jjgman21

I find it weird that I am saying this to a couple of people far more into Moneyball philosophy and SABR than I am, but with Cedeno in the lineup, Jones as an everyday player is unacceptable. two guys that make way too many outs day in, day out.

a couple years ago I was trying to figure out if Sosa stood a chance of a resurgence, so I looked at five sluggers from each decade since the 1920's to see how they did after a fall off in their thirties. not a perfect study, but pretty revealing. what I found was that if you were not Bonds or Aaron, you did not recover from a fall off in your numbers after reaching about 31-32, other than an occassional year here and there by an occassional player. I know I am harsh on Abreu because of what he has accomplished up until this point of his career, but the odds are heavily slanted against him that he will have any sort of resurgence back to the OBP and SLG monster of a couple years ago. you know the age players peak. Abreu has peaked. the best we could hope for is his maintaining his numbers, which is historically unlikely, and even if he does, he's overpaid for those numbers. injuries and down years in 2006 aside, the Cubs already have a top 3-5 NL player at three and a half positions. there's a good core to build around without adding 15M to the payroll for OBP out of one position. don't get me wrong, I would love Abreu in between Lee and Aram in 2007, but I think there are much better ways to improve the team, both in the short and long term, because again, I don't think you should go filling a traditional power position with a player who has traditionally filled that role, simply for the sake of tradition. the presence of Barrett in the lineup gives you tremendous flexability to improve the team without putting all your eggs into the rightfield basket. just because you are filling the rest of the team with players who don't have a star label doesn't mean you have to settle for mediocrity. that's a false choice. you know this as well as anybody.

While his K/BB ratio has been great in the minors, he also walked too many guys. Can't say about the nibbling comment since I've only seen one of his games. I'm more just frustrated that none of the Cubs minor leaguers seems to be able to have the same results in the K/BB department that they developed in the minors. Marmol's just one of any number of guys you can point to that doesn't walk anyone in the minors, then comes up and walks the world. while it is expected to a certain extent because they are facing full rosters of major league hitters, you would think one of Wuertz, Aardsma, Ryu, Guz, Hill, Marmol, etc. could come up and not walk the world. even Prior keeps slipping in this department. if you want to see evidence of Rothschild's nibbling philosophy, there's no better place to look than Mr. 0-2 to 3-2 himself.

I thought that players who already declared FA in their career were not subject to the draft pick rules, but obviously I am wrong, see Damon and Gordon last year. I could swear there is some rule involving signing FAs who have been FAs before. even so, with the outfield the Mets currently have on the roster and in the minors (Beltran, Milledge, Nady, Chavez, the guys who killed us in 2004) I doubt they offer Floyd arb. they will probably need their dollars for pitching. you hesitate because Abreu is not the sure thing he is being made out to be. if your deadline deals concentrate on RF, you still have a hole in center next year. Hendry's approach would most certainly be to go after Pierre. why must you always deconxtualize, reframe, and raise the rhetoric? if you think paying 15M/year for average production is a good contract for the Cubs to be stuck with, fine, envy the Cardinals. the point is, you never know, and all indications are Abreu will not be "really good" much longer. as you indicated in another thread recently, I'd rather not overspend for anybody, but I will take it a bit further and not qualify that statement with "really good players" or "difference makers" especially with compelling evidence that the player will not necessarily be "really good" or a "difference maker" in 2007-08. as I presented in another thread, with the trading chips the Cubs have right now and so many teams in contention, I don't think reshaping this team into an annual contender for the next five years would take all that much. I believe no team can afford 15M/year for a guy who doesn't put up monster slugging. for that reason, getting Abreu is a huge risk. if high obp/ave slg is the goal, isn't there a much better way to go about getting it? I think these next 10 days are critical for the future of the ballclub. but even so, if the deal isn't right for the short and long term of the team, you don't make it just because it is possible and makes things easier. if that is the case, and I think it is, waiting and seeing may be the better option. this isn't the best FA class ever, but by all accounts there will be plenty of outfield options available in FA. one of Hendry's few strengths is not making the big dollar mistake. If we are stuck with Hendry, I'd like to see him continue with the one thing he's done pretty well.

