TheDude

I have to take exception to this. Leadoff is not a position. You can definitely find better than .884 at the corner OF spots. I'm not knocking the Soriano signing, although I think the contract was extremely excessive and would rather have had Drew. At this point, IMHO, we'll need another good bat to be able to call this a good offense. I have Soriano at CF. .884 OPS out of CF is top 5, with Beltran, Jones, Sizemore, and Wells.

I think you have to leave Soriano at leadoff, given his career splits. He is likely to put an OBP of .340 (career OBP at leadoff in 2052 ABs), which is lower than the .360 mark you want from a leadoff hitter, but he is likely to make that up in self-generated Runs because of his slugging. His career OPS at leadoff, again in 2052 ABs, is .884. Can you really find better than .884 OPS at leadoff? The only other guys I can think of capable of that are Sizemore and Jeter. In terms of having guys on base in front of your power 3-4, Murton is a great solution. I think Jones and Barret are a solid enough 5-6 that you don't need to move Soriano down. It doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Total bases doesn't include walks, just hits. Example, 2006 Juan Pierre had 271 Total Bases from 204 hits. 156 Singles (156), 32 Doubles (64), 13 Triples (39), and 3 Homeruns (12). Gotcha. I always thought they were. That said, isn't this analysis flawed for that very reason? I understand the correlation between TB and runs scored, but hasn't the Cubs' issue been that they've hit well enough to be middle of the pack, but have been so terrible in terms of walks/OBP that they simply haven't scored as many runs as would be expected? If this analysis only takes into account, basically, SLG%, it's probably making the Cubs look better than they really are. That's a valid point, which is why the tool previously referenced by another poster uses both OBP and SLG. But, for what's it worth, consider this: Team ranking in Runs/TB --- Yankees 1/2 Indians 2/4 White Sox 3/1 Phillies 4/5 Braves 5/6 Rangers 6/8 Mets 7/9 Tigers 8/7 Red Sox 9/10 Dodgers 10 So of the top 10 teams in Runs scored, 9 also were top ten in TB, with minimal variation in the rankings. There are naturally exceptions - Toronto was 3rd in baseball in TB, but 12th in Runs. But, Toronto was also 5th in OBP and 2nd in OPS in all of baseball - it's really a complete mystery that they didn't score runs, and they are truly an exception. So you're right, it can happen. But generally speaking, there is a very strong correlation in TB and Runs among the best offenses in baseball.

I figured the pitchers contribute 4 HR a year, being generous to the Cubs staff thanks to Zambrano. 2006 staff hit 8 HR, heavily inflated by Zambrano. Then you have bench players contributing another 25 or so. 2006 Cubs bench players with between 100-250 ABs (Blanco, Mabry, Theriot, Bynum, Pagan, Perez) for example, had 25 HR combined, and none of those guys really qualified as a 'power bat' off the bench. A few more guys like Moore, Womack and Coats hit HRs in very limited ABs as well. The 2006 pitchers and bench names I just mentioned above had 37 HR combined, but Perez and Mabry had about 100 ABs more than anitcipated due to injury. I did not even count Hairston, Walker, or Nevin as bench for this analysis, taking all their ABs and assuming starter based on injury fill-in. 30 HRs seems a fair speculative guess for a bench and pitchers spot.

Total bases doesn't include walks, just hits. Example, 2006 Juan Pierre had 271 Total Bases from 204 hits. 156 Singles (156), 32 Doubles (64), 13 Triples (39), and 3 Homeruns (12).

The tool assumes .150 OBP and .150 SLG? No, I plugged in the actual OBP and SLG of Cubs pitchers last year. You expect 830 runs? Really? Do you think Soriano makes that much difference? You do know that the 2004 team with Lee, Alou, Sosa, Ramirez, Patterson (who had a pretty good year), Barrett, Gonzalez/Nomar (both better offensively than Izturis) and Walker/Grudz didn't score even 800 runs? You do realize the 2006 team was 2nd worst in the NL in runs scored? I'd be happy if this were a top 5 offense, but it's not. I'd be thrilled if this was an 830-run offense, but it's not. The 2006 offense did not feature Lee or Soriano. That is two enormous bats. It also featured just over 1000 utterly futile ABs from Perez/Cedeno/Womack/Hairston/Bynum. Izturis and DeRosa may not light the world on fire, but 1000 ABs from those two has to be an upgrade.

Amen. A few months back my top two priorities as a fan were Schmidt number 1, and Soriano number 2. Make it happen Hendry!

I'ts been stated in numerous threads. I've done the number crunching before, and don't want to repeat it again. Soriano's splits at leadoff for his career dwarf his splits at 3, 4, or 5 in the lineup. It's not even close. It the guy had his worst years in Texas surrounded by Texiera and Blalock in a power lineup in a hitter's ballpark, but had his best year ever leading off in Washington, surrounded by a lot of duds in the worst hitter's park in baseball, I would not even consider Soriano as anything but a leadoff hitter. He defies convention and the best coaching move is to ignore convention in his case. Put him where he will produce based on a history of production, not where he is supposed to produce but has come up short in over 1000 ABs sample size for his career.

Lots of flaws with that tool and that projection is way off. Even if you assume it isn't off, you can't compare AL and NL teams for Runs scored and get a realistic comparison. That tool is assuming .150 OBP and .150 SLG for the pitcher's spot - and the AL is certainly not going to have that issue. 805 runs in the NL is 6th best. I'd be shocked if the Cubs aren't in the top 5, and would expect closer to 830 Runs out of the team running that 1-8. I looked at the tool, played around with it for an hour. I'm not overly impressed.

