I understand what you're saying but if Baker does get some say, don't you think he'll suggest signing Perez? He seems thrilled with the guy and once he is signed it's Bakers job to put him where he wants to in the lineup. This is why it is so important to find a leadoff hitter IMO. Unless Hendry does want Baker gone, he has to have some imput....not in the final decisions but an opinion on what he wants to put out in the field. I would be shocked if Hendry never consulted Baker and did as he pleased when it comes to the bigger signings.

[BigbadB]

If Hendry agrees with Dusty's managing philosophies, Hendry should be gone too. You have to believe that he has some sort of respect for Baker and the way he manages a club since he did hire him.

 

How much background work is done to determine whether the person you are hiring meets your requirements? Considering the decisions "you" make as General Manager and that the manager makes as the person who works directly under you can have a direct impact on your future job title, I would think you would find someone who meshes with what you are trying to do, rather than get someone who goes against the grain.

 

So, did Hendry hire someone who goes against the grain? Did he hire someone who's coaching philosophies agree with his? Or did he just hire a guy who he knew nothing about, with the assumption that his track record is enough to justify a 4 year/16m deal (or whatever it was)?

 

I have tried to leave Hendry out of all of this. But, I'm finding it harder and harder to ignore that the most important and glaring weaknesses of this team are ignored day after day after day.

 

This offseason will be very telling. He has the financial resources. He has the talent to trade. He has holes to fill. What he does this offseason will determine whether I want him gone along with Baker.

[erik316wttn]

If Lofton gets signed, I can already hear the anger and frustration with many Cub fans about not letting Pie get the chance when he's actually ready for the big leagues.

 

Pie is a year away yet. At least.

[Derwood]

If Lofton gets signed, I can already hear the anger and frustration with many Cub fans about not letting Pie get the chance when he's actually ready for the big leagues.

 

only if pie is called up but rots on the bench

[goonys evil twin]

If Lofton gets signed, I can already hear the anger and frustration with many Cub fans about not letting Pie get the chance when he's actually ready for the big leagues.

 

only if pie is called up but rots on the bench

 

...or Lofton is given a 3 year deal.

[CuseCubFan69]

If Lofton gets signed, I can already hear the anger and frustration with many Cub fans about not letting Pie get the chance when he's actually ready for the big leagues.

 

only if pie is called up but rots on the bench

 

...or Lofton is given a 3 year deal.

 

I didn't say that Dusty WAS the GM.

[Careless]

You could argue that Kenny was the 2nd half MVP for the Cubs in 2003. He really got the lineup going in a way that no one has the past 2 seasons.

 

Who wants to jump on the SignKennyBandWGN?

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without.

[BigbadB]

You could argue that Kenny was the 2nd half MVP for the Cubs in 2003. He really got the lineup going in a way that no one has the past 2 seasons.

 

Who wants to jump on the SignKennyBandWGN?

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without.

 

But, was that really Lofton's fault? He provided a .327 AVG, .387 OBP from the lead off spot with the Cubs. He scored 39 runs in 56 games, with 20 XBH's, 12 stolen bases and 20 RBI's, all from the lead off spot.

 

If the Cubs scored less runs with Kenny, the blame falls on the other players in the line up, not Kenny. Kenny's good OBP this year is exactly what this team needed this year. I'm not saying it has to be Kenny. Any good OBP will do.

 

Sosa's OPS dropped 150 points in the 2nd half of the 2003 season. Alou's OPS dropped more than 50 points in the 2nd half of 2003.

 

Lofton, Grudz and Ramirez basically carried this team into the playoffs in 2003, outside of the starting rotation. Without Lofton, I'm not so sure the Cubs are in the 2003 playoffs.

 

I will agree that he didn't get the "line up" going. He just provided the spark that was missing from Sosa and Alou.

[CubsWin]

You could argue that Kenny was the 2nd half MVP for the Cubs in 2003. He really got the lineup going in a way that no one has the past 2 seasons.

 

Who wants to jump on the SignKennyBandWGN?

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without.

 

But, was that really Lofton's fault? He provided a .327 AVG, .387 OBP from the lead off spot with the Cubs. He scored 39 runs in 56 games, with 20 XBH's, 12 stolen bases and 20 RBI's, all from the lead off spot.

 

If the Cubs scored less runs with Kenny, the blame falls on the other players in the line up, not Kenny. Kenny's good OBP this year is exactly what this team needed this year. I'm not saying it has to be Kenny. Any good OBP will do.

 

Sosa's OPS dropped 150 points in the 2nd half of the 2003 season. Alou's OPS dropped more than 50 points in the 2nd half of 2003.

 

Lofton, Grudz and Ramirez basically carried this team into the playoffs in 2003, outside of the starting rotation. Without Lofton, I'm not so sure the Cubs are in the 2003 playoffs.

 

I will agree that he didn't get the "line up" going. He just provided the spark that was missing from Sosa and Alou.

Wait a second. You're applying logical analysis and using stats that make your point stronger. Thats no fair!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You could argue that Kenny was the 2nd half MVP for the Cubs in 2003. He really got the lineup going in a way that no one has the past 2 seasons.

 

Who wants to jump on the SignKennyBandWGN?

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without.

 

But, was that really Lofton's fault? He provided a .327 AVG, .387 OBP from the lead off spot with the Cubs. He scored 39 runs in 56 games, with 20 XBH's, 12 stolen bases and 20 RBI's, all from the lead off spot.

 

If the Cubs scored less runs with Kenny, the blame falls on the other players in the line up, not Kenny. Kenny's good OBP this year is exactly what this team needed this year. I'm not saying it has to be Kenny. Any good OBP will do.

 

Sosa's OPS dropped 150 points in the 2nd half of the 2003 season. Alou's OPS dropped more than 50 points in the 2nd half of 2003.

 

Lofton, Grudz and Ramirez basically carried this team into the playoffs in 2003, outside of the starting rotation. Without Lofton, I'm not so sure the Cubs are in the 2003 playoffs.

 

I will agree that he didn't get the "line up" going. He just provided the spark that was missing from Sosa and Alou.

Wait a second. You're applying logical analysis and using stats that make your point stronger. Thats no fair!

 

Derwood said that he "really got that lineup going". To me that implies the team having more success than previously.

[USSoccer]

If Hendry didn't do his homework when it comes to Baker and his habits/trends/whatever, then he's incompetent, and simply lucked into the 2 good trades he made as GM thanks to Pittsburgh and L.A. being stupid.

 

Hendry has to take away the dead weight from this team, because the dead weight just happens to be the guys Baker has man-love for.

 

If on November 10th or whatever, the first thing we read is that contracts were tendered to Macias and Perez, I think the board might melt.

[Derwood]

Derwood said that he "really got that lineup going". To me that implies the team having more success than previously.

 

sorry for the vague statement. The team did seem to kick it up a notch when that trade was made, though

[Warren Brusstar]

If Hendry didn't do his homework when it comes to Baker and his habits/trends/whatever, then he's incompetent, and simply lucked into the 2 good trades he made as GM thanks to Pittsburgh and L.A. being stupid.

 

Hendry has to take away the dead weight from this team, because the dead weight just happens to be the guys Baker has man-love for.

 

If on November 10th or whatever, the first thing we read is that contracts were tendered to Macias and Perez, I think the board might melt.

 

Two good trades? Even as a loyal, loyal Choi defender, I'm compelled have to say that Hendry has at least one more "good" trade . . .

[USSoccer]

If Hendry didn't do his homework when it comes to Baker and his habits/trends/whatever, then he's incompetent, and simply lucked into the 2 good trades he made as GM thanks to Pittsburgh and L.A. being stupid.

 

Hendry has to take away the dead weight from this team, because the dead weight just happens to be the guys Baker has man-love for.

 

If on November 10th or whatever, the first thing we read is that contracts were tendered to Macias and Perez, I think the board might melt.

 

Two good trades? Even as a loyal, loyal Choi defender, I'm compelled have to say that Hendry has at least one more "good" trade . . .

 

 

I was trying to play it safe, since Choi is still pretty hotly debated round these parts.

 

.

[Careless]

You could argue that Kenny was the 2nd half MVP for the Cubs in 2003. He really got the lineup going in a way that no one has the past 2 seasons.

