TheDude

I don't agree with that at all. The only players that matter in this comparison are Wood, DeRosa, Gregg, and Bradley. Bradley is the player with the most impact of the bunch. Yes Gathright, Vizcaino, and Miles are poor choices and easily in the bottom 5 of the 10 listed, but none have key roles. Maybe Miles and his .700 OPS gets to battle for starts. No doubt Wood and DeRosa will be missed, and sentimentality is involved with that. But Bradley is a stud. He likely won't duplicate that '08 .999 OPS, but he has a shot to immediately become the team leader in OPS. That is worth the loss of DeRosa (who did have a career year at 33), who probably puts up an '09 OPS closer to .800 as a versatile 2B/3B/OF. And Marmol is perfectly capable of filling Wood's shoes. Gregg looks perfectly capable of filling Wood's shoes if Marmol doesn't get the nod as I expect. It looks like an upgrade to me at starter, a wash at 8th/9th inning, and a downgrade at bench. It's definitely not a landslide 6x greater for the players lost. I will miss Wood and DeRosa, because I loved rooting for both guys. Both guys had a lot of doubters 2 years ago, and both guys shut them up pretty soundly. That type of performance hits the heart. But I think you're exaggerating here on the bottom line.

To play devils advocate, the Brave's shortcomings always seemed to be lack of offense and lack of late inning relief. Perhaps if the Braves had altered the formula (Like say replace Sid bream with somebody with more of an impact) they may have been able to win more championships. Hendry has shown can he can evolve. 3 years ago he was saying things like "I don't pay much attention to on base percentage" and the players he signed (Jacques Jones for example) showed that he meant that. Lately he seems to have targeted OBP guys like Derosa, Kendall, Fukudome, and now Bradley. He can evolve, yes, but then he moves on to his next ridiculous idea: "I like guys who can catch the ball", the obsessive need for a lefty bat when there are better righty ones to be had, etc. As I had noted previously, Hendry's obsessive need for more LH in the lineup isn't out of the blue. He feels there is a direct correlation to the loss in the Dodgers series last year and this LH gap in the lineup. It looks like he wants to ensure a RH-dominated rotation won't get the best of the team again. Whether he is right or wrong is up for debate. I don't think he is necessarily wrong, but shifting money by moving DeRosa and signing Miles wasn't the answer. Bradley helps. Roberts would help more.

I've been arguing for a few years now that Lee is an ideal #2 hitter, particularly if Soriano is ousted from the lead-off. Ironically, the way the current club is constructed, I look at Brian Roberts once again as the perfect compliment to this team.

The GM's job is to build a club that can win and get to the post-season. Once the post-season starts, the GM is as much an observer as everyone else. The players have to perform up to their season standard, and the Cubs have not under his tenure. Hendry is taking ownership of the Cubs failures in the post-season, even though they really aren't his to own. Just take a look at the moves he is making, which many consider a mistake, as evidence. Most people that object are objecting with Hendry's diagnosis of the problem, which has legitimacy (and those criticisms won't get steam-trolled like yours do). He believes the team's failure in the post-season are primarily a result of his construction of a right-handed heavy lineup. Regardless, the point is that GMs don't win WS. You can build a case for good vs. bad GM by compiling a tenure winning percentage during the regular season (this is the argument Jersey Cubs Fan sticks to regularly). I don't think you'll get far compiling post-season winning percentage though. Example: Are you going to try and state that Schuerholz was a poor GM during the Braves amazing run in the '90s and '00s because the players only delivered 1/14 rings from '91 to '05 (going 63-63 in those games)?

You don't evaluate GM moves with hindsight. Signing Fukudome was the right thing to do at the time it was done and was generally regarded as B+ move. Blast Hendry for signing fragile Bradley and also blast him for not signing fragile Wood. How about a little consistency? Dumping Marquis was a good thing to do. Why block a 5th starter spot with a median salary veteran? Let the pitching youth battle it out. Pitching has dominated Cubs drafting for Hendry's tenure, so use it.

I was out of town for a few days, so this response is way late, but I'm not a huge fan being called a liar, especially when it takes minimal effort on your part to actually review some stats. A lie implies malicious intent, which in context of a baseball discussion is stupid. Here is Howry's appearances by inning 2008: 6th inning 6 7th inning 17 8th inning 39 9th inning 17 Ext inning 5 To be fair, Marmol was also an 8th inning guy more than 7th inning overall. 6th inning 1 7th inning 20 8th inning 51 9th inning 26 Ext inning 5 Obviously calling Howry an 8th inning guy in 2008 is not misinformation, and it's certainly not a lie. The reality is, to start the season he was the 8th inning man. At times he had pitched himself out of that role, and Marmol filled it. Marmol became overworked as Howry struggled, and Howry stepped back in it for a time. Both guys closed at times in Wood's absence. Roles were not cut and dry either way, and I was aware it would be a tough sell to present it definitively. This is why I suggested evaluating the pens as a 3-man 7-9 unit (which you ignored in response). The bottom line, as I had previously stated, is that Gregg, Marmol, and Samardzija will be a slight downgrade from Howry, Marmol, and Wood, irrespective of who fills what role in the 7-9 pen.

