NoDak

No, we didn't. We finished last in the national league in OBP. Given that I don't care that we were #4 in batting average!

How similar would they have to be for defense to tip the scales, just out of curiosity?

Your roster doesn't need to be barren and farm system stocked to "blow things up" succesfully. You just have to be willing to go all out with it. If I were Jim Hendry I would go to management and say, "If you want to make some serious money and have a competitive team, what if we do this: I have a rolling budget. I will have $600M to spend over the next 5 years plus any cash that can be included in a trade. If I spend only $70M this year I can spend $150M next year. As long as I do not go over $600M." If they agree to that I wait until about Feb/Mar after all the top free agents are gone and I open shop and say, "Come and get it!!!" I slash salary wherever I can. I tell teams I am really only interested in top tier prospects. Jones, Ramirez, Lee all gone. My goal would be to have a team with an average age of about 26-27 years old. "Out of quantity comes quality" would be my motto and I would plan on having a wide open Spring Training with most spots open. I would try to have a really low pay roll and full of young players. Then I would try to have my payroll as small as possible allowing me to store up cash for when it is really needed as the players develop. The first year would likely be really ugly, but after that it could get really fun. We could really stack the farm system and have plenty of prospects left over for future trades when we are at a more competitive stage of the "success cycle." Further, if I can talk another team into giving me cash that would be valuable too since I could use that to go over the $600M cap from the original agreement. After a couple of years if the team improved I could bring in high value free agents or lower the cost of acquiring young talent from other teams by also taking on their albatross contracts and absorbing them. Or I could then turn them around and trade the albatross contracts along with some cash to teams that this guy may well fill a need but the cost of the contract would be too high. If the team did not improve I would look to trade off some of the prospects for major league talent or would have plenty of money to "break the bank" to get high priced free agents. The cubs are in a unique position to be able to do this because, whether we like it or not, the seats will be filled with people at wrigley and many of those on this board would likely be salivating at the prospect of having this much talent in the minor leagues. The problem with baseball salaries is far too many teams think they are just "a player or two away" from being competitive. I think they would be far wiser to see that very few teams have that status and they would be better served to save their money for when their teams are most successful and they are truly "a player or two away."

And that is the reason why there was a lot of criticism about the DeRosa signing. Of course 4mil per compared to 10mil is a big difference. Also, the difference between 3 years and 5 years is a big deal too!

Sorry, I was playing around with it last night and forgot to delete it.

My thought is that no championship can be won by a team that never catches a single ball because they will give up an almost infinite number of runs--certainly more than any offense could score. While theoretically possible it is practically impossible. So, yes, defense does matter. As another poster pointed out it does not make as much difference as offensive contributions and pitching contributions. You are correct that there is not a good way to quantify how much defense does help a team toward victories and that on this board there is a "bias" (and I believe a well placed bias) toward that which can be quantified and "counted." There was a study done once using computer simulations to see how much defense could affect won/loss records. I am going from memory here so this may not be exact but it took something like an average of 4 errors per game to have a statistically significant affect on the won/loss record. In current terms that would be an average of 648 errors per season! No team even approaches that. While defense is more than just errors vs non-errors this does give an indication of just how bad a team would need to be defensively to seriously affect won/loss percentage. Another argument could be that pennants are won and lost by "statistically insignificant margins all the time." While this is true trying to account for them will drive you insane in a hurry. Weather will have an effect too, injuries, "fluke plays" etc. There is something about baseball that defies quantification. Fluke things will happen and result in unusual circumstances. However, by definition you cannot "plan" for fluke events. A team is far wiser to positively manipulate that which can be "controled" and this will result in far more wins. For instance, there was Neifi Perez grand slam in extra innings vs STL in 2005. That was, in my estimation, a fluke event. When it happened it was actually used by people as justification for having Neifi on the team. He provided a win over a rival team and in dramatic fashion. While this play did result in a win in a game which otherwise may have been lost his inability in nearly EVERY other instance, I feel, was a major drag on the offense In short, all other things being equal I will take the player with better defensive skills. But it is EXTREMELY rare to find two players who are so equal so I choose (as I would guess many on this board would) to look at things other than "defense" in evaluating a player or a team. I usually look at offensive production (or pitching production as the case may be), age, experience, history, injuries (speaking of hard to quantify!), etc. So defense does matter, but not very much. (Sorry this got so long!!!)