 

Who wants to jump on the SignKennyBandWGN?

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without.

 

But, was that really Lofton's fault? He provided a .327 AVG, .387 OBP from the lead off spot with the Cubs. He scored 39 runs in 56 games, with 20 XBH's, 12 stolen bases and 20 RBI's, all from the lead off spot.

 

If the Cubs scored less runs with Kenny, the blame falls on the other players in the line up, not Kenny. Kenny's good OBP this year is exactly what this team needed this year. I'm not saying it has to be Kenny. Any good OBP will do.

 

Sosa's OPS dropped 150 points in the 2nd half of the 2003 season. Alou's OPS dropped more than 50 points in the 2nd half of 2003.

 

Lofton, Grudz and Ramirez basically carried this team into the playoffs in 2003, outside of the starting rotation. Without Lofton, I'm not so sure the Cubs are in the 2003 playoffs.

 

I will agree that he didn't get the "line up" going. He just provided the spark that was missing from Sosa and Alou.

Wait a second. You're applying logical analysis and using stats that make your point stronger. Thats no fair!

 

Derwood said that he "really got that lineup going". To me that implies the team having more success than previously.

It's not ambiguous, derwood stated that lofton improved the entire cubs lineup. The statistics do not bear that out. I'm not insulting his performance. He did a great job for us. But there are only 3 possibilities:

1: he made the cubs lineup worse with his presence

2: he had no effect on the lineup (beyond his own hitting)

3: he had a positive effect that was neutralized by negative effects from elsewhere, in which case we'll almost certainly never be able to sort out who did what

I just don't see how you could be justified in making that claim.

[CubsWin]

You could argue that Kenny was the 2nd half MVP for the Cubs in 2003. He really got the lineup going in a way that no one has the past 2 seasons.

 

Who wants to jump on the SignKennyBandWGN?

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without.

 

But, was that really Lofton's fault? He provided a .327 AVG, .387 OBP from the lead off spot with the Cubs. He scored 39 runs in 56 games, with 20 XBH's, 12 stolen bases and 20 RBI's, all from the lead off spot.

 

If the Cubs scored less runs with Kenny, the blame falls on the other players in the line up, not Kenny. Kenny's good OBP this year is exactly what this team needed this year. I'm not saying it has to be Kenny. Any good OBP will do.

 

Sosa's OPS dropped 150 points in the 2nd half of the 2003 season. Alou's OPS dropped more than 50 points in the 2nd half of 2003.

 

Lofton, Grudz and Ramirez basically carried this team into the playoffs in 2003, outside of the starting rotation. Without Lofton, I'm not so sure the Cubs are in the 2003 playoffs.

 

I will agree that he didn't get the "line up" going. He just provided the spark that was missing from Sosa and Alou.

Wait a second. You're applying logical analysis and using stats that make your point stronger. Thats no fair!

 

Derwood said that he "really got that lineup going". To me that implies the team having more success than previously.

It's not ambiguous, derwood stated that lofton improved the entire cubs lineup. The statistics do not bear that out. I'm not insulting his performance. He did a great job for us. But there are only 3 possibilities:

1: he made the cubs lineup worse with his presence

2: he had no effect on the lineup (beyond his own hitting)

3: he had a positive effect that was neutralized by negative effects from elsewhere, in which case we'll almost certainly never be able to sort out who did what

I just don't see how you could be justified in making that claim.

Well, it appears Derwood is saying thats not what he meant and is backing off "that claim". You can continue to argue that point, if you want. But it seems that you would be arguing with yourself.

 

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm for signing Lofton for a number of reasons none of which have anything to do with 2003.

 

1. He'd be a cheap stop-gap CF until Pie is ready.

2. He'd answer the question of lead-off hitter without the Cubs having to throw money at Furcal.

3. Even anticipating a decline, he should put an OBP in the 340-350 range. While we might like better, that's surely much better than what we had from CF in 2005.

[Geech]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

It only makes sense if you ignore some pretty strong evidence indicating he can't maintain this performance, though.

[Tim]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

It only makes sense if you ignore some pretty strong evidence indicating he can't maintain this performance, though.

See front page for graphical summary of Diffusion's research.