Have you watched Dempster pitch? He's so much better than those guys. I don't understand the people who don't think that Dempster is good. Watch his stuff; it's filthy! He was mis-cast as a reliever and still wasn't terrible. He will continue to put up 15+ win seasons for the Cubs. Is Estaban Loiaza a better comparison? No, not at all. Kelvim Escobar is a better comparison. Escobar throws about the same rate of FB and CH as Dempster, and features a wicked slider. Escobar has a couple more pitches than Dempster. Escobar has more sustained success as a starter, but when it comes to stuff, style, peripherals, and age, he is a very similar pitcher to Dempster. Dempster's 2008 looks a whole lot like Escobar's 2007.

Overall this thread is annoying as nobody else has bothered to put up the peripherals or mechanics notes that were responsible for his career year. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm tired of gut fortune telling being presented as fact. Use a little analysis occasionally people. His age and career year in the same sentence are irrelevant. Pitchers are not hitters, so don't use a hitters' age curve to analyze a pitcher. Dempster's success last year pretty much boils down to improved control. His success in 2009 and for the life of the contract will depend on his ability to sustain this improved control. His 2008 K/BB and BB/9 were both substantially better than previous years. He did use his slider less in 2008 and his FB more, which could account for greater control. You hear pitching coaches and former pitchers turned announcers say all the time that locating the FB is the key to pitching. Most of his other peripherals were the same as his starter or reliever years prior: K/9, P/PA, P/IP, LD%, FStrike%, etc. His BAA against was down slightly from closer years. You have a relatively flat pitch count, flat strike out rate, flat contact %, but reduced walks and hits. I'm not sure what conclusion anyone could draw from those numbers as a predictor going forward. A glass half-full approach says Dempster was battling in the zone and avoiding solid contact, indicated by his improved BABIP against. Despite his pitch counts, he didn't see a ton of 3-ball counts, and when he did hit 3-0 or 3-1, he usually walked the guy, an indication he wanted pitch primarily when the count favored him. His O-Swing% was higher than years past, so there is some indication hitters were chasing, but it doesn't account for a sustained season's success. A glass-half empty approach says that Dempster could lose the control he gained and return to mediocre, his playoff performance fresh in people's mind. Given the reality that many of peripherals didn't change, you could argue it was fluke season dicated by BABIP against and hitters chasing out of the zone. If that BABIP against returns to norm and the league scouting report says wait for the strike, Dempster likely returns to just an average pitcher. As to the original point of the thread, I don't think he was overpaid. In fact he probably took a hometown discount, but it is difficult to say in the current market. Marquee FAs will get paid, the others won't. Dempster was viewed as marquee by some, a risk by others.

Yes, I believe there is reason to think that critical component will change by the start of the season if you assume media reports about Padres payroll are accurate. If the Padres have to slim the payroll down by mandate, Peavy has to go. Towers has no leverage thanks to Peavy's ntc. Hendry doesn't have to budge, but Towers does.

Nothing in this approach is "extremely flawed logic". I could accept Meph's -Bradley replaces Edmonds and leave Fukudome alone- comment because CF/RF will likely be overlapping all year, but I disagree with your points in total. First, the off-season isn't over. Not all roles have been resolved. I currently don't see who will fill the 7th inning with-a-lead role (Marmol 2008) or the floating loogy/6th starter (Marshall 2008) for 2009. And there is nothing wrong with that. I don't acknowledge a lack of depth because there is no need to yet. The roster isn't complete. If spring training rolls around and we're having this same discussion, then there is a problem. Second, role does matter. Otherwise you could say Bradley replaces Wood, or some other random observation. Wood was the closer. Therefore if you're going to analyze a replacement for Wood, then I believe you have to start with the incumbent, Marmol. Gregg might be "in the mix" for closer in spring training because Lou loves competition for spots, but at this point in the off-season, Gregg looks like the 8th inning set-up man (Howry 2008) and Marmol the favorite for closer. 2008 7-8-9: Marmol, Howry, Wood 2009 7-8-9: ?, Gregg, Marmol Spring training likely shakes out that 7th inning guy. If I was forced to fill-in a name, I would say Samardzija has the inside track on the 7th inning. Another way to approach it would be look at the unit as a whole. Meaning, evaluate the Marmol-Howry-Wood unit against the Samardzija-Gregg-Marmol unit regardless of which guy slots into which role. I hesitate to look at this way because we don't know if Samardzija is the guy in that mix. But if he is, I'd call it a slight downgrade, only because the unit is less proven and doesn't have the track record of consistency. Third, DeRosa's value as a plug-and-play anywhere player can't be replaced by anyone on the current roster. There is no point trying to account for Bradley's replacement in RF with a 2B because you assume he will get hurt for extended time. That isn't how a 2B is typically used. If you want a depth chart replacement for Bradley, then it would likely be Pie, which is a notable downgrade. But back-up plans and depth for injuries, while part of the discussion, isn't the purpose of starter level or 1st choice role analysis. DeRosa was primarily a 2B. And if everyone is presumed healthy, he would get 80% of his ABs at 2B if still with the club. When defining his replacement, you look at 2B.

