TheDude

There were numerous articles over the last few weeks predicting DeRosa would get a deal like this from whatever team he would sign for, so I don't think it's very accurate to think the Cubs were the only team interested, bidding against themselves.

He's a below average hitter and has never been an everyday 2B. And he'll be 32, 33, and 34 during his 3 year deal. DeRosa had th 5th best OPS among all qualified 2B in baseball last year. Even with regress from 2006, he's not below average. Not many people would recommend only listing a player's career year when thinking about what he'll do in the future. That's not smart. It's darn right foolish in fact. 98 OPS+ in 2005, 59 in 2004, 84 in 2003. That's a wide range, with some atrociousness and mediocrity. He's also not an everyday guy, never has been. You can call it a career year if you like, but it also represents the first year he played everyday. Others can make the argument that partial year stats for the career are less valuable than a full season of everyday play. People choose to use career numbers when it suits their position (ala Giles discussions) while ignoring 2006, so it goes both ways. For what's it worth, in an all-star or bust at every position only mentality around here, here is the 2006 comparison: Cubs 2006 2B: .274/.326/.411/.737 DeRosa 2006: .296/.357/.456/.813 Even with regression to appease the career stats crowd, it looks like an upgrade to me.

He's a below average hitter and has never been an everyday 2B. And he'll be 32, 33, and 34 during his 3 year deal. DeRosa had th 5th best OPS among all qualified 2B in baseball last year. Even with regress from 2006, he's not below average.

Coulda saved the $4 M and added a bit more for a guy like Durham or Loretta. You don't think the difference is going to so to Soriano or pitchers?

I don't understand the gripe. 4 million a year is the market for a veteran 2nd baseman with average numbers.

For the salary cost, I was considering 2007 and 2008. I believe 10 million is the total cost difference for both years, though maybe the number is 8-9. I get that OBP is a much needed asset on the team right now, and that the team was dead in the NL in OBP. But they were also 10th in slugging and only Ramirez and Lee project to outslug Jones next season (Barret in limited ABs as well). There is a sharp decline in slugging between Jones and Giles. Even factoring in Jones' career year, his slugging wasn't appreciably higher than his career number (.038 difference). The team needs both OBP and SLG to improve - the team needs better OPS. Swapping one for the other doesn't improve the team goal, it just shuffles the categories around. That is why I like using OPS or OPS+ as the better measurable stat for comparisons, because it accounts for overall producton value. The two players, for the next two seasons, are likely to produce relatively similar OPS or OPS+ values. Giles just cost more.

Fans are very slow in coming around to accept the market for pitchers under the age of 30 that produce league average numbers. These guys have great value to an organization and will command good returns on the market. Teams recognize they can win in both the regular season and post-season with one true ace, one good starter, and 3 servicable average starters. And that could add up to over 60 million if the staff is mostly veterans. Once they hit FA, these guys are making 7-10 million a year, and the number is going up, because the 7 million benchmark is now two years old. So if you can get a league average starter that has a history of durability for 5 million a year, it's a bargain. A bargain worth a top prospect for most organizations.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye here. You continue to use Giles career numbers and reputation over his current production. If you're allowed to devalue Jones for a 'career year', then I'm allowed to devalue Giles for a predictable major decline and a 'career worst year'. It goes both ways. I'm looking at Giles 2007 and 2008 projections as similar to, if not worse than 2006, while looking at Jones 2007 and 2008 projections as his 3-year split with slight decline. This is based on the traditional age/production bell-curve in a non-steriods influenced world. Just using historical precident, 35 year old OFs don't have 'down years' and rebound to earlier success. It's not a down year. At that age, the down year sets the trend. Jones at age 31 is close enough to the top of the curve that his production should remain relatively flat. When I consider those parameters for evaluation, removing my personal bias for Giles (I really am a big fan of his career), and add in salary as well, swapping Jones for Giles for 2007/2008 is an overall lateral move that costs the organization 10 million dollars.

Because Giles is 35, a drop off in production is likely. However, I do believe the parks he plays in plays a huge role. I watch him play nearly everyday. He's a pull hitter that can't reach the seats in Petco Park. A lot of those long fly balls to RF are caught by the RFer. In many other parks, these would be home runs. 20 HR's worth? I'm not sure. But, there aren't many players who can reach the seats in RF consistently in that park. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Giles SLG splits on the road were only .026 points higher, and his road OPS was still under .800, only .018 higher than home. The ballpark argument doesn't hold, at least for 2006.

