Hosak8

Well, they did draft a 2B in the Rule V draft. Someone from the DBacks organization. Even though they are my hometown team, I cannot remember which guy it was. Anyway... can't imagine that they'd draft a guy to sit him for a full season behind pokey.

Texeira is one of the game's top 5 young stars. He'll hit. Maybe Lee alone is worth more than those 2, but I don't believe he'll come close to repeating what he did last year. I think you'd be surprised what Pitt will do, especially for such high quality prospects. Pierre CAN be traded, and I think that Cleveland would make a move, if the compensation was right. All just my opinions, of course.

Mizzou... I think you said it best... we're just coming from different sides here. No, I wouldn't make one of these trades without being able to make them all. But, I would trade our leadoff and 2 hole hitters for a 2 hole hitter, provided we get a leadoff hitter in another deal (as we would.) I am just not one who buys into the accepted value of our prospects any longer. Murton is a good prospect, but nowehere near elite, and highly unlikely to ever approach Bay's productivity. Pie is very good, but will he really outproduce Sizemore? Maybe. But, if Sizemore continues to develop, he's got 30/30 potential, as well as .950 OPS potential. Does Pie? I'm not so sure about that. Cedeno is good, but no one expects him to reach the numbers Michael Young has posted. Hill has potential, as does Guzman, but I'd take Santana over either right now. Williams is a #3 at best. Also, do you realize that the starting lineup we would field would cost us approximately 26 million dollars? Other than ARam, no other starter would cost more than 4 million dollars. that gives us a lot of wiggle room to add players. And, even with salary bumps due for 2007, we'd have TONS of money to throw at guys. Remember, Bay is already locked up for a few years, as is Young. Sizemore and Figgins are not eligible for arby for a couple more years, so that is low cost production out of those slots. Same for Santana. Texeira will be costly, but so is Lee. ARam will continue to be costly, but that's okay. I'd guess that we'd go into 2007 with around 55-60 million dollars owed to 17 guys, leaving somewhere around 50-60 million for 8 players. That's alot of dough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Mizzou. I just feel that these trades make us better on the field, better on the budget, ad keeps us from dealing Prior and Hill for Tejada and Bedard.

It's one of the characters from Veggie Tales, IINM. Larry the Cucumber, I think.

Really? I could live with all 4. The Pittsburgh deal is one in which we give up the most *potential*, but we give it up for a guy who is 27 and outperformed ALL outfielders last year. His numbers are better than Miggy Cabrera's, and I bet most people would make that tade for him. Just a few numbers of the others that I proposed offers for: Bay: .305/.401/.559 with 32 HR and 21 SB in his 2nd full season. He's 27. Sizemore: .289/.348/.484 w/ 22HR and 22SB in his 1st full season. He's 23. Figgins: .289/.351/.397 with 8HR and 62 SB in his 2nd full season. He's 28. That's alot of production. Murton will never reach Bay's numbers. Pie will hopefully develop into Sizemore's, but Sizemore has lots of developing of his own to do. Figgins isn't a star, but he's fast, versatile (plays 2B, 3B, and OF), and quite the bargain. Gives us 3 or 4 years for EPatt to develop. Plus, the gem of that deal is Santana. And, let's be honest here... who really expects Lee to match what he did last year? All in all, I think they are realistic deals, and while we do pay alot, we get lots of production, we stay young and pretty cheap, and we give ourselves a better chance to win NOW as well as TOMORROW. Plus, with the pitching available in 2006-7 free agency, we could add Mulder and Garland while subtracting Wood and Maddux and have a top 4 of Zambrano, Mulder, Garland and Santana, and that would be nasty...

Maybe it's all the Prior for Tejada talk ad nauseum, but I've gone a bit stir crazy waiting for news. So, I just made up my own. COme one, Jim, listen to me and go get these moves done ASAP! 1. Prior, Williams, and Cedeno to Texas for Texeira and Young. 2. D.Lee, Rusch, and Patterson to Anaheim for Figgins and Ervin Santana 3. Murton, Pie, and Hill to Pittsburgh for Jason Bay. 4. Pierre, Walker, and Guzman to Cleveland for Sizemore. Add cash where necessary. Throw in Dopirak, Marshall, or Gallagher where needed. Our new lineup would be: 1. Figgins (S) 2B 2. Sizemore (L) CF 3. Ramirez ® 3B 4. Texeira (S) 1B 5. Bay ® LF 6. Young ® SS 7. Jones ® RF 8. Barrett ® C Rotation would need a little help, but we'd have: Z, Wood, Santana, Maddux, Free Agent (Weaver) Sure, Iowa would be terrible, but I could live with that for this lineup.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051223&content_id=1287055&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp Prior, CP, and Hill for Manny and Clement?

