From the Score (I know, I know):

[RynoRules]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

[XZero771679666304]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

[ThePenguin11]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

Gee, then I guess you could say it would take the All Star team to do it. I sit uncorrected.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

they very easily could though. it's not an impossible notion depending on how you want to define "league average production," ie OPS, BA, etc.

[USSoccer]

As funny as it sounds, the Reds had 6 players that were above average replacement value for their positions, with Dunn, Griffey, Lopez, Aurillia, LaRue, and somebody else that I can't remember all within the top 3 in OPS at their positions.

 

The Red Sox had Ramirez, Ortiz, Varitek, Damon, Mueller and Renteria all above replacement value, and in the top 3 in OPS per position.

 

Last year the Cubs had Walker, Ramirez, Lee and Barrett all above average at their positions, and in the top 3 (Lee and Barrett led their positions in OPS, Ramirez was 3rd, I think).

Edited November 23, 2005 by USSoccer

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

Gee, then I guess you could say it would take the All Star team to do it. I sit uncorrected.

 

You are confusing impossible with the examples from every day life. Just b/c someone doesn't do it, doesn't mean they can't. You could very easily trade your super-star players for several above average major leaguers. why would you do that? there's your answer as to why it isn't done.

 

it's usually better to have a couple studs and a few duds than a team of mediocrity all the way around.

[RynoRules]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

they very easily could though. it's not an impossible notion depending on how you want to define "league average production," ie OPS, BA, etc.

 

C'mon now...if I wanted I could make an argument to prove that I am Almighty G-d, but that's not true either.

[XZero771679666304]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

they very easily could though. it's not an impossible notion depending on how you want to define "league average production," ie OPS, BA, etc.

 

Of course they could. But the idea that you need to have above average production at every position to be an elite team is just wrong.

 

I would say an elite team should have above average production at 6 of the 8 positions, provided the other two aren't totally abysmal.

[Mark_R]

As funny as it sounds, the Reds had 6 players that were above average replacement value for their positions, with Dunn, Griffey, Lopez, Aurillia, LaRue, and somebody else that I can't remember.

 

The Red Sox had Ramirez, Ortiz, Varitek, Damon, Mueller and Renteria all above replacement value.

 

So............ then the answer would be no team had all players above average? ;)

[Diffusion]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

No, just a lineup that isn't filled with Neifi, Corey, Hairston, Hollandsworth, Dubois, Burnitz type gaping holes. Those six players, all regular starters at some point, combined to give the Cubs 2633 PA last year (out of a total of 6159, so 43%), and put up a combined .302 OBP and .393 SLG.

 

Personally, given the Cubs' resources, I don't think it's too much to ask that they go an entire year without fielding a regular starting position player that can't reasonably be expected to post a .340 OBP and a .425 SLG.

[Mark_R]

 

Personally, given the Cubs' resources, I don't think it's too much to ask that they go an entire year without fielding a regular starting position player that can't reasonably be expected to post a .340 OBP and a .425 SLG.

 

Agreed. And this is why people get discouraged over mediocre signings. Those signings are hindering us from following these feasible offensive numbers.

 

If you had a team of

 

Furcal

Pierre (sub in who you wish for CF, this is just an example)

Giles

Lee

Ramirez

Walker

Murton

Barrett

 

this could follow diffusion's mold.

 

And win a division.

[USSoccer]

As funny as it sounds, the Reds had 6 players that were above average replacement value for their positions, with Dunn, Griffey, Lopez, Aurillia, LaRue, and somebody else that I can't remember.

 

The Red Sox had Ramirez, Ortiz, Varitek, Damon, Mueller and Renteria all above replacement value.

 

So............ then the answer would be no team had all players above average? ;)

 

I think what I was trying to say is that you could compare the Cubs core players to just about any team's core players. The keys are to minimize the gaping hopes in our lineup (and CF, SS and LF were gaping bloody holes last year, and RF barely considered average if at all) while making sure your pitching is good and healthy enough to contend.

 

Look at Cincinatti. They led the league in runs scored, and had the most above average position players of anyone, yet they sucked. Why? Because their pitching sucked. Why did we finish 4th? Because 3 of our 4 other positions were last in the league in OPS, and RF was barely treading water.

 

I think to expect the Cubs to field a team of completely above replacement would be unrealistic, but if they have 4 guys in the top 3 at their positions, and the other 4 guys are around average in the aggregate instead of well below average, you should be okay offensively.

Edited November 24, 2005 by USSoccer

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

they very easily could though. it's not an impossible notion depending on how you want to define "league average production," ie OPS, BA, etc.

 

C'mon now...if I wanted I could make an argument to prove that I am Almighty G-d, but that's not true either.

 

don't be insipid. seriously. define league average and then figure out how much those players make. it is fiscally possible. teams just choose to go a different way, with several studs who make the big $ and the necessary parts (below league average) as fillers.

[NorthsideAvenger]

If the Cubs are giving up a very talented lefty in Pinto, along with 2 prospects, then the Cubs better get a second player in the deal, perhaps Vargas. There is no way the Cubs should trade away 3 players for perhaps a 1 yr rental...no way. It didn't work out for Arizona with Richie Sexson, it didn't work very well for the Expos/Nats with Colon AND Floyd, and I don't want the Cubs to fall into the group. The Cubs should get a 2nd player, or they move on.

