CubsWin

I couldn't agree more, CubinNY. This is the most responsible way to communicate to the fans what stage a rehabbing player is at.

I don't think the Cubs will bring up Pie unless there are some major injuries to their OFers. Pie needs the work at the AAA level, and a hot start is just that, a hot start. Lets see what his numbers are like in late-June before we talk about whether he is ready for the jump to the bigs.

Yep.

i don't care if it's persuasive, i said i didn't want to have an argument about this in the minor league game thread. Then why accuse me of manipulating stats, mention only career numbers and not look any deeper into his stats in the first place? Doesn't add up. Anyway, we are each welcome to our opinions and, you are absolutely right, the minor league forum isn't the best place for this discussion. Go Cubs! the reason i don't look deeper into his stats is b/c there's nothing to see. he's bad and his stats are bad, bad, bad with the exception of a good part of '04 and maybe half of 2005. and he absolutely sucked today. sucked. but it's not that surprising b/c he's sucked for the majority of his career. hill or guzman needs to be called up, and they both pitched great this week. I thought you said you didn't want to have this discussion in this forum? I'll PM you.

i don't care if it's persuasive, i said i didn't want to have an argument about this in the minor league game thread. Then why accuse me of manipulating stats, mention only career numbers and not look any deeper into his stats in the first place? Doesn't add up. Anyway, we are each welcome to our opinions and, you are absolutely right, the minor league forum isn't the best place for this discussion. Go Cubs!

yet somehow his numbers suck. weird. Wow, 6-2 3.47 sucks? Last year, he had a period of about two months where he struggled, but then found it again at the end of the year. And prior to that two month period, he was really good. If you allow yourself to conclude that he fixed whatever was wrong, he can rightfully be expected to be a dependable starter someone who will give you a good to quality start much of time. That's my argument for why over the last two seasons he has been on about 75% of the time and he has the good numbers to prove it. You just have to look at little deeper to find them. in other words, you have to manipulate the numbers. yeah, just take out a two month stretch...no big deal. why don't we take out 1997-2003? his numbers look even better then. his career era of 4.90, his career whip of 1.47, the two month stretch that he sucked last year, his first start against cincy. i guess that's it. i've argued the rusch sucks argument a hundred times before, i don't want to argue it any further and soil the minor league forum. Come on, abuck, I acknowledged that two month period. I didn't manipulate anything and you know it. How disappointing. If his two month stretch of not performing well had been interspersed throughout last season then he would have been inconsistent and mediocre all season long and his performance in '04 could accurately be painted as a fluke. But the fact of the matter is that his performance wasn't mediocre all year long. He was quite good, then he struggled and then he apparently figured out what was wrong. Those are the facts. I'm not making them up. But if you feel that the last two years can be thrown out and would rather base your opinion of him on his career numbers, be my guest. Take the negative road and make out Cubs management as dumb for not going with the obvious choice of Hill over Rusch. I choose to see the bigger picture that includes the good stuff as well. Rusch has been effective about 75% of the time over that last two seasons and the numbers support that statement. He isn't great, but he is likely a safer bet to perform now than Hill is due to Hill's performance at the end of last season and this spring. I also believe that Rusch will not be able to hold off Hill or some other prospect all year long. He's just not that good. But making false accusations of manipulating stats, rattling off only career numbers and being unwilling to look at little deeper into Rusch's numbers don't make a very persuasive argument in my book.

yet somehow his numbers suck. weird. Wow, 6-2 3.47 sucks? Last year, he had a period of about two months where he struggled, but then found it again at the end of the year. And prior to that two month period, he was really good. If you allow yourself to conclude that he fixed whatever was wrong, he can rightfully be expected to be a dependable starter someone who will give you a good to quality start much of time. That's my argument for why over the last two seasons he has been on about 75% of the time and he has the good numbers to prove it. You just have to look at little deeper to find them. What's your argument that he sucks?

Probably because Hill has shown little mental toughness and focus while with the big league club and when Rusch is on he is on. And he has been on about 75% of his starts in the last two seasons. That said, I don't think Rusch will be in the rotation all year. He will be replaced by somebody soon enough.

Hill's day is done. Final line: 6 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 1 ER, 0 BB, 6 K, 1 HR. Not too shabby.