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost. The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year. So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less. Not much I can add that hasn't already been said - but the numbers DO support my statement that Giles would be a significant upgrade over Jones. Jacque Jones is a very solid RFer, but his numbers are not even in Brian Giles league when it comes to runs scored, BB, RBI, OB%, BA, and even HR. Giles is argueably a better Outfielder than Jones, and a far better offensive force. Do I really need to stack up the statistics? Are you in denial about Giles 2006? Yes, please stack up the statisitics, as several of your claims are outright wrong. How can you claim Jones HR numbers 'are not even in Brian Giles league', when Jones had 27 and Giles had 14? That's 2-to-1! Giles also did not outproduce Jones on BA, there's a .023 Jones advantage. RBI were equal. Of the stats you list (your selective list to make your point, very noticably ommitting the common and important SLG and OPS), Giles only beat Jones in OBP and Runs - but Jones was batting 5th-6th on a last place team and still scored only 10 Runs shy of Giles, who bat in the heart of the order of a playoff team. Jones outslugged Giles by .102 points as well, and had .062 higher OPS in 2005. Brian Giles is not the player he was in Pittsburgh. And at 35, his odds of suddenly recapturing those numbers are extraordinarily slim. I'm not saying he is a bad player. But it's a far stretch to claim Giles is a far superior player to Jones at his current production levels. All Giles has going for him now is staggering OBP that can't even raise to an .800 OPS. Giles production in 2006 was on par with Jamey Carroll, Edgar Renteria, and Ryan Freel, as the only NL players with top 30 OBP and sub-.800 OPS. Giles did not even outproduce Murton in 2006. Look it up.

Spend a little more money and get Drew instead Hendry!

Thanks for the laugh. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read today!

If san Diego trades Giles, wouldn't it be for salary to address other needs? I am not seeing how that deal helps San Diego.

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost. The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year. So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less. But OPS doesn't tell the whole story. OPS favors high slugging players. Giles OBP is going to be at least .030 points higher, probably much more. That's a very big margin. Also, Giles moving to a new team and into a better hitter's park, could possibly return his numbers closer to his '05 numbers. I'd say the increase in OBP and chance of him returning to his numbers before 2006 is worth the extra cost. Here's the trouble I have this post. First, how often do 35 year old players rebound from significant down years? Second, the Cubs need slugging as much as they need OBP right now. You can sign OBP in the form Drew and/or Durham without giving up any talent. Jones is very servicable in RF. The Cubs need to address CF, 2B, and starting pitching before even considering replacing the servicable position players out there. If the Cubs deal Jones for Giles, they haven't actually addressed any holes, just added salary for similar overall production.

I would much rather the Cubs sign Drew than pursue Giles at this point. I'm not going to be upset if the Cubs pursue Giles and trade Jones, unless the Cubs eat all of Giles salary. That would be a prohibitive mistake that might cost the Cubs a shot at higher end starting pitcher.

So far he has under-paid every signing. Other big acquisitions will require big dollars, regardless of the team. The Cubs will overpay for somebody this offseason, but so will pretty much every other team looking to upgrade. He didn't underpay for Rusch and Neifi :lol: I get the sarcasm, but the discussion is limited to this year, and this year, it hasn't happened yet. If it is going to happen, it likely will happen with a starting pitcher. And the only reason the perception will be that Hendry overpaid, is because fans are still in denial about the market for average starting pitchers.

The numbers do not support this. Jones OPS last year was .062 points higher than Giles, for nearly half the cost. The OPS+ for Giles was only slightly less than Jones, but it was still less. Granted Jones had a career year, but Giles downward trend is consistent and notable. He is no more likely to reverse the trend than Jones is to repeat his 2006 year. So Giles is far from a 'significant upgrade' over Jones, when his production is likely to equal Jones going forward at twice the price no less.

I've seen this written more than once and I have to disagree. I think the current core make-up of the team is a .500 team, though not much better. The current team is not much different than last year's true, but it also isn't much different than core 2005 team, which essentially was a .500 team. The problem with this thinking is, whatever you think they essentially were, or are, in reality, they were below .500. You can't just hand them .500 because we expect the bad breaks to even out. You also can't hand them below .500 because you think the bad breaks will continue. The core of this team produced a near .500 record in 2005, and was with bad breaks, though not to the extent of last year. I think 2005 is much closer to the real Cubs team at present than 2006.

