CubColtPacer

I guess that since Izturis has 35 points better OBP that must mean Neifi is the better hitter-and this is an Izturis trying to come back from an injury.

It can hurt. Because he's signed through 2007, at least, and is really bad at what the Cubs need people to be really good at. I would have taken nobody for Maddux over a deal like this. This hurts the team. I'd have taken a C prospect who doesn't even affect the organization. Who did you want to play SS next year? How do questions like this address the issue? Who else did you want to play? What else did you want for Maddux? If you are going to go with no production at SS, you might as well pay minimum wage (Cedeno) and spend money on other positions. If you are going to spend money on SS, you better get some production. Izturis is expensive and a drag on the offense. This offense can't afford anymore "contributors" who cannot get on base. Why is this so complicated for people? Because the thought is that Izturis and Cedeno both cannot produce offensively, so that must mean they are the same. They are not. Izturis is better offensively and defensively by a pretty good margin. They both have upside still. Will it be enough to justify what is being paid? I don't know-maybe not. Izturis on the team is a definite upgrade from Cedeno at short though, and it's a pretty decent upgrade. If we put Cedeno at second next year, that will be our huge mistake that will be the biggest part in destroying the offense, because his bat is weaker than Izturis's.

Park factors come into play here. Neifi has not been a more productive career hitter than Izturis. But it's sickeningly close. Career OPS+ Neifi: 65 Izturis: 69 True, but that includes Neifi's 3 or so productive years in the prime of his career. Yes, he did have a couple-his OPS from 1997 and 2001 would be 8th among shortstops this year, and his OPS from 2000 was an average shortstop. The Neifi that of today is a shell of that average shortstop Neifi, and Izturis had career path numbers pre-injury to be better than Neifi at any point in his career. You are talking about Coors Field Perez, when his OPS+ (adjusted for park factors) were still in the 60-70 range. The Neifi of today is very much like the Neifi of yesteryear, which is to stay, he's always stunk and he still stinks. Ok..that's fine then. That means Izturis has always been better than Neifi. He has a higher OPS+, while Neifi has the entire prime of his career in there while most of Izturis's at bats have come when he was 23 years old or younger. That's precisely what I'm saying-that Izturis is and always will be better than Neifi. Will he be a great hitting shortstop? No. Does he have a career stat path that says if he can come back from his injury the same that he could be an average hitting shortstop? I believe so-the improvement every single year of his career until a decent shorstop year was had (2004), and then an incredible start to 2005 (which was a little over his head) until he got hurt. He hasn't had enough at bats since the injury to really see what he can do, but if he is healthy and can produce 2 or 3 more 700 OPS+ seasons (which he did in 2004 and 2005 before he tried to play hurt for 2 months-and considering he was 24 years old and 25 years old then, it makes sense that he could replicate those numbers at 27, 28, 29 with a dropoff at 30-32), then he will still be better offensively then 10 of the shortstops out there (just looking at the stats this year-a .700 OPS makes you the 19th best shortstop). His defense will make him an average to above average shortstop at that point.

Park factors come into play here. Neifi has not been a more productive career hitter than Izturis. But it's sickeningly close. Career OPS+ Neifi: 65 Izturis: 69 True, but that includes Neifi's 3 or so productive years in the prime of his career. Yes, he did have a couple-his OPS from 1997 and 2001 would be 8th among shortstops this year, and his OPS from 2000 was an average shortstop. The Neifi that of today is a shell of that average shortstop Neifi, and Izturis had career path numbers pre-injury to be better than Neifi at any point in his career.

There is a lot of questioning on what Izturis will do offensively, so why not predict both what he does the last two months of the year (not counting his 119 ABs with the Dodgers) and what he will do in 2007 on offense. I will start This Year .261/.309/.355 Next Year .280/.328/.373

Who knows for sure that Cedeno will be the starting second baseman next year? I know he will be there for August and September-but it's not sure if Cedeno will be there next year.

I think part of it might actually be because there are less day games than West Coast games-and so less teams have to worry about taking their players out of the game in the middle of the game if they decide to trade them at the deadline.