this is what I was talking about earlier. Santo has been 'the most qualified player not in the HOF' for 25 years. it wasn't until he started having serious health concerns that people started saying things like this. it's more like he's being punished based on sentimentality. I think his last vote by the baseball writers, his vote share actually went down because 'noone wants to boost him up just because of his health problems.' before he went to the Vet's Committe, all forecasts were that he was a shoe in. but that movie came out and he managed to fall well short, even though you won't find a HOF'er that will go on record saying he does not belong. no matter how you slice it, Santo was one of the top 6-7 thirdbasemen in the history of the game, Rolen included. he was far better offensively than Robinson, and only slightly below defensively for a good 6-7 years.

you already suggested a better option in this very thread in Brady Clark. I still like the suggestion I gave in this very thread, DeJesus. the A's were a way of illustrating a point. can anyone say anything contrary to 'the A's are great' without getting into a pissing match around here? see the Arod thread for my thoughts on Beane. I'm not doing it again. the week before the all-star game he sat a couple times. you are probably right, not enough to consider it dabbling into a platoon. not sure what your opinion of that word adds to the conversation. fact remains that Hendry has tried a platoon at a corner outfielder before, so it's not without precedent. did you even read other people's suggested moves? I've already suggested Cruz Jr. who is easily obtainable and gives the team alot of flexability being a switch hitter and outstanding outfielder. I'm sure there are plenty others. plus, the moves and team I suggested advocates over paying Wilson to be a part time starter/first guy off the bench / possible starter in 2008 role, so that gives you two right handed options. sorry I present some valid arguments contrary to your opinioin. it really doesn't call for you getting so pissy with me.

By the sounds of things, you can get Abreu for next to nothing, and not even have to pay all of this salary. It sounds like Philly wants the other team to pay most. And I'm betting Abreu approves any deal if the team exercises the option. So, it's 2/31 (probably minus a couple million) for a guy that always plays 150+ games, and consistently puts up .400+ OBP. Floyd on the other hand is much less consistent, 1.5 years older, injury prone, and significantly less productive (especially in the OBP department). As a free agent, he could probably negotiate his way into a 3 year deal, not to mention, cause the Cubs to give up draft picks if Mets offer arby (sure, picks aren't that big of a deal, but they do count when weighing your options). Abreu is better and younger. Sure he's more expensive, but the one thing the Cubs do have is money to spend on guys. I'd much rather make a trade today, guaranteeing you get your guy for 2 years, than wait for November to negotiate with a dozen other teams that might want Floyd. The Cubs don't have the option of missing out on the offensive upgrade. If they have a chance to lock into some talent now, they have to do it. Waiting for free agency would be a huge mistake. I don't want this to come off as sounding like I advocate Floyd, but I don't think alot of what you say is accurrate. first, if I am not mistaken, signing Floyd will not cost any draft picks as this wouldn't be his first time declaring free agency. second, I don't think he gets a three year deal because of the reasons you listed, plus his down year, even though he is heating up. third, I don't think a dozen teams will be chasing him. fourth, most indications up until this thread is that the Phillies want alot for Abreu without paying any salary. fifth, Abreu's production is sure to continue to decline as does just about every other player in major league history who starts to fall off in his 30's (the only thing propping up his OPS this year is a walk rate incongruous to his admittedly outstanding career norm IsoD). sixth, even though Abreu will more than likely be more productive, he won't be 9 million dollars more productive. the Cubs have money to spend, but not unlimited money. getting Abreu virtually guarantees resigning Pierre for center, which, barring any other trades, means spending spending around 50M on 5 positions (1B, RF, CF, 3B, C). I simply don't want this team to be in the position the Cardinals and Padres are in, spending 15M per on a mid-30's outfielder who has an OPS around .800 and that is a very real possibility with Abreu. I also don't think you need to have a traditionally productive player out of a traditionally productive position simply because that is how things have been done traditionally. there are other, more efficient ways to get production out of this team.

yet another incredible minor league K/BB ratio guy that Rothschild turned into a nibbling walk machine.

