David

It does make a massive difference over the course of the season. The #2 hitter in the line up can end up with somewhere in the vicinity of 100 more at bats over the course of a season than the #6 hitter in the lineup. So, I ask you if you would rather see Ryan Theriot get 100 more plate appearances than Alfonso Soriano in 2008, because that's what you'll likely be getting if you have Theriot batting 2nd. Last year, the Cubs lead off hitter had 765 plate appearances and the Cubs #6 hitter had 682 plate appearances. Having the worst (or second worst if Pie really sucks) hitter in your lineup at the top of the order qualifies as one of the "ridiculous extreme examples," in my book. The blame would fall on Lou if that ultimately wound up being the case. And yes, I understand that Theriot hit toward the top of the order much of the time on last year's team.

I'm confused. This analogy would make sense if Roberts weren't better than DeRosa. He is. I expect better from you, SSR. It's more my annoyance that we(not we we, the royal we, the idiot we) have been trying to marginalize DeRosa all offseason just for this purpose of making him our new Jose Macias. It's another sign of Cubs management fixing a hole that isn't there. Must get a leadoff hitter. Must get shiny happy clubhouse people. Must get a Japanese guy. Must get a lefty. Again, as I mentioned Roberts is better than DeRosa. Probably by a couple wins. But IMO, Gallagher and Marshall are better than Dempster and Marquis. Cedeno is better than Theriot. The original trade I wasn't that upset with(Marshall, Murton, Patterson?) Giving up 2 major league ready starting pitchers when you have holes in your major league starting rotation is nutty unless you're getting a huge upgrade in return. We are not. Understood. I can see where that side of the argument is coming from, but (some) people don't need to belittle Roberts as an acquisition by saying he's only a marginal upgrade. My stance on it is that I think there's a decent chance that someone like a Kevin Hart will emerge to take a spot if/when Dempster sucks if he does wind up getting the 5th spot. Someone usually does, right? I'm not saying we should just leave it at that, but it's something to take into account. Also, we're obviously hearing the possibility that Hendry will still go after another SP and that he might use DeRosa to do it. That being the case, since Gallagher and Marshall are only as valuable to us as they are because of our crappy bottom end of the rotation situation, we wouldn't be able to judge a Roberts deal fully until Hendry has had a chance to solidify that. There's little chance Marquis is dropped. There's some chance a better pitcher is acquired and Marquis becomes your fifth starter. That's probably the best case. If it came down to a worst case of having nobody emerge, nobody acquired, and Dempster as the fifth starter all year, then yea, that would probably suck pretty bad.

Oh, so because I think Roberts is only a marginal upgrade to DeRosa, I'm Morganish? Wow. Have I not heard you say the same exact thing or are you of the impression that Roberts is a significant upgrade to DeRosa? The Morganish part is probably wanting to ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics.

Considering the fact that we are comparing his ability to hit lead off, yes, I am using his lead off numbers. Is it that far-fetched? I used Brian Roberts' lead off numbers as well. You can call line up position splits meaningless if you like, but just because they are meaningless to you doesn't make them meaningless to everyone else. It's not like Soriano only hit in the lead off spot 20 or 30 times over the last 2 years. We're talking over 1200 PA leading off, which is not a small sample size by any stretch of the imagination. Some players believe they hit better if they are hitting in a certain line up spot. Soriano is one of those guys. He wants to lead off. And if Soriano tells Piniella that the addition of Roberts doesn't change the fact Soriano wants to continue leading off, I have a feeling the 130m player can give a convincing enough argument to carry a bit of weight. I also wouldn't put it past a guy like Soriano to not try as hard to be successful at the plate if he isn't hitting where he wants to hit in the line up. He pulled a fairly similar stunt in Washington when they moved him to the outfield. They called his bluff, but he wasn't the proud owner of a long term commitment when he said he wouldn't play the OF, so he caved in. Are you really going to tell me that Roberts/Theriot would be more suitable to you than Soriano/Roberts? Would you really be happy seeing Ryan Theriot get 100 more plate appearances in 2008 than Alfonso Soriano because of their spot in the batting order? I don't happen to believe that players, in the grand scheme, perform any different from one lineup spot to another. It makes a whole lot more sense to me to attribute the anomaly that are Soriano's leadoff splits to the fact that he happened to be hitting leadoff most of the time when he had his career year. Also, his OBP was helped greatly that season because he was in a terrible lineup and was subsequently intentionally walked many, many times. This non-far-fetched happenstance explanation makes 100x more sense to me than some inexplicable psychological effect that hitting first once a game has on Soriano. I'm not sure what the last sentence mentioning Theriot is all about. Lineup positioning matters to the extent that you obviously want to have your best hitters get more PAs than your worst hitters. Even then, it doesn't make a massive difference over the course of the season. The real key is having the right hitters. Ridiculous extreme examples aside, their order doesn't matter all that much.

