BigbadB

Kearns or Pena would be of interest only if we didn't already have Murton proving he belongs in the majors or if we couldn't get Giles or Floyd. On a side note, the GM in Cincinnati really blew an opportunity to upgrade their horrible pitching staff at the deadline this year, IMO.

Love the fact you share your insight with us here at NSBB. I have a question. What does a "ChiefsVoice" do in the offseason?

Giles power numbers are falling and I think it's safe to assume they'll be declining in the next 3-4 years as well. His SLG hasn't been over .490 since he's been in San Diego (IMO it's not reasonable to assume a line of .290/.390/.510. It looks like his plate discipline is returning though, after his OBP nose dived after '02 (75 points). Giles is a good deal better than what we have in RF, but it seems like he's going to regress in the next couple of years. I'm not sold on him, that's all. Break the bank for him? Sure, why not. His OPS is 2nd in MLB for right fielders. :) Giles' power numbers are not falling. He's just as strong now as he was in Pittsburgh. He is a perfect example of "park effect". His only drop off in anything since he left Pittsburgh (extreme hitter's park) for San Diego (extreme pitcher's park) is XBH's. He's even been vocal about it. He's not the only one complaining about it. Everyone on the team sees a huge spike in their SLG numbers when calling Petco Park home. Someone gave Giles road numbers so I won't repeat them. But, I will show you his 3 year splits on OPS of 2002-2004 in the two divisions he has played the most. LA-.858 SD- AZ-.831 CO-.839 SF-.855 CHC-1.666 CIN-1.280 STL-1.069 MIL-1.075 HOU-.690 PIT-1.047 Petco isn't listed. His 2005 splits at Petco are .795 this year and 1.008 on the road. In 2004, his splits were .864 at home and .834 away. Giles has an OPS that mirrors what Derrek Lee did all year or better in the division that would matter most. If you look at his stats, the only real drop off in anything since he moved to San Diego is SLG and HR's. And as stated above, there is a perfectly good reason for that drop off. Park effect. San Diego ranks 25th in the Major Leagues in home runs this year. They ranked 27th in 2004, their first year in Petco. Giles will be worth whatever money needs to be spent to bring him here.

Baseball has never used defensive stats to determine Gold Glove. They rely more on offensive production, which makes little to no sense. I think your overstating that a bit. They do consider offensive production but if you look at Matheny and Ausmus at C or Lee (pre-this year) your theory doesn't hold water. How does one explain Rafael Palmeiro. Palmeiro played 28 games at 1b the year he won a GG. 28 games isn't even 1/5 of a season. It's the equivilent of 1 month of play out of the whole baseball year. Offensive production should have zero impact on a defensive award. Period.

Baseball has never used defensive stats to determine Gold Glove. They rely more on offensive production, which makes little to no sense. If I'm going to turn on the tv and watch the best shortstop in the game, I'm going to turn on the Padres. Greene does make some unforced errors, but he also creates outs that no other shortstop could. That, in and of itself and in my opinion, creates a trade off. I could see an argument made for the guy who has the best range and the fewest errors with a high amount of PO's. But, I never had a problem with Ozzie Smith winning Gold Glove awards and I don't see a problem with Khalil Greene winning a Gold Glove. If I'm going to rank shortstops defensively, I'm not using stats. I'm using what I see everyday. Khalil Greene has more web gems and sparkling defensive plays this year than the entire remaining San Diego Padres team put together. Not saying my opinion is right. I'm just saying that it's my opinion that if anyone in the NL deserves the Gold Glove at SS, it's Greene. For those who haven't had the opportunity to watch him on a day to day basis, you are truly missing out on one very impressive defensive player at SS. You'll see him in the playoffs this year.

It would be an utter shame to see Khalil Greene NOT win the Gold Glove. He should have won it last year too. No one in either league remotely comes close to being as good a shortstop as Khalil Greene is defensively. But, then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it to Rafael Palmeiro instead. Doesn't matter he has never played a game at SS, it's the thought of how good he just might be if he ever did that counts. :roll:

I'm guessing he's in the transport business of some sort. Truck drivers can lose their jobs if any alcohol is found in their system, let alone illegal drugs.