When he first signed DeRosa I was thinking "3/15...why would he do this?" My initial fear was that he was pushing Ryan Theriot out of a job. But now that looks like a relatively good deal. Afterall, I remember last year the hubbub about how much he "overpaid" for Jones and now many people on this board are talking about marketing Jones as a "cheap option" in a trade to another team. Then signing Soriano, while I wish it would have been for fewer years because the 8 years is far more worrisome to me than the $15+M per year. But now we aren't stuck in a bidding war with other teams with lots of money tied up in the unknown cost of Soriano. As for "Hendry is dumb," of course there are plenty of examples of moves we wish he had made (Sign Brian Giles last year!) and those we wish he had not made (Greg Maddux for Caesar Izturis???). But he did do a couple of things well. He got Matt Murton and Nomar (who, when healthy, was a solid hitter for us) for Justin Jones (injured), Frank Beltran (uheard from), Alex Gonzalez (Caesar Izturis with power)...he got more than a "dixie cup of used tobacco juice" (as a poster on baseballthinkfactory.com transaction oracle pointed out) for Neifi Perez. He did not sign a contract with Christian Guzman for 3 years.

DeRosa is awfully expensive to sit on the bench. While that may not make sense for the best line-up baseball teams tend to play guys based on salary rather than on true ability. I don't remember, is there a rule that we cannot trade DeRosa until a certain point next season since he was just signed? It seems like there is a rule that he cannot be traded until June 1 or something like that.

This is the eternal rationale---"I am willing to trade player x if it brings and upgrade." I would argue that for every player in baseball. I bet if they could get an upgrade the Phillies would gladly part with Ryan Howard (I would bet that a deal of Pujols AND Carpenter would turn the trick nicely). There is no news in "he is available for an upgrade." Part of the trick is to be willing to sometimes take a loss on a player to save payroll to offset another players increase in salary, or possibly fill a gap in the current roster. While the new player may not be as good the end result is higher is a far better rationale, in my opinion. I am not so sure that Jones numbers will not be close to the same. His numbers last year were not hugely different than his career averages. While we may see a decline in his numbers I don't foresee a return to his 2005 production.

Interesting topic. I was actually thinking of putting something very similar out there. What we have to remember is that other GMs are even worse than Hendry and what Hendry does WELL is getting decent value in trades. There is evidence to the contrary, of course, but LOTS of evidence NOT to the contrary. Guys we could actually get something for: Maddux: "Proven" veteran who is haveing a very good season and, added to a roster as a #3-4 starter could be a huge boost for a team. We would not get a top tier prospect for him but someone of the calibre of Rich Hill, Ronny Cedeno or the like. Wood: Regardless of what some pundits believe KW would be a boost to many rotations. He is too injury prone to be a #1 guy but he is EXACTLY the kind of pitcher that teams get in bidding wars over at the trade deadline, especially if he is 6-3 3.90 ERA or something very achievable like that. This deal would also sidestep a tricky off-season decision for CHC as Wood is likely to go Free agent or go to arbitration where there is a limit on how much his pay can be cut. Walker: A mediocre (to be generous) fielder who can just plain hit. I think he actually would have some value. Rusch: Yeah, I know he is not very good, but many GMs are fascinated by the fact that he throws with the "other" hand. The history of baseball is replete with bad left handed pitchers who made a career for themselves based on that fact alone. Probably a mid-level prospect in return, but it is something and CHC does not nn another lefty. Addition by subraction: Perez: OK, to sell Perez you have to do 2 things: 1. Downplay his ability 2. Sell him to a team with even worse options at that position who also have GMs that are not playing with full decks. I think #1 would be easier to do. I am sure that some team has a box of worn out baseballs in their A-league clubhouse. See what we get for these guys. I liked the suggestion in a previous post to trade Pierre and move Jones to CF where his numbers would look marginally better and trade him in the offseason. Like most I don't think this is the time to make any of these deals (unless a deal too good to pass up comes along) b/c right now there are vultures circling over the cubs recent losing streak and GMs hoping that Hendry panics. I start making phone calls at the end of June if CHC is still swooning

Actually, I think that "Grudz" was a nickname he picked up in the mid-90's when Harry (wisely) decided to take a mulligan on pronouncing his name.