I agree. They also don't take into account the home stadium the player was playing in at the time or adjustsments the player's has made to his swing. Sometimes players gain a new level of mastery over a new pitch or hitting the inside fastball in the case of DLee and it leads to a whole new level of production. Regressive projections fail to take developments like those into account. Go see the baseball discussions thread on this topic: PECOTA has his stats progressing, regressing and then progressing again. That's really helpful. Are you referring to his projected production progessing, regressing and then progressing again? Or are you referring to the method of projection? I was referring to the method used to create a projection, a method based solely on his previous statistics and thus called a regressive projection. Such a projection doesn't take into account the ballpark the player was playing in at the time or adjustments he has made such as mastering a new pitch or hitting the inside fastball, etc. what do you mean they don't take into account ballpark? of course they do. do you know anything about this stuff? They do? I was told they did not. But, wow, what's with the reaction? I'll try not to make a mistake in a thread you are reading ever again. :P

I agree. They also don't take into account the home stadium the player was playing in at the time or adjustsments the player's has made to his swing. Sometimes players gain a new level of mastery over a new pitch or hitting the inside fastball in the case of DLee and it leads to a whole new level of production. Regressive projections fail to take developments like those into account. Go see the baseball discussions thread on this topic: PECOTA has his stats progressing, regressing and then progressing again. That's really helpful. Are you referring to his projected production progessing, regressing and then progressing again? Or are you referring to the method of projection? I was referring to the method used to create a projection, a method based solely on his previous statistics and thus called a regressive projection. Such a projection doesn't take into account the ballpark the player was playing in at the time or adjustments he has made such as mastering a new pitch or hitting the inside fastball, etc.

Of course, the way Lee produces over the next 5 seasons will ultimately determine the "value" of this deal for the Cubs, but standing here and projecting out into the future, I think it is a safe bet that Lee will be paid at or slightly below market value for his production level during the life of this contract with a decent chance that he will be well below market value. If you consider Magglio Ordonez's contract which will be paying him 15 million a year over the next 4 seasons, Beltran's contract which is just silly, Delgado's contract which will pay him several million more over the next 3-4 years than Lee will get despite the fact that he will be 34 in June and Furcal's contract which will be paying him 13 million over the next 3 seasons, this Lee deal doesn't look to shabby. Even if he regresses from last season, which certainly one would expect, this deal should be quite fair. If he continues at or near his '05 level of production, this contract could be somewhat of a steal.

I agree. They also don't take into account the home stadium the player was playing in at the time or adjustsments the player's has made to his swing. Sometimes players gain a new level of mastery over a new pitch or hitting the inside fastball in the case of DLee and it leads to a whole new level of production. Regressive projections fail to take developments like those into account.

Don't forget the adjustment he made in hitting the inside fastball. That was the one thing he attributed most of his success to last season and he has shown the ability to hit the same pitch again this season. It doesn't look like he is going to lose that ability anytime soon.

id be shocked if this ended up as a bargain. i think the best case scenario is it's a good deal at the beginning and then not horrible at the end but more than you'd like to pay. If you look at the fact that Furcal is getting paid 13 million a year for the next 3 years and then compare Lee's numbers to Furcal's you might change your mind. If you look at Magglio's contract or Beltran's contract you might change your mind. Carlos Delgado will be 34 in June and will be paid more money over the next three seasons than Lee at age 30 just agreed to get. So its possible that the best case scenario is that this contract turns out to be a "bargain" if the going rate for a player of his ability turns out to be 3-5 million more than what he agreed to. But it is more likely to just be a really good deal for the Cubs and not something you could call a bargain. However, since the deal starts this season when he is 30, the last year of this contract will be when he is 34. I don't see his production falling off much during that time simply because of his age. So I don't understand why you think it is likely that this contract will be "not horrible at the end but more than you'd like to pay". I guess if he is being paid 17 or 18 million at the end then, yeah, but we haven't learned the yearly breakdown of this contract yet.

The Tigers signed Magglio Ordonez last season to a contract in which he is guaranteed 15M this year, 12M in '07, 15M in '08 and 18M in '09. I don't know how Lee's contract breaks down, but it averages out to 13M per year while Maggs is getting paid 15M per. Maggs is 2 years older, coming off of a major injury and isn't a gold glove candidate at his position. This comparison makes it look like Hendry did well.

:-s :wink: Where'd you find that quote?It's from Cubs.com in their latest Cubs notes article.

