17 Seconds

SLAM! when the top level is 7.8, 0.4 is a significant portion slam

SLAM! umm, actually he wasn't agreeing with you

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Because 300 extra AB is the same as 56. Look it up in the brittanica, it's there somewhere it's obviously an exaggerated example but it's the same exact principle and is just as ridiculous as what you're saying. it's not lee's fault he went 0-56 in those extra at-bats, so we shouldn't fault him for that. brilliant

this is like the stuff of cubs.com message board lore

oh dear god he's serious. so why are all his rate numbers SO much better. you really shouldn't ever be allowed to post again. if those extra 56 at-bats came at the beginning of the season than he'd have had a .790 OPS. that is seriously some of the worst logic i have ever encountered in any baseball discussion. you're right, lee was exactly the same in 2007 and 2008. it's just that the offense gave him 56 at-bats, in which an 0-56 was thrust upon him by the baseball gods. how cruel of them. the fact that he has a .759 ops from may 1st on was just a another cruel joke by the gods. seriously though, do you believe what you're saying? so if a guy has 30 home runs in 300 at-bats it's the same as 30 home runs in 600 at-bats? why are you assuming as though going 0-56 in those extra at-bats was not lee's fault? why am i even bothering respond to this? the reality is that it TOOK lee and extra 56 at-bats to reach those 07 stat totals because he was significantly worse. i really don't get why you're looking at counting stats as opposed to rate stats when he had so many extra at-bats. not to mention the fact that he walked at a lesser rate. basically what you're saying is that it's not lee's fault he went like 0-56 in those extra ABs

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code. No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career. Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good. Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games. 2007 Lee: 150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB 2008 Lee: 155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB 5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size EXACTLY. Somehow he must have went 0 for 56 in those 5 games though. Well, quite simple really. Assume he got at least 4 AB in those 5 games, that's 20AB right there, then assume that with the Cubs high powered and OBP crazy offense, he got 36 extra AB throughout the year via high scoring games. Fairly simple. And with Lee, it's not hard to imagine he went 0-4 over an extra 5 games in each game. you can't be serious right now

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code. No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career. Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good. Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee You know what the difference between 2008 Lee and 2007 Lee was? 5 games. 5... games. 2007 Lee: 150G 567AB 91R 180H 43-2B 1-3B 22HR 82RBI 6SB 71BB 114SO .317/.400/.513 291TB 2008 Lee: 155G 623AB 93R 181H 41-2B 3-3B 20HR 90RBI 8SB 71BB 119SO .291/.361/.462 288TB 5 extra crappy performances in 2008 made 2007 seem light years better. He virtually put up the same numbers, stop looking at his OPS+ to determine if it was better. It was THE SAME, it only looks better because of a slightly smaller sample size umm, what the hell are you talking about? you're obviously joking but i don't get it

your life is a disgrace This is such an inane insult it doesn't make sense. Thanks for your valuable input. your face is inane

Samardzija sucks worse than Gregg

Based on expected return vs. real value, I think Rich Harden would be the last player in the organization I would trade. Soto? He's saying based on the level of true value we'd get for him. He's not saying he's the last guy he'd want to trade

i don't see a single person in this thread who is surprised with how much he got

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code. No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career. Eh, now that I look at his stat sheet, you're right. Didn't realize his 2007 was that good. Yeah, I'd be thrilled if we could get those kind of numbers. Unfortunately I think we're going to get closer to the 2008 lee

Career minor league OPS doesn't always work though. Soto's is .784. Heck Derrek Lee's career minor league OPS is .844. Hoffpauir has made significant progress over the past two seasons. Derrek Lee was in the minors until age 21. Hoffpauir was until age 28. Bad comparison.

What else could it mean? I wasn't speaking in code. No, I'm wondering why you are implying that his last 2 seasons have been similar when they aren't even remotely close. I think you thought his 2007 was bad when really it was his second best of his career.

I'm confident that he would be terrible. That's about it. What about his numbers indicate to you that he would be "terrible"? I have little doubt that he could match Lee's numbers from last year over the course of a full season. look at what jason dubois did to PCL pitching Or Geovany Soto? Hoffpauir didn't exactly look overmatched in his big league AB's either. Soto is like 3 years younger and a rare breed. You can't just compare every player who comes out of nowhere to Soto. Plus matching Lee's 08 production isn't some big feat, especially when you consider his defense would be significantly worse. I'm not saying Hoffpauir would be terrible, but I'd be willing to bet good money that Lee would be significantly better than Hoffpauir in 09. 73 at-bats doesn't tell you much. I' put more stock into the fact that he had 24 K's in 73 at-bats to only 6 walks, and almost all of the AB's came against RHP.

I'm confident that he would be terrible. That's about it. What about his numbers indicate to you that he would be "terrible"? I have little doubt that he could match Lee's numbers from last year over the course of a full season. look at what jason dubois did to PCL pitching last season

http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081119&content_id=3685486&vkey=news_sd&fext=.jsp&c_id=sd ay dios mio. just trade him to the braves already and oh, once again, lol at carrie muskat

I'm not confident he'd be next year's Soto, but I'd imagine he could put up somewhat similar numbers to what Lee has put up the last two seasons, and as you say, be much cheaper and be a lefty bat. What do you mean "the last 2 seasons"? Lee's 08 was nothing like his 07. His 2007 season was like the second best of his career.

I'm not giving up, and I would hope Hendry wouldn't, either. I can appreciate a comment like "we can't afford Milton Bradley, or Bobby Abreu". But when a guy like Peavy is available, you make room in your budget, even if it means someone has to go. The rumors that have floated around was that the Cubs could get Dempster AND Peavy, and another one was the Cubs could get Dempster and Randy Johnson. Hendry was quoted directly as still having interest in Peavy, so I'm not going to take much stock in anything Muskat writes on the subject. Where did he say that? AllI saw from him was the "we're keeping our options open and are always looking to improve the club" stuff.

you're going to be really disappointed then. i don't think hendry has enough money to sign 2 of those guys let alone all 3.

of course it would. Lilly is under contract for two more years at 12M each Peavy is under contract for four more years at 8--15--16--17 with a 22/4 club option for 2013 trading Peavy for Lilly straight up, just as a thought experiment, would save us four million this year, while adding three million in fixed costs to next year's payroll. even with the pessimistic assumption that the time value of money is zero, the trade would be a salary wash. since Peavy is a better pitcher than Lilly, the trade would be a performance boost at no (financial) cost. obviously, though, we need to include the value of the prospects we'd lose in the deal as well. start by imagining a quantitative system that assigns dollar values to performance increments above league average (or, if you prefer, above replacement level). now, use that system to calculate the value of the prospects we'd be giving up: first, make predictions about the likely contributions of our prospects to the major league team in 2009 and 2010, the period in which we're directly comparing Peavy and Lilly...then, plug the expected contributions into your dollar evaluator. finally, plug Peavy and Lilly into your calculator in order to get a number for the Peavy-for-Lilly bump. I think you'll find that none of our prospects are likely to make 2009/2010 contributions that exceed the value of the 09-10 Peavy-Lilly bump. if you'll agree to that, then we already have a strong argument for doing the deal, especially since the Cubs are at the peak of the contention cycle and thus should place a strong premium on immediate results. but wait, there's more! given the magnitude of the contracts that baseball's best pitchers have been signing recently, there is plenty of reason to believe that Peavy's contract in the post-2010 time period will be a significant bargain. pitchers like Santana and Sabathia are looking at paydays in excess of 20M/year, and it is not hard to imagine that many major league executives will see Peavy as an equivalently talented pitcher. it is obvious that a Peavy-like talent on the 2009 free agent market would pull in far more than 16/17/22 in the first three years of a new deal, and while the economic downturn might raise questions about baseball's ability to sustain giant contracts, it is hard to imagine that marquee contracts will decline by 20 or 25 percent. so, if you agree to both parts --that the Peavy bump has more immediate value than our prospects, and that Peavy's contract is probably going to remain a bargain after 2010- you've got a great case for pulling the trigger even if Lilly must go as part of the deal...and, really, just one of those two arguments should be enough to convince you I don't know, I'm just worried about 2 things with peavy- how he would perform without getting half his games at Petco and most of his games vs the NL West, and also his injury concerns. I'd ultimately give up Lilly+ for him, but I just have a feeling that it would backfire.

if it's really true that we're out of the Peavy talks then I think it's only a matter of time before a Brian Roberts rumor surfaces

your life is a disgrace

No surprise there yay for paying dempster 52 million for a 4.35 era

i'd rather have the doc than pretty much any other pitcher in baseball