sonofsamiam

Frankly, I was just as disturbed by Dusty's quote about Cedeno pressing. We're barely into Spring Training, and it already seems like Dusty is setting the groundwork for Neifi's Big Takeover.

While I generally agree with what's being said here, I think people are vastly underrating Grissom's career. He was a very good player at his peak, and had value as recently as '02-'04. This is not Hollandsworth or Goodwin we're talking about here. I certainly don't want him displacing Murton, but if you're gonna have a "crafty vet" (and we all know Dusty has a pathological need for them), better someone that's actually done something at a high level before, who apparently doesn't have the expectation of seeing a lot of action.

More and more I feel Jerome Williams is not going to get a fair shot in favor of Rusch. :x

Two worrisome things: I would think talking to him might just be a good idea. On arbitration possibilities for Z/Prior: Hmmm...wonder if Jim will use the last 2 years only when comparing Prior, and career when comparing Z. (Yes, I'm obliquely referring to his Jacque Jones comments.) And W-L will almost undoubtedly be the main measure used.

Right. Getting him for Hawkins was a steal, I'll grant Hendry that. Now, will we use him? Or will the preference toward veteran mediocrity win out again?

i 'd like to see hill get a shot. but i'm resigned to the idea of the cubs never ever giving him one. hell, dontrelle willis would either be at AAA, or a rule 5 casualty by now. his cummulative numbers are good, i don't see why he doesn't at least get 10 starts in a row to see what he can do. This is a good point, and further illustrates the weird rush to keep, er, Rusch. I still like Williams, though. He was very good in '03, was pretty good as a Cub last year, and is younger than Hill.

I hope so as that would likely be a combo of not going to a 4 man rotation while they all the offdays in April. I wish they felt the extra days of rest were the luxury instead of the ability to go to a 4 man rotation. I certainly hope we don't go to a 4-man rotation, Wood available or not. I think a lot of people forget about Jerome Williams' potential; I expect he'll be much better than Rusch this year, if only given a chance. Then again, Rusch is a lefty. :x

Do they refuse to believe Lee is the real or that Lee is going to repeat his 2005 numbers? I think he's the real deal, whatever that means, but I don't think he's going to repeat 2005. And I believe he and Aramis will be neck and neck for best production in 2006. I doubt he'll improve on or match '05, but I'd be really surprised if he reverts to '04. Aramis will probably have similar isolated power, maybe even slightly better. But Lee will almost certainly be better at being patient and getting on base. Then factor in Lee's durability, speed, and fielding, and it's a no-brainer.

I don't agree with this at all. OPS+ Lee: 2001: 113 2002: 131 2003: 135 2004: 114 2005: 177 OPS+ Aramis: 2001: 125 2002: 069 2003: 104 2004: 136 2005: 137 Lee's career peak, consistency, and overall OPS+ are better than Aramis's. I love Aramis, but I find it baffling that so many still seem to refuse to believe that Lee is the real deal.

I like this one. But here would be my favorite. . . Pierre CF Lugo SS Lee 1B Abreu, Dunn, Wilkerson, or Huff RF Ramirez 3B Murton LF Barret C Cedeno 2B And another starting pitcher if we get a more affordable productive RF like Huff or Wilkerson. And not if we get an Abreu or Dunn. Ding ding ding! Though if the Cubs got Wilkerson or Huff I'd bat them 5th.

I actually think there is some value to speed. And if Pierre can get his OBP up to past heights, I think he's probably more valuable, overall, than Walker. That is certainly a big if. I do think Walker is good as gone, however. Does anyone know if Cedeno is capable of playing 2B? A middle infield of Lugo and Cedeno would make me feel all warm & fuzzy. (The specter of Perez taking over 2B most certainly does not, of course.) And give me either Huff or Wilkerson over Bradley, any day. I think it's ironic that people that complain about Wood's injuries want Bradley on the team. His career high for games is 141, followed by 101. Wood's played far more full seasons than Bradley has, and they're nearly the same age.

I think Jerome Williams is better than many seem to think. His ERA as a Cub was 3.92 last year (not great, but better than league average), and his career ERA is the same. If Rich Hill (who is a full year older, btw -- Williams only just turned 24) had given the Cubs the same performance last year, I feel there would be no question about his spot in the rotation.

Dunno if this has been posted here or not, but if so, it oughta get stated again: From The Hardball Times I'm glad he can catch the ball, but he's going to need to defend about 3 positions simultaneously at gold-glove caliber to make up for that type of "production".

I would be shocked if that happened. The only other 1B I can see winning it is Helton. Lee already won one, and that's when he was far from the well-known player he is now. The fact that Lee beat Pujols for the Silver Slugger speaks volumes. Then again, stranger things have happened....

No kidding. The only joke bigger than him winning a gold glove is that A-Rod moved to third so he could stay at SS. Interestingly, Jeter's defensive stats (both traditional and sabermetric) have improved dramatically ever since A-Rod joined the team. I wonder if this is just coincidence?

Probably controversial around here, but very good cases could be made for Juan Uribe and Aaron Rowand deserving GGs. Certainly above Jeter and the injured Hunter. Varitek winning (shocking considering I-Rod is still an excellent defensive catcher) is a joke. There aren't many good metrics for pitchers' fielding, though I do think a pitcher's pickoff move should be considered more than it appears to be. The rest of the picks are OK, IMO. Any guesses for the NL? I'm predicting: 1B: Lee 2B: Castillo 3B: Lowell SS: Furcal C: Matheny OF: Jones OF: Edmonds OF: Abreu (apparently -- yuck) P: Maddux

murton put up his best iso ever this year and it was right at 200, so i dont see a 230 happening I agree with that. I'm not sure where you came up with .250/.305/.390, though.