well done. with all that I agree almost entirely, although after this exercise I've gotten such a soft spot for Gabby that he's my all time favorite Cub now. not only every thing I've discussed, but he's also responsible for one of the only 'all time legendary baseball plays' that is favorable Cubs , the homer in the gloamin. the only other, Merkel's Boner (sensing an edit auto here), was positive, but has hung over the Cubs since that year (1908). my brother was young at the time but said Williams was a great defender and played the wells like nobody else. Sosa was pretty bad. I also think you have to include Wilson in contention with Santo and Sosa. yes, his tenure was short, but his tenure with the Cubs is comparable to Sosa's 1998-2002. he also didn't play long, so his short tenure was half of his career, and he didn't accomplish much when not a Cub. Cub career OPS+ of 155, 17 points better than Sosa's Cub OPS+. can you imagine if he wasn't so drinky? another person who deserves mention is Frank Chance. deadball era, but an offensive force at the time, and again, part of baseball lore. you know what's ridiculous about nearly all of these guys be except about 3 or 4? none of them started with the Cubs. we complain now that we can't develop major league talent. seems it's always been that way, and admittedly it also makes me favor guys that came up with the Cubs.

I heard that too. that makes no damn sense. I remember criticizing Jocketty for getting Rolen when the Cards needed pitching to put them over the top, but this trade takes that similar theory to it's absolute extreme. not only do the Mets get a guy they really don't need (don't forget Floyd is really heating up too), they add a ton of payroll and gets rid of a potentially great player (Jocketty didn't go that far). all of the rumors I have heard the past couple of days make no damn sense. then again, the one trade that went down (Nats-Reds) made no damn sense either. maybe Hendry is playing the Mets against the Dodgers for Maddux, and this is the Mets posturing to gain some leverage in that situation? either Ethier or Milledge coming our way? hey, I can dream, can't I?

my reason for not going certainly isn't to punish the Tribune. there is an element of that, but the main reason is because after the raised hopes of the past couple years and the way things have turned out, it physically pains me to watch them play.

which numbers are you talking about?

I accept that people feel this way, but I'd like to see someone provide better empirical evidence that Sammy is better than people like Billy Williams or Santo. Similar career OPS+ to Santo, with a better prime. see my post on the previous page. Sosa's peak wan NOT all that much better, and considering how close they are in OPS+, you can't say Sammy was better, then argue in a different thread that OBP is more important than SLG. Santo's far superior OBP more than makes up for that slight difference in OPS. It was a half-hearted attempt to be sure, I don't feel that strongly about it, just tried to give an answer for others to possibly work from. I think something has to be said that Sosa has the best two seasons of the pair, and his best season blows away anything Santo did in his career. Sosa's best 5 seasons (OPS+): 201, 169, 160, 160, 141 Santo's best 5 seasons: 164, 161, 153, 146, 138 I was just pointing out that many others had made that same point, but that argument doesn't hold as much water as most thought when looking at the stats (to be honest, neither does Santo was better over more years for that matter). both completely dominated the league for a 4-5 year stretch. Sammy had five years ranked top 10 in NL OPS+, Santo had 4 such years. their peaks were similar, with the exception of the one monster year for Sosa, but so were their careers as the both had about 5 years of 110-135 OPS. and even if truffles point about the value of Santo's production at third is more important goes out the window, and my point about OBP goes out the window, and many's point about character goes out the window, I don't see how 4 OPS+ points over a career outweighs 5 Gold Gloves.

I've noticed it a bit, myself. The question to be asked then is "have the players decided to take it upon themselves to be more patient, going against the wishes of a management team that is on it's way out anyway?" I suggested the exact same thing in a game thread during the Brewers series. I erased your other part cuz I don't even want it suggested as an option.

I accept that people feel this way, but I'd like to see someone provide better empirical evidence that Sammy is better than people like Billy Williams or Santo. Similar career OPS+ to Santo, with a better prime. see my post on the previous page. Sosa's peak wan NOT all that much better, and considering how close they are in OPS+, you can't say Sammy was better, then argue in a different thread that OBP is more important than SLG. Santo's far superior OBP more than makes up for that slight difference in OPS.