Well put article. My sentiments exactly. What's weird is that all the energy in previous years has been focused on ownership opening up the pocket books. These last few years, ownership has given them all the wiggle room necessary to make the necessary improvements, and now management is the one feeling the most pressure. It scares me to know that with 25 million more dollars made available to improve this club that they really aren't any better than the team they assembled for 25m less just 3 short years ago. It scares me to think that if the team can't do any better than they were with all that extra money spent, why should they fork out all that extra money? The seats get filled. I can certainly agree with them that they shouldn't go all Steinbrenner on everyone to try to win a World Series. It hasn't worked for him either. I'm afraid that Tribune will tighten the reigns very soon if the product on the field doesn't start playing like a 100m team. Prior & Wood were 100% 3 years ago. They pitched 40% of the games in 2003. They were 100% for what 5-10% of the games this year?? Yes, the Cubs could have done better w/ more obp and a better organized lineup, but they still wouldn't have made the playoffs. Take away Smoltz and Hudson from ATL or Carpenter and Mulder from St. Louis or Clemens and Oswalt from Houston and they're probably sitting out the playoffs too. You might want to rethink including Atlanta in your theory. They had Smoltz as a closer last year and they didn't have Hudson. They won the division with Russ Ortiz, Mike Hampton, John Thomson, Horacio Ramirez, Jaret Wright and Paul Byrd. I wouldn't want any of those guys pitching in the Cub rotation. Those guys helped Atlanta to 96 wins. I dream about 96 wins with our rotation. My point is how many years will the Tribune continue to open the pocket books for a team that fails to win anymore games than they won when they were paying like a midmarket team? Forget the excuses. They won't want to hear excuses. I'm not saying it's going to happen. I'm just saying I'm worried it will happen if they don't start showing some results. Results, in their eyes, should be expected if you boost the payroll.

I considered this team a 90 win team, even with the injuries. Without the injuries, closer to 100 wins.

I don't think Giles was ever a free agent The absolutely sick numbers he's put up in less than stellar line ups (Pirates/Padres) in Wrigley Field makes one wish he became a Cub a long time ago.

Well put article. My sentiments exactly. What's weird is that all the energy in previous years has been focused on ownership opening up the pocket books. These last few years, ownership has given them all the wiggle room necessary to make the necessary improvements, and now management is the one feeling the most pressure. It scares me to know that with 25 million more dollars made available to improve this club that they really aren't any better than the team they assembled for 25m less just 3 short years ago. It scares me to think that if the team can't do any better than they were with all that extra money spent, why should they fork out all that extra money? The seats get filled. I can certainly agree with them that they shouldn't go all Steinbrenner on everyone to try to win a World Series. It hasn't worked for him either. I'm afraid that Tribune will tighten the reigns very soon if the product on the field doesn't start playing like a 100m team.

