Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Number5

  1. Ouch. Sorry to hear that, Peace. For it to be 100% it almost has to be with the Cubs, one would think. I hope it is either different than the players we have heard about or that we have a trade with another club coming right behind it which will make the pieces fit together a little better. Thanks again for the update! Your efforts are very much appreciated.
  2. Thanks for the info, Peace. I would have rather seen Livan Hernandez, but Fogg was 2nd best option out there IMO. Hopefully this eliminates any consideration of taking back Marquis from the Cubs.
  3. Skiba, I'm just saying that OPS is not necessarily the best way to judge where he is performing best in this case. I don't think that you or Rob or Dave can argue that it is certainly unusual for a player with Soriano's OBP and slugging percentage to be hitting first. I can't think of another one, can you? My point is that in an unusual circumstance such as this, applying your same measures of performance may not be the best ways to look at it. OPS is most often a telling stat, but for this case, given the unique circumstance, I would submit that runs produced may be more significant. He's not scoring runs and he's not driving them in, yet he's hitting the ball a ton. That tells me something.
  4. Disregard last. Misread Fontenot as Theriot.
  5. Just curious, who would play shortstop for the Cubs?
  6. Of course it is possible that the lead-off hitter will only lead off in the first inning, but in the NL it is very likely that he will lead off again in the game, since he follows the pitcher. Managers will not run into outs if the pitcher is coming up with 2 outs, and defensive managers will intentionally walk the guy in the 8 hole to get to the pitcher with 2 outs and a man in scoring position, so it is more than just random variation. The lineup is engineered to attempt to get the lead-off man leading off. Even if not leading off, he is more likely than anyone else in the lineup to be coming up with nobody on base. I think Soriano's mere 70 RBI with 33 HR is as strong evidence as you are likely to see. He only drove in 37 teammates the entire season despite a .560 slugging percentage in 579 at bats. Think about that. That might be an all time record. Dave likes to point out how Soriano's best OPS numbers tend to come when he is hitting lead off. Personally, I think it is just as likely that he just didn't like Texas, but even if somehow Soriano has a mental issue with not hitting lead-off, his run production is so poor that his terrific OPS is effectively reduced in a major way. Soriano scored only 64 times that were not his own home run and drove in only 37 teammates. Find another .897 OPS hitter with 579 at bats with that little run production. The "O" factor in OPS is key for a lead-off guy and the "S" factor is key for a middle of the order guy. I understand these theories to the contrary that Rob espouses, but the proof's in the pudding. Soriano is neither driving in the runs that his slugging would normally drive in nor scoring the runs that a lead-off man with that number of at bats for a contending team should score. His skills are being absolutely minimized by hitting him first. Dave and Rob will tell you that OPS is a much more telling stat than Runs and RBI's, and in most cases I would agree with them. When you decide to bat a slugger first, however, I think the resulting runs scored and runs driven in really are the telling stats. To think that Chicago would lose 3 or 4 talented players or prospects and move DeRosa to a utility roll to bring in Roberts to do anything other than lead off just doesn't seem feasible to me.
  7. AM has been praised for the return he managed to get in the Tejada and Bedard trades. These were two players that we had to trade, yet he was patient, held his ground and got top dollar, if not more, for both of them. Although the Tejada trade appeared to go down quickly, you can bet that there was a lot of behind the scenes negotiations on that one before it went down. He held firm in the Bedard trade and got Butler or Mickolio changed to Butler and Mickolio. Roberts, on the other hand, is not a guy that the Orioles must move. Do you think AM is going to just take any offer for him? Do you think AM is going to buckle under pressure and take less than Roberts value to do a deal in a hurry? I don't think so. Stay the course.
  8. I think that most Cub fans and Oriole fans alike see that there is a bad fit between these teams for a trade. Both teams have needs that can be met by the other team but are not really in a position to make the trade the other team wants to make. Holding onto Roberts is not a bad option for the Orioles at all, and exploring other possible options such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Colorado is worth looking into as well. The Cubs have DeRosa at 2B now and some of their fans seem positive that the Cubs would continue to bat Soriano lead-off if they were to obtain Roberts. If that is the case, it is hard to see much benefit to the Cubs in making such a trade, especially when considering the cost in talent they would be giving up. How is there a fit for a trade here?
  9. And you base future performance projections on what? Go ahead, say it. We know.
  10. Mora was as old at the beginning of that extension as Roberts will be at the end of this one. I see no comparison.
  11. I see, so past positive performance and good rep doesn't matter, but past negative rep (5 years in the past, by the way) does matter? None of your "key issue" are valid. If you aren't interested in Roberts, why are you trying to sell us? Doesn't hold water, Bloop.
