jjgman21

if they trade Jones, it will not be to get anything in return, so there is not alot of point in throwingin a prospect in an attempt to get any sort of a return. it will be a salary dump. trade him for a low level prospect with some upside so it frees a slot on the 40 man roster and set about filling center with a stop gap until something better comes along.

because I was smart enough to get the only B.S. at UW that did not require me to go beyond Trig, so that's not easy for me? btw, why didn't you use the NL since that is the league the team we are generally discussing here plays in? so let's see where we stand in that theory Zips projections Lee .383 Ramirez .355 Murton .363 Barrett .349 Last year actual, Zips not so rosy DeRosa .357 Soriano .351 40+ HR potential Soriano Ramirez Lee 20+ HR potential Jones Barrett 15+ HR potential DeRosa Murton by your definition, looks like a playoff caliber offense to me. fwiw, the WS champions had 4 .350 OBP guys. two of them were just that. exactly .350. the team they beat had 2 .350 OBP guys (one of them exactly at .350). but believe me, I want more players on the Cubs with OBP over 350.

Because when Soriano steals a bag, it's really hurting our offense! :roll: the problem is the caught stealings. the theory goes that if you do not have a 75-80% success rate you are hurting your teams chances at scoring due to making outs after reaching base as opposed to helping your team by getting into scoring position.

now I don't think there is a tremendous market for Jones, but Rotoworld's comments are a bit perplexing. I'm not sure I agree that Delucci or Nixon can be had for what Jones is making, but what I do know is both will play half a season for that money, Delucci because he makes Jones look like an accomplished hitter against lefties, Nixon because he makes Drew look like the picture of health.

I just don't get why those who subscribe to the new way of baseball thinking have such a hard time conveying their message. wait...yes I do.

I agree. that's why a Bears #8 worked out so perfectly for my little girl (I'd have a hard time floating the cash for an adult jersey of any kind, but if I did, I would get myself a #8 as well).

I ran the Zips projections in the calculator. I didn't account for various missed time because, well quite frankly my brain isn't capable of handling all the variables right now. I again used the obp and slg from the Cubs 9 hole hitters last year. 809 runs. that would rank 6 in NL runs scored. just a quick note about Zips, I think they treat a few Cubs rather unfairly. I think Soriano, Murton and DeRosa will all perform better than they predict in their projections. for Soriano and DeRosa it seems they don't account whatsoever for adjustments both appear to have made and regress them too much, for Murton in predicts zero improvement over last years stats despite his second half last year. I also think they fall a little short on Jones, but I could easily see him regressing to the numbers they predict for him. anyone have PECOTA? any suggestions on how to account for missed time by the various players (+ - x / only please for my only-got-as-far-as-college-trig brain)?

Well that's a bit uncalled for, don't ya think? First off, why did you only list qualified players? The list shows 92 out of 120 total players. And even though Mark Loretta (using just one example) finished just short of the .350 mark in OBP, he's put up much higher OBP's in previous seasons and it wouldn't be a stretch to think he could do it again. The Cubs are a top 5 spending team in the league. To think they can't afford a couple of .350+ OBP guys at the top of the order is not missing the reality of baseball. They could have easily done it last year by putting Walker in the lead off spot and Murton 2nd. That option right there would have been head over heels better than Pierre and Neifi. I'll argue with you all day. But, can we leave insults out of it when your opinion differs with someone elses? well I think that statement is relatively benign. certainly falls well short of many of the things you said during the Wilkerson/Pierre debates. IMO it also falls well short of many of the Neadrathal comments people like to throw around, which you are more likely to laugh at rather than correct. I think you are completely changing what you said above in this post. before it was a naked statement that if your OBP is below .350 you should be a bottom of the order hitter. "Period." to me that means the 7-8 slots in the NL and the 8-9 slots in the AL. you have a problem with my cutoff mark so I will try again. there were a total of 116 players in all of baseball that had 400+ PAs and an OBP of .350 or above. that still only slots in the 1-4 spots in the batting order for all 30 teams. so yes, stating that sub .350 obp players all belong at the bottom of the order does in fact miss the realities of baseball because that leaves everyone without a 5-6 hitter in the NL and a 5-6-7 hitter in the AL. had you stated guys with poor OBPs shouldn't be at the top of the order, I wouldn't have a problem, but I don't think that is all you were trying to say with the above post. scores of those .350 OBP players are pre-arbitration eligible that cannot be obtained for reasonable player costs. so while I think the Cubs should try to get better OBP guys, that's not always possible. whether they would or not even if they were available of course is a question of concern. I have no problem with putting higher OBP guys at the top of the order. I'm not sure why you are implying I think otherwise.

just a little confused. where is Soriano's 2007 line? it starts at 2008. (edit, never mind, I see them now) for DeRosa, since he's projected as the starting secondbaseman, I will assume he's going to get more ABs. hash these issues out and I will run the calculator a little later tonight and put it into the thread I started before. what about PECOTA?

you got in before my edit. you're missing the context of the statement.