Who? How about Cliff Floyd? I wasn't going mention anybody imparticular, but I decided to. At this point in Abreu's career he is SIMPLY not worth $15 mill dollar for a couple of yrs, no matter how good his OBP is. If the Cubs would do their homework (which I seriously doubt :roll: ) they could find more cost-effeficent (sp?) players with similar offensive skillset as Abreu. Floyd isn't in Abreu's class. I don't particularly want Floyd unless its a sweatheart, incentive ladden deal. but in 2007, Abreu won't be in Abreu's class either, and the margin of difference between he and Floyd certainly would not be worth the money.

and so the market for our best trading chips shrinks a little more. NOW, JIM! DO SOMETHING FOR CS!!

I think the lower tv and radio ratings have a helluva lot more impact on the Trib, and it's a pretty safe bet the ratings have grabbed their attention. imo, Hendry/MacPhail's greatest accomplishment was showing the Trib they will get greater returns if the Cubs field a winning team, or at least give the perception that the team is capable of winning. unfortunately they seem more focused on the latter than the former.

what is the date on which Aram must decide whether to opt out?

professional twentysomethings looking to get druck are not necessarily going to games just because it's the cool thing to do. Wrigley fans are as knowledgable and involved in the game as any fans in baseball. if you're talking about the last three rows of and those standing in the bleachers, fine, but this generalization of Cubs fans is garbage. you want a group going to baseball games because it's the "cool" thing to do, look six miles south of Wrigley.

Next time that happens, you just send me a PM, ok? started threads everytime. had one taker for one ticket to one game when I had about 15 tickets for 4 or 5 different games. will keep you in mind if I get excited about the 2007 team and take the plunge again.

I know Cedeno will never become, but this is all kind of funny after just pouring over Sosa's stats to comment in other threads. not Sosa, and probably not likely either, but would you give up on this player? age 22, games 105, .233/.298/.384/.681, Errors 26

my brother and others stiffed me on hundreds of dollars worth of tickets last year. made me not buy any tickets this year. woohoo!

I think its a generational thing. for alot of people old enough to have been at least in your teens and seen his early years, especially those with the White Sox, but even those with the Cubs, it's hard to get the flailing idiot he could be out of your head. waiting year after year for him to take a pitch and not swing and miss at every single low and away slider. you remember dealing with his injuries and stealing at a terrible percentage and seeing years like 1993 where he there were always tons of guys on base ahead of him, and he hit 33 HRs, yet managed to knock in only 93 runs (clutch may not exist, but the early version of Sammy Sosa presented some pretty compelling evidence of anti-clutch). you remember knowing that walks are valuable long before most ever heard of Bill James because you saw how destructive Sammy Sosa's unwillingness to take one was ... and the maddening amounts of strikeouts (again, this was before knowing strikeouts weren't that big of a deal). you saw a you also remember that he wasn't always the hustler he was made out to be and that the 2004 incarnation was the same guy we saw for 6 years before 1998. if you only became an educated baseball fan around 1996 or so, you think he was undeniably great. if you became in educated baseball fan sometime thereafter, he's a god. I also think his cache is hurt by his generation. yes, he's fifth all time, but about 65% came in the span of only a few years, yet he only won one MVP and two HR crowns. during those years, he was incredible, but wasn't even a top 5 player in the NL most of those six or so years (the numbers bare this out. others in baseball were doing just as much at the same time. Reminds me of how, when I was a kid, I loved Shawon Dunston and told everyone I knew that he's the best SS in baseball. About a year ago, I looked up his stats, and holy crap, he was awful. If he was on the Cubs now, he'd be my least favorite player ever. But as a kid, I thought he was amazing. exactamundo!

I'll recind what I just said about not being a top five player during MOST of his good years. alot of the case for Sosa over Santo is he had a better peak. interesting stat on this. top ten league OPS+ years Sosa 1998-160-4 1999-141-10 2000-169-3 2001-201-2 2002-160-5 Santo Adjusted OPS+ 1964-164-2 1965-146-6 1966-161-4 1967-153-6 Sosa's 2001 was something special, but his peak really wasn't all that much more impressive than Santo's. another interesting stat: top ten league OBP Sosa 2001-.437-3 Santo 1964-.398-1 1965-.378-7 1966-.412-1 1967-.395-6 1968-.354-10 1969-.384-8 1972-.391-3 I hope noone claiming Sosa > Santo will turn around and argue OBP is more important than SLG in another thread.