No they are not. I would argue that since Sosa is not here he shouldn't count, at least when considering what Dusty has to work with. And they fired Lefebvre, replacing him with Tom Trebelhorn. Trebelhorn did worse and lasted one year. For whatever it is worth, Dusty followed up his rookie managerial season .636 winning percentage with seasons of .478, .465, and .420, respectively. He then ripped off 6 consecutive seasons finishing in either first or second place. Is it possible that "Dusty-ball" takes awhile to take hold and patience is in order? Is it possible that stability would be better than making a change? Although Dusty does upset me at times he is not the anti-christ some make him out to be (at least I don't think so ). :wink: How can you not include Sosa's money into the budget? If he were still here, it would count. Correct? The fact Cub management paid Sosa to play for some other team is Chicago's problem. If they could have gotten Baltimore to take on all of Sosa's contract, then you could subtract that from the total budget. Since they didn't and Baltimore didn't, the amount spent on payroll, whether they played for Chicago, Baltimore or someone else should all be counted. I would also venture to guess that the Cubs did not spend as much on free agents that they might have spent had Sosa's money not been on the books. If they didn't have Sosa's money on the books, would they have made a big charge for Beltran or Drew? Would they have spent money on a closer as well? Maybe, maybe not. I'm thinking quite possibly. I think no matter how you slice it, the Cubs are paying Sosa's 2005 salary, not Baltimore, therefore it has to be counted against payroll. That said, I am one of those people who now believes Dusty is the antichrist. I have some questions for you..... How did you like Macias and Neifi batting 1st and 2nd all those times this year? How did you like Patterson leading off all that time this year? How did you like seeing LaTroy Hawkins closing games this year? How did you like seeing Dusty bring in Remlinger to face Edmonds? If you think I can be patient waiting for these master plans to fall into place, don't hold your breath. I can forgive some things. I can ignore some things. What I cannot forgive is using guys who hit just barely better than a pitcher as your #1 and #2 hitters in a line up in front of your most productive hitters. Inexcusable. Laughable. Horrible. Especially when you have better options on your roster, on the bench and hitting at the bottom of the line up. If it weren't for Walker and Hairston in their part time play this year, I'm not so sure Lee would have 80 RBI's at this point. Silly me. I still think this was a 90 win team this year even with the injuries. That's what frustrates me more than anything. They had no heart. Everyday was just another day. No one got fired up, outside of Lee, to do the little things that need to be done to turn a loss into a win, especially Baker. This team had an 87m payroll, and had three different guys with OBP's under .300 trying out for the lead off spot. And somewhere along the way, a couple of them won the job. Astonishing that you can fail miserably in such an important part of the offense and you are rewarded by getting put back in there again the next day in the same spot. I'm new school with OBP. However, I'm old school with other things. Last year, Moises Alou was too lazy to reach down and pick up a ball and throw it in. Instead, he kicked it into the ivy and tried to hide the ball for a ground rule double. If I'm managing the team, he's out of the game. He can be lazy sitting on the bench. Baker didn't necessarily reward that style of play. He was apothetic about it. He just didn't care. The whole world see's this on Sportscenter and they are laughing. It makes your ballclub appear to be one big joke. It's as if this is an acceptable practice. It's okay to try and cheat and slack off at your job because you only get paid 9m dollars. Why is it the players love playing for Dusty? Because they can be lazy and not lose their job? Because you can be a veteran back up infielder and get 450 some at bats a year? I'm dying to see what inspiration Dusty ignites in these guys. Only Derrek Lee put up inspirational production this year. No focus, no direction, lack of execution, and no attitude. These are all attributes that are a direct reflection of Dusty Baker. I have not seen the things that Dusty supposedly does to bring out the best in the players. I need to be convinced he isn't really the antichrist. To me, he's a retired ballplayer that was better at playing ball than telling others how to play ball. He hasn't a clue how to assemble a line up card, how to use a bullpen or how to use a bench. His success at this point is due in large part because of the quality talent he's been given to work with. I think any manager could have created as much success as he has given that same talent. A good manager could have gotten much, much more. Like 90 wins. I won't even go into all the lame excuses Dusty has come up with for why this team stinks.

Here's an even better question, who was the last Cub manager with the payroll to work with that Dusty has had? Per the USA Today salary database, in 1993 Jim Lefebvre had the 6th highest payroll (as opposed to 9th this season). 9th sounds like they are not including Sosa's money. Anyway, Lefebvre had the only winning season in a string of 8 season's that year.

He probably ranks in the bottom 10% in the "wheels" department. I believe he set a record for most at bats without a triple.