The thing is, if you give any credence to Win Shares, Lee was a pretty valuable player even before he became a Cub. He led the '03 Marlins in Win Shares, for example. This is why I was much more pleased about the Choi/Lee trade than many. (And yes, I should probably change my avatar when talking about him.)

.282/.357/.460

I guess I just don't understand why Jerome Williams seems to be so easily removed from the equation. He had a much better ERA with the Cubs than Rusch, even taking only Rusch as a starter into account. He had a better WHIP. He's 6 years younger. And he's MUCH cheaper. Oh, and in September he really appeared to be coming into his own. It's mind-boggling to let a guy like that go, trade bait or not. Rusch, as a seasoned lefty and all-around nice guy, could have been good trade bait as well.

I heard Stoney on the score yesterday talking about the corner outfield problems, and was flabbergasted by what he had to say. He said he wasn't confident in Murton because he didn't have enough power for a corner outfielder (guess .521 slg doesn't qualify), AND that he didn't think Giles would be good for RF, also because his power is in decline and therefore isn't good enough for a corner outfielder. (By the way -- Giles's Away splits: .333/.463/.545.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the concept of power sort of a non-issue for the Cubs? Shouldn't players with a great approach at the plate (e.g., Murton and Giles) be valued? And anyway, both of those guys have pretty good power as is. This is why I get frustrated when everyone takes every word Stoney says as pure gold.

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have: NL MVP- Albert Pujols NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two) I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it? Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat. Bill James noted that the difference of up to 3 Win Shares isn't all that significant, so 0.1 certainly isn't. I'm still surprised the Pujols got more offensive Win Shares than Lee -- I actually queried Dave Studeman at Hardball Times about this, and he said it was mainly down to St. Louis being much more efficient in matching up their team's actual runs with the team's Runs Created. (Big surprise, huh?) One interesting note: Dontrelle Willis actually got more Total Win Shares than Clemens, though Clemens had a slight lead in Pitching Win Shares: http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?sort=pitch&sort2=WSAB&limit1=&limit2=&leagueLimit=NL Surprisingly, Carpenter is in 6th in Pitching Win Shares, though it's awfully close.

I admittedly put a lot of stock in “traditional” stats, probably more than many people around here. However, I love rate stats and put even more emphasis on them. But I won’t jump on the bandwagon of some of these newer stats and suddenly determine that they are the most important stat to look at, especially when I can’t figure it for myself or even know how it is figured. Kingman was first in the league in REAL OPS, not to mention HR, SLG, and 2nd in RBI, all while hitting a not too shabby .288 which was 35 points higher than Schmidt. You can’t seriously think the voters in 1979 considered his 6th place finish in Adjusted OPS+ when they cast their votes. No, I'm sure they considered his horrible fielding and league-leading strikeouts as well, not to mention the Cubs being in 5th place. (Writers opinion, not mine.) The thing is, other than HRs and RBI, Kingman didn't really lead in anything in '79. Hernandez (much as I hate him) was a more deserving winner, especially from a more sabermetric point-of-view, whether the writers knew this or not. And Stargell, of course, was a sentimental choice. "We Are Family", and all. EDIT: And as far as real vs. adjusted OPS, neither really matters as far as the voters go -- I'm sure few paid attention to OPS at all. However, adjusted is a much more accurate number, as Wrigley is a heck of a hitter's park. Also, as far as Schmidt goes -- yes, he had a lower BA than Kingman, but he also had 120 walks (75 more than Kingman) and won a deserved Gold Glove. I stand by him having more value than Kingman in '79.

I'm assuming you mean Dave Winfield, because Dave Parker did not have a particularly stellar year in '79. 1978 was a different story, but he won it that year. Personally, I think Dave Kingman should have been the MVP in 1979 and it really shouldn't have been close. Hopefully that is not indicative of how Lee will finish in the balloting. Although Lee's year was better than Kingman's they do parallel each other. Both played for Cubs teams that finished a few games under .500 and toward the bottom of their division and both had the best season in their league statistically. By the way, talk about questionable voting. The MVP voters in 1979 had to have been on drugs. Kingman deserved it, and ended up in 11th place. In the AL, Fred Lynn got robbed of the award, he had by far the best season and he finished 4th in the balloting. What a JOKE. I don't know how in the world anyone could argue Kingman deserved the MVP in '79. His Adjusted OPS wasn't even Top 5 in the NL, and that's where ALL his value was. The guy was an utter butcher in the field. There's really no comparison between Kingman '79 and Lee '05. Better cases can be made for Winfield, Schmidt, and yes, Hernandez. I agree that Lynn should've run away with it in the AL, though.

I dunno, the Hawk still got a lot of love from Cubs' fans when he returned to his normal numbers in 1988-1991 Plus, I think everyone expected him to improve on his Florida numbers when he came to the Cubs. '04 was actually an off-year for him (perhaps an adjustment year?). Remember, he hit TWICE as many home runs on the road as a Marlin than he did at home. I don't think anyone expected this type of performance, though. Certainly not me, and I've been a huge fan of his from the start. Either way, I doubt he regresses to his Marlins numbers, simply because he now plays in a park that better caters to his strengths (i.e., hitting to the alleys). I don't expect him to replicate this next year, of course. It does sadden me that he couldn't do what he did this year last year -- if he had, IMO they would have gotten the Wild Card, and the last week of the season would have been a non-issue.