MPrior

Does anyone else see Cedeno as a super-sub Freel type of guy that could play 3rd, short, or 2nd? He can give ARam's brittle legs rest, Nomar's explosive groin rest, and he can give Walker rest. This is funny.

Interesting point. If the Cubs do sign Burnett, I sure as hell don't want it to be 4/40. Secondly, if the Cubs were a generally healthy team, I'd be all about taking a risk on Burnett, especially if it were relatively cheap. But with all the injury risks already on this team, it seems a bit dangerous to get Burnett. If Burnett and Wood go down (not at all unlikely), our rotation is Prior and Z. And if Prior goes down (not nearly as likely, but it's happened each of the past two seasons), then it gets really ugly.

And keep in mind that most of his struggling against righties was after Dusty made the brilliant move of batting him against ONLY lefties for an extended period of time. I can imagine it'd be pretty tough to hit righties after only seeing leties for that long. As I recall, he stopped struggling as much after a while.

Saying a young guy can't have a career year, and therefore the argument that the White Sox won because of pitchers having career years is wrong, is a bit silly. Garland, Cotts and Jenks all had years that they had never come close to before. And yeah, I guess that's not necessarily a "career year," but that's just a matter of nomenclature. You could call it a "breakout year," and it amounts to the same thing. So Contreras, Garland, Cotts and Jenks all had "breakout years," (and without Cotts and Jenks, the Sox would not have won), and Hermanson (and, arguably, others) had a "career year" (and as far as Hermanson's back goes, it could be argued that the Sox only got to the playoffs in the first place because of their ridiculous first half, when Hermanson was at his most effective). Just Like Derrek Lee is likely to regress (although not necessarily to his career norms), these guys are unlikely to ALL repeat what they did this year. This is especially true of pitchers - and even moreso for relievers.

The key thing is that it's over, and now Hendry's allowed to make some moves. Yes it sucks, but at least it ended quickly.

Floyd is almost certain to outproduce Mench by a considerable amount. Mench fits very much into the mold of this team, by which I mean mediocre OBP with a fair amount of power. While Floyd is no OBP monster, he's at least going to be good for about .350 or so, while Mench probably won't touch that over the course of a season. Floyd also has comparable (or better power). We've got the money to spend, so if we're not spending it on Giles, let's get Floyd.

Jenks too. They may be good but they can't get the big outs. Those teams should trade them for the equivalents of Roberto Novoa and minor leaguers. They should trade them to the Cubs for the real Roberto Novoa. Dempster and Jenks setting up Lidge... =P~ Also sign Farnsworth, and I'll take an all-choking dog bullpen please. All-gutless choking dog bullpen, Vance. Get the terminology right.

The bolded ones also happen to have pretty dismal offenses.

I'd like to see stats on how #2 hitters have performed with their leadoff men on base vs. how they've performed without them on base throughout the history of baseball (and, perhaps more pertinently, for the last few years as well). Does anyone know where we can find stats like that?

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out. So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success. Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true? The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy. He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy. What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre. There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it. 1) He's very unreliable. Huge point. 2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game?? 3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre. Add that all up and Pierre >>> Hairston. Okay. You're hugely missing the point here. Let's take a look at what you just said: 1) He's very unreliable. Huge point. No one said he was. In fact, they've been saying he isn't. 2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game?? A couple things: one, you're entirely ignoring the argument that his last three-four years is a more accurate way to predict his 2006 production. Secondly, no one said Hairston has had a good year when he played every game. 3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre. No one has even suggested that he does. They have suggested that Pierre's base-stealing efficiency is not all that great, though, which is true. But most importantly... There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it. NO ONE SAID THAT HE WOULD SOLVE IT. I don't think anyone thinks that he would. In fact, the WHOLE POINT is that he WOULDN'T solve it. Hairston, if healthy, would not solve the Cubs' problems at leadoff. Pierre has been remarkably similar to Hairston over the last four years. So the question is WHY do people think that Pierre WOULD solve the problem? Make sense now? Sorry for all the capital letters. I'm not sure that was strictly necessary.

I'm glad someone said this. This is more or less exactly the train of thought that I've had for the last month or so - well said. Giles fills every need we have very, very well, and also happens to be available.