I think the big question is how does he come back from his injury? Here has what he has done over his career OBP wise. 2002 (first full time year-age 22)-.253 OBP 2003 (second full time year-age 23)-.282 OBP 2004 (age 24)-.330 OBP 2005 (age 25)-.302 overall-remember though, this number is skewed. Izturis played almost half the season with injuries-so let me divide it into pre injury and post injury (pre injury-.387 OBP, with injuries-.218 OBP) 2006 (age 26)-he has a .302 OBP-remember for this one-this is only based on 119 at bats that are coming off his injury-he only came back in late June, so this number could end up being very different one way or the other by the end of the season. I see some hope in this deal because of this reason. Izturis has continually improved his numbers every year until the injuries caught up with him. Do I think he can hit as well as the beginning of 2005? No-that would have been an absolute career year for him just like it was for Lee. If he can come back healthy though, I think he can come back to that .330 OBP or maybe even a little more. He is just entering the prime of his career now, and I think it might be likely that he returns to those numbers-is it for sure? No-but I think his career .295 is a little misleading (because half of those at bats came when he was extremely young, and some when injured) and also his .302 the last year and a half, because he has been hurt most of the last year. In short, we have a player that continued to improve at the plate every year he was in the majors, got hurt in a career year (.387 OBP), and is now coming back from that injury and trying to regain that hitting stroke. I'm not sure we really will know what we have until 2007 as he probably will continue to be gaining his hitting stroke the rest of this year, but I think you might be pleasantly surprised in 07.

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy. However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time. In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy. Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk. But the walk is more repeatable/predictive than the hit. In a vacuum .300/.350 is more valuable than .280/.350, but because of defenses and luck(i.e. BABIP), the .280/.350 is more likely to continue to put up a .350 OBP(or just the better OBP of the two players) than the .300/.350. If you're just taking that in isolation though, wouldn't the hitter with .300/.350 be just as likely to hit .320/.370 as .280/.330? I agree that the hitter who is the .280/350 guy is more likely to put up a .350 OBP, but I think that the higher average guy has just as much chance of having a higher average the next season as having a lower one.

I'm not saying Izturis is this great hitter. What I am saying is that to compare him with Neifi and Cedeno is unfair. He had a decent season for a shortstop in 2004. He was playing great in 2005, and yes he was mentioned for MVP-hitting .348 and leading the majors in total hits is pretty decent. He played hurt, had the awful month of June, and went under the knife. Since then, he's only had a little over 100 at bats to show what he can do. He doesn't even have to return to anywhere near 2005 pre-injury form, he just needs to return to 2004 (which is certainly possible-he was only 24 at the time, next year he'll be 27 and moving into his prime, which has been delayed slightly by the injury), he can become an average shortstop offensively. If he does that, then he will be immensely valuable because of his stellar defense at one of the positions that defense has a higher value at. Really, am I alone in thinking that he can return to the stats of a year in which he was 24 that he was doing better than in 2005 before his injury?

Yes, but at least Izturis is 25-30 points better OBP, more if he can come back to the form he was in before the injury. He was still quite bad in his career year. If Hendry is thinking of keeping Izturis, Cedeno, and Neifi around for the middle infield next year, it might be one of the worst middle infields in club history. I would agree with that, but that is only partially due to Izturis. He is easily the best player of the three. There is no way that they should move Cedeno to second though-the holes in his defense will be almost just as bad, and the good parts of his defense will be almost completely wasted. We are going to have to trade him now for something, and pick up a more offensive minded second baseman-if Hendry goes with Cedeno there, that is where I will be really upset.

whaaa? You don't remember that? Last year, at the end of May, Izturis was a top 3 MVP candidate. I remember distinctly because we played the Dodgers, and Izturis was mentioned as one of the candidates at that time. He was batting about .341 or so, was leading the major leagues in hits, and of course his great defense at short. Then of course he got hurt and continued to play, and had one of the worst June's that the game has ever seen-but at the end of 2 months, Cesar was up in that range. Through the end of may last year... 1) Derrek Lee was in another stratosphere of production with absolutely crazy numbers. Easy MVP selection above everyone else. but... 2) Pujols already had 25 HR and a crazy good OPS 3) Miguel Cabrera was hitting over .350 with an OBP of around .445. He also had 39 runs and 43 RBI in those two months. There were a whole bunch of other guys like Delgado, Helton, Bay, Junior and so forth that were putting up good numbers through that time, as well. If someone were pitching Cesar as a top 3 MVP candidate at the time, they were either just aggrandizing to entertain the viewers or they were smoking something. Pujols only had 12 HR last year at the end of May, not 25. Were you maybe thinking of this year? Also, if Izturis had pushed those same stats out to a whole year, his numbers would have been very similar to Ichiro's MVP campaign. He probably wouldn't have won it, but he certainly would have been considered a candidate.

I think Cedeno gets the rest of the year to prove he can handle 2B defensively and start making the adjustments to be a productive major league hitter. If not, I think Hendry either uses him as a trading chip or he gets more of a utility role next season. Even if he can handle second base defensively, he will be subpar offensively there...even more so than he would have been at SS. It's likely that if we pencil in Cedeno/Izturis at 2b/SS, we'll have two hitters, both with a line that when optimistic is 288/301/344. That's atrocious. I think that's undervaluing Izturis especially. He has had an OBP there or better each of the last three years, and better slugging then that two out of the last 3 years. That includes having half of his at bats last year being hurt. I see Izturis as more of a .280/.323/.365 hitter-still bad, but not nearly as bad for the offense.