Ironically, I was thinking precisely the same thing about your system, applicable to either only 'good' or 'bad', with no other gradiation. Under your system, Dombrowski in Detroit went from the best to the worst, and then back to the best again. He also went from the worst to the best with nearly the same team on the field. I'm not willing to buy that GM grades are black and white, or that his ability to manage shifted so drastically so quickly. And you're not allowed to inject circumstances or exceptions into the logic, because that blows the whole system up. As soon as exceptions enter the discussion, Hendry gets a free pass, because the Cubs have been the king of exceptions (especially with regards to health).

We've had this argument before. IMO, judging a GM by W-L record is like judging a pitcher by W-L record. W-L records are not predictable, but production usually is (especially in veteran players). I judge a GM through prospect development, player production per dollar, trade savvy (in terms of value coming and going), and team-building plan and execution.

I've seen this written more than once and I have to disagree. I think the current core make-up of the team is a .500 team, though not much better. The current team is not much different than last year's true, but it also isn't much different than core 2005 team, which essentially was a .500 team. At this point I think everyone agrees, to win the division, the team needs two more pitchers that are better than average (a stud is preferred) and one more big bat, or very solid bat at the least (Drew isn't quite a 'big bat', but fits the need nonetheless).

You act like there is something wrong with waiting to praise a GM until after his team actually wins something. Not at all. It's a perfectly acceptable stance, though it's not my own. All a GM can do is lay out a plan. If the team doesn't execute, or things go poorly, there is a little the GM can do to fix it. Hendry has had a flawed plan two years in a row, and I understand why people won't be ready to dish out credit until after-the-fact if his plan is solid this year.

So far he has under-paid every signing. Other big acquisitions will require big dollars, regardless of the team. The Cubs will overpay for somebody this offseason, but so will pretty much every other team looking to upgrade.

This is more or less going to be the opinion of anyone who dislikes Hendry until the Cubs win the division, IMO. I believe most people with this opinion are ready to pounce, just waiting for the perceived wrong move. I also hadn't seen any mention of coaching staff in this thread. Ramirez was clearly the best move thus far, but the new hitting coach is the second best IMO. This shows Hendry isn't oblivious to the needs of the team and gives some optomism that he might acquire a hitter with the same line of thinking as the new hitting coach. I don't dislike Hendry at all. In fact, prior to the 2005 season, I was accused of being a Hendry apologist. We've had two horrendous seasons while on Hendry's watch. The team has tanked and is swirling the bowl. So, so far I'll stop criticizing, but he still hasn't done anything. So far, there's been nothing bold in his actions. I'll admit that since the Neifi trade, most of what he has done is what has needed to be done. He got rid of Baker. The coaching staff looks better, though I'm skeptical about Rothschild. He didn't lose Ramirez and he brought back Wood and Miller at reasonable prices. That is a plus. On the other hand, unless he puts together a winner, and that is his job especially considering the payroll this team has, he hasn't done anything to deserve kudos. If this team doesn't win at least 85 games and at least stay in contention for a playoff spot, Hendry should not be back in 2008. He has a daunting task ahead of him. That is more or less what I was getting at. It doesn't really matter what Hendry does for this team this offseason, he will not be celebrated by most until the team wins. And even if the team does win, the most cynical among us will say it is inspite of the GM, not because of his moves. I tend to just walk the middle line. Hendry makes good and bad moves, as all GMs do, and I tend to give him more credit than most for past moves. Since the all-star break, he's done everything I wanted him to do, so I'm happy. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's perfect so far, as the thread title indicates. As Goony said, the next several moves, whether trade or FA, hold a significant weight in grading all GMs for the offseason. But he is marking off the boxes on the checklist and doing so efficiently. He passed the first big test and several quizes, and has an A thus far.

This is more or less going to be the opinion of anyone who dislikes Hendry until the Cubs win the division, IMO. I believe most people with this opinion are ready to pounce, just waiting for the perceived wrong move. I also hadn't seen any mention of coaching staff in this thread. Ramirez was clearly the best move thus far, but the new hitting coach is the second best IMO. This shows Hendry isn't oblivious to the needs of the team and gives some optomism that he might acquire a hitter with the same line of thinking as the new hitting coach.