Forget Mench/Hudson... deal 'em Walker, CP, Murton and Williams for Hudson and Green. Then turn Prior and Hill into Tejada and Bedard. THEN, deal Bedard, Hudson, and Gallagher for Zito! Pierre, Green, Lee, Tejada, ARam, Jones, Barrett, and Cedeno... Z, Zito, Wood, Maddux, FA (Weaver?) I'd take that. And, please don't talk to me about mortgaging the furture for a chance to win now. If the Cubs have proven anything, it's that they can royally screw up a future.

Why? You'd give up a minimum of 10 guaranteed runs for 18 (approx.) more appearances on base? Even if you only scored half the time (which is very high... 25% is more like it), that would still be less than those extra 10 homers. Makes no sense. That's why I think some folks overrate OBP. Not because OBP is a bad stat... it's a great one. But some people are so in love with it that they don't stop to even think about what they're saying. a MINIMUM of 10 guaranteed runs for approximately 4-5? NO thanks. Give me 20 and .320 over 10 and .350.

No intention of hijacking this thread with this banter, so I'll happily move my thoughts to the rant forum, if that's acceptable. Hey, I'm an outsider but I agree team forums tend to overrate their own players. Check out how CardsTalk values Marquis, Reyes and Wainwright. I don't think your trolling or anything. Nature of the beast, I guess.

Hmmm... so threads that bash Cubs fans who aren't members here (see: Casual Cub Fan in Baseball Discussions) are okay, but nothing critical of NSBB, right? 3 pages of making fun of a Cub fan who had a different opinion than 95% of the people here, so it's acceptable. Even included these quotes: "NSBB makes you smarter" "This statement is actually true. No sarcasm." 1908, I have no problems with any posters here. Nothing personal against anyone. I just find the overwhelming attitude very condescending and pretensious, and dare I say hypocritical? Bash other sites and people... just don't say anything negative about this forum. Again... LOVE the insights, analysis, information, and knowledge here. Hate the self-righteousness. Sorry if that's unacceptable. Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Be happy to move my thoughts over to the Rants forum if you need me to.

You do? Examples? I'm curious... Well, I can't do a search. I just noticed your avater really stands out, and the last time I recognized it was from a time when you took a similar shot at people on this board, and I thought the same thing. The "only here" thing was both inaccurate (the starter vs closer debate is widespread) and unnecessary. Why couldn't you just say you completely disagree, and state your reasons why. It's not as absurd an idea as you might think, although in this case, I agree with you that Lidge is worth more than Williams. GET... For the record, I was not using the "only here" in reference to a general closers/starters debate, which I agree can be found all over the place. I used the term to specifically reference the overvaluing of Cubs players, which I believe this whole discussion to be a prime example of. If Williams were a Twin, this debate would have never begun. If Lidge were a Cub and Williams an Astro, the mere suggestion that there would be any comparison between the two would elicit a 15 page thread bashing the suggestion. That's all I'm saying. Again, if I offended anyone, I apologize.

I've seen it and I disagree wholeheartedly. What exactly do you disagree with? I didn't double-check my back of the envelope calculations but I'm pretty sure the math is solid. From an absolute runs saved perspective Williams is the better pitcher. This depends on the baseline against you are measuring, of course: Against replacement players Williams' innings win out, but if you're comparing against league-average players Lidge's superior rate stats win out. Once again, the player I would choose in a trade would depend on my team's specific needs. BK... It's not your math that I disagree with. It's the notion that runs saved/VORP- in this case- proves anything. It has been pointed out by others, and you already acknowledged my point that there are several pitchers available whose numbers are well above those that you offered for "replacement" players. No disrespect intended. I just disagree with the notion that Williams has value anywhere near Lidge.

You do? Examples? I'm curious...

Because 180 innings of good performance (Williams) is almost certainly better than 80 innings of great performance (Lidge) + 100 innings of replacement-level performance. So then Bob, you're saying if you were the Phillies you would take Williams over Lidge? That is what you're saying right? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. I suppose it would depend on who Williams or Lidge would be bumping from the rotation and bullpen, respectively. (And I'm not fully up to speed on their pitching situation to make that call at this point.) I will say, however, that a team would have to have a pretty good starting rotation (or absolutely atrocious bullpen) to nullify the IP value that Williams brings to the table. One other thing, Williams has never pitched 180 innings because he can't stay healthy. His career high is 131, I believe. And, if anyone can look at his 2005 and call him "good", I will have to redefine my definition of "good". That isn't to say he won't improve. Maybe he will. But 180+ innings of what we got in 2005? No thanks.