there is no time limitation on wrong. But this isn't a Rex Grossman thread. This is a CFB thread. oh, that's right. threads never diverge from their primary focus. he was wrong about Grossman, there's a good chance he's wrong about the Big East too. Have you ever been wrong about anything in your life? Then there's a good chance you are wrong about this. That's silly. yes I have as I have readily admitted multiple times on this board. I will make a strong case and if I am wrong I will admit it. I have no problem with that. with Grossman, turned out I wasn't wrong, and I don't think I am wrong about the Big East either. if the Big East romps through bowl season, I will be here admitting I was wrong. I don't think I will have to. the two points you mashed together above are taken out of context. in fact, Soc implied he's never wrong just a couple pages ago.

there is no time limitation on wrong. But this isn't a Rex Grossman thread. This is a CFB thread. oh, that's right. threads never diverge from their primary focus. he was wrong about Grossman, there's a good chance he's wrong about the Big East too.

The cubs had 67 walks from the firstbasemen last year (and don't forget some of that was DLee himself). DLee typically gets about 80ish a season. So he adds about 15 walks. Nowhere near half or most of 126. Obviously not having him in the lineup made a huge difference, but not really to our IsoD, which was not horrible (.071). DLee has had the following IsoD for the cubs: 2006: .082 2005: .083 2004: .078 A full season of DLee is not going to solve our walk issues...sorry. yes, but the guy getting alot of the walks in place of DLee was the guy who should have been getting walks as the Cubs second baseman. Perez, Hairston, Cedeno, Bynum, Womack = 347 abs, 16 BBs as secondbaseman. not enough to make up the difference, but another chip into the walk crisis. edit perhaps a better way to illustrate my point is the Cubs 1B and 2B combined for 115 walks last year. Lee would predictably have had 85-90.

when will football coaches realized that going for two is an idiotic proposition unless the game is about halfway through the fourth quarter. kick the one, go for two here in the fourth, then Arakansas just needs a field goal there. the point is moot, but still a dumb coaching move.

I think you're coming to see the incentive though. I think it obvious the Brewers have to shed a salary. the question becomes who. Jenkins, as you imply isn't going to be easy. trading sheets at this point would be like trying to trade Kerry Wood in 2005. not going to happen. Cordero? not with his performance. Clark? maybe, but that doesn't shed enough. who's left? I said in my first post in reply to you that I think Sheets could be available for the right price. The Brewers will not have to shed any salaries until 2008, and they are already losing Jenkins/Clark/Cordero/Koskie/Miller that year. The next time they will be forced to shed a salary to keep the core of the team intact is when Prince/Weeks hit arbitration. Cordero and Clark are also up after 2007. Simply put, dumping Hall is not necessary now because he doesn't make very much money, and he and Capuano are the only players due raises in the next 2 years. When you have a $60 Million payroll you don't salary dump the guy who was your best hitter the previous season who made $418,000 that season. They can extend Hall and Capuano, play out this season, and use Jenkins/Cordero/Doug Davis/Koskie/Miller/Clark's money to pay for the early arby years of Prince/Weeks/Hardy/Corey Hart. If they do need to dump a salary in the near future it will be Sheets $12 Million, not Hall's 4-5 Million. Hall is under team control for 3 more years, and will be a value for those 3 years. did you miss my point about getting rid of Sheets is like trying to get rid of Wood a couple years ago> who is going to trade for an annually injured pitcher for that price tag. I personally think you have to view Sheets and his salary as a Brewer until he proves he can make 30 starts in a season.

there is no time limitation on wrong.

Actually I don't know what that feels like, would you care to inform me? and all that followed in that discussion. Army being rated higher than U of I should play any role in comparing two teams SOS. there's two right there. I can't believe you actually spent the time to look up one statement about the Bears. I'm not even going to waste my time discussing Grossman right now. And I'm unclear on how the second statement is supposed to read because Army isn't rated higher than Indiana. I think you are playing dumb. you know damn well that it was more than one statement about Grossman and you were pretty much dead wrong about him, and you know damn well the point I was making about Army v. Indiana. fine. make it Army and one of UWs nonconference teams.

? Why would you expect improvement from Aramis when his OBP and SLG dropped in 2005 and 2006? PECOTA projects that Aramis will decline each year. ZIPS projects him to pretty much replicate his 2006 numbers. I'll be happy if Aramis can reproduce his last season. Edit: And I know Aramis had horrible luck at the beginning of 2006, but his BABIP didn't end up much lower than his career average by the end of the season, and his line drive percentage decreased in both 2005 and 2006. His BABIP wasn't really too far out of line considering his line drive percentage. if PECOTA and Zips projections are out for 2007 I would love to see them so I can plug them into the same calculator instead of using three year splits. please provide a link or send them to me. I will do my novice best to adjust those stats for not playing 162 as well. also, are you implying that Aramis had better than average luck after May? if so, why are you using career? would his 03-05 be a more appropriate comparison for that?

I think you're coming to see the incentive though. I think it obvious the Brewers have to shed a salary. the question becomes who. Jenkins, as you imply isn't going to be easy. trading sheets at this point would be like trying to trade Kerry Wood in 2005. not going to happen. Cordero? not with his performance. Clark? maybe, but that doesn't shed enough. who's left?