A winner? Really? How many World Series has he won? The only real winners right now are guys like LaRussa, Torre, Francona, and Scioscia. I don't see a lot of parallels between them and Rusty. We've got to expect more than "back to back" winning seasons. That's the same old trait I hate in many Cub fans: diminishing expectations. In 2003, Baker's team was 5 outs away from the WS In 2004, Baker's team collapsed in the last week of the season, losing crucial games to the fifth-place Reds. In 2005, Baker's team will finish with a losing record. Am I the only person that sees a regression here? I never have understood why Joe Torre constantly gets listed as a great manager. He's been handed all star team after all star team since he became manager of the Yankees. Isn't an all star team supposed to win the whole thing? Better yet, we're getting ready to see the Yankees NOT win a World Series for 5 straight years now, and Steinbrenner has gone out and gotten him a better team each year Torre fails to win it all for him. Torre pre-Yankee manager record: 894 wins 1003 losses He managed St. Louis, New York Mets and Atlanta during that time in his career, and managed only 1 first place finish and 2 second place finishes in 14 years. It's all about the rings. Period. That is the standard to judge managers. Let's see, who has had more success during their period of ownership, Steinbrenner or the Trib? Oh, that's right, the Yankees don't do it the right way because they try and "buy" titles. The Cubs have too much integrity to try and win that way. I'll take the Yanks success anyday of the week. I agree completely with you - it is all about rings. To illustrate...who would you rather be - the Marlins or the Braves? Would you rather have been in the playoffs for 14 straight years and only have 1 championship? Or would you rather have made it only 2 times in the same amount of time, yet won them both? If you picked the Braves, then you miss the point. It is about winning it all. (That being said, I would love to have the Brave problem...) My response has absolutely nothing to do with Steinbrenner or the Trib. It has nothing to do with who wants to buy titles and who doesn't. My response is regarding Joe Torre and his track record as a manager and this illusion that he should be regarded as one of the best in the business. I think Dusty Baker could win a World Series if he managed the Yankees. Maybe several. I think Bruce Kimm could win a World Series or two for the Yankees. The Yankees success is not dependent on Joe Torre's skills as a manager. Joe Torre's success as a manager is dependent upon the Yankees talent. Just as I don't want Dusty Baker anywhere near this Cubs team, I wouldn't want Joe Torre either. I'd be more inclined to trust his record with Atlanta, St. Louis and the Mets than I would with the all star team that he's had to work with since the day he stepped into a Yankees uniform. I'd love to see what Joe Torre could do with the team Stump Merrill managed in 1991. Here's who got the bulk of at bats with that team: Matt Nokes, Alvaro Espinoza, Steve Sax, Don Mattingly, Pat Kelly, Roberto Kelly, Bernie Williams and Kevin Maas. The starting rotation had: Scott Sanderson, Wade Taylor, Jeff Johnson, Tim Leary, Pasqual Perez and Dave Eiland. That Yankee team was horribe, and their record mirrored that. Buck Showalter didn't have Derek Jeter or many of the other big name Yankees in his last year before Torre, either. He managed a 2nd place finish with these guys: Tony Fernandez, Pat Kelly, Wade Boggs, Mike Stanley, Gerald Williams, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill and Ruben Sierra. Those teams certainly didn't have the impact bats that Torre has been given year after year to work with. Torre does not belong on a list of great managers. Just about any manager in baseball could have done with the Yankees what Torre did with the Yankees. It would be interesting to know what a truly good manager could do with the Yankees, but I hope I never see that day come.

I certainly wouldn't expect the numbers Lofton put up this year. But, I also view him as a part time player who can provide more OBP on one leg from the lead off spot than Macias and Perez can provide with 4. With Pie waiting in the wings, Hairston and Patterson along with Lofton, you not only have CF options all year, but you have trade bait at the deadline. Nearly every team is looking for CFers. On days that Lofton sits, Walker leads off. No loss of OBP there. Late in games, Patterson can slide in and play defense. If Patterson gets himself straightened out for next year, maybe he can win his job back until Pie is ready. Hairston is valuable because he can play infield and outfield. Patterson shouldn't be traded because he currently has no value. Lofton addresses a lead off problem that comes much cheaper than Furcal would. Nomar and Cedeno cover short. To sign Furcal just means we say goodbye to Nomar. I think we would regret that. They don't need a major overhaul. They just need to fix the weaknesses.

I also can't imagine an average fan sticking around for long if they do stumble upon this site. I too consider my self a above-average fan (obsessed if you ask my girlfriend) and I generally stay out of the Baseball Discussions because they get pretty in depth. There is a lot discussed that I know nothing about, mainly the rules for moving players around and a lot of salary considerations. I could talk Cubs all day, but when people start mentioning rules surrounding drafts and minor leaguers I get lost, and my posts would probably detract from the conversation (as this one may). For me this is more educational than anything. Can't say I learned a lot about the Cubs, but I have learned a lot about baseball in general. However someone who doesn't truely love the game and/or the Cubs will probably not stick around to long. EDIT: This may have not really pertained to the conversation. Made more sense when I was writting it. Sorry if it was a pointless post. Absolutely not pointless. It was well written and probably looks a lot like something I would have written prior to my first readings of Tim, MLPeel, Lowblow and a few others that would take the time to share their knowledge. The more you learn here, the more you really understand the game. Even after you learn all that, you can still have differing opinions from everyone else here. I'm glad you made that post and I hope you feel better having written it.

