KingCubsFan

.291/.347/.425 .253/.341/.409 Guess which one was Murton/Pierre/Jones and which one was Soriano/Fukudome/Bradley. And then think about the defensive difference. If we're counting Fukudome as a CF, all 6 are pretty bad defensively but at least Soriano can throw the ball (I can't see Jones' range as valuable when he's spiking the ball 20 feet in front of him on throws back to the infield). Unless you're going to cite that ridiculous formula that rated Murton and Barry Bonds as two of the best defensive left fielders that one year.

Which prospect's performance are you looking forward to seeing this year? It can be Top 10 prospect, sleeper, etc. I'll go with Brett Jackson. I didn't like the pick at the time, but if he puts together a full season like last year's performance it looks like we may have a young Edmonds-like player.

While they've had a good offseason, they still have question marks in the bottom of their rotation, a so-so bullpen and an offense that has the potential to produce zero 20-homerun hitters. I still think Texas and LA are better.

and some other guys throw lefthanded and in the mid 90s and are really good. The only thing that the Reds got going for them is they didn't have to spend nearly as the Red Sox did for Dice-K. Otherwise, I'm just not impressed with another overhyped Cuban. can you tell us what you don't like about him? He doesn't appear to have a reliable secondary pitch and he hasn't faced much high-level competition. It's not a terrible signing for the money (he certainly has a ton of potential) and it's better that the Reds are spending their money on young players with promise as opposed to spending it on players like Francisco Cordero. But it's hard to overlook the fact that Cuban free agents have, by and large, failed to live up to expectations in the US and say this was a great signing when the Reds could have taken the money and spread it amongst other international free agents or draft picks. Outside of Alexei Ramirez and a half-season of Jose Contreras, they've all been busts so far.

No, he didn't, but he bought a company that owned the Cubs and that investment plummeted in value, as did his own net worth. You can talk about write-offs all you want, but there is a tremendous financial risk at stake here and some people are without question losing money. Zell's purchase of the Tribune was not your typical case study in major league baseball ownership. He bought a company that happened to own the team, and then tried to flip the team. We have no idea how much Zell valued the Cubs portion of the purchase, nor how much the Cubs were worth when Zell bought them. Everyone knew that the price was going to be high, but until there were actual bidders everything was just speculation. Ownership of a major league baseball team has been very profitable for most of the owners and is generally seen as a safe investment. Not only do they get to depreciate the value of the franchise and retain all of/if not most of the profit every year for the first 15 years, when they do sell they only pay the long term capital gains tax, which is substantially less than income tax. Also, they do enjoy the ability to write-off items for gain, but in the Ricketts case, I don't see how writing off anything would help them considering the amount of depreciation they will be entitled to take. Thanks for explaining my point. There might be a few owners losing money, but the vast majority are making a ton of money. TV rights and MLB merchandising provide the majority of the cash. I doubt that owners make "a ton" off of sports teams. if that were the case, why wouldn't more businesses buy sports teams? Most of the buyers are people who are already rich. Teams tend to derive their value more from the ability to resell them at a higher price and the people who are willing to buy them.

If given the chance, I bet Pie is better than Byrd over the length of the contract

Amazing that any Cub fan would want to go back to the days of always losing again. Trading the core of the current team when they still have a good chance would be ignorant. The farm system is starting to produce again on its own, and the Cubs have absolutely no reason to shed that much payroll in the market they are in. I would much rather perfer that they try to win this year. The next contracts that DLee and Aram sign will be bad contracts. There is also a possibility it will not be with the Cubs after next year. I also think the rebuild is inevitable, so why not get it started now. Also, what are you trying to win? Division? NL? WS? I think the division is the only reasonable goal with this team. I dont think the Cubs will do it. So the playoffs are a crapshoot for every team but the Cubs? The Cubs farm system has made major strides over the past year but it's nowhere near close being able to anchor a rebuilding team. Castro is never going to be a middle of the order hitter and Vitter won't be for quite a while (though I personally doubt he ever will). Our pitching prospects are all projected to be #2 and #3 starters. As for trading Z, Lee and Ramirez, they all have NTC's so you're not going to get maximum value for them anyways. Teams that do firesales are teams that know they won't be able to resign their players on the open market AND won't be able to sign an adequate replacement on the open market so they try to maximize value by trading players as early as possible. That's not the position the Cubs are in, and there's no reason not to wait to trade them until the trading deadline if we're out of it. Lee will have 0 value at the Deadline. I would imagine that for Lee adn Aram to waive their NTC they would have to be extended by the teams that are going to trade for them. As I have said their next contracts will probably be bad contracts. So if the Cubs used some sense they would jettison them now for what would probably be not great return. However, the payroll relief may allow for close to equal talent in the FA market next year that may be younger. This is basically the same route the Tigers took in trading Granderson. In the case of Zambrano it may be better to wait until the deadline. He would really have to tank to lower his trade value. He may improve his trade value by pitching well though. I personally dont believe that the playoffs are a crapshoot. I do believe that the shortness of the postseason does make it easy for lessor teams to win. However I think the better teams win more often then not. The Tigers traded Granderson because they are losing a ton of money and he's one of the few highly paid players on their team that actually has value. What you're proposing is completely different. Both Lee and Aramis have NTC, presumably, because they like being in Chicago. I also presume that they believe the team will win this year. So why would they want to waive it before the season starts? However, if the trade deadline rolls around, and we're in third place, isn't it possible that Lee want to finish the season somewhere that has a chance at winning? Just because he is due for free agency doesn't mean he has 0 value. If, for example, the White Sox are battling for the AL Central and they're looking for another bat, DLee would be a great fit for them and I bet we could get some value for him. I don't understand why people are so set on giving up on the season before it's even started just because our offseason has been poor.

Amazing that any Cub fan would want to go back to the days of always losing again. Trading the core of the current team when they still have a good chance would be ignorant. The farm system is starting to produce again on its own, and the Cubs have absolutely no reason to shed that much payroll in the market they are in. I would much rather perfer that they try to win this year. The next contracts that DLee and Aram sign will be bad contracts. There is also a possibility it will not be with the Cubs after next year. I also think the rebuild is inevitable, so why not get it started now. Also, what are you trying to win? Division? NL? WS? I think the division is the only reasonable goal with this team. I dont think the Cubs will do it. So the playoffs are a crapshoot for every team but the Cubs? The Cubs farm system has made major strides over the past year but it's nowhere near close being able to anchor a rebuilding team. Castro is never going to be a middle of the order hitter and Vitter won't be for quite a while (though I personally doubt he ever will). Our pitching prospects are all projected to be #2 and #3 starters. As for trading Z, Lee and Ramirez, they all have NTC's so you're not going to get maximum value for them anyways. Teams that do firesales are teams that know they won't be able to resign their players on the open market AND won't be able to sign an adequate replacement on the open market so they try to maximize value by trading players as early as possible. That's not the position the Cubs are in, and there's no reason not to wait to trade them until the trading deadline if we're out of it.

Not sure why I never followed up on this thread - anyhow, the few reports I've read on Watkins suggest that he won't get near that type of power (Walker/Barrett) without completely retooling his swing. Even if he can become Mark Grudzelanek with better patience, that's a pretty good player

Not sure how you can say that. Sizemore's best prime year(s) are still ahead of him. Granderson is basically almost past his, and the slide is eye popping. It's almost as dramatic as Patterson from '03 thru '05. Patterson was never as good as Granderson, but my concern is the drop off in production in general. Losing over 100 points of OPS while getting a big spike in pay is probably why Detroit is shopping him, not just that he's getting expensive. Buyer beware. Sizemore is only a year younger. And Granderson's huge drop was due to a BA drop, which is probably due to some bad luck. Patterson went from being a rising star to a completely worthless player in 3 years. It's not a good comparison. I don't know why it's so difficult for some people to admit Granderson is a really good player. He might be a bit overvalued by Detroit, and has a serious flaw with his inability to hit lefties, but he's one of the top players at his position.

He's lot closer to Grady Sizemore than he is to Corey Patterson. Just because he can't hit lefties doesn't make him extremely valuable.

I also think Cerda will take a huge step forward. Hopefully he's getting more comfortable with catcher. I also would like to see what Logan Watkins can do in full season ball. If he can develop some doubles power, I think we're looking at a really good leadoff prospect.

Not sure if Fukudome is on a Granderson level. His splits were about equal in 2008 and he didn't get much of a chance in 2009

Probably Grabow or Guzman I'd take Billy Wagner on a one year deal while Parker is groomed

I have no problem giving up Marmol and Theriot if that's what it takes. Both are about to get expensive, and their best days are probably behind them.

Good thing neither of them play defense, not to mention Granderson had some strange home/road splits last year. If Lou was smart enough to platoon him, we'd be getting a relatively cheap, .900 OPS CF who by all accounts plays pretty good defense

I'd love to get him. I'd give up Vitters, but I don't think I'd give up Castro.