 

-----------

 

Tim, I understand your's and most people apprehension about Howry and Eyre. But to based it on "stuff" is, atleast to me, not a valid argument. It they had the "stuff" they would either be starting or closing. So apparent they don't have that stuff, but IMO, they do have good enough stuff for situational scenerios. Are they are going to be worth their contracts....NO. But Hendry is looking at it this way...it's just cheaper to sign quality relievers in the offseason, instead of standing pat, watching the bullpen implode and having to give a couple of solid prospects to get an arm for the bullpen during the season. And if Dusthead would use Howry and Eyre PROPERLY, I think too many people are going to have any REAL problems with Eyre, and Howry. But that is just it....Dusthead doesn't know how to put his players into position to succeed.

[Diffusion]

it's usually better to have a couple studs and a few duds than a team of mediocrity all the way around.

 

It's even better to have a couple of studs and the rest mediocre at worst.

 

Look at the 2003 Red Sox. They scored 961 runs that year. Their lineup featured Varitek, Millar, Walker, Mueller, Nomar, Manny, Damon, Nixon, Ortiz. The only players with more than 200 AB that fell short of .340/.425 were Walker (.333 OBP) and Damon (.405 SLG). That is how you build an offence.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

they very easily could though. it's not an impossible notion depending on how you want to define "league average production," ie OPS, BA, etc.

 

Of course they could. But the idea that you need to have above average production at every position to be an elite team is just wrong.

 

I would say an elite team should have above average production at 6 of the 8 positions, provided the other two aren't totally abysmal.

 

I agree. I don't think it is the way to go. I was just saying that it is possible (after some moran decided "above average at every position" meant "all-star team").

[Gunned]

So is Pierre coming or not?

[JoshiQ]

 

Personally, given the Cubs' resources, I don't think it's too much to ask that they go an entire year without fielding a regular starting position player that can't reasonably be expected to post a .340 OBP and a .425 SLG.

 

Agreed. And this is why people get discouraged over mediocre signings. Those signings are hindering us from following these feasible offensive numbers.

 

If you had a team of

 

Furcal

Pierre (sub in who you wish for CF, this is just an example)

Giles

Lee

Ramirez

Walker

Murton

Barrett

 

this could follow diffusion's mold.

 

And win a division.

 

I officially love this line-up. Give it to me. Please.

[nolanwood]

there is absolutely no way we end up with Fural, Pierre AND Giles. We don't have that kinda money in our payroll, and the Gile's dreamers need to realize that he's obviously not on Hendry's radar at all.

[Tim]

there is absolutely no way we end up with Fural, Pierre AND Giles. We don't have that kinda money in our payroll, and the Gile's dreamers need to realize that he's obviously not on Hendry's radar at all.

Eliminate Eyre, Howry, Rusch and Neifi and there's plenty of cash for those three.

 

Which is the point we were making in the Howry thread that you fought against.

[Diffusion]

define league average and then figure out how much those players make. it is fiscally possible. teams just choose to go a different way, with several studs who make the big $ and the necessary parts (below league average) as fillers.

 

We have the several studs already, and I'm not saying we should trade them away. In fact, I personally believe we should add another one, in a corner outfield position.

 

Barrett, Lee, Walker, Ramirez, maybe Murton and Cedeno as a long shot conform to the .340/.425 qualification. Maybe the Cubs have burnt their bridges with Nomar already, but there's another one. And altogether they're costing what, $25m, maybe $30m when Lee signs a contract extension, $35m if you bring Nomar back over Cedeno?

 

When you've got a $100m payroll to work with, $25-35m on six starting position players is nothing. The Cubs can afford to spent $50-55m on their offence, and proved they spend it efficiently, they have my full backing to do so. The offence is by far this ballclub's biggest problem.

[Laura]

Oh boy, the Score says they "don't know why the Cubs don't bring Jeromy back" ....

 

 

Bwahhaaahhhaaahhaa

 

Hopefully this means they're wrong about the Pierre deal. Pinto may be our best pitching commodity in the minors, as he's got great stuff, isn't constantly injured (a la Guzman), and is relatively close to the bigs. To give him AND two other prospects up for an overpriced, potentially awful Juan Pierre coming off of a bad season for 1 year is absolutely ridiculous.

 

It still depends on who they are. I'd hate to give Pinto up, because he is close and healthy, but I still rate Hill and Marshall higher from the left side. But if the Cubs give up a couple of players with no future, it's a decent deal, depending on Pierre getting back to 2004 numbers.

 

A lot depends on who the hypothetical two other players are, but trading Pinto to the Marlins gives me heartburn.

[JeffH]

One thing that is worth considering as far as Pinto is concerned.

 

He has only one option year remaining.

 

I like Pinto. He's my favorite of the "West Tennessee Five". However, he failed in his first AAA trial and he has only one year left in the minor leagues to get everything figured out before he has to break camp with a $100+ payroll supposed contender.

[ThePenguin11]

No, really: Cubs CF hit .234/.281/.362 in 2005. Neifi hit .274/.298/.383. As a result, better production than what we got last year isn't in itself a qualification. No, what the Cubs really need is better than league average production at every single position.

 

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

 

So the NL All-star team then?

 

Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

 

How many teams have a guy whose above the league avg. at every single position?

 

None that I can think of. Not even the Yankees.

 

they very easily could though. it's not an impossible notion depending on how you want to define "league average production," ie OPS, BA, etc.

 

Of course they could. But the idea that you need to have above average production at every position to be an elite team is just wrong.

 

I would say an elite team should have above average production at 6 of the 8 positions, provided the other two aren't totally abysmal.

 

I agree. I don't think it is the way to go. I was just saying that it is possible (after some moran decided "above average at every position" meant "all-star team").

 

 

Some 'morans' don't even know how to spell moron. And the funniest part is when they call out a GM in their avatar for being a 'moran' and have no idea how 'moronic' it looks.

[J.R.]

You don't get it.