So then what is it going to take to sign him? If its a 4-year deal, I do it. Giles at 38 will probably still be pretty good. At 39, he could fall of some, but if I have to pay for a 4th year to get the first 3, I do it. If its getting a proven lead-off hitter, I sign Lofton as soon as possible to show him we're serious. As far as trading for his brother Marcus, I like that idea as well, but I'm uneducated as to what the Braves would ask in return. If they are unloading his contract to help resign Furcal, then it should be a little easier to get him, but still, I would imagine, a hefty asking price. The Braves don't seem to be dummies when it comes to making deals. Plus, I'm not certain how badly they will need to save money given the amount of rookies that are currently filling out their line-up. The Braves have Wilson Betemit to take over SS in case Furcal leaves and they have Pete Orr who could take over 2B if Giles is traded. It all depends on who they value more, whether they truly believe that either Betemit or Orr are ready, and what their asking price is for Marcus. Come on, Jim. You've pulled off miracles before. First with Hundley, then with Ramirez and next with Lee. Get us the Giles brothers and Lofton. A good friend of mine pitched against Giles in high school. Said he was a brick house even in high school. He basically tore up Giles team, but Giles hit about .750 against him.

Most Padre fans seem to think Giles will be resigned. I'm not so inclined to believe that. Giles has been very outspoken about the warning track outs that used to be home runs. He hasn't lost power, it's just harder to hit one out of Petco than just about anywhere else. The Padres have been a real disappointment to me. They promised to spend more money when they moved into Petco Park. They went from bragging about spending close to 70m for the 2004 team to only spending 55m. They could have upgraded at the deadline that year and made a run. They did nothing. They lost the division by only a few games in a division that was there for the taking. Going into 2005, they let their 2nd most effective pitcher (David Wells) walk, because he "wanted too much money". Wells was another "home town" boy. To replace Wells, they signed Woody Williams, who was coming off a horrendous year and was definitely showing signs of being "done". They made a horrible trade to bring in Dave Roberts, when they could have spent the cash and brought back a local favorite in Steve Finley to fill the huge hole they had in centerfield. Looking back now, it was a smart nonmove. However, no one could expect that kind of regression from Finley in one years time. I know they have needed to make room for Nady, but the fact they weren't able to work deals to move Klesko or Nevin (Nevin finally did go away at midseason) kind of shows that management doesn't seem all that interested in making something happen. All the while they have become a weaker team, they have been filling that new stadium up every game. Giles had his opportunity to play a few years in front of his old stomping grounds. Whether it means that much to him to give up several million dollars to continue doing so is really only a decision he can make, but if I had to bet a dollar, I'd say he'd like to go to a place where his offensive production can be much more appreciated. He's absolutely my favorite player. His current physical condition leads me to believe he has at least another 3 good years left in him. He's not cocky. He's not loud. He just goes about his business. The one real question becomes, if he did decide to go somewhere for money, why on Earth would he choose Chicago? They have horrible lead off hitters, which gives his offensive production a real big hit. They haven't been to a World Series since 1945, which isn't a very good track record. They have regressed this year, and by the time Giles is looking to sign, may not have given any impression to a potential signer that they are trying to fix what made them regress. I can only hope he'd come to Chicago, but we may not really know what he'll do until that day comes for him to make a decision. I really did like the idea someone came up with to do whatever was necessary to trade for Marcus. That would be a nice chip to have in your back pocket. Not only would it make it easier for him to think about signing, but it might not cost as much. Anyway, yeah, I'm sorry we didn't get to see the game together. I'm crossing my fingers that the Cubs come to San Diego anytime, except June. That one game was the only one I was able to attend. By the way, the wife and I had all of our Cub garb on that night and in the 9th inning the Cox cameras zoomed in on us for about 30 seconds and they even made a comment about us. We were sitting in the Padres season ticket holder section and by that time, they were all gone for the night since the Cubs were winning, so we were basically all by our lonesomes right behind the Padres dugout. Everyone I know saw us, and everyone I know proceeded to inform us about seeing us, which got really old after awhile, mainly because we know a lot of people.

