neely crenshaw

I am guessing that if Soriano is traded it will be at or near the break when someone needs a bat. Could be because of an injury or someone's Plan A failed. Doesn't make much sense to deal anything when you can sign someone similar in free agency and lose nothing.

what could we possibly send them to have them even consider a deal? They seem pretty set in the OF and at DH, so Soriano's out. Sending Garza doesn't make sense for them, a guy who is 3 years out from arbitration for a free agent to be in what is currently a 6 man staff. I'm sure they're looking for prospects but wouldn't that go against everything we have tried to do to beef up our system? It would be a nice piece though

LaHair's May stats are inflated by the carryover of how hot he was in April; he fell off pretty dramatically the last couple of weeks or so to really drag his numbers down. Far more importantly and relevant to this debate, Rizzo's average stats have a good chance of improve due to his talent and that he's still a developing player. It's faulty to approach his 2012 numbers like they're necessarily indicative of the player he'll be. I don't think it's a stretch to think he could be a .850+ OPS player next year. For the record: 1st half of May 13 games: 11/41 3 hrs 1 2b .400 ob% .512 slg . 912ops 2nd half of May 14 games 11/42 2hrs 1 2b .347 .429 slg ,776 ops The difference in ops is 1 more hr and 3 walks Also defense will help, but exactly how many games do we figure we lost in the first 75 because of Lahair defense and base-running? Obviously it's hard to tell but can it possibly such a huge number that we can count that as an area we will pick up even a few wins if any?

yes and no. I think and hope he will improve. However, people are applying war stats to show how many more games we will win this. My thought is that war stats do not take into account any natural improvement by a young player. So if we are statistically showing how we will win more games we can't "hope" or "think" because it could just as easily go down. Obviously the more data we have, the better idea we have for what someone will do each year but even that is a "guess" Now as fans we can think and hope these things but that is a different conversation. I know that some are saying Rizzo will be better, and I hope that is the case, and to be better we need that. We also hoped that Castro would be better last year and he wasn't. I am only trying to be somewhat reasonable about how we will be better this year and on paper it's tough to say. also I am assuming the .796 includes games by baker and others. The split for Rizzo/Lahair at first is closer to .855. Unless you assume that Rizzo will never have a day off and plays 162. Someone will take the games as the back up, and he (the sub) could help or hurt that overall ops number BUT Rizzo's numbers should be compared to the regular starter at first because that's the stat line is his replacing

I have read on here projections of 75 to 85 wins (when we thought we had Sanchez). I am interested to see how we see this team showing that much improvement in 2013. I see a team that won 61 games last year. Yes,after the deadline we played a bunch guys that shouldn't factor in much this season BUT we also were only on a pace to win 66 games when the deadline deals and injuries took place. So if we use that as a baseline, how does this current configuration (without conjecture of picking up this guy or that guy) win 9 to 19 more games over last year? I won't even mention that the deadline deals could and probably should happen again this year. I just don't see a lot of changes that help. 1) a platoon of Scheirholtz and Sappelt in one outfield spot 2) catching platoon over Soto 3) Rizzo over 1/2 Lahair 1/2 Rizzo 4) better bullpen (unproven), but worse starting staff

LaHair's May stats are inflated by the carryover of how hot he was in April; he fell off pretty dramatically the last couple of weeks or so to really drag his numbers down. Far more importantly and relevant to this debate, Rizzo's average stats have a good chance of improve due to his talent and that he's still a developing player. It's faulty to approach his 2012 numbers like they're necessarily indicative of the player he'll be. I don't think it's a stretch to think he could be a .850+ OPS player next year. inflated? those stats are just the games he played in may, not his totals. I hope Rizzo is an 850+ guy, that being said our first basemen in the first half of the season was .890 ops guy and to be better that has to be replaced. try to look at it this way if as a team we hit for .890 ops last year in the first half and this year we hit for a .850 ops, would you guess we will win more games or less? it does not matter what happened after mid season in this comparison. Also if you look at earlier projections not everyone is as confident that Rizzo's stats will go up this year.

that would be a great point but it's not really true. lahair did not play in 5 of the first 50 games (april and may) and played but did not start 5 others. I wouldn't exactly call that a platoon. even in june he did not play in 4 games, and didn't start 6 others. (27 total games) at the end of June Rizzo took over first base after that he basically was a part-timer. I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to say Lahair is as good or better. Rizzo is the better player, the team is better with him no doubt. BUT If we are trying to point out where the team will win more games this season over last you can't just say we will be better because of Rizzo's performance at first. The stats we had in 2012 have already happened. To improve on paper, someone has to get those stats, and do better in order to win more games in theory. This is all theoretical but if we can't just say we will win more games because we now have Rizzo playing first for the full season because Lahair was a stud for 5-6 weeks. The team is better, but to say we will win more games than 2012, the performance that happened has to be replaced. So I am just saying that with what we can expect from Rizzo over the full year, it will be pretty much exactly the same as we got out of first base last season statistically. The main reason I say that is because the stats for our first basemen were almost identical in the first and second half.