  12. Time will tell. AM has done a great job, no doubt, but I think you've gotta say that Detroit has done pretty darn good for themselves this off-season, don't ya?
  13. I've read that Marquis' attitude isn't the best either. Apparently he had real problems with LaRussa and Duncan in St. Louis. Sorry, I can't cite a source, but I'm pretty sure that it was an OH thread I read that in.
  14. FWIW, From the Tribune Jan18: A Rolls Royce or a Volkswagen? By Paul Sullivan, 7:20 p.m. The question will not go away, and Alfonso Soriano knows it. On Friday he was asked for the umpteenth time whether he will be leading off this season. He reiterated he does not care where he bats, though he prefers lead off. "Leading off is a little different, but you always have to make adjustments," he said. "Batting third or batting fifth is not a problem for me." Is Soriano ready to hear this talk again all season long? "It's too early to tell," he said. "We have one month left of vacation. Next month we'll see what's going on. I don't care because two years ago I made an adjustment to go from second base to left field." Soriano said he doesn't believe he needs to change his game, after being asked whether he should move runners over and bunt more. Manager Lou Piniella was surprised to hear such a question about his $136-million outfielder. "That's like buying a Rolls Royce and trying to get Volkswagen mileage out if it," Piniella said. "I don't see that. This kid here has his own particular style out of the leadoff spot. He hits the ball out of the ballpark, and he'll strike out. "The only difference we didn't see last year was he didn't run because of the leg problem he had. I don't see where he's going to change, and I don't think we want him to change. I think if you make him a prototype leadoff hitter, you're going to harness his skills. He's not going to bunt. If you wanted him to be able to do all those things, you would've gone out and gotten another leadoff hitter and put him somewhere else so he can do what he does." I read that to say 1. that Soriano is willing to hit somewhere in the lineup other than leadoff and 2. that Piniella has no intention of trying to change Soriano's hitting style and if the Cubs want a prototypical lead-off man, they will go out and get one. I'm not sure that there is any other way to read that. The Cubs are pursuing Roberts.
  15. ...or maybe he just didn't like Texas. We are just going to disagree on this Dave. I will say I'm still not on board with you that the Cubs espouse your view here. They are, after all, interested in Roberts, and I find it hard to believe that it is just because they want to get DeRosa out of the lineup.
  16. Bloop, what the heck, man? Cardenal was there and he batted lead-off. I don't know if he was there in 1972 or if he led off in 1972, nor do I care. He was there and led off for some of the period between 1971 and 1976. Divisional play started in 1969 and was not really the focus of fans' thoughts back then. The Reds were the team to beat in the National League and were fun to watch. The Cubs had some good ball clubs in that period. Billy Williams was there and was one helluva hitter. Johnny Bench won the MVP over Billy at least once, and I'm pretty sure that it was in 1972. Billy won a different Player of the Year Award as I recall, but not the MVP. Bleacher seats were a buck. Murphy's Bar was right outside the exit from the Right Field Bleachers and I spent several hours there after the games. All games were day games. The el train back to Evanston was around the corner and down the street. Jack Brickhouse announced the games on channel 9. "Hey, hey!" If I could remember my old phone number, I'd tell you. As I said before, I'm married. I really don't need someone to come behind me and pick at every word I say with nuisance corrections. I already have someone that does that very well. Thank you.
  17. I was in school from fall '71 thru '75. Got married and stayed in Chicago 1 more year before we moved east. Cardenal was definitely there. Perhaps not the entire time, but he was there. And he led off. I haven't looked it up because I watched him. Feel free to look it up. The Big Red Machine was the team to beat in the National League at that time. I was not there for the majority of Billy Williams career, nor did I claim to be. His '72 season was awesome. He had the NL iron man record back then. Garvey broke it as I recall. Billy was traded to Oakland in '75 I believe. But feel free to nit-pick the minutia all you want. As to your final question, I have no idea.
  18. Well, Dave, we will just have to agree to disagree. To me, batting Soriano first is a criminal waste of his slugging and changes him from a power middle-of-the-order hitter with the bonus of speed to a mediocre lead-off man that will hit you a bunch of solo home runs. I have read and understood what you have said. I simply disagree, and I am sure that you have read, understood, and disagree with what I have said. I stand corrected if Soriano hit lead-off most of 2006 for Washington. I seem to remember him hitting 3-4-5 for them, but will take what you have said as accurate.
