CubinNY

And the Cubs already had 8 candidates for the back of the rotation with similar ZIPS projections: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/cubs_signed_marquis/ Do we have any figures that ZiPS is an accurate predictor? THIS might be of interest to you. If those are correlation coeficients they aren't particularly strong for pitchers. For hitters, they are pretty good. Anything over .5 is considered strong. I think this is the most interesting quote of the article For example, I wouldn't put much stock in a projection on a player like DeRosa who's only reach 500 PAs once.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine. I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster. Entitlements to rookies? Give me a break. In 2005 Hill went from low A to the majors. In his rise to the majors he posted some of the best numbers in all of baseball. By the end of 2005 he pitched 23.6 innings in the bigs. In 2006 he again posted incredibe numbers in Iowa. Then he was up for awhile used sparingly and then demoted. Then he was up again and demoted. Then after the season was well over for the Cubs, he still wasn't called up and the Cubs used Rusch and some others. Then he finally got a chance to work consistently and he pitched pretty well. We still don't know what the Cubs will get out of Hill in 2007, but I have to ask, how does one earn a spot on the team when they aren't given a fair chance? Take a look at Hill's minor league numbers and tell me he didn't deserve a better shot last year. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/H/Rich-Hill.shtml Only one of the worst run teams in baseball would have used Hill they way they did.

Thankfully I never pretended that luck doesn't play a role. I just don't see how any of this is a strong indication that any of these guys is likely to get better next year. I'm not saying that any given player is going to be luckier. It seems like a lot of the departed players were pretty unlucky last year, so the offense was a little worse than it "should have been." So, one can assume that if the 2007 Cubs have more neutral luck rather than bad luck, that they'll get a bump over last year from that as well. Unless seasonal luck doesn't carry over to the next season. Then they will have a 50/50 chance of being unlucky again this season. I'm not convinced that over the course of 162 games chance doesn't even out. I could see chance playing a bigger role in part time player's numbers though. In addition, I would hope that younger players like Cedeno and Izturis can improve.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine. I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

So do I and all the options are bad except finding a CFer or keeping JJ. Pie isn't ready and if the Cubs put DeRosa in the OF and start Theriot at 2nd it will be another in a long line of long seasons.

That's not true, at least in my case. I'd rather the Cubs didn't pursure Soriano and instead looked to upgrade CF, SS, and 2nd base. I'm glad they've improved (at least on paper) but they still have the same three holes they had at the begining of the off-season. I am hoping they can get something of value for JJ and I have hope for the long term future with Wilken drafting and all the picks they have. However, I don't have much hope for this season.

Agreed.. it doesn't say he failed it, just that maybe the Red Sox are seeking some sort of protection so that the whole thing isn't guaranteed. Smart move on their part. He's not going to succeed in Boston. For one, they're very tough on professional athletes, especially ones who play for the Red Sox. The guys they like most are ones who are perceived as lunchpail guys, like Schilling with his bloody sock, or Damon. Even Manny Ramirez, who'd never be confused for Pete Rose, at least has his particular quirk - he's just sort of goofy and laid back. And consistently putting up lines in the neighborhood of .320/40/120 is certain to win some popularity. Drew, on the other hand, has the type of personality that won't go over well in Boston. He's perceived as a mercenary with no loyalty to any given organization, and he's also perceived as being soft. He's very cool emotionally on the field, but doesn't look like he's really having fun. He's just the type of athlete that Boston doesn't like. I think it'll probably be a disaster within 2-3 years. I tottally agree unless he changes his behaivor. When they were pursuing him I thought to myself that there is no way this can end well. In many ways Red Sox fans are worse than Yankee fans when they don't like a player.

I'm not much into #s myself. If I played and was great or something I'd be honored if someone wanted to wear the same number as me. However, not giving out # is a time honored tradition in sports. Regardless of Sammy's behavior, giving the likes of Jason Marquis #21 says much more about the Cubs than it does Sosa. They built up Sammy, they let Sammy play his boom box, they gave him special treatment. Then when he's no longer useful they destroy him in the media. The Cubs suck and they have no class.

Go Broncos!!!!111!!!1111111 WMU, representin' They should just call this the Pointless Bowl becuase the game is completely pointless.

Please :roll: So, I've looked at this a few hundred times and I still cant figure out what was so disagreeable with the above statement. Wanna help me? I consider the GM's of the past 2 WS champs baseball "guys" They are not going anywhere. Walt Jocketty might be a baseball guy, but the Cardinals definitely have some very smart stat geek type people working for them. Billy Beane is a baseball guy too. Appearently he learned what not to do from his time in the majors.

I agree 100%. Hendry's been in love with Floyd for a while. I fully believe that Hendry will attempt to bring every ex-Marlin whose won a WS to the Cubs. It really is pathetic

he's got moxie, heart, grit. he chews tobacco and slides headfirst into home plate. he doesn't use daggum computers. he can pick the next sammy sosa out of a group of 100 lanky 13 year-old dominicans just by shaking their hands and staring in their eyes. he doesn't write books about himself. That's good. IMO, a baseball guy is someone who played The Game at some level professionally. Someone who's been a coach, a scout, or an instructor in some capacity. Someone who's "payed his dues" and "earned" his way up the latter by sticking with baseball when he wasn't getting paid a lot of money. Knowledge, skill, and ability factor in way down the line.

While there's no true predictive stat, I look for the best overall stat (I prefer XR, but for ease, I'll end up with EqA). Taveras could potentially fill the OBP need at the top as well as a great defensive player in a diff. position to fill, I already mentioned either way he's going to have to improve, which is exactly the same way Pie will have to improve. If he could improve his approach & learn to get out in front and turn on the inside FB, he could become a quality starting CF'er. But Willy's EqA has been .258 .268 .243 Well below .260 (league average) for his career. That's not good.