I agree that Baker has a history of playing the veteran over the less experienced player at times. There is little doubt about that, but he does so because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that playing the more experienced player that day gives his team the best chance to win. However, based on the above quote, he seems convinced that playing Cedeno over his more experienced options gives this Cubs team the best chance to win. So, whereas there is evidence to suggest that Baker overvalues experience when handing out playing time, his decisions aren't based on a hatred of or bias against rookies as much as they are based on which player gives his team the best chance to win that day. And isn't that what all managers of contending teams should be basing their decisions on?

Why? He's still slightly below avg. on defense. Though, I thought he did a good job tonite and the SB was off of Williamson. His asset is his bat, it gives him more value than almost any catcher in the NL. I'd rather have that than most of the defense 1st types, see Molina. I agree. Barrett's D is still slightly below average or right at average. He's not Johnny Bench, but as catchers go, offensively is one of the best. From what I have read, his work ethic is very good and he is doing everythinghe can to improve his defense. He had an excellent block in the dirt tonight that made me think of this thread. The worst defensive catcher in baseball. I don't think so. Slightly below average I can buy, and with his bat, he should be in the line-up 4 out of 5 games.

My thoughts exactly, Outshined. The Cubs ability to trade for a RFer this summer will be based mostly on how their pitching depth performs. If Novoa and Aardsma are blowing away AAA, they or players like Williamson or Wuertz can be traded. If two of Marshall, Hill or Guzman are going strong and Wood and Prior return, then Jerome Williams can be traded along with one of Marshall, Hill or Guzman. Assuming all of the above mentioned pitchers are performing well and healthy, which isn't likely but is possible, the Cubs could put together a package of two major league ready starters under the age of 25 along with a solid reliever. That may be enough to convince the Phillies to dump Abreu's salary, it may not. Including a bat like Murton's would hurt, but with Jones able to take over left, it would likely be worth it to add a bat like Abreu's. But, all of that is just talk unless young Cubs players like Marshall, Hill, Guzman, Aardsma, Novoa, Wuertz, Murton and others perform well.

I was doing the exact same thing...literally.

Back on topic... I think it is way too early to tell if Hendry's moves were good ones or not. I always liked the Howry and Eyre signings. I thought the trade for Pierre was necessary after Furcal went to LA. But the Cubs hot start can be attributed to the ball bouncing their way in game 1 against the Reds, hot hitting by Cedeno, Lee and Barrett with very good performances out of the pen against the Cards. Five games just can't show a complete enough picture. But the change that I really like about this Cubs team might not even be attributal to Hendry and should be something that will be more sustainable that a hot start by Cedeno. I like the attitude with which they have been playing. They're scrappy. They seem to believe in their ability to scratch out a hit, get the runner over and get him in. They believe that even if they are down, their bullpen is good enough that they can/will come back. They've got some fight in them, and they aren't taking anything for granted. They're hungry. It is a welcome change from the moping about injuries or the station-to-station baseball hoping for Sammy or someone to hit one out. Now let's hope they continue to play with that hungry attitude all year long...

I'm also anxious to see if Aardsma retains his mid- to high-90's heat. The Cubs will certainly have arms to go get something at the deadline. I just hope it isn't Soriano. but what do they really go for? if cedeno can keep it up, and jh is going to be stubborn about jones, where does anyone go? Unless Jones can really turn his career around, it isn't going to be hard to find someone better than him to play RF. Heck, he might already be in the system. Pie is batting .500 in his first 5 games at AAA. :wink:

I'm also anxious to see if Aardsma retains his mid- to high-90's heat. The Cubs will certainly have arms to go get something at the deadline. I just hope it isn't Soriano. This is what has me more excited than a 4-1 start and a sweep of the Cardinals. Depth. The best case scenario has Marshall, Guzman and Hill all ready and able to contribute at the major league level in the rotation and Aardsma, Novoa and possibly Shipman in the pen. What's nice is that worst case, one of the starters and one of the relievers will likely be able to be called up and perform reasonably well. Question now is which teams will be looking for pitching help and have the extra bat the Cubs need?

But because they didn't have to add him, this is exactly why you wouldn't add him, and why adding him would be stupid. Right, exactly and I agree, but, at the time of SSR's post that I was responding to (very late at night) there was no way to tell if Eyre or Ohman had gotten injured. Such an injury which would explain moving Rapada onto the 40-man. So at the time of his post and my response to it, it was legit to ask for a bit of restraint in criticizing the move. I just felt SSR jumped the gun a bit, that's all.