I am stunned by this post. Where to begin. If CHC can acquire him on the cheap (and I think they can) they get, as has already been pointed out, a younger player than Burnitz and he can play CF when Pierre needs time off relieving us having to watch Jerry Hairston flounder around in CF (and if you like "good route running" look away with Hairston). It would also really help shore up the line-up. Is there a big difference? Well, let's look at it this way (we'll ignore BA because that is included in OBP--but it favors Bradley anyway so this isn't going to be me cherry-picking stats): .028 difference in OBP and .49 difference in SLG is HUGE! Let's say that they both get 500 ABs. That results in 14 more times on base and an additional 25 bases. Even if you want to say that Burnitz plays more games, he also makes more outs (not a good thing). Put on top of that that Dodger stadium is a pitcher's park while Wrigley actually was more of a hitters park last year meaning that both numbers were skewed in opposite directions. To level the playing field let's look at OPS+ (it equalizes for home fields). Bradley chimes in at 121, Burnitz at 96. Not good. For perspective a difference of 25 points would mean the difference between Neifi Perez (77) and Julio Lugo (105) and I haven't seen ANYONE post that the "drop" from Lugo to Perez would be even an issue. Sorry, even if Burnitz is a better defender (and I don't know that he is) I don't think he would begin to make up for the difference in offensive output. Wilkerson is a far better comparison for Bradley than Burnitz. Show me in my posts where I said I wanted Burnitz back. I don't. I never mentioned Hairston in Center. He was horrible but yet he was the best we had. That is why I'm excited to have Pierre on the team. That's another topic. I specifically stated I wanted a stud for RF. We have the money, and Hendry shouldn't go after some "project" in Bradley. On the same token, no Juan Encarnacion, Jacque Jones, or any other retread that has been turned down on this board. I started a list of players to show Hendry has options depending on whose available but all of those players get on base and most have power. I think all except one or two had OBP's above .360 last year. To be real specific, Milton Bradley probably is a good man or whatever. The media can really misguide the general public but his stats aren't good enough for me. I'm a big fan of Wilkerson and he's on the low end of what I want Hendry to get for RF. Like I keep saying, I want a stud. OK, let's start where we agree. I read over your list of good/great OF. Any ideas how to get any of them here? At no point did I say that you did want Burnitz back. I was responding to two of your posts. One of them DID say that Bradley was "not really much of an upgrade." That can be seen in the first post in the "quote" portion. As for bringing up Hairston, that I did do. My point was that if Pierre gets hurt we don't have a CF (assuming that CPat is gone--increasingly likely) other than Hairston. And if we don't acquire Bradley we will have Hairston in CF. This is from one of your earlier posts in this very thread. It is convoluted, I admit, but that was what I was responding to.

1. I like talking baseball during offseason more than during season. Usually during the season conversations get bogged down in minutiae and fluke events (like a bad hop) are extrapolated to indicate that bad defense is THE reason for the lack of WS wins for CHC. 2. There is NO WAY that I agree to trade pie, cedeno, hill, dopirak for Tejada. It is not just that these are prospects, but that there are so many of them. Baseball, unlike other "team" sports, requires more quantity of talent. While Tejada is certainly more productive than ANY of these prospects is likely to ever become, I would want to get a couple of ML ready players to give up that many solid prospects. For this reason I am really intrigued by what FLA is doing. While they may well not be getting "equal value" back for their investment, just the shere quantity of what they are getting indicates that in a couple of years they could well be a team to reckon with and plenty of money/prospects to trade. Not a bad strategy! Put on top of that they got lucky and are selling in an off-season with very little FA talent and most of that gobbled up in the first month. Teams hungry to "show their fans they are doing something" are going to FLA to get big name people, usually for prospects the fans have never heard of.

I wonder what we can get for him? If they want him, they are welcome to him. My question is, "Why?" A guy who tends to be a FB pitcher (though barely) over his career with a generally 3:2 K/BB ratio. His K/9IP is solid, but I don't know what COL would want him for. I think Wellemeyer is a decent pitcher with possibility of being a solid middle reliever, but why would COL be interested in someone with his skill set. Then again, these guys signed Joe Table too, so...

Let's put a spin on this and see how people think the offseason has gone for any/all teams.

When he is told that his options are signing a $1M contract (just pulling a number out of the sky) or bagging groceries at Wal-Mart I bet he changes his mind in a hurry! 8)

I don't think Dunn is going anywhere much faster than Cabrera. I would buy that Kearns could be dealt. They want Pena in the line-up and Griffey is not very tradable (aging, injuries, huge contract).

