Would you trade D. Lee?

[The Voice of Reason]

Derrek Lee had a phenominal year that he will probably never come close to repeating. Being a firstbaseman might hurt his value, but it's never going to be higher anyway, so it makes sense to try and leverage that year into a very good player at a more difficult position to fill, like CF or SS. Even trading him in for a good corner outfielder might not be such a bad idea, although it seems like Lee should be able to handle a corner himself.

 

I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants.

 

Get D. Lee some base runners on in front of him and adequate protection behind him and I see some MVPs in his future as well as several more gold gloves.

 

I wouldn't trade him for anything less than the entire Tampa Bay Devil Rays franchise.

[CubinNY]

Derrek Lee had a phenominal year that he will probably never come close to repeating. Being a firstbaseman might hurt his value, but it's never going to be higher anyway, so it makes sense to try and leverage that year into a very good player at a more difficult position to fill, like CF or SS. Even trading him in for a good corner outfielder might not be such a bad idea, although it seems like Lee should be able to handle a corner himself.

 

I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants.

 

It was the Pirates and I cried like a baby when he was traded, but then again I was only 5. He was my favorite Cub.

[The Voice of Reason]

Derrek Lee had a phenominal year that he will probably never come close to repeating. Being a firstbaseman might hurt his value, but it's never going to be higher anyway, so it makes sense to try and leverage that year into a very good player at a more difficult position to fill, like CF or SS. Even trading him in for a good corner outfielder might not be such a bad idea, although it seems like Lee should be able to handle a corner himself.

 

I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants.

 

It was the Pirates and I cried like a baby when he was traded, but then again I was only 5. He was my favorite Cub.

 

 

I'll cut you some slack since you were only 5. In 1977 the Cubs traded Madlock to the Giants (after he won the batting title). The Giants later traded him to the Pirates.

 

Madlock's career stats - .305. BA, .365 OBP, .807 OPS. I guess back then, the Cubs didn't value OBP as much as they do now. :wink:

[CuseCubFan69]

Derrek Lee had a phenominal year that he will probably never come close to repeating. Being a firstbaseman might hurt his value, but it's never going to be higher anyway, so it makes sense to try and leverage that year into a very good player at a more difficult position to fill, like CF or SS. Even trading him in for a good corner outfielder might not be such a bad idea, although it seems like Lee should be able to handle a corner himself.

 

I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants.

 

It was the Pirates and I cried like a baby when he was traded, but then again I was only 5. He was my favorite Cub.

 

As did I and I was a lot older than 5.

[CubinNY]

Derrek Lee had a phenominal year that he will probably never come close to repeating. Being a firstbaseman might hurt his value, but it's never going to be higher anyway, so it makes sense to try and leverage that year into a very good player at a more difficult position to fill, like CF or SS. Even trading him in for a good corner outfielder might not be such a bad idea, although it seems like Lee should be able to handle a corner himself.

 

I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants.

 

It was the Pirates and I cried like a baby when he was traded, but then again I was only 5. He was my favorite Cub.

 

 

I'll cut you some slack since you were only 5. In 1977 the Cubs traded Madlock to the Giants (after he won the batting title). The Giants later traded him to the Pirates.

 

Madlock's career stats - .305. BA, .365 OBP, .807 OPS. I guess back then, the Cubs didn't value OBP as much as they do now. :wink:

 

I had no idea. Did he play any games with the Giants? I only remember him with the Pirates. And I was 8 but I still cried. I had a Bill Madlock glove and I wore wrist bands just like Madlock. I played 3rd base and batted left handed too (the batting left handed part helped me in later life). The only thing I didn't have was an afro, but then again I am White.

[CubfaninCA]

Sell high, buy low says the adage. D' Lee will be hard pressed to repeat last season. Would you trade him??

 

Personally I could see it if the price were right. The Angels are loaded with prospects. Maybe D.Lee for Kendry Morales and Howie Kendrick?

 

Any thoughts?

 

the cubs shouldn't be making pittsburghish trades.

[TheDude]

You do not trade Lee now. For a team trying to improve it's offense, how the heck do explain trading away half the offense? Trade Lee and the team doesn't improve, regardless of the returns - all you've done is ditribute his value across multiple positions, when you can keep his value and fill the positions anyway.

 

If Lee regresses anywhere, it will be in AVG with a corresponding slight drop in OBP. I do not believe the HRs and 2Bs will drop.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You do not trade Lee now. For a team trying to improve it's offense, how the heck do explain trading away half the offense? Trade Lee and the team doesn't improve, regardless of the returns - all you've done is ditribute his value across multiple positions, when you can keep his value and fill the positions anyway.

 

If Lee regresses anywhere, it will be in AVG with a corresponding slight drop in OBP. I do not believe the HRs and 2Bs will drop.

 

If(when?) his AVG drops, then his HR and 2B will have to drop, unless by some miracle all his lost hits are singles.

 

You justify trading Lee because what you get in return is greater than what you give. For example, I suggested in a 3 team deal trading Lee and Walker for Bradley, Drew, and Castillo. Castillo is superior to Walker, Drew is likely to equal if not surpass Lee's production next year(this is just putting names to production levels, so disregard Drew's injuries when evaluating this hypothetically), and Bradley is a superb offensive and defensive CF. The team is better offensively because of a trade of Lee in that scenario.

[CubfaninCA]

You do not trade Lee now. For a team trying to improve it's offense, how the heck do explain trading away half the offense? Trade Lee and the team doesn't improve, regardless of the returns - all you've done is ditribute his value across multiple positions, when you can keep his value and fill the positions anyway.

 

If Lee regresses anywhere, it will be in AVG with a corresponding slight drop in OBP. I do not believe the HRs and 2Bs will drop.

 

If(when?) his AVG drops, then his HR and 2B will have to drop, unless by some miracle all his lost hits are singles.

 

You justify trading Lee because what you get in return is greater than what you give. For example, I suggested in a 3 team deal trading Lee and Walker for Bradley, Drew, and Castillo. Castillo is superior to Walker, Drew is likely to equal if not surpass Lee's production next year(this is just putting names to production levels, so disregard Drew's injuries when evaluating this hypothetically), and Bradley is a superb offensive and defensive CF. The team is better offensively because of a trade of Lee in that scenario.

 

You don't trade away one of the best all-around players in the game for an oft-injured player and a borderline nut. Yes, Castillo's superior to Walker, but Lee and Walker should get you more.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You do not trade Lee now. For a team trying to improve it's offense, how the heck do explain trading away half the offense? Trade Lee and the team doesn't improve, regardless of the returns - all you've done is ditribute his value across multiple positions, when you can keep his value and fill the positions anyway.

 

If Lee regresses anywhere, it will be in AVG with a corresponding slight drop in OBP. I do not believe the HRs and 2Bs will drop.

 

If(when?) his AVG drops, then his HR and 2B will have to drop, unless by some miracle all his lost hits are singles.

 

You justify trading Lee because what you get in return is greater than what you give. For example, I suggested in a 3 team deal trading Lee and Walker for Bradley, Drew, and Castillo. Castillo is superior to Walker, Drew is likely to equal if not surpass Lee's production next year(this is just putting names to production levels, so disregard Drew's injuries when evaluating this hypothetically), and Bradley is a superb offensive and defensive CF. The team is better offensively because of a trade of Lee in that scenario.

 

You don't trade away one of the best all-around players in the game for an oft-injured player and a borderline nut. Yes, Castillo's superior to Walker, but Lee and Walker should get you more.

 

Again, read the part in parentheses. It was an example to match the production levels we'd want to get in return with a name.

[CubDad4Ever]

Lees improvment was much greater in percentage of x base hits as apposed to singles. Even with regression to the mean i think we are looking at a 1000 ops guy for several years. No way to i want a part of Drew ( injuries are a part of statistical evaluation also) or Bradley. ridiculous wanna be moneyball trades must include the fact that some folks cant show up all the time either through injuries or attitude. Lee is a huge benifet to the offense and defense , plus a great fit in chicago and Wrigley. Yes you make a trade that can benifit your team . However just adding a couple of Potential OPS up on people with flaws does not equate success . The cubs should attempt to be more like the Red Sox and Yankees not the A's . The Red Sox figured this out under Epstein. They are big market teams who should use their advantage in capital to keep strong offensive players and valued pitchers. While using analytical tools to pick up value players from a variety of venues. God Bless and get Frucal.

[CubfaninCA]

You do not trade Lee now. For a team trying to improve it's offense, how the heck do explain trading away half the offense? Trade Lee and the team doesn't improve, regardless of the returns - all you've done is ditribute his value across multiple positions, when you can keep his value and fill the positions anyway.

 

If Lee regresses anywhere, it will be in AVG with a corresponding slight drop in OBP. I do not believe the HRs and 2Bs will drop.

 

If(when?) his AVG drops, then his HR and 2B will have to drop, unless by some miracle all his lost hits are singles.

 

You justify trading Lee because what you get in return is greater than what you give. For example, I suggested in a 3 team deal trading Lee and Walker for Bradley, Drew, and Castillo. Castillo is superior to Walker, Drew is likely to equal if not surpass Lee's production next year(this is just putting names to production levels, so disregard Drew's injuries when evaluating this hypothetically), and Bradley is a superb offensive and defensive CF. The team is better offensively because of a trade of Lee in that scenario.

 

You don't trade away one of the best all-around players in the game for an oft-injured player and a borderline nut. Yes, Castillo's superior to Walker, but Lee and Walker should get you more.

 

Again, read the part in parentheses. It was an example to match the production levels we'd want to get in return with a name.

 

Sorry, not grasping these fantasy proposals yet. :o

[CubfaninCA]

Lees improvment was much greater in percentage of x base hits as apposed to singles. Even with regression to the mean i think we are looking at a 1000 ops guy for several years. No way to i want a part of Drew ( injuries are a part of statistical evaluation also) or Bradley. ridiculous wanna be moneyball trades must include the fact that some folks cant show up all the time either through injuries or attitude. Lee is a huge benifet to the offense and defense , plus a great fit in chicago and Wrigley. Yes you make a trade that can benifit your team . However just adding a couple of Potential OPS up on people with flaws does not equate success . The cubs should attempt to be more like the Red Sox and Yankees not the A's . The Red Sox figured this out under Epstein. They are big market teams who should use their advantage in capital to keep strong offensive players and valued pitchers. While using analytical tools to pick up value players from a variety of venues. God Bless and get Frucal.

 

Lee's adjustments @ the plate and playing in Wrigley instead of Pro Player should help him stay around the 1.000 mark.

 

My fantasy proposal is Lee for Hank Aaron in his prime. :wink: