fromthestretch

And there's a great chance it's not going to turn out to be as good as we all hope and pray that it will. How is it cynical? You tell me what team is going to give something of value up for Jacque Jones at his current level of production. Seriously, if any team is willing to deal something of actual value for Jones, then that means one of two things: 1. Jones is actually earning his contract and producing well. 2. Jim Bowden is the GM of the team he's being traded to. Given his level of production the last two seasons, I'd say the chances of #1 aren't exactly in his favor. That's just it though, both of those guys are actually worth giving up something for. Wilkerson has a much better OBP and more power (last season's forearm injury notwithstanding), while Mench is younger than Jones and already produces as well if not better. I'm not bashing Jones, at least not intentionally. He is what he is, and there's really no mistaking what he does and doesn't bring to the table. What I am doing is stating what should be obvious...it's a bad contract and there were other options available for less time and possibly less money. Is there a chance Jones can turn things around and get back to at least the numbers he posted in 2002 and 2003? Certainly. I just don't understand how anyone can look at his 2004 and 2005 numbers and actually expect him to do so. I sure as hell hope he proves me wrong. I really do.

Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107. Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong. Uh, the numbers posted for '03-'05 are 106, 90, and 99, average of 98. Whoops! Well that mathematical gaffe aside, the point remains: the MLB free agent marketplace indicates that Jones has very similar value to Dye (and Wilson, for that matter). If GMs implicitly project similar all-around production from these guys, then why shouldn't we? Why is Jones ~= Dye (not strictly in terms of OPS+, but overall) seen as an unreasonable expectation? It's not unreasonable to expect them to put up similar numbers, although looking at the last two years for Jones, I certainly wouldn't bet money on him to produce at the same level as Dye. As far as Wilson goes, you just kind of proved my point. It GMs project similar all-around production from these guys, and they're pretty much the same age, how can you justify a three-year deal for one while the other was willing to sign for a one-year deal? Were the Cubs really that hellbent on getting another left-handed bat that they had to offer three years?

Jones isn't exactly Mr. Contact himself. He strikes out once every 4.7 at bats. At least Nomar has some offensive upside. I wasn't aware there was a team option on Wilson. If he has a good season, pick it up. If he doesn't, so be it. I don't see the upside of being able to trade Jones for AA roster filler while still eating his contract in 2007. Like I said, had they given him a one-year deal, I wouldn't be nearly as upset with this. Had they signed him to play CF and acquired a good bat for RF, I'd be much happier with it. Three years though is just plain wrong. I'm not saying that the Cubs could have made an offer that another team would have liked, but I would have preferred making a reasonable trade for someone like Mench or Wilkerson.

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy. Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return. I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year. How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)? It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all. 1. Wilson, if his knees are at least ok, is a better offensive threat than Jones. He hits for more power than Jones. He walks more than Jones. And, based on contract value, he apparantly costs $1 million less over the course of one season than Jones. Jones is better defensively. 2. Things change season-to-season. GOOD outfielders that aren't available now may be at the end of the 2006 season, whether it's via free agency or via trade. 3. If Wilson proves to be healthy and productive, you have the option of offering a contract extension. With Jones, you're already locked into two more years, good or bad. 4. If Wilson proves to be heatlhy and productive and decides to leave via free agency, then you might get a draft pick out of it. Chances are, you're better off with the draft pick than some 24 year-old left-hander with an 87 mph fastball who hasn't pitched above High A that you might get in return for Jones. But hey, at least he'll probably have good command.

Well stated. It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option. That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.). The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy. Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return. I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year.

Funny, I think that's exactly what makes Pat and Ron a great combo. Like the night Ron was giving the pitching matchups against the Brewers and trying to figure out who the Cubs used to have that reminded him so much of Ruben Quevedo. We all knew it was Ruben himself, and Pat gently got Ron there too. Ron may not be the most informative, but he and Pat together make the broadcasts interesting. As a color analyst, he's supposed to bring more to the table than odd ramblings and incoherent/incorrect observations. If it were a 3 man booth where Pat did his thing, Ron did his, and there was an insightful color guy, it would be a lot better. My standards are higher than just bringing enthusiasm and passion. Any fan pulled out of the stands can do that. Glad to know I'm not the only one that feels this way. Let me add, I like Santo as a person. Seems like a wonderful guy. However, the broadcast booth probably isn't the best place for him. I wasn't a big fan of Hughes' style at first. But after listening to him for quite a few years now, I've realized that he does a very good job. Factor in the patience he displays when having a conversation with Santo, and you begin to realize that the Cubs are lucky to have him in the booth.

Whether or not Grudz deserved more playing time or not, is another debate. However, that's the primary reason Walker only had 372 at-bats in 2004. While he did have an injury that season, he was there enough to get nearly a full season's worth of plate appearances. I don't think you can count that against him when judging his durability. As for last season, we all know how he got hurt. The only thing that would worry me moving forward is how well his knee will hold up as he ages. Anytime you have an injury like that, there can be lingering effects. That said, the guy has been durable throughout his career.

His injury in 2005 was due to an baserunner roughly the size of a tank sliding into his knee at full speed. While he did miss some time in 2004, he would have had nearly a full season's worth of at-bats had Baker not given Grudzielanek a lot of playing time. He may not be quite as durable as he once was, but he's fully capable of playing 145+ games. No doubt in my mind about that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Independent of the teams they play on, I'd give the nod to A-Gon. As goony mentioned, A-Gon has played essentially half his games in a park that is not kind to hitters. That's not to say he'd have won a batting title in any other stadium, but park effects do have to be taken into account. Perez played roughly the equivalent of five full seasons in Coors. Last year was by far his best season outside of Colorado, and his numbers weren't exactly impressive. The bottom line is that neither player is very good offensively and both are very good defensively. A-Gon hits for more power, and at this stage in his career is basically the same as Neifi when it comes to getting on base.

Len: "And as we head into the 5th, it'll be Maddux, Perez, and Patterson." That's probably the best answer to a question I've ever seen on here.

They better hope Madson can step it up as a starter. Outside of Myers, that is one mediocre rotation.

I'll give you everyone in the top 9 except Cano and Freel. Cano could become better than Walker, but at this stage he's not. Freel actually isn't all that great defensively at 2B. Has more speed than Walker but much less power. At best, he's probably on par with Walker. You certainly could argue that he's more valuable though since he's adequate at a few different positions. I'd agree that Biggio is better...more speed, a little more power, better defense. Eckstein's a shortstop. Weeks will most likely be better offensively. Defensively, he'll most likely be an outfielder within five years. Soriano definitely brings more power. Defensively, there's a very good reason why teams are trying to move him to LF. Hudson is light years ahead of Walker defenisvely. Slightly below him offensively. If Hudson could get his OBP back up to where it was in 2004, if not a little higher, then he'd be more in line with Walker offensively. Ginter? No thanks. He's no better with the glove at 2B, and outside of having a little more power, I don't think he's better than Walker with the bat. I'll give the edge to Polanco, especially with the way he's progressed the last three seasons. Belliard, Durham, and Iguchi are probably the best comparisons. Kennedy, as well, if he can get some of his home run power back.

Anyone remember John VanderWal? Never had over 250 at-bats in a season until he was 34. Goes to Pittsburgh, gets a career-high 461 plate appearances, and had a very good season. The next year, gets 526 plate appearances, and while his numbers fell a little, he still put up a productive .270/.364/.442.

It's like Foo Fighters. But with Ham.

Of course. It's certainly possible that Pierre will out-perform Michaels. But considering the price tag for both players, what you'd have to give up in a trade to get each one, length of current contracts, and what each player brings to the table, can you really say that Pierre is worth that much more than Michaels?

While it's certainly possible there is something wrong with him, I don't put much stock into the judgement of a team that limited his at-bats in favor of Marlon Byrd and his crappy numbers. As with any player, how can people say that "he's just not an everyday" player, when he's never even been given the opportunity to prove that statement true or false? It would be one thing if Michaels was flat out terrible against right-handed pitching, but he's not.

Michaels career: .291/.380/.442/.822, 113 OPS+ Pierre's best season ever: .326/.374/.407/.781, 107 OPS+ Michaels has been the superior offensive player. The only argument you could make is that Michaels for some reason wouldn't duplicate those numbers over the course of a full season. His numbers v. RHP are pretty much the high end of what to expect from Pierre, so his splits aren't any help in that aspect either. Oh, i think I have quite an argument in Pierre's favor that centers on speed on the basepaths as well. A little number that is in Pierre's favor by a landslide, yet hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread. Any objective discussion comparing the two players should obviously contain talk of stolen bases. Especially when we are talking lead off hitters here. Speed only matters if you're actually on base to use it. His OBP has been respectable/good for four of his six seasons. It's been subpar twice. There's a good chance that Michaels could outperform Pierre (outside of stolen bases) if given the same opportunity.

So are you predicting that the Cubs will reach the playoffs and be eliminated in six games? :wink:

Perhaps it's due to the same mindset that Dusty and Hendry appear to have: a leadoff man has to be fast/steal bases. If given the same opportunity as Pierre, I'd say that Michaels is just as likely to put up a .350+ OBP. I don't think Hairston and Michaels are comparable. Michaels has put up a decent OBP in every season (not including his six at-bats in 2001). Hairston has been inconsistent. How did Michaels not "step up?" His numbers were fine; he just wasn't given the opportunity to play everyday. You can't fault Michaels for the fact that the Phillies were dumb enough to give Marlon Byrd 346 at-bats to post a stellar .287 OBP in 2004. I'm kind of curious as to why everyone just dismisses Pierre's 2005 as a fluke when he was also bad in 2002. For the record, I do feel Pierre can bounce back, but I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if his OBP reaches .360 this season. Michaels is certainly capable of that, better defensively, and probably wouldn't have cost the Cubs three arms in a trade.

That's why it makes it difficult for me to believe that he has "no drive or passion."

About as well as Huff would. While Huff should be an everyday third baseman, he wouldn't kill the team if he had to play there for a week or two if Ramirez got hurt. I'd prefer him there than Mabry. Huff gives you a lot more options than Jones. Technically, Huff can play multiple positions but he's a defensive liability in all of them. I just realized a rather important typo in my previous post. It should read, "While Huff shouldn't be an everyday third baseman..." I agree he's not good defensively, but there are plenty of "utility" guys that are rather bad at the positions they play. He also might become a little better (key word "little") if a team actually let him consistently play the same position for a couple years instead of moving him all over the place (and that position should probably be 1B or LF). If Ramirez misses time this year or simply needs a day off here and there, the Cubs options for third base are Mabry and probably Neifi. I'd prefer Huff to either. I doubt Baker would consider Walker or even Hairston as backup options for 3B, unless it was an absolute emergency.

This could lead to Heilman being dealt. Or more likely, Heilman is heading to the rotation. While I think they consider that an option, they'd prefer to have him pitch in relief. If they can't add another starter via trade or free agency, then they'll probably make him the fifth member of the rotation. Despite Heilman's desire to start, he's been more effective as a reliever.

About as well as Huff would. While Huff should be an everyday third baseman, he wouldn't kill the team if he had to play there for a week or two if Ramirez got hurt. I'd prefer him there than Mabry. Huff gives you a lot more options than Jones.

This could lead to Heilman being dealt.

Newsday I think it's a good deal for the Mets. I've never thought that Benson was all that great, and Maine has a chance to be decent.