Assuming the Cubs make no other moves to the starting lineup in the field, if we look at a projected healthy lineup of: 1 - Soriano CF 2 - Murton LF 3 - Lee 1B 4 - Ramirez 3B 5 - Jones RF 6 - Barret C 7 - DeRosa 2B 8 - Izturis SS Based on 3-year splits (extrapolated to starter ABs for Murton, Izturis, Lee, and DeRosa), it looks like this lineup could put out the following numbers (Hits: 1B/2B/3B/HR): 1 - Soriano 168:90/40/3/35 2 - Murton 148: 100/30/3/15 3 - Lee 173: 90/40/3/40 4 - Ramirez 173: 100/35/3/35 5 - Jones 142: 90/25/2/25 6 - Barret 113: 70/25/3/15 7 - DeRosa 137: 100/25/2/10 8 - Izturis 143: 100/25/5/3 Totals: 178 HRs 740 1Bs 245 2Bs 24 3Bs If you figure the bench and pitchers contribute another (projections based on bench/pitchers 1600 ABs and a .240 BA): 30 HRs 300 1Bs 50 2Bs 5 3Bs We're looking at a total of 2549 total bases. It's purely speculative, I'll just make it 2550 for simplicity. That would be good enough for tops in the NL in 2006. Naturally my pojections are simplistic, and maybe inflated on the optomistic side (not by much though). The point I am trying to make is not that this new offense will be the best in the NL in 2007, but it looks to be in the top 5 for total bases. Total Bases has a very strong correlation to Runs scored (consider that the top 5 teams in the NL in total bases in 2006 are also the top 5 in Runs, and in the same exact order). Lots of folks are looking for more change, primarily for Jones and Izturis. But as is, the 2007 lineup looks very strong if you assume no season ending injuries and use 3-year splits as projections (lifting ABs to starter numbers between 400-600 depending on lineup slot). The only player I boosted production above 3-year splits for is Murton, who you would expect to have some growth, I gave it to him in doubles and singles. Anyone think my projections are reasonable? Not reasonable? Just curious if you think the lineup as stands would hold-up, again assuming normal health.

Probably shaking their heads in disbelief.

Holy smokes! Ok, I need some time to absorb this one. Market knowledge aside, the Cubs needed a bat and got one. I'm not keen on the years (who the hell is?), but I like the look of: 1 - Soriano 2 - Murton 3 - Lee 4 - Ramirez 5 - Jones 6 - Barret That's a strong lineup. That's 170 HR potential, and while the OBP isn't stellar throughout, it should end up around .350. I'm seeing a whole lot of doubles out of this crew as well. Here's hoping the last 2 years are options. But in the short-term, 2007 and 2008 are going to be a lot of fun!

It seems like his OBP is much higher whenever he's the leadoff hitter. Maybe its a mental thing where he only thinks he needs to show patience when he's leading off and that leads to much better success. Looking at his three year splits, you do have a point. But those numbers can rationalized because the majority of his leadoff at bats have come during his career (contract) year last year. Don't feel like typing out the stats again, but here is the link to them: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=6154&type=batting3 Expand your stat viewing to career splits for Soriano. The only placed he struggled and had down years was in Texas, 04 and 05. That's because Texas used him primarily in the 3 and 5 spots of the lineup, and rarily used in the leadoff spot. His career splits at leadoff are the highlights, and with over 2000 ABs there, he shown what his leadoff numbers will be at least for a few seasons (not the length of the contract though). The moment Washington put him back at leadoff, he went back to his Yankees days numbers and then surpassed them. The numbers are clear - this guy an exception to the standard logic. He should be a run producer, but if he can't be a run producer in Texas with Texiera and Blalock around him, he simply isn't cut out for it.

He's a corner outfielder, a .750 OPS and .111 IsoP are pretty awful. That also describes very closely the 2006 incarnation of Brian Giles.

So, any news about Drew?

Starter.

I think that the Braves are actually giving up quite a bit. Marcus Giles had a bad year last year. He also gets injured quite often. Salty is a good prospect, but useless for the Braves except as a trading chip. Horacio Ramirez is also another injury prone player. He has some potential, but doing that trade from the Braves perspective is a no brainer. Peavy also took a large step back last year. Even with Peavy's off-year, I would take him over every other rumored pitcher discussed on these boards, including Scmidt, Zito, or Matsuzaka. This is a steal for the Braves if true.

I think that the Braves are actually giving up quite a bit. I always question moving a proven number 1 starter under age 26. I'm not so sure there is such a thing as asking for too much for a player like that.

That was my first thought when I heard about this. Don't remember where I heard it, but I thought I hear of some significant venom from Guillen toward Cotts. Given Ozzie's reputation and attitude, I'm very willing to give the kid a break.

Don't be knockin' on my Granny Smith's bro. Like the supposed 4/48, the green apple is just a bit sweeter than the red :).

That doesn't make much sense. Opt out of 3/33 for 4/48? Unless having a No Trade Clause was the make or break part of the LA deal, Drew is swapping a red apple for a green apple with that contract. I think it is more likely he gets 4/56.

Isn't that about a 78 million dollar lineup? Holy smokes. I don't see Soriano and Drew in the mix together. Drew in CF and Jones in RF is far more likely I think.

The Pierre comments are public face. What else is Hendry going to say? i read his comments as being an underhanded goodbye.

That's a very narrow view. You're not even considering the returns. If Barret is part of the package to land a big name player, then maybe it's worth it. It's certainly worth exploring.

Are you joking? Meche isn't even close to being in Jennings league. Jennings has pitched his entire career in Colorado. Last year while pitching in Colorado he had ERA well below 4 (3.78). How many people have done that in Coors? He also has pitched almost 200 innings every year hes been in the bigs. With his good sinker at Wrigley he could be damn good and dependable. Again, Jennings home/away splits for his career show an average and expected differentiation. The ballpark factor here is being way overstated.