The hitting philosophy needs to change. Right now it seems like the Cubs players are indoctrinated with an aggressive, swing-at-anything-close philosophy. A much better philosophy (better because it WORKS, whereas the aggressive approach doesn't really) is that of plate discipline, being patient and waiting for your pitch to hit. The Cubs need to encourage that type of hitting, and sign players who employ it. It's important to note for those of you who are tired of us "walk romanticists" (as we've been called) that while this approach does increase walk totals, that's not all it's about. It's about swinging at good pitches to hit, which will lead to more and better hits, as opposed to popping up on bad first pitches. And on top of all that, it also leads to increased pitch totals from the opposing pitchers. There really is no reason this approach should not be implemented - I have literally never heard or thought of any convincing argument against it.

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series. That's stupid. We have the money to spend, we need to improve our outfield, and Giles does that. We cant dick around and make little piddling improvements until we get close enough to a WS that one player will put us over the hump. We need big changes, now. I guess I wouldn't be that keen on overpaying for a player who is likely to decline unless I thought my team would seriously contend for the WS the next year. There is some wisdom in that, except for a few things: 1, if things go right this offseason, we very well might be contending next year, as has already been said. 2, Giles' discipline is not likely to decline. His power numbers and average might, but he'll probably always be posting a pretty decent OBP, and hitting for better than average power, especially in Wrigley. Plus, he seems to be in very good shape, so I think that decline that people are anticipating won't be as steep as you think. 3, Given the above point, he will always have some value - if not to us, then to somebody else who can take on that kind of contract (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.).

I think I'm in the "no way" camp as well. There are better options than Pierre, and ones that wouldn't cost us as much (Lofton). At the same time, if Pierre is our CF next year, my head won't explode (as it might if Jeromy Burnitz or Jose Macias are anywhere near this team). I could live with Pierre in CF and leading off. I just think there are better options that we wouldn't have to give players up for. That said, I'm a fan of the rumor that Brian Giles is #1 on Hendry's radar, and that B.J. Ryan might also be targeted. Of course, I have no reason to believe either one.

First off, you're saying Walker has durability problems because Carlos Lee slid into his knee? I think that's just a little silly. Secondly, Nomar's injury, while very unfortunate, is a little bit of a fluke, at least as far as its severity is concerned. Chances are he will not sustain another injury next year that keeps him out for 100 games. Yes, I know he's had injury problems the last couple years, but nothing this bad. Lastly, let's take a look at this in terms of things we want: 1.) Production from our SS 2.) For our SS to stay healthy all season 3.) To see Cedeno get significant playing time. The obvious answer here is to re-sign Nomar for a relatively cheap, incentive-laden, 1-year deal. Have him start, but spell him regularly with Cedeno. That way, Cedeno gets fairly regular playing time (which we want), Nomar is more likely to stay healthy and avoid the little nagging injuries he's had problems with the last few years (which we want), and we're going to get WAY better production from our SS than we would out of Furcal (which we want). Signing Furcal really only partly achieves 1 and 2, and costs way more in terms of money and years. What happens if Cedeno is so good we want him to be our SS in 2007? If we sign Nomar, we can just let him go or move him to 2B after next year. If we sign Furcal, we'd have to trade him and his fat contract to somebody else. Other things we want: 1.) OBP 2.) A leadoff hitter. Contrary to popular belief, Rafael Furcal doesn't really solve these problems as much as he seems to. His career OBP is .348, which is the same as Todd Walker's and 20 points below Nomar's. I know Nomar won't be leading off, but Walker could. So replacing Nomar with Furcal would actually LESSEN our team OBP. As far as a leadoff hitter, there are lots of people who I'd rather have than Furcal (all of whom would cost much less, leaving more money to go after Giles and bullpen and/or rotation help): 1. Kenny Lofton 2. Todd Walker 3. Brad Wilkerson (if we could get him in a trade) 4. Milton Bradley (ditto) 5. Heck, we could even put Adam Greenberg in there (he had a ridiculous .117 IsoD this year, putting up a .386 OBP). This all seems fairly obvious to me.

Did anybody see Pierzynski after that inning-ending strikeout on Berkman? He got up and tossed the ball back towards the mound BEFORE THE UMP CALLED THE STRIKE. In fact, he didn't even look back at the ump. If I were Berkman, I'd have run to first base. Not because the ump was likely to give him the call, but just to dig at AJ a bit.

I've been wondering for a while if Konerko could play the outfield. I doubt he'd want to do it, though. And I have no idea if he'd be any good (probably not). BUT - in a weird sort of world, if he could play the OF effectively, he'd be a nice signing. I'd never give him a five year deal, though.

what worries me most about giles is his age & how many years he might want a contract for. 4 years is a long time for a 35+ year old guy imo. his power #'s fell off quite a bit while he was with the pirates too btw so his declining production cannot be blamed totally on pecto. I agree that his age is a concern, and I agree that we can't expect his power to be what it was when he was hitting it his hardest. At the same time, his power would almost certainly go up some due to the difference in parks, and secondly, a lack of power is not this team's problem. It's a lack of OBP, which shouldn't decline much with age.

I totally agree. I was just pointing out that he still has a better OBP than Furcal, so Furcal doesn't address our OBP needs, and that we have a guy in Todd Walker who could (if necessary) lead off with about the same effectiveness as Furcal. And I'm ALL about Murton in the 2 spot.

Question: What's the single most important thing about your leadoff hitter, almost to the exclusion of all others? Answer: OBP. Hands down. Speed is nice to have, but it's truly a secondary asset. So finding a leadoff hitter and addressing our OBP need are two sides of the same coin. Furcal's OBP this year: .348 (career .348). Way better than Neifi, Macias, and Patterson, yes, but is he worth paying a lot of money to get rid of the middle infield that we already have? Todd Walker's OBP this year: .355 (.348 career), with better AVG, slugging, and costs much much less. Nomar's OBP: .320 this year (which is hardly a good indicator), .367 career. Obviously not a leadoff hitter, but still way outproduces Furcal. Also for much less, probably. So replacing Nomar with Furcal does not address our OBP problem (in fact, it makes it worse), and getting rid of Todd Walker takes away one of our best leadoff/#2 hitter options. Signing Furcal is, at best, a lateral move that costs a lot of money. At worst, it's a steep dropoff in production. And another question for you all: if our MI is Furcal and Cedeno next year, who do you think the backup will be? My guess is Neifi Perez. If Nomar and Walker are our MI, I think Cedeno gets the backup job, and Perez walks. The second option seems in every way to be a big upgrade.

This is ridiculous. Our chances of signing Giles are I'd say, roughly, about a bazillion times better than our chances of landing ARod. Let's assume the Yankees are stupider than we think they are, and trade ARod because "he's not a true Yankee." What would we offer that they would accept in a trade? Aramis, Prior, and Pie? The situation is similar, though not nearly as extreme, with Manny. Floyd is more realistic. But it's worth pointing out that all we have to give up to get Giles is money. Which we have a lot of. Yes, it's true that he might sign for less to play somewhere else, but I'm sure he realizes that this team is (for all of our griping) only a few steps away from being big time contenders. And he would be one of those steps.

Wilson never has and never will be a leadoff hitter. I wouldn't go that far. And I am holding out hope that Hendry won't go after Wilson because of Felix Pie likely being able to take over CF in 2007 at the latest. Wilson won't take a 1-year deal. This is the most encouraging thing to me - that Hendry probably won't sign Preston Wilson, even if it's not for the reasons we think he shouldn't be signed. I'm pretty certain Hendry doesn't want to block Pie. I would definitely not be surprised (or unhappy) to see Lofton in CF next year, as he would provide a cheap, one-year stopgap with decent to high OBP.

Just a question, because I know next to nothing about Rotoauthority, but how accurate does it tend to be? A lot of the stuff he said made sense about the various signings, but he also has Kevin Brown signing with the White Sox. Why on earth would they sign a starter when they've got six good ones? In any case, I hope he's right (at least about Brian Giles; I don't really want Furcal, as I'm not entirely sure how a .335ish OBP qualifies, as so many people seem to think, as a "true" leadoff hitter). Obviously I would love Howry and/or Seanez as well, and Lofton definitely helps out in the OBP department, and would make a more than adequate and very cheap stopgap for CF.

I'd even throw in their relievers before or after playing in a weak division. Their relievers were far more important than small ball.