I've seen it and I disagree wholeheartedly.

Here being nsbb.com? Perhaps I've just clicked on the wrong threads, but you seem to often include a shot at the board in general when you make your points, and I see little reason for that. 1908... Yes, here being NSBB. Don't misunderstand... I like this forum, and I believe that this site has the most insightful baseball fans that I have ever encountered on the internet. I appreciate the stats and useful information that one can find here. And, despite compaints to the contrary, I have found that there is a fair amount of dissenting opinion. However, it has been my observation that posters here tend to WAY overvalue Cubs players and prospects. Perhaps you consider that hyperbole on my part. That's okay. Maybe I consider it hyperbole on your part that you say I "often" include shots at this forum. Have I done that before? Yep. Often? Nope. Sorry if I offended anyone. That wasn't really my intention.

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well. So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right? And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game. You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge. People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll: It's not just Williams, it's any starter of a certain ability. There's a reason that Lidge was behind Suppan and Maddux in Win Shares; or that he was 100th among pitchers in VORP, trailing Vazquez by a hair. Lidge is an outstanding reliever, one of the best. But he can only dominate for 70 or so innings. On the whole, someone who can give you pretty good production for 200 or so will be more valuable, whether that's Jerome Williams, Jeff Suppan, or Kirk Saarloos. It's also about precieved value, there isn't a GM in baseball that would rather have Williams over Lidge. Besides guys like Lidge are A LOT harder to find than Williams. I thought you weren't in to VORP. Aren't rate stats your thing anyway? I wasn't talking about perceived value, obviously most teams would jump at the concept of trading someone like Williams for Lidge, although as Blueheart pointed out, it doesn't make sense with the current Cubs team. And yes, I'm a big rate stats guy. But when you're comparing a starter to a reliever, where the differennce in playing time can be 3x as many as the other player, cumulative stats are necessary to illustrate the actual value the reliever has. A difference between 200+ innings and 70+ innings is much different than Tejada playing 160 games and Ramirez playing 140, which was the topic earlier when I preferred rate stats. CP... I'm sorry... I just don't understand the mentality that Williams is more valuable because of the number of innings he may *potentially* pitch. How does an extra 100 innings of fewer K's, more base runners, and more earned runs benefit a team? I sincerely don't get it. Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. And, we may just have to agree to disagree. I just don't buy into the value of Williams. He's common, and if he were still a Giant, no one here would be clamoring for him.

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well. So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right? And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game. You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge. People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll: I would not trade Williams for Lidge on this current team. The Cubs need to add starting pitching (and offense). The bullpen has a surplus of arms. Lidge isn't needed on this team however, he would be a welcomed addition on most staffs. Frankly, I think the Astros are considering selling Lidge while his value is still high. If the latter part of the season/playoffs are any indication, he isn't as rock solid as one believed (especially not in big games). IIRC, the Cubs got to him twice last year including the end of the year and we all know he was less than dependable in the NLCS & WS. I would deal Williams for Lidge in the blink of an eye. There are 10 free agent pitchers available who give you what Williams gives you. There are no closers available who do. Ahhh.. who cares what I would do? It's all hypothetical anyway as it will never happen. But, I want no part of any GM that would trade Brad Lidge and get back only Jerome Williams.

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument... Williams(or other SP) is going to pitch 3 times as many innings as Lidge will in a given season. Therefore, even though his performance isn't as dominant as Lidge's, he's worth more to the team because the quantity outweighs the marginal difference in quality. Wow. Only here could Williams be classified with Lidge. The tradition of WAY overvaluing Cubs players and prospects is alive and well. So, your logic is that Williams is as valuable as Lidge because of the innings he eats? I guess the same could be said for Rusch as well then, right? And, the suggestion that there is only a marginal difference in quality is a joke. In around 50 less innings, Lidge won only two fewer games than Williams, struck out many more hitters, had a much lower ERA, and a considerably lower WHIP in 2005. All is true for their 3 year averages, as well. Yes, Williams is younger. No, he isn't (in any way, shape, or form) comparable to one of the most dominant closers in the game. You really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? You'd be crazy. Williams is a dime a dozen. Lidge is one of about 4 or 5. Several teams have a Williams. Very few have a Lidge. People here really wouldn't trade Williams for Lidge? :roll:

WHAT?!? Williams is at least as valuable as Lidge? Please, let's hear this argument...