I'm confused. This analogy would make sense if Roberts weren't better than DeRosa. He is. I expect better from you, SSR.

And you would be incorrect, sir. OBP as a lead off hitter in 2007: .345 OBP as a lead off hitter in 2006: .368 Twice in the last two years he's put up .345 or better. He was NOT walked eleventy billion times last year, either. 4 times is how many times he was intentionally walked last year. Are we seriously using "as a leadoff hitter" splits? I usually look at overall numbers, not meaningless lineup position splits. And I never said he was intentionally walked many times last year.

Roberts 2005 - 9.4 WARP Age 27 2006 - 4.2 WARP Age 28 2007 - 7.1 WARP Age 29 DeRosa 2005 - 0.8 WARP Age 30* 2006 - 4.3 WARP Age 31 2007 - 4.5 WARP Age 32 *Granted, it's not fair considering the circumstances, but I'm including it because I included 2005 for Roberts.

Skew the numbers? Again, in 2006, Roberts had what most here are calling an off, or bad, year. His WARP was 4.2. DeRosa had his best year of his career in 2007, his WARP was 4.5. Am I not getting at something here, or what??

I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages. You can't justify that one guy is likely to regress and say they other won't. You just can't do it. It's a marginal upgrade no matter how you slice it. There is POTENTIAL for it to be a significant upgrade if Roberts were to repeat his career year 4 years ago, but I don't think we should assume that anymore than we should assume Mark DeRosa will all of a sudden forget everything he accomplished in the last 2 years. Roberts was barely half a win worse than DeRosa's 2007 in his down year. In other words, if Roberts has a down year, you basically have DeRosa at near his best. If Roberts has an up year, he's significantly better than DeRosa at his best, and miles better than a regressing DeRosa. On top of all that, DeRosa's age makes it more likely that he will regress than Roberts.

Better management? A quality shortstop? Improved bathrooms? All of the above.

Roberts as a lead off hitter in 2007: .288 .376 .424, 710 plate appearances, 101 runs scored Soriano as a lead off hitter in 2007: .308 .345 .579, 577 plate appearances, 92 runs scored. CLEARLY not a lead off hitter? I beg to differ. If Soriano had 710 plate appearances last year, he would have scored more runs than Roberts scored last year by quite a bit. And isn't that really what you want your lead off hitter to do? Even if the Cubs get Roberts, I have no issues with Pineilla batting Soriano and Roberts 1/2 in the order. And if the Cubs could get some better bats hitting 7th and 8th in the order, I think Soriano challenges the 100 RBI mark in 2008. To be fair, Soriano had much better hitters following him than Roberts did. To be fair, Soriano drove himself in (HR) quite a few more times than Roberts did. We can go back and forth on this, but if Soriano can put up a .345 OBP or better, I have no issues with him leading off. And as Raw pointed out in his recent response, if the alternative to hit 2nd behind Roberts is Theriot, I'll take Soriano/Roberts 1/2 all day long. I'm pretty sure he has only done that once in his whole career, and a big reason for it was that he was intentionally walked eleventy billion times.

You seem pretty convinced that DeRosa has a very strong likelihood of regressing in 2008, yet you ignore the fact Brian Roberts has the same likelihood of regressing in 2008. Brian Roberts OPS+ by year the last 4 years: 2004- 90 2005- 139 2006- 96 2007- 112 DeRosa's OPS+ the last three years: 2005- 97 2006- 108 2007- 102 Looks to me like Roberts likes to have an average year followed by a good year followed by an average year followed by a good year. Uh oh. Guess what kind of year Roberts is on pace to have in 2008? Marginal upgrade is the correct term. Look at their WARPs. Look at their ages. As far as the "pace" comment, are you trying to imply that he's on some sort of one year on, one year off trend? I don't really buy into that stuff.