It's not that bad. If I remember right Bagwell and Biggio had huge backloaded deals. Pettitte, too. The Astros really had a thing for those backloaded contracts. I call it the Enron effect :wink:

Does this add anything to the discussion at all? I'm honestly just curious. It seems OBP was the end all be all last year...now when that stat doesn't support the argument its OPS+, or whatever stat happens to support and/or detract from the player/s in question. I don't think anyone was arguing that if Tavarez was hypothetically brought here that it would be for his prowess to drive in runs, so I was just curious why OPS+ was the measure which was being used to detract from him. I don't care anymore...I may just go back to arguing the relative merits of Freddy Bynum and Craig Counsell from a few weeks back, it seems just about as relevant at this discussion I think you have a point, kind of. With some guys OBP is more important than SLG (i.e., high order hitters), with OPS = OBP + SLG. OPS+ is just adjusted for the ball park. IMO the park effects can be exagerated and tend to flucuate from year to year. In other words, I'm not sold OPS+ as a predictive stat. I think OPS is just fine to use in many cases. Nevertheless, in order for the Cubs to score runs they need either SLG or OBP and preferably both. A high OPS can be affected by ridicilous SLG and low OBP or vice versa. In either case Tavares provides little.

Three or four wins?

I agree. Might be a long shot, but it would be nice knowing that the AGM reads nsbb regularly. Just imagine if they hired someone from NSBB. The Cubs payroll would be 300 Million in the off seasaon. Then when they don't win everygame, the Cubs would trade every high dollar player and call up AAA guys because we need to see what the kids can do. :D And the Cubs would have a 50-man roster because they'd sign everybody whom everybody here likes. :D Either that or we'd be calling for the person's immediate firing

Yeah, we fixed that problem. :D Okay, back on topic. Going back to my post where I quoted all the Rotoworld excepts on Ryan Church since December, what would be a fair offer for Ryan Church, and is he worth what it would cost? And finally, will Washington continue playing hardball, or will their demands come down the longer he isn't traded. (Using what Bruce Miles has heard through the grapevine as gospel that they are asking for the moon). I don't blame the Nats GM for asking for the "moon", you never know what you might get. The question is: is he willing to deal? My guess is yes, but after all the FAs have signed. At this point if I'm Hendry, I'd try to make nice with JJ. He's the best option.

No it's not. It's in the context of three consecutive posts where he disagreed with/criticized three other posters(me being one of them). I disagree, but I'm not continuing this pointless series any longer. I guess it's no longer scary quiet.

Am I totally misunderstanding you quote below? Ah, finally some sanity. Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that. I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental. "ah finally some sanity" is commentary of the entire borad. We're all insane to want the Cubs to get good players. And we're all irrational when we don't get the players we want. Everyone, all the time.

Ah, finally some sanity. That's ridicilous If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here? You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)". I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!" EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO. EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable". I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available. Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management? You just completely misstated my position, which is that it is very reasonable to kill Hendry for signing guys like Burnitz, Jones, Rusch, neifi, macias, etc. rather than Vlad and Miggy, simply b/c that is something that actually happened. What I don't like is when people say its Hendry's fault that we can't acquire a guy like Church; these people don't understand Bruce's point, which is that "it takes two to tango". I agree that getting the job done means getting the job done both with specificity and in the "big picture". I don't think I am stating rules and I don't think I am creating some unworkable standard or one that does not subject Hendry to crticisim. Rather, I dislike arguments based on pure speculation and without any ("any" meaning "none", "nada, "zip") basis in reality. People can fire away at Hendry in any way they choose, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. As I understand it, I am free to feel that way. When Jason Shmidt signed with LA I didn't read very many posts where people were complaining that Hendry didn't get the job done. Some of the criticism of Hendry is over the top and irrelevent (fat jokes). But, overall I think most of the criticism is based on what he has or hasn't done in relation to what the person wanted him to do. Last year he didn't seem to be interested in Giles at all, and stated that he "wasn't interested in getting into a bidding war". Well there was no such war. I and some others criticized Hendry for not pursing Giles. There were some people who accused us of being unrealistic as "Giles wasn't leaving the West Coast". I think you were among them. In reality we'll never know because Hendry didn't seriously pursue Giles. This year we've seen that when Hendry wants his man he can get him. Even if he doesn't fit what the Cubs need.

Really? I see it as close to 100% that Pie will suck offensively. How will that increase his trade value----when he's posting .280 OBPs and whiffing more than once per game? I don't get it. I don't see how you can see it as close to 100% that he'll suck. If Pie played regurlarly in the bigs next season I would put the over/under at .260 / .315 / .425 for his stat line. No real formula, just my best guess. I don't think that's entirely unrealistic. Do you think that qualifies under "sucking offensively"? I wouldn't, which is why I doubted the absolute declaration he'd be terrible. I think there's a very small chance he'd be good, but also a sizable probability that he won't be terrible. If he's not terrible but also not "good" how will this help the Cubs? What I mean is that they are going to need good production from at least one position from either CF, SS, or 2nd base. I'd rather the City of Chicago gives JJ the keys to the city or something. Or perhaps a big bouquet of roses with a card saying "we're sorry". In other words, I think at this point he is the Cubs best option.

Funny. I nominate goony's evil twin. Now that would be funny.

Ah, finally some sanity. That's ridicilous If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free. But isn't that a problem regardless of the set up? Anyway, I suppose one could argue that less pitches per start would equal less injuries. The question seems to be would this be the case? I would love to see this type of thing tried at higher levels in the minors. It would be an interesting experiment. It could be as revolutionary as the five man rotation and closer. Baseball is fighting a never ending battle against history.