I'm sorry... I just think your assessment that Molina is a "huge" downgrade offensively is in accurate. Fine, you want to suggest that OPS (essentially) is the most important stat for a player in the 7 or 8 hole? Okay. Let's look at the past two seasons and see how each player did, respectively in that spot... Molina: 2005: 1.136 OPS in the 7 hole, .867 in the 8 hole 2004: .723 OPS in the 7 hole, .782 in the 8 hole. Barrett: 2005: .498 in the 7 hole, .727 in the 8 hole. 2004: .916 in the 7 hole, .802 in the 8 hole. How is Barrett a significant upgrade? He isn't, in my opinion. Now, let's consider situational OPS. We'll take Molina's last 3 years and average them, and we'll only take Barrett's last two, since 3 seasons ago he was in Montreal. You suggested that Barrett is a better offensive player now than then, so we'll take Montreal out of the equation. Let's look at OPS W/RISP and OPS W/RISP & 2 outs... or "clutch" situations... Molina: .875 OPS W/RISP .936 OPS W/RISP & 2 outs Barrett: .843 OPS W/RISP .743 OPS W/RISP & 2 outs In those situations, Molina IS significantly better than Barrett. Now, I realize that I have taken a somewhat subjective look at those numbers, and that Molina looks much better than Barrett. I don't believe that he is. I just don't believe that Barrett is "significantly" better offensively than Molina. ANd, once again, when you throw in the defensive side of the postion (which is more important a measure for a catcher, imo) I'd take Molina. I like Barrett, but I'd take Molina, Lowe and Drew over Barrett, Williams, and Jacque Jones.

Benjie isn't a wash offensively, it's a pretty huge downgrade. This was the best offensive season of Molina's career, and he wasn't within 40 OPS points of Barrett. It was also the first time in his career he's cracked a .750 OPS, while Barrett has been an .825 OPS guy since he's been here, and is two years younger. Actually, if you want to use the stats objectively (instead of subjectively, as many people here do when they have a point to prove) you would see that, in their careers, Barrett does have a better OPS... .740 to Molina's .704. .036 points. That's not a great deal. Barrett is a higher OPS guy, but hitting in the 7th or 8th spot, I want avg. Not OBP. Hits drive in runs that low in the order. OBP gets you on for a pitcher who gets on base at a .185 clip. Power is basically even. OBP and SLG are pluses for Barrett, no doubt. But, it's fairly even. And, with the defensive upgrade we'd get (a pretty big one, at that) I feel that Molina would be a nice pickup, especially if it netted us a RF and SP. Hey, you are entitled to disagree with me. I'm just not on the NSBB OPS Bandwagon, necessarily. The game is actually more than that. Average actually matters, too... though you'd never know it from around here.

http://www.rotoworld.com/includes/topblurbs.asp?sport=MLB Ahh... too bad. I was hoping for a Barrett, CPatt, Walker and Williams for Lowe and Drew deal. WHo would cathc for us you might ask. The answer? Bengie Molina, who is getting no love, and would be an upgrade defensively and a wash offensively for us. LA does it to free up lots of money and to get younger. We do it, because it solves our RF problem, as well as bolstering (sort of) our rotation. LA could have played Walker at 2B and Kent at 1B... heck, they still could play Walker in LF, Kent at 1B and Nomar at 2B. They need a cathcer badly, but cannot afford a good one like Molina. If they made this deal with us, they'd free up 20 million in 2006, enough to pay Nomar, Walker, CP, Williams, Barrett, a free agent OF, AND to re-sign Weaver. We'd need a 2B, but that appears to be easier to find than a RF...

According to CBS Sportsline: "While the Astros would be interested in acquiring an outfielder such as Kevin Mench or Brad Wilkerson, of the Texas Rangers, there's reason to believe the club might have something much bigger planned, perhaps attempting to go after Baltimore's Miguel Tejada or Philadelphia's Bobby Abreu, says the Houston Chronicle." So, we go to Texas and say "we'll help you get Tejada... and it will cost you Young." Texas gets Tejada and Walker. Baltimore gets Wilkerson, Cedeno and Williams. We get Michael Young. Is that appealing to anyone?