As has been said enough times on this board that I'm sure you've seen it: he got the cubs offense so hot that they scored fewer runs with him around than without. But, was that really Lofton's fault? He provided a .327 AVG, .387 OBP from the lead off spot with the Cubs. He scored 39 runs in 56 games, with 20 XBH's, 12 stolen bases and 20 RBI's, all from the lead off spot. If the Cubs scored less runs with Kenny, the blame falls on the other players in the line up, not Kenny. Kenny's good OBP this year is exactly what this team needed this year. I'm not saying it has to be Kenny. Any good OBP will do. Sosa's OPS dropped 150 points in the 2nd half of the 2003 season. Alou's OPS dropped more than 50 points in the 2nd half of 2003. Lofton, Grudz and Ramirez basically carried this team into the playoffs in 2003, outside of the starting rotation. Without Lofton, I'm not so sure the Cubs are in the 2003 playoffs. I will agree that he didn't get the "line up" going. He just provided the spark that was missing from Sosa and Alou.

I would like that starting lineup. Hairston would be a nice platoon in CF. Cedeno would get about 60 starts between SS and 2B. Blanco's a given. But for one of the other bench spots, I would like either Mark Sweeney or Russell Branyan. Branyan gives you the ability to play 3B along with 1B and corner OF. Both give you HR power and great OBP off the bench. I don't think you'll get Sweeney. He's feeling very much at home in San Diego. Branyan I wouldn't mind so much if they wanted to go with a veteran upgrade over Fontenot. With this roster, you have tons of flexibility, a major increase in OBP, youth and experience to overcome the shortcomings on defense.

Missed the game (which may be a good thing). Details? Macias leading off, Neifi batting 2nd. Bottom of the 9th, Cubs load the bases with no one out (bottom half of the order loaded the bases, not the top half) and didn't score, with Jose Macias making the last out of the game.

Giles is the key player. If you get Giles and basically hand Murton the other corner spot, resign Nomar and extend Walker's option, I think they have the best offense in baseball. I'd actually be fine with Lofton in center with this combination. Keeping Hairston and Patterson around as the 4th and 5th outfielders would work for me as well. If you can get Wilkerson, great. If not, Lofton is probably cheap and would probably be happy to come back to Chicago. If Lofton struggles at lead off, you still have Walker and Hairston. Lofton/Hairston Murton Lee Giles Ramirez Nomar Walker Barrett On days Patterson gets a start in center, slide Walker up to the lead off spot. Bench: Patterson Hairston Cedeno Fontenot Blanco At the deadline, you look to beef up the bench with any guys who aren't cutting it. This line up could produce an AVG OBP near .360. Every single guy except the lead off guy (unless you get Wilkerson) is capable of 20+ HR's. They would score runs at will. The beauty of the bench is that it is Dusty proofed. If Patterson can correct his problems in the offseason, maybe he could take his old job back midseason, sliding Walker up to lead off with Patterson hitting behind Nomar. Trade the Rule V guys for pitching help.

A winner? Really? How many World Series has he won? The only real winners right now are guys like LaRussa, Torre, Francona, and Scioscia. I don't see a lot of parallels between them and Rusty. We've got to expect more than "back to back" winning seasons. That's the same old trait I hate in many Cub fans: diminishing expectations. In 2003, Baker's team was 5 outs away from the WS In 2004, Baker's team collapsed in the last week of the season, losing crucial games to the fifth-place Reds. In 2005, Baker's team will finish with a losing record. Am I the only person that sees a regression here? I never have understood why Joe Torre constantly gets listed as a great manager. He's been handed all star team after all star team since he became manager of the Yankees. Isn't an all star team supposed to win the whole thing? Better yet, we're getting ready to see the Yankees NOT win a World Series for 5 straight years now, and Steinbrenner has gone out and gotten him a better team each year Torre fails to win it all for him. Torre pre-Yankee manager record: 894 wins 1003 losses He managed St. Louis, New York Mets and Atlanta during that time in his career, and managed only 1 first place finish and 2 second place finishes in 14 years.

Here's an even better question, who was the last Cub manager with the payroll to work with that Dusty has had?