Not one of those replacements is accurate in expected roles, so your notion of downgrading across the board is wrong. Replace Wood with Marmol at closer (even). Replace Howry with Gregg at set-up (even). Replace Edmonds with Fukudome in CF (moderate downgrade). Replace Fukudome with Bradley in RF (notable upgrade). Replace Marquis with Marshall at 5th starter (slight upgrade). Replace DeRosa with Fontenot at 2B (slight downgrade). Replace Fontenot with Miles on bench (slight downgrade). Replace Jon Lieber with Vizcaino in relief (moderate downgrade). That's how I see it.

Damn those boring 97 win teams. They should blow it up and start over.

It really wouldn't be a Hendry move, unless his role was that of a 200 AB player. You might have had a reasonable argument in 2005 or 2006, Hendry's worst performance years as a GM largely due to his allowance of Dusty Baker to push certain players, but since the Lou signing there is no evidence that Hendry would actively seek an Anderson type player to fill a full-time starter's slot. It's true he has targeted veterans in recent years, but most in the age 28-32 range. The older guys have all been role players.

I wasn't trying to start a debate over the merits or validity of park splits as a viable anchor for an argument. My point wasn't that I want Dunn because of analysis of his career numbers at Wrigley and a conclusion that those will be his numbers as a Cub. My point was that I understand why he would want to be a Cub based on those numbers. Players don't care about sample size and fan-biased perception of home town pitching (which, as has been pointed out already supports a case for the impressive numbers and doesn't hurt it as originally implied - Cubs pitching from 2001-2008 overall was clearly better than league average and NL top 4 five of those years (2001,2003,2004,2007,2008)). All that matters to the player is how comfortable he feels playing in certain ballparks. We see 217 ABs career as a small sample. Adam Dunn reflects on 8 years of pro career hitting well at Wrigley. It's about perspective. It's pretty clear from both career numbers and attitude/commentary that Dunn likes hitting at Wrigley and I would speculate that he believes he could put up good numbers by his own standard while having a shot at the WS as a Cub.

I hope the Nats get him and start competing again.

If I had Dunn's career numbers at Wrigley, I'd want to be a Cub also. 217 ABs: .286/ .419/ .664/ 1.083.

You can't limit it to that either. There is value in preventing a single from becoming a double due to range/arm/route, etc. I wish there was a defensive metric that measured "bases saved" for lack of a better term. And perhaps it's counterpart, bases yielded. But both such concepts would be as subjective as an official 'error' is, so who knows how valuable it would be.

Glad to see some defensive analysis working its way into the board. It's been pretty commonly dismissed around here as having value unless the sample of guys you're considering at any given position have similar offensive output. Meaning I have seen defense only relevant as a tie-breaker or bonus value on a player, not a value consideration.

I need to get a phone number for Towers. I need that cat in my weekly poker game.

Once you factor in the likely cost differential of 9 million for 2009, it becomes a much easier choice imo. Otherwise, I think you're right on.

Hardly. Lots of obstacles need to be overcome. If Hendry can't even offer Wood arby, the Cubs have financial issues that obviously need to be resolved before taking on Peavy's contract. Where do you arrive at "can't"? By all appearances, it's more "won't", as he prefers to go with the younger and cheaper options on the team. This doesn't look like a regrettable hands-tied move, it looks like a strategic redistribution of resources.

That simply isn't true that his future contracts evaluate to zero, unless it's career-ending. Teams sign rehabbed pitchers all the time to contracts that make you wonder. Only fringe performers coming back from rehab get fringe deals (like Dempster's original Cubs deal). Any pitcher who has had marquee status within two years of an injury will still received a deal worth millions coming back from that injury.

We've the shift in recent years by some players. Many of them want long-term deals for security, and that has been the push and standard. But in the last two years we've seen several players opt out of lucrative deals, only to sign more lucrative deals because the salary inflation is so rapid, such that the back end of a 4 or 5 year deal may not maximize value. You end up with possibilities where you could argue someone was underpaid at the back-end of his contract. Wood is 31. A one-year arbitration does nothing to hurt his value next off-season at age 32, unless a season-ending injury occurs. So as Goony points out, it's not crazy at all. 3/24 this off-season or next, there is little Wood could do to damage that value, again barring a season-ending injury.

Their size and popularity has never stopped ESPN from reporting nonsense as absolute fact. I don't think there is such a thing as "too big" a blog to post the occasional garbage story. It is a blog. Blogs by definition do not contain fact, and if they claim to, links are expected to be provided substantiating the fact. ESPN has expanded their blog section greatly in recent years, where a lot on conjecture occurs, but you don't often see a story about a trade reported as fact unless a deal is in place "in principle", if not official. I do wish sites that contain both "news" and blogs would do a better job separating the space they share, because it is too easy to mistake a news report for a blog.

So you don't want to trade Vitters because then you lose the trade value of Vitters...how many bigger fish exist than Jake Peavy? Sorry, that's just a nonsense argument.