Yes, but at least Izturis is 25-30 points better OBP, more if he can come back to the form he was in before the injury.

whaaa? You don't remember that? Last year, at the end of May, Izturis was a top 3 MVP candidate. I remember distinctly because we played the Dodgers, and Izturis was mentioned as one of the candidates at that time. He was batting about .341 or so, was leading the major leagues in hits, and of course his great defense at short. Then of course he got hurt and continued to play, and had one of the worst June's that the game has ever seen-but at the end of 2 months, Cesar was up in that range.

Cedeno has stuggled this season defensively, but every Dodger fan I've talked to says that Izturis is amazing defensively. There have been multiple people say that he is comparable to Visquel with the glove. If only he would be with the bat, the Cubs might have something. I too am waiting to see what happens in the off-season. I don't think the Cubs can afford to have a middle infield of Izturis and Cedeno without greatly improving their outfield production and retaining Ramirez's services. They will also likely need to sign a really good starter as well. That's a lot to expect Hendry to do given his past two off seasons. We'll see. Actually Izturis has been better then Visquel with the bat at similar times in their careers. Visquel was 29 years old before he put his first over .700 OPS. Izturis had 1 at 24, and would have done it again at 25 and probably better if he hadn't gotten hurt. Who knows if he can come back and be the same player, but he definitely was developing faster than Visquel did.

2006 numbers: Perez: .256 avg Izturis: .252 avg Perez: .625 OPS Izturis: .655 OPS Career numbers: Perez: .270, .678 Izturis: .260, .634 It looks to me like Neifi is actually BETTER than Izturis. Which is the saddest thing I've ever written. Those numbers are extremely skewed though. Izturis is 26 years old where most of his major league numbers came when he was 21, 22, and 23. He had his best year when he was 24, was mentioned as an MVP candidate at the end of May last year, and then got hurt and went into a major tailspin before they finally shut him down. This season's numbers mean almost nothing-he has had only something like 120 AB's after coming back from injury. Give him some time, he might come back to 2004 numbers or better.

Cedeno has stuggled this season defensively, but every Dodger fan I've talked to says that Izturis is amazing defensively. There have been multiple people say that he is comparable to Visquel with the glove.

OK, let's look at this. Izturis's OBP was 330 in 2004. He had a .302 OBP last year-and would have probably been at least .330 again if he had not been hurt (.370 in April, .402 in May-he would have definitely cooled down from there, but he certainly wouldn't have dropped as much as he did if he hadn't gotten hurt). The reasonable thing we can expect in 2007 is probably between a .310-.340 OBP. He is 26 now, so he might still be getting better. This is a player who you can easily have in your starting lineup and have him be productive. The trick is we need to get more offensive talent at other positions. If we do that, Izturis is about what Cedeno's upside is anyway at least to me. This is an upgrade at shortstop with a much higher cost, but a severe downgrade if it just means we move Cedeno to second-for 2007. Moving Cedeno to second really doesn't make sense-he can't hit, his best thing about his defense is his range, which would be much less valuable at second, and his errors come from his throwing-which will be almost as bad from second. So, if we can sign a big bat for second base instead of Cedeno, we will be getting a slightly better hitter with much better defense at short.

Does anybody know if he played for a while before realizing he was hurt last year? I see that he put up a .370 OBP in April last year and a .402 April in May, followed by a .154 in June. Was he playing hurt then? If so, he still might have a chance to at least get up to a .320-.335 OBP or so. He put up a .330 when he was 24, was playing better than that at 25, got hurt-and has had limited at bats this year some of them coming back from an injury. He at least has the chance to be good.

The people on the Dodger board are actually comparing Izturis to a young Omar Vizquel-they said he is getting better with the bat just like Omar did. I'm pretty sure I don't believe it, but I guess it makes me feel marginally better about the deal-doesn't mean I like it though.

This is funny-I've never seen a deal where both teams fans hate it worse then this. I've been going on to the Dodgers message boards to try to gauge their reaction, and I'm seeing a lot of the same thing, although more toned down then this. Needless to say, 85 percent of them hate the deal also. It's all very confusing.

Ok..now we have Izturis, and he is pretty terrible. What is the most reasonable best case scenario? The only thing I can think of is that Izturis replaces Cedeno after the season at short and then they sign a second baseman. It's still worse than what we were yesterday, but it is possible they do that. I can't think of any other scenario that is decent at all.

CBS Sportsline says Izturis right on the top of their front page.

The only thing I've found on him so far is just impressions from a message board. They said that he was a big kid with a mid 90's fastball who could move fast through the system (of course, the Padres at the time).