If you are not dismissing the stats, then how do we account for our improvement if Rizzo's stats are basically the same? The 2nd half is a push, as far any projections goes, It's Rizzo vs Rizzo. So you have to evaluate the first 12 weeks of Lahair being a starter at 1b. It's actually less because Rizzo took over in June. How Lahair fell apart in july, august and september is irrelevent because Rizzo was our first basemen at that time. so far everyone agrees that Lahairs first monster month was better than anything Rizzo put up. Rizzo's 3rd month, and his averages were much better than Lahair's "june swoon". So it has to be close in looking at how many more wins either performance meant. So then the 2nd month for each is left. If you go by just 2nd month to 2nd month Lahair's was better, BUT since it's 2013 we will use Rizzo's average monthly stats. So Rizzo's is slightly better in that month. (L- May stats) .250 .350 .443 . 793 5 hrs to (R average stats) .285 .342 .463 .805 and 5 hrs To me it looks like as far as the performance goes, it's 1 month to Lahair, 1month to Rizzo and 1 month pretty dead even. I mean over a month's time, an improvement of .020 slugging and .012 of ops probably isn't even much more than 1 extra bag and can't really be looked at as a game changer.

nuts I really wasn't meaning value that's clearly Rizzo but if we talk about improved performance we can't dismiss what Lahair did.

My argument is that if we are looking at our offensive performance at first base and projecting Rizzo's stats for a whole season they would basically be doubled. so he projects to: .285 .342 .463 .805 with 30 hrs. last year Lahair at first base hit .284 .364 .526 .890 with 13 hrs. That is only for those months not his season. To get the performance of the cubs first basemen last year it would be LaHair's first half plus Rizzo's 2nd half. Which would basically be .285 .353 .490 .845 with 28 hrs I'll be the first to say Lahair will never do that again but those are the stats of last years first basemen and if you want to say we will have more production this year, Rizzo has to better those stats, He may but I think most would be happy if he matches his line from last year which would be slightly worse.

We aren't trying to argue that the cubs are better or worse with Rizzo. I am simply saying that you can not simply say we are better at first base this year because we have Rizzo for a full season because Lahair put up those stats.

Did DaBum or HCCF teach you how to write and structure a sentence? I did not know it was a graded assignment. Perhaps that is your best argument in this case.

it wasn't that small a streak. It was a month of great, and another solid (better than Rizzo's 2nd month) so I don't know how it projects to a hugely better performance from our first baseman. LaHair never match those stats but the fact is he had those two months AND if you want to project that cubs are better at firstbase this season vs last (not long term) then 2013 rizzo must put up better stats than the first basemen did last year. in short double Rizzo's stats for half a season (87 games actually) vs Lahair's April,May and June plus Rizzo's July,August and September. Now I know it isn't what you want to hear but the 2012 stats are slightly better than doubling Rizzo's totals.

tell me which one did then Nuts? the argument is this... in judging this team for next season, and next season only. Based on stats given..not conjecture as to who will improve. Is the team better with a full season of Rizzo, which would basically be .285 30 hrs, .342, 463, .805 vs one that was basically .285 28 hrs 355(split the differences) .490 .845...because those are the stats that our first baseman put up last season. Unless you know exactly when Rizzo is going to hit next season, I don't know how you do anything but look at the stats as a whole. are we better with rizzo long term. absolutely but if we are trying to judge if the team is better on the field now over last year, you can't simply say we're better with a whole year of rizzo because lahair matched his stats in his first half (even if he'll never do it again) and you can't dismiss what he actually did. I can buy that because of lahair swoon in june, we should be better that month but how many more wins does that translate too, and with lahairs first 2 months, how many more wins is that?

This. Depending on where you are on the win spectrum, it's actually beneficial to have the less consistent team. There is more potential upside variance. A team projected to win 92 games wants less variance, but a team projected to win 85 loves the variance. It's not as simple as "consistent = better" because that's just not true. It's not a bad idea to build your team to have a mix of each type of player. People. Pay attention to this post. Masterfully said. I think this is very true when you factor in the horrid offense we had. Having an awesome section can do more as far as winning more games as a bad team.

well. it isn't but then no one said it was. What I simply said was that Lahair's 2nd month(and 2nd best month) was not much different to Rizzo's 3rd month (and 2nd best month). I simply tried to compare each player's 2nd best statistical month to show that there is not a huge difference in stats.

we are simply trying to "project" which team is better. if we compare Lahair's first half vs what Rizzo's might have for a full season, the stats are stats... for the record it's not as cut and dried as you think.. LaHair (apr) .390 .472 .781 1.251 5 hrs rizzo (1st month) .321 .367 .571. .938 8 hrs (Lahair better) may .250 .350 .443 . 793 5 hrs - 2nd month .252 .310 .345 .655 2 hrs (Lahair better) june .230 .285 .400 .685 3 hrs - 3rd month .290 .354 .491 .845 5 hrs (Rizzo better) i think you may be figuring in the feeling of the rest of the season in thinking about lahair . he had a great month but his May is better than rizzo's August, and outside of average pretty similar to his(rizzo) 3rd month. the main difference in slugging is rizzo had 3 more doubles(7-4). Rizzo also did this in month full of september call ups.... i'd call that a wash overall (LA).284 .364 .526 .890 vs ®.285 .342 .463 .805 so if we presume doubling of rizzo 2nd half stats, vs lahair's first half stats, i just don't see where there is a huge difference in production at least when you talk about winning more games simply based on this difference. Rizzo actually had more of a drop in power stats after his first month than lahair. It would be nice to think we have a huge upgrade at first, but it just isn't the case on paper simply because Lahair was pretty good for that first half, 2nd half not so much

If you talk stats you can't use "hope" that rizzo we be more consistent. Also the fact is Rizzo had some serious downs in his half. I am not sure unless you know game by game when hits are going to come that you can downplay the actual stats. If you have 9 hitless games in a row, vs 9 spread out over 30 games...it's still 9 games. i get the argument but hitting 280 with 15 hrs over 80 games is pretty much the same no matter which games he hit in. You could actually say bunching up hits in fewer games could help a bad offensive team more than spreading them out.

if you compare on how we felt you have to compare apples to apples, not how things turned out dempster, garza, maholm, volstad and wells were the probable rotation we didn't even know shark would be a starter compare the known staff now, samardzija, garza, wood, feldman, baker... shark can end up better but we knew pretty much exactly what dempster would bring, garza also. We don't have that this year, we hope. Volstad had high hopes of bouncing back last year , many said that he might be better than zambrano last year. So we clearly felt as good with him as we do with wood this year. The bullpen was one thing we thought would be set, with kerry wood, marshall and marmol. Although we see improvements over what we ended up with, marmol, fujikawa and russell are not as good as we thought those 3 would be last year. Many felt(or hoped) rizzo would start last year not lahair. I would say that thoughts are a bit tempered after seeing him come up. He'll be good but most wonder of he will be that middle of the order thumper or just a good solid pro. Last year pretty much everyone thought he was our number 3 or 4 hitter for the nest 10 seasons. Do you have more hope this year that stewart bounces back over last year? Don't know why another underperforming year would help those feelings. I think we feel better but only after we saw how last year played out but I know people felt a lot better about our team last year at this time. Some were even talking about contending if things broke right because st louis and milwaukee lost their studs. NO ONE, this side of new haven mental center, is talking about contending.

I just don't see the "way better". Bullpen, added a japanese pitcher to maybe close someday but that is simply a hope right now, it should be an improvement but I am not sure how you can use a stat to gauge it. the rest of the main guys are the same, I just don't see spot guys and long relief changing much in the win total, so slightly better with potential for more soriano,dejesus,castro,barney, valbuena/stewart all return, the only possible upgrade is if stewart is healthy and bounces back but valbuena wasn't far of of what stewart had done. Rizzo for a full year BUT lahair was slightly better than in the first half so a full year translate to about the same. Catcher looks better offensively but worse defensively starting pitching is worse. you have to look at what maholm and dempster did last year, not their splits. They were better than anyone would have guessed. are we thinking baker-feldman are matching that? Garza, and Samardzija are back. wood looks to have a full year over the combo of volstad and wood. so our main upgrade is how much better travis wood will be over that combo. also keep in mind when we lost dempster,maholm and garza for the year, we were on pace to win 66-67 games. So for as much crud as we saw the least 2 months, we dropped around 6 games. unless you are trying to guess improvement or someone bouncing back the way better isn't there. It sure looks a little worse right now maybe not worse than the 61 win team but certainly worse than the one that played the first 4 months.

Good point but I'd rather have them looking spend the money on who they really want instead of hendry spending money on whoever is there. It's also another reason that we have to build up our entire system. We have to have prospects to build, and prospects to deal for guys others that are not yet free agents. If we go back to just trying to buy a team and spend like a drunken sailor, we can compete pretty quickly but for how long and a what cost. This is the most proven front office we have had since dallas green, they won't sign everyone the set out for but we have to believe they will put their best effort out there. right now if you look at sanchez, Cubs or tigers..really? chance to win a lot vs being 2-3 years away.

I think it doesn't make sense to sign a guy you don't really want to a longer deal simply because he's all that's left. Jackson would be an upgrade but if it's more than a year or two, at big money there should be better options later. I guess it just depends on what they have to pay and how long for it to make sense. It's easy to say just pay when it's not your money. I'm not saying I'm totally against it. I am saying that if he isn't in the long term plans (like Sanchez seemed to be) then it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot and for a lot of years to get someone to help us be slightly better this and maybe next before we get who we really want. When odds are we are going to cut loose Garza at some point, (and hopefully others) why sign a guy you don't want long term to a 4 year deal and overspend to get him here.

You should never make a decision on an acquisition based on whether or not that person would make you good by himself. No one player is going to make the difference between good or bad. It could make you better, and specifically should provide you the depth needed to turnaround and make a separate deal that improves you in another area. I would agree but I don't see anymore deals that would do anything different. There just aren't players out there. my thinking was why spend or over spend for guy that improves you some but is not a game changer, or someone you want long term. I wouldn't mind jackson for 1 or possibly 2 years, I just don't see him signing that type of a deal with us. I also don't see a deal of consequence left to add depth around him. If he was one of 2 or 3 deals then I could see it. We just have such a poor offense that adding middle to end of the staff help(ok, on a normal staff) to overpay and give big years too just doesn't make much sense.

Then you wait some more. At this stage, with what's left, I just don't know if you need to jump into any multi-year commitments (well, I can live with 2 year deals for some of the guys left, and maybe 3 for Jackson, so I guess there are certain cases), which is the likely cost of business with the top guys left available in FA. If they didn't already have an incredible amount of financial flexibility or if they had a lot tied up into the next 2-4 years then I'd be more hesitant to sign these guys. But this team's only advantage over others now is their money, and they might as well use it. The goal isn't to have the most efficiently structured roster, it's to win more than the other guys. Paying Jackson more than he's worth in 2015 isn't going to prevent them from accomplishing anything. Why? is overpaying Jackson for 3-4 years going to make you good over the next 2? We'd be better but if overpaying him maybe got us 5 more wins that would be a lot. Why spend for something you don't really want? If you "wanted" a new car and they didn't have the one you wanted, would you just buy the best one available or would you wait to get something you really wanted. Getting Sanchez for 5 years was a good deal because chances are he would still be something they valued when we hopefully compete. Jackson doesn't seem to be that type. We just seem to be too worried about winning a few more games this year over getting to the goal. Win 50, win 60, win 70 does it really matter when it is very clear that no matter how well things go, this current club can not possibly contend.

Any worthwhile bat we get is going to probably make us worse this season. Unless we somehow steal somebody. It does not make sense to send any of the kids they worked hard to grab, in order to get a current piece when we are so far from being good. It would be great to get an Upton but we will have to trade one of few valuable major leaguers, and i'm not sure we have enough to even get a deal right now. Probably have to wait until there is a need and/or Garza shows he's 100% back Our best bet is to try to find a contract dump, or get younger prospects for guys like Garza, Soriano, Dejesus or one of the "scott's" if they work out. Other than that we'll have to keep gambling on guys that could bounce back. I know it's hard to keep expectations down, but It would be completely counterproductive to go out and sign whatever the best available player is, just to stink less next season. It's easy to spend other people's money like it's fantasy baseball. Bottom line is they are trying to build a team that will compete very soon, BUT also make sure it has the system to compete every season not just a small window.