fromthestretch

I'll go out on a limb and guess Troy Percival.

What, you mean it might have had something to do that they only had three players that deserved a spot on a major league roster? He definately had some craptastic players. 1996 Cubs Oh jesus, Sosa had 40 home runs that year and only a .323 On base percentage. :| You have to try (there is no almost about it) to not take walks to do that. Consider that it was 40 HR in a season shortened by about a month and a half after he broke a bone in his hand, and it's even more ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the bases were loaded when that happened, giving Sosa his 100th RBI of the season and effectively ending his season at the same time.

I'm not sure how you can say Kaz Matsui was "extremely productive" or "had a great year." A .747 OPS (87 OPS+) when you play half your games in a hitter's paradise isn't exactly impressive. He gave them very good defense and was productive on the basepaths. Nothing else about his season was great or even good. As for outhitting Iguchi, they had the exact same OPS this season. Matsui just did it with a higher batting average. Hideki Matsui has been good. However, I think some people expected a little more power out of him than he's shown since coming over from Japan.

The difference in production between Guillen and a full season of Murton is not worth the massive difference in their salaries.

I would argue that when you give up 13 runs in one loss and seven in another, it's not necessarily the opponent's pitching and defense that's beating you. The one Boston loss you could attribute to Cleveland's pitching was Game 3, which was 4-2. Jake Westbrook started that game for Cleveland. He's no more of a dominating pitcher than Ted Lilly or Rich Hill. He just happened to have a good game.

I don't believe they can. I think I read somewhere that there was a clause in his contract that stated the Reds can't deal him until sometime in June if they picked up his option. Edited to add: This is where I saw it: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/10/dunns-option-li.html

If you consider the comments in the last few pages about Theriot as love, you have a very low threshold for love. Most of the people who have anything good to say about him just say he may not turn out to be awful or that he is a better option than Cedeno. Hardly could be classified as love. Kind of like how the person who created the thread thinks that people want to run Theriot out of town when in reality, most people just don't want him starting.

Perhaps if you read through the thread you'd see how he went about putting these lists together instead of making incorrect assumptions regarding his method.

HBP definitely needs to be included. Also, if possible, number of foul balls per plate appearance...because gritty players can apparently fight off pitches. Edited to add: a lower GRIT factor would be bad. In the scenario you painted, a player who is 72 inches tall would have a lower grit factor than a shorter player.

How does Cedeno earn it? Why has Theriot earned *anything* since he's been below average? Neither one has earned anything. However, based upon what we have seen at the majors from both of them Theriot has outperformed Cedeno. Everyone seems to think that by getting to start everyday Cedeno is magically going to transform into a better player. It didn't help him in 2006, and this year he had the same opportunity as Izturis and Theriot to win the starting job. In essesnce your options are between below average and terrible. None of them had a legit opportunity. Lou shuffled them around for a bit at the beginning of the season. All of a sudden, Theriot gets a start on 4/13 and gets three hits. After that, he pretty much became the starter. From that day through 5/19, he put up a line of .322/.379/.397, which no one here is complaining about. However, when he put up a line of .183/.240/.247 over the following month, no one else got a chance. Cedeno's "chance" consisted of seven starts, only two of them consecutive, over the course of a month. He slumps, he doesn't get a chance to come out of it. Theriot hits like a pitcher (not named Owings or Zambrano) for a month, and he gets to play through it.

Without the starting pitching they had, the Cubs never would have been to the NLDS in the first place. They were second in the NL in overall ERA and starting ERA. Offense is a much bigger problem with this team. While no one would complain if they improved upon the starting pitching, they need to make sure they still have enough money/resources to upgrade the offense. If the Cubs blow a ton of money on starting pitching this offseason, those pitchers are still going to struggle due to lack of run support.

Theriot has a limited ceiling based on his past performance and his age. He's in what are normally a player's prime years. His minor league numbers do not indicate any major improvement over his current numbers. Compare these numbers: Cedeno at AAA (age 22 and 24) 532 AB, .357/.413/.528, 18 HR, 50 BB, 77 K Ryan Theriot at AAA (age 26) 280 AB, .304/.367/.379, 0 HR, 27 BB, 34 K Cedeno has out-produced Theriot by a fairly wide margin at a younger age at the highest level of the minors. No one expects him to produce those numbers at the major league level, but being younger affords him a little more time to put it together before he reaches his prime years. If he can carry over some of that success to the major league level, he could be a solid player. And I wish people would quit saying the job was his at the beginning of 2007. A few starts here and there is not a legitimate shot. As for Gary Scott, he didn't put up anywhere near those numbers in the minors. Mike Harkey's lack of success was due in part to numerous injuries.

I don't understand why you're just focusing on power, since no one else here is. His lack of power is certainly a concern, but people wouldn't care about that nearly as much if he actually got on base at a decent rate. If Theriot put up an OBP like Reggie Willits, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead, he gets on base about 32 percent of the time, and that's just not acceptable for a guy who really doesn't bring anything else to the table offensively other than speed (which isn't all that useful if you're not on base to use it). His defense is okay, but nothing spectacular, so it's not like he's making up for his lack of offense with his glove.

Performing worse than 21 other everyday shortstops at the age of 27 and with limited potential for improvement shouldn't entitle him to keep his starting job next season. If he put those numbers up as a 24-year old and had a minor league track record that even hinted at the possibility of much better things to come, this would be an entirely different discussion.

I know goony pointed out Theriot's rankings among NL shortstops earlier, but just to put this in perspective again, here how Theriot stacked up against all qualifying ML shortstops (26 shortstops in total): OPS: .672 (22nd) OBP: .326 (17th) SLG: .346 (25th) BA: .266 (19th) Now, you may not view his offensive numbers as horrible, but compared to other ML shortstops, his numbers were pretty bad.

I wouldn't mind his lack of power if he could put up an OBP on the right side of .350. Yes, the steals are nice, and the fact that he doesn't get caught often helps. And Furcal was chopped liver this year, of course he also battled some injuries. The only reason to compare them would be to point out that the Cubs received sub-par offensive production from the SS position for a fraction of the cost the Dodgers paid for it. Of course, you want good defense from the SS position. You also don't want it to be a black hole offensively. Could the Cubs continue to win with Theriot at SS? Sure. But in order to increase the odds of that happening, they need to significantly upgrade the offense at other positions to offset Theriot's lack of production. The Cubs biggest holes in 2007 were CF, C, and SS (I'm not saying RF couldn't improve, but it wasn't near the problem those three positions were). They have a top prospect in Pie that they don't want to block in CF, so anyone they bring in would be short-term. All signs point to Soto being ready to take over at catcher. That leaves SS as a place you might look to improve long-term by bringing someone in from outside the organization starting in 2008.

:lol:

You used fielding percentage to say he fielded well and then pretty much summed up why it's not a great stat to evaluate fielding (not that there is a really good stat for it). I'm not saying he did a bad job defensively. He was adequate with the glove. As for comparing Murton to Theriot, you can credit one of the guys who is actually for keeping Theriot as the starting SS. As for Theriot's minor league numbers after 2005, yes they are better than pre-2005. They still aren't all that impressive though. Zero power and an OK OBP. His celing screams "utility guy." All people are saying is that if the Cubs aren't going to upgrade that position by bringing someone new in, it shouldn't automatically be assumed that Theriot is the starting SS going into 2008. His performance this season shouldn't guarantee him a starting job next year.

Isn't that exactly what happened this year. Cedeno's 2006 numbers were abysmal. Izturis would have been an upgrade. This year, Lou was looking for a player to step up and claim the SS position after Izturis failed to impress anyone. Instead of stepping up Cedeno tanked to start the season. Its not like Cedeno hasn't been given extended looks. Out of all of the options this year Theriot was the most productive. He was the most productive because he was the only one given a legit chance to play. It's not like Cedeno crapped the bed in spring training: Cedeno: .328/.427/.516, 64 AB, 11/11 BB/K (3 errors) Theriot: .347/.405/.520, 75 AB, 7/7 BB/K (4 errors) Izturis: .311/.436/.356, 45 AB, 10/2 BB/K (2 errors) He wasn't given much of a chance to play in April, getting a few starts here and there and coming in occasionally very late in ballgames. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has argued that his 2006 numbers were good. However, when you factor in Cedeno's age and minor league success combined with Theriot's very sub-par performance this season, Cedeno deserves a legitimate shot at earning the starting job in 2008, provided that the Cubs don't bring someone that would amount to a major upgrade at that position. If he doesn't perform, they can fall back on Theriot until they can bring in a legitimate starting shortstop.

He doesn't hit well enough for the outfield, and he doesn't field the position well enough to get away with diminished batting production. Dimished batting production? The guy has been a great second-half player, putting up a post-ASB OPS of over .900 the past two seasons. The fact that he's 26 next season and has shown success at the major league level suggests that he could be a productive player at a low cost for this team. I'm still trying to figure out why he was sent down. He was essentially relegated to pinch-hitting duties in early June following a good May, and then he gets sent down. Not to take anything away from Cliff Floyd, who was OK offensively, but Murton should not have been platooned after how he performed in 2006. They either should have gotten a major upgrade or just let him play everyday. Same thing applies to 2008...either go big or let Murton play.

There's a difference between turning on someone and pointing out the obvious. You just can't win with some people on this board (and I'm not singling you out on this). You point out a player's lack of production, you're being overly critical. You support giving a young player a shot when there is currently no suitable replacement on the roster, people claim that you're saying he's the greatest player ever. Seriously, unless the Cubs can bring in a significant upgrade a SS from outside the organization, Cedeno should be given a legitimate shot to win the job. If he falls on his face, the Cubs can revert back to Theriot until you can find an upgrade somewhere. As for Murton, people like him because he has shown the ability to produce. He got sporadic playing time in April and struggled. He picked up the pace and had a solid May. He got a combined 21 plate appearances between June and July, spending most of that at AAA for some reason. He was very good in August and Sept. I don't think anyone would object to an upgrade in RF, but Murton isn't going to handicap this team offensively.

David Kelton mashed AAA pitching? Kelton's AAA OPS is in the mid .700s in just under 1400 at-bats. His best single-season OPS at AAA was .784.

It's not as bad as his Arod homerun call. That sound haunts my nightmares. "It's an A-BOMB!!! From A-Rod!!! The Matsui one is worse.

Renteria is a better fit and will be much cheaper. Marshall plus Cedeno/Theriot ought to get it done. How are Renteria and Tejada better fits than a player that is so much better than either of them? If someone wanted to argue that acquiring them is more realistic than acquiring A-Rod, that's one thing. One could even argue the fact that they're less expensive, giving the Cubs money to go out and improve the team in other areas. But to say either of them is a better fit than adding arguably the best player in the game just doesn't make sense.

The same bad strike zone discipline that led him to a .302/.386/.554 line in the second half? Derrek Lee first half: 5.6 PA/K 9.1 PA/BB Derrek Lee second half: 5.8 PA/K 9.2 PA/BB I'm not seeing the poor second-half discipline.