Well the difference is, of course, that we'll have Soriano for 2 years more than the Astros will have C Lee. If they both produce like this for 4 more years, well then the Astros only have 2 decline years to deal with, while we have 4. Of course, if we can win a World Series in those productive years, I'll manage to get over it. I should also think that Soriano's skills will decline less steeply, if only b/c he appears to keep himself in better shape than Lee. However, conversely, Soriano depends on speed for his game, which obviously declines with age, whereas Lee does not. I don't get this at all. you just posted a point that the two players are similar, making no reference to speed whatsoever. now the point of speed comes up and Soriano's game is based on speed? was Soriano's speed relevant in the 46 times he could have walked around the bases last year?

I had not point. I was just responding to a post that had no point with another post that had no point. now that you gave the context of what you were trying to say, I my post has negative point.

Actually I don't know what that feels like, would you care to inform me? and all that followed in that discussion. Army being rated higher than U of I should play any role in comparing two teams SOS. there's two right there.

is it possible that many many people look at the situation with an open mind and just come to a contrary conclusion than you? I remember back in the early season when you started this crap. I looked at the Big East and said to myself 'he's got to be kidding me.' look, I know better than anyone what it is to be under rated. the Badgers smacked Auburn down in the Cap One Bowl last year only to finish right behind them in the polls. the Badgers went into this season not even sniffing the top 30 even though they returned nearly the entire team (and its not like Davis and Alvarez were irreplacable) that smacked that Auburn team down. the Badgers were underdogs in all three of their Rose Bowl victories. the Badgers have to battle their way into the top 25 year after year, and almost always manage to do so, despite the reluctance of the pollsters to put them there. what on earth does a team have to do other than go 8-3 in 14 years of Bowl competition, most of the time being severe underdogs, to gain a measure of respect? one year the Badgers are rated appropriately. then Purdue gives them a tough game, dirty blocks knock three NFL ready D-lineman out of the next few games, and the Badgers are right back to 1992 trying to gain a measure of respect. at the same time, I had no misgivings about the Badgers not having a chance both times they faced Georgia in Bowl games. I am willing to call a spade a spade. are you? are you really going to imply that I am wrong about how the Big East would fair in games against the Big Ten? I know what it's like. If only the Badgers were dominating a lesser conference over these last few years. maybe then they would get the respect that Louisville gets nationally, deservedly or not.

No, it's people like you and most of the media that call games like USC-Texas and OSU-Michigan games that featured great offenses but call a Louisville-WVU game a matchup that featured bad defenses. It's a horrible double standard that isn't fair to the Big East. They can play with the power teams. They are programs on the rise. Louisville is in a new, better conference. Wisconsin has been in the Big 10 for years. They aren't trying to improve their prestige while Louisville is so comparing the two programs isn't fair to Louisville. West Virginia was ranked #5 in the preseason and, arguably, was a Steve Slaton injury away from taking down Louisville on the road and still being undefeated. It's absurd that Wisconsin is in the top 10. What have they done to deserve it? The only thing I can think of is because they play in the Big 11. Yes, the rankings are based on where you are ranked in the beginning of the year as well as the prestige of your team. Look at Arkansas. Where do you think they would be ranked right now had they started in the top 5 or even the top 10 this year? They would likely be a spot or two higher and would still have a good shot to make the title game if they won out. But because they started out the year unranked and don't have the history that USC, Michigan, and Florida have, they don't get as much respect as they should. You are clearly a Big 11 homer. That much is obvious. As for Cuse, I think he knows he's a bit biased and he might have admitted it on here at some point. But I wasn't talking about him now was I? Once again, I have no bias though and no affiliation to any team, something I can't say about you. you said you were done with this conversation, yet that pie hole is still a flappin. I am a big 10 homer. no denying that. but I don't run around saying the big 10 is as good as better conferences when clearly they are not. I also have, you know, a legitimate case in the arguments I make in support thereof. I never said Wisconsin deserved to be in the top 10. I never said Wisconsin deserved a shot at the national championship. I have claimed they get different treatment than other programs, but I think that is undeniable. stop trying to project arguments on to me just to make your arguments look better. I kind of feel for you if you truly are unbiased. it really must suck to be so wrong.

it has alot to do with it. what's it matter? let's go position by position. 1B - assuming health of Lee, vast improvement 2B - assuming DeRosa doesn't fall completely on his face, vast improvement for the first five months of the season, big fall off for September. SS - scratch. actually probably a modest improvement 3B - assuming lack of horrendously bad luck, an improvement LF - assuming basic career progression and Murton being allowed to play, an improvement CF - a vast improvment RF- probably some regression, unless a platoon is brought in, in which case probably a scratch (keep in mind three year splits includes Jones' two worst years). C - probably a scratch. Barrett won't be as good but will play more games. pinch hitting - Cubs were 13 of 16 NL teams in OPS. no more Neifi and Freddie getting most of the PH at bats