I am stunned by this post. Where to begin. If CHC can acquire him on the cheap (and I think they can) they get, as has already been pointed out, a younger player than Burnitz and he can play CF when Pierre needs time off relieving us having to watch Jerry Hairston flounder around in CF (and if you like "good route running" look away with Hairston). It would also really help shore up the line-up. Is there a big difference? Well, let's look at it this way (we'll ignore BA because that is included in OBP--but it favors Bradley anyway so this isn't going to be me cherry-picking stats): .028 difference in OBP and .49 difference in SLG is HUGE! Let's say that they both get 500 ABs. That results in 14 more times on base and an additional 25 bases. Even if you want to say that Burnitz plays more games, he also makes more outs (not a good thing). Put on top of that that Dodger stadium is a pitcher's park while Wrigley actually was more of a hitters park last year meaning that both numbers were skewed in opposite directions. To level the playing field let's look at OPS+ (it equalizes for home fields). Bradley chimes in at 121, Burnitz at 96. Not good. For perspective a difference of 25 points would mean the difference between Neifi Perez (77) and Julio Lugo (105) and I haven't seen ANYONE post that the "drop" from Lugo to Perez would be even an issue. Sorry, even if Burnitz is a better defender (and I don't know that he is) I don't think he would begin to make up for the difference in offensive output. Wilkerson is a far better comparison for Bradley than Burnitz.

OK, that is very reasonable. I just get sick every time I see "609 PAs" on baseballreference.com. I guess having him as utility guy BEHIND Hairston wouldn't be too bad. give him 104 PA in 97 games (defensive replacement/occasional start to give player day off) I could live with that. Have you heard what LA is asking for Bradley? I honestly wouldn't mind keeping Corey around as a defensive replacment/pinch-runner/etc. He and Hairston split the 4/5 outfield position? Would that be bad. Given the choice I would rather see Corey play because I believe he is more likely to significantly outperform what he did last year. I think .265-.275/.315-.330/.500 line would not shock me. Last year I think things kind of spun out of control for him.

The last thing CHC needs is another middle-infielder. Even if we make this deal, Cedeno is still on the bench and unless Dusty decides he REALLY likes Hairston we still have Neifi at 2B. In short, all we add is some upside on D (maybe), and a huge contract that doesn't expire for 3 more years. I'll take a flyer to be polite.

Did you miss the memo? Neifi was signed to a 2 year extension. I sob each time I see the monetary amount, so I'll let someone else put that up here. Macias will not be as good as gone until he is gone. I have seen nothing yet that leads me to believe that he won't be back. We left good prospects unprotected rather than cut Macias. I know he signed for 2 years. I don't get all the memos but I noticed that one. I am not thrilled about it either (*exageration*). That is why I have spent time ever since trying to find a team that would actually be willing to take him. I also included some cash (CHC should have plenty) to make it more reasonable for Bowden to accept him. While it may be pie in the sky to say that Perez will be gone, my main point stands, that while it is sexy to add to the top of the roster, it can be just as effective to eliminate from the bottom and a team can save a TON of money.

Jayson Stark reported today that CHC is likely to get Milton Bradley. I would take that in a heartbeat over Cliff Floyd. Much younger, higher ceiling. While he has a reputation of being a malcontent the main advantage to getting Baker as our mgr is that he does well with veterans who are..."moody." Bradley has less power, but gets on base and plays solid defense. CHC does not need more power, they need someone to get on base. Put on top of that that he is MUCH cheaper in salary and may be cheaper in trade.

OK, I think most people agree that getting guys on base was a major problem for CHC. Now, there are two ways to improve this, add to the top, or subtract from the bottom. Most options we have seen on this board are "add to the top" options. His OBP is one of the best arguments (but not the only) for getting Giles. While this is undoubtedly effective, it is not the only way to improve the overall team OBP. Assuming that Macias is finally gone (and I think he is, I can't imagine that he's shopping his wares too extensively), and we may trade CoPat (or at least with the acquisition of Pierre his playing time will likely be cut down), we have to keep Blanco because sometimes Barrett needs a day off. Now, if we can deal Neifi we would improve our number ENORMOUSLY without adding $10-15M to our payroll. Now, Corey is young and I wouldn't mind keeping him on the team for late inning defensive replacement in the OF, or a pinch runner in late innings for Todd Walker (when it is unlikely that he will have to come up to bat) and I don't think we have to worry about Dusty giving Corey too many ABs if given another viable option. Now, who could POSSIBLY be interested in Perez. Thankfully there are GMs around the league who will actually consider Neifi an upgrade. 1. PIT: Jack Wilson is a better fielder and not much worse hitter. I doubt we could get much from them and I don't really know who I would want. 2. WAS: This is a more likely trading partner. If you think that Neifi is bad, look at Christian Guzman's numbers! Could a deal like this be swung: 1-2 prospects (Wellemeyer, Koronka, maybe even Williams) and Neifi Perez and possibly some cash ($2-3M) we could get Wilkerson. If they want more we could send them Corey (I think Bowden likes "toolsy" players). They would not be paying Perez much and he would upgrade their offense, the prospects would help sweeten the deal. Now, think about this. CHC could drop Neifi Perez (609 PAs), CoPat (481 PAs), and Jose Macias (190 PAs). That is about 1280 PAs with below .300 OBP! Their combined OBP was ~.270! DROP FROM THE BOTTOM AND YOU WILL ACCOMPLISH MORE THAN ADDING TO THE TOP because you don't need to add enormous salaries!

If the Cubs will take on salary ina a Vasquez and Green to the Cubs deal that reduce the pricetag in terms of talent or so it would seem. It would add a legit LH middle of the order bat at a position of need and that extra starter that Hendry has said he has wanted from day 1. What does AZ need? Seems like pitching would be their #1 priority. :santa: OK, could we swing this deal: Trade them Maddux 1-year remaining on contract and agree to take on Vazquez. Maybe adda couple of prospects to the deal and see if we could get Tracy (my real goal). Why woudl ARI do this? They drop two albatross contracts for the next two years for one albatross contract for one year, then add a couple of decent prospects (like Welly/Koronka) and you have justification for dealing Tracy and money to spend. Why would CHC do this? They drop Maddux contract for a guy who has struggled the last two years but has had brilliant performances in the past and his K/BB ratio is roughly the same and his HR rate hasn't changed enormosly. My guess is he has been unlucky. Besides, CHC has money to spend and getting Tracy would help the offense. Tracy would help the offense without much cost to the defense. If we took on Green/Vazquez/Tracy then I think we could get them to pay PART of the salaries. I think Hendry would have the imagination to do this kind of deal (it is roughly similar to the deal he did with LA trading 2 bad years of Hundley's contract for what was thought to be 1 bad year of 2 contracts (but Grudz/Karros screwed up and actually played well). Now, in fairness we need to point this out: Why wouldn't AZ do this: Who needs a salary dump when there are no good FA out there to sign? Besides, trading the best offensive player on the team who is also young and plenty of potential is hardly a way to build your organization. Even if they get good prospects out of the deal, it would be hard to sell to fans. And Maddux ain't the Maddux of 3-4 years ago while Vazquez still has upside. Why wouldn't CHC do this: If they have to take on Green and Tracy Tracy will warble away on the bench getting sporadic playing time and it also hamstrings them going into 07 FA season. I would still explore the deal and see what AZ wants. Hendry has shown an acumen for acquiring solid talent with little or no cost.

I agree with everything you said. I wouldn't mind getting Vazquez either. I know AZ knows they have a very good young player, but they are being mentioned in the deal for Ramirez. I think it would be easier to dovetail into that deal than just approach AZ straight up. They must be getting something out of that deal. Maybe we could even dove-tail it with BOS and say, "Look, you owe us a player to be named for Van Buren. AZ wants this player out of your system as well as this player from ours. If you will give them that we will give you this and then offer you YOUR PICK of players to fulfill the Van Buren trade. We will then dutifully say that "We are excited to get 'Joe Schmo' and look forward to what he can contribute to our organization as we look forward to the future. Then explain the virtues of having a 28-year-old with our Rookie league team in Boise to provide 'veteran leadership' and extol his .240/.251/.300 stat line as a possible 'bat boy' of the future" Another tack is, do they have a "problem contract" that we can take off their hands? Remember, CHC has money and some decent prospects. While Chad Tracy may be the extreme and not realistic, is there another player similar to him that has good (not great) ability and wouldn't be too expensive, especially if we can throw some money into the deal, rather than being behind the curve and be among the dozens of suitors for mediocre talent (like Pierre) or high priced (like Abreu)?