  19. Statistics sure can be manipulated to say what we want, can't they? Those selected partial numbers can just as easily be attributed to the facts that he did not bat lead-off in is first years with the Yankees before his breakout and that batting in the Washington lineup gave him less protection than his breakout years in New York and currently in Chicago. Heck, in Washington he actually got 67 walks because he was in a power spot with less protection behind him. Yet he scored far more runs and drove in far more runs. I'm not getting how you can think 2007 was superior to 2006 for Soriano. Batting average, maybe, but certainly not run production. I notice you chose to leave run production stats out of the table. Wonder why. I would submit that slugging .513 hitting fifth, and even .452 hitting third translates into more runs for the team (and therefore more wins) than slugging .551 hitting first. This is especially true in the National League. A .551 slugging percentage is wasted at that spot in the NL. Hence last year's numbers. The fact is that his OBP was .337 last year with the Cubs, which to me is far more relevant than what he did for the Yankees six years ago. Additionally he scored 97 runs last year, 33 of which were on his own home runs. He was driven in a total of 64 times by his teammates. And we are talking some excellent hitters coming up behind him. These are not the numbers of a great lead-off man. On top of that, he drove in 70 runs with 33 home runs. That is hard to do. Twist your stats however you want, but to have driven in a grand total of 37 men that were not himself gives every indication to me that he needs to be somewhere else in the lineup. To me, Soriano gave Chicago the minimum run production possible, given his performance at the plate, because he was batting first in the order. Yet per your chart above, his season would look great, with his .560 slugging percentage. This is not a knock on Soriano. He plays for any team in baseball. He would bat in a spot where his slugging can drive in some runs for most of them, however. Like I said, I've seen this on many blogs. Some Cub fans asserting that there is no need to have the lead-off man have a high OBP. I don't believe that it is really the view of most Cub fans that who leads off doesn't matter, only a very vocal few. Traditional thinking is not always right, but in my view it certainly is when it comes to wanting a lead-off man that can get on base, get in scoring position, and score; and wanting a guy with a .560 slugging percentage hitting somewhere in the lineup that it does some good. Dave and Rob's theories and statistics notwithstanding. I'm actually a Cub fan myself, second to my Birds. I went to school in Evanston and attended many Cub games. They had a real good team then, but always seemed fall just short to the Rose-Morgan-Bench-Perez Reds. Billy Williams was runner-up to Bench for the MVP at least once that I recall. The Cubs did have a pretty good lead-off man in Jose Cardenal. So when I say that the Cubs need to move Soriano to a different spot in the lineup, I'm speaking with my heart as well as my head.
  20. Hey, I'm with you, and have been throughout all of these Roberts threads. I think Cleveland, for one, looks like a much better fit for us than the Cubs if we are going to trade Roberts. I also feel that keeping Roberts for now is a very strong option. Contrary to the assertions of some here, the rumored Cubs offer would remain there at the deadline IMO, since the Cubs are offering nothing that they are relying on, and , in fact, their offer will likely get better if they are in a battle for the division come July. Heck, look what they gave us for Trachsel at the deadline last year.
  21. I'll go with the Cubs FO and the last 150 years of baseball thinking over your theory, thank you very much. Condescending statements like the bolded one above will certainly not do much to convince me of anything. If you want to think that batting a slugger with a low on-base percentage lead-off in the first inning and after the pitcher the rest of the game rather than a high on-base guy, knock yourself out. To me, doing that reduces Soriano's value to the team and creates a weakness in the lineup, as was very evident in the playoffs last year. I'm just saying that the Cubs FO clearly disagrees with you and frankly, that is what matters. Further, unlike you, I have no idea what the Padres would or would not do, but it would certainly surprise me in a negative way if the Orioles were to offer Roberts straight up for Greene.
  22. So the Orioles should trade Roberts to Pittsburgh for Wilson rather than to Chicago for Pie because Wilson represents a larger upgrade on Hernandez than Pie is to Scott? Come on now, no GM makes trades based so absolutely on positional need. Market value of the players involved is extremely important, and to discount it would be ruinous to any organization. To say you would trade Pie in a package for Greene, but not for Roberts totally ignores both market value and the chief reason the Cubs are interested in Roberts to begin with - he is one of the top lead-off men in the game. I know that many Cub fans are having a hard time getting on the same page as the Cubs on this, but the bottom line is that the Cubs brain trust sees the need for a change at the top of the order after last year's results. (Especially in the playoffs.) Like it our not, that is the reason the Cubs are trying to get Roberts. It certainly is not because they feel that they absolutely must upgrade at 2B. I've probably seen a hundred posts from Cub fans in various blogs that "lead-off man is not a position." It amazes me that so many Cub fans cannot understand the value of a top lead-off man. Defense is simply not the primary need that the Cubs are trying to address.
  23. With all due respect, I'm not sure it is us that is looking at it in a vacuum. Hendry has already stated that he has lined up two deals. Maybe