[mg420]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

It only makes sense if you ignore some pretty strong evidence indicating he can't maintain this performance, though.

 

wasnt there also some pretty strong evidence that dempster couldn't close games because he walked too many & didnt have enough strike outs?

[goonys evil twin]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

I am in the "Lofton's affect was a bit overrated, or overstated, by many" camp. He did well, but that didn't make the team any better. I don't blame him for that though.

 

I'm also not a big Lofton fan. He's not a good CF anymore. He was a part of that whole mess in Yankeeland last year. He's a parttime CF this year, and his numbers have been helped by a favorable home park. But, I wouldn't mind him being a stop gap, I just wouldn't rely on him as the sole CF, and I wouldn't rely on anything special in terms of numbers. I think he'll be back to a .340-.350 OBP, at best. And that is only if you limit him to about 400 PA or fewer. Dusty would have to use him the way he claims to use the young guys, letting him bat against favorable matchups. In this case, I'd defintely keep Hairston around to play a good 50-60 of the games in center. And if Lofton does start to fade, you cannot just let him play out the string and hope for a rejuvenation. They would have to be willing to cut bait at anytime, and we all know that with Dusty, that's not likely.

[goonys evil twin]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

It only makes sense if you ignore some pretty strong evidence indicating he can't maintain this performance, though.

 

wasnt there also some pretty strong evidence that dempster couldn't close games because he walked too many & didnt have enough strike outs?

 

I don't know about that, I was supporting Dempster as closer since 2004. I compared him favorably to Isringhausen, and his transformation from an inconsistent and unimpressive starter coming off surgery to a good, but not great closer. Some people just made the general statement that he walks too many to close. You can lump me into the crowd of people who wouldn't have much faith in Lofton, but I was all for Dempster, and I don't see a correlation between the two situations.

[Tim]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

I am in the "Lofton's affect was a bit overrated, or overstated, by many" camp. He did well, but that didn't make the team any better. I don't blame him for that though.

 

I'm also not a big Lofton fan. He's not a good CF anymore. He was a part of that whole mess in Yankeeland last year. He's a parttime CF this year, and his numbers have been helped by a favorable home park. But, I wouldn't mind him being a stop gap, I just wouldn't rely on him as the sole CF, and I wouldn't rely on anything special in terms of numbers. I think he'll be back to a .340-.350 OBP, at best. And that is only if you limit him to about 400 PA or fewer. Dusty would have to use him the way he claims to use the young guys, letting him bat against favorable matchups. In this case, I'd defintely keep Hairston around to play a good 50-60 of the games in center. And if Lofton does start to fade, you cannot just let him play out the string and hope for a rejuvenation. They would have to be willing to cut bait at anytime, and we all know that with Dusty, that's not likely.

My fear is that they'll recruit Lofton away from Philly by promising a full-time job in CF, where he only gets platoon duty there.

[mg420]

Getting back to the question at hand, is Lofton worth signing, I think the logic and stats that BBB threw out make a lot of sense. When you add his career OBP and what he has done in 351 ABs this season, and there is a pretty strong case for signing Lofton.

 

It only makes sense if you ignore some pretty strong evidence indicating he can't maintain this performance, though.

 

wasnt there also some pretty strong evidence that dempster couldn't close games because he walked too many & didnt have enough strike outs?

 

I don't know about that, I was supporting Dempster as closer since 2004. I compared him favorably to Isringhausen, and his transformation from an inconsistent and unimpressive starter coming off surgery to a good, but not great closer. Some people just made the general statement that he walks too many to close. You can lump me into the crowd of people who wouldn't have much faith in Lofton, but I was all for Dempster, and I don't see a correlation between the two situations.

 

i guess my point is that its all a guessing game. why couldnt lofton have a good year next year? his game is based on speed and he doesn't seem to be slowing down much. as far as dempster, i seem to recall an article on the front page outlining why dempster was a ? mark because of his high walks & low strike out totals but he seems to have taken to closing just fine. i also remember that alot of people here were talking down about getting eckstein to play ss and laughed when the sox traded for posednick. if someone would have said at the start of the season that eckstein & scott p would outproduce nomar & cp they would have been lynched.