No. No it has not been the one glaring need. Leadoff hitter is not a position, it's just a spot in the order that any of the 8 position players can fill. This team's most glaring need for a very long time has been walks, and players who are both willing and capable of taking them. A little more generally, they've lacked OBP. And to the extent that a new hitter can significantly improve the OBP by replacing somebody who is already here, that player would have considerable value to the Cubs. You're right, a big need for this ball club is OBP, and you're dead wrong if you think one of the other 8 guys on the team can fill this role. I think you need to take a step back to a few years ago, year 2003..... We took off once we got Kenny Lofton, and all he did for us was get on base, steal bases and play solid defense. I believe Roberts is the same type of player, considering his OBP was .377 last year. He is what will spark this team, it also allows us to move Soriano down, where he needs to be. He is clearly not a leadoff hitter. I know now you're going to come back at me with DeRosa's OBP, which is also very good at .371. I guess, for the less of another argument here, we can say thats even. The one thing, which I dont understand is why everyone is saying stolen bases dont matter. The guy had freaking 50 last year, good lord! We havent had that many stolen bases since Pierre, and he didnt even get on base. Stolen bases are huge, that will lead to more runs, more runners in scoring position. Roberts would be a huge asset to this team. I am also very confident that DeRosa can still play SS, just as good, if not better than Theriot. DeRosa came up as a SS, and he still has a spectacular glove, his range worries me a little, but I believe lots of work in the offseason will make him a solid SS. This trade makes the Cubs an even more potent offensive team. I hate to say this, but ask them White Sox how they won their World Series. They won it with OBP, stolen bases, and timely hitting, and great pitching. Our pitching is strong and will only get stronger, Roberts is a player that will make us stronger offensively. With him, well score more runs, hell score a butt load of runs, and our 3-5 hitters will drive in significantly more runs. You might wanna go lookup how many R/G the 2003 team scored both before and after that trade.

WTH? DiFelice was on the Cubs in 2004? I don't remember that at all.

That's quite a bit of an exaggeration.

DeRosa has been very consistent statistically the last two years as a starter which is why many of us think he can repeat his numbers from 2006-2007 ( .295, .374, .438, .802). Of course his numbers fall when you count the years he was a utility IF and not getting regular playing time. Also, I wish all of you posters out there who hint that DeRosa will get significant playing time at SS would realize that the Cubs have no plans for him at SS. They have stated that Theriot is the starter and they're looking for a sub SS who can bat left-handed (Cintron?). As for DeRosa strengthening the bench, we can find a right-handed pinch hitter for a lot less than Marshall, Gallagher, and Cedeno. And there's still a good chance that Roberts will outproduce DeRosa (even at his best) by ~ 3 wins next year. If DeRosa regresses from his career year last year, then it's probably not even close. And if we do keep DeRosa after the Roberts trade, don't be so quick to dismiss the effect he'll have as a backup. It's not just pinch-hitting. There are a ton of backup AB's that he will get over far inferior players. That is definitely significant. Still, I'd rather they flip him to Toronto in a Burnett deal, if that indeed is being discussed. I'm a proponent of cheaper bench players anyway, and I'd love to have AJ here to solidify the rotation.

Trachsel is just one example of Hendry's ineptness. How's the Juan Pierre trade look these days? I think it looked a lot worse when it was made than it does these days.

For freak's sake...Roberts is NOT only a marginal upgrade over DeRosa, unless I have a very different definition of marginal than some of you guys. To me, marginal upgrade means he's barely/slightly better. I'll say it again, you can't just assume DeRosa is going to repeat 2007, which was one of the best years of his career, and even if he does, he's barely better than Roberts worst season in recent years. There's a decent possibility that Roberts will outperform DeRo by 3-4 wins next year. That's fairly significant, IMO. Why some people are just assuming DeRosa will be that good again next year is beyond me. I'd like to think he will, but I wouldn't just count on it. People are letting the fact that we have bigger needs to address elsewhere in the lineup cloud their judgment of just how much of an upgrade Roberts is over DeRosa.

Guilty.

What? BTW, the fact that he was replaced by Steve Trachsel means nothing because it was an idiotic move in the first place. I agree with the rest of the post, though.

I think we're stuck with that anyway if we don't pick up someone else. Those two would have to be Wade Miller-esque to lose their jobs to the kids, IMO. Hell, we had Steve Trachsel taking Marshall's starts in the middle of a pennant race.

Count me in. I plan to carry over my 2007 success (even though I sucked in the playoffs...)

Yea, I sort of did a ninja edit there... You caught me, goony.

I wouldn't characterize it as everybody thinks is only a marginal upgrade. I believe it's likely to be fairly sizable. As you say, not as significant as replacing the glaring hole at SS with even average production, but valuable nonetheless. I'm not overly excited about Roberts, but I think he would be a very solid addition to the lineup. Pretty well sums it up. If Roberts was SS, this board would be exploding with excitement. He is the right target for Hendry (in terms of player value) at the wrong position. Yes and no. He's still a very significant upgrade over DeRosa in terms of expected production, which is the point I'm trying to get at. The problem is, like we've all said, SS is a more glaring hole and that seems to make a big difference in perception.

I wouldn't characterize it as everybody thinks is only a marginal upgrade. I believe it's likely to be fairly sizable. As you say, not as significant as replacing the glaring hole at SS with even average production, but valuable nonetheless. I'm not overly excited about Roberts, but I think he would be a very solid addition to the lineup. True, not everyone. I sort of fell into that trap of attributing the opinions of a few vocal posters to the whole board, but it sure does seem like a lot of posters are just brushing off Roberts like he's just "meh." Some even seem to talk like he's a mediocre or average player.