Just plain old UZR, with quick looks at a few other metrics to make sure they're in relative agreement. And to answer your question, generally speaking you'll see a bit less deviation when you're looking at middle infielders. That makes sense of course, considering they are defense-first positions. But even at that, a few players were pretty bad this season. Dan Uggla and Luis Castillo were about 10 runs below average, Miguel Tejada and Orlando Cabrera around 15 and Yuniesky Betancourt just over 20 runs below average. Of course, there are other factors that enter into play. Middle infielders do get quite a few more chances... but their failures don't generally end up as disastrous as those in the outfield. But what about things like extended innings? Extra outs? Extra hits? With a small outfield like Wrigley and the nature of the position, I can't see a good defensive RF being worth more than a good defensive SS, even if he would botch a flyball or two every month.

jermaine dye is like the opposite of consistent He consistently hits for 60+ XBH hits a year (his second half of last year notwithstanding). The OBP may be low, but he'll also be hitting in the lower part of the lineup. He's not the greatest option, but if you can have him for one year at a small price, he's better than throwing some light hitting CF out there. Dye is consistently 20 runs below average in RF. Just for the sake of argument, let's say Fuld is a league average CF. That would be a difference of 25-30 runs between them on defense. Jermaine Dye hit .250/.340/.453 this year in 574 PA, contributing approximately 66 EqR. So Sam Fuld needs to contribute 36-41 runs over 574 PA to equal his production... Do you realize how little it takes to manage that? You're looking at some sort of crazy .220/.260/.320 line. Defense and baserunning matter. 25-30 runs seems like a lot for a right fielder to give up. How many runs would a below average SS or 2B give up per year under the system you're using?

Beat writers are so bias and self-serving I don't really believe anything they say. With that said, I'd hope the team could succeed even with one bad apple. We almost made the World Series with Sosa. No matter what happens, Hendry deserves all the blame for this mess.

jermaine dye is like the opposite of consistent He consistently hits for 60+ XBH hits a year (his second half of last year notwithstanding). The OBP may be low, but he'll also be hitting in the lower part of the lineup. He's not the greatest option, but if you can have him for one year at a small price, he's better than throwing some light hitting CF out there.

I think he'd be a good option if he could be had extremely cheap for one year. Outside of the second half of last year, he's been pretty consistent. Most people will probably point to his defense and say that Sam Fuld is more valuable though.

Willis is done but I'd definitely take a shot at Bonderman. It would be interesting to see if Rothschild could get something out of him.

Honestly, it has more to do with risk than anything else. I don't expect Fuld to be much worse than Crisp, but the fact remains that maybe some scout somewhere will see a way to pitch Fuld that will near completely neutralize him. With Crisp, the odds of that happening are much lower. The book is already written. Favoring veterans isn't generally a great idea. But when the players are so similar, there is some value to experience... whether or not it's worth the difference in salary is a judgment call. I would say the complete opposite. The only time the veteran is favorable is when he's clearly better. You can say that. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. As Cubs fans, we've all been overexposed to the idea that being a veteran is something that's worth a bunch, and we've had it pushed on us in the dumbest way possible... our bench players, guys that should never be making the kind of money Hendry likes to pay them. But the Fuld vs. Crisp discussion right now isn't about a bench player. With our insistence on moving Bradley, this is debating about a starting position. Just because Hendry went about valuing experience in the wrong way does not mean that it isn't worth something... especially in the case of a situation like Fuld vs. Crisp, where risk management is really the only difference between the two players. Fuld carries higher risk, with no real benefit aside from the financial one. What's the harm in finding out what that financial difference is? If it's cheap enough, a team in our position (close to the playoffs) benefits quite a bit from taking that risk off the table. "Risk management" isn't the only difference. The difference is a significant amount of money. Why would a team on a tight budget ever pay more than the minimum for someone like Coco Crisp? If Sam Fuld can't put up close to a low .700 OPS and play good defense he shouldn't even be on the 40 man roster. Both are terrible options in CF, so if you go that route you might as well save the money and put it towards the draft.

Oh good, more offseason talk about acquiring Jeremy Hermida. That quote belongs to West Side Rooter. While Im not a big fan of Hermida, hes still young enough that maybe Jarmillo can help him finally reach his potential, plus hes one of those guys Hendry has had his eye on for a few years, and now that he'll probably be available for next to nothing, I can see Hendry making the move. If Bradley absilutely has to go, and we dont have what it takes to aquire someone like Holliday, Bay, or Hawpe, I guess Hermida is a low risk move that could potentially pay off, and if it doesnt, we can just rotate him, Fox, Hoffpauir, Fuld, and Colvin(whichever are on the team) through the outfield. Its not the best plan, but our hands are kind of tied after last offseasons debacle. Given the lack of positions we can actually upgrade this offseason, Hermida should not be an option. Wherever we change needs to be a legit replacement. Why should we keep throwing money at veterans in the free agent market? We're not paying Rudy Jamarillo 800K to watch Aramis hit doubles, we're paying him to help turn around players with potential like Soto, Hermida or Alex Gordon. We should take a page from the White Sox and start getting players like Hermida (former top prospects/first round picks who failed with thier old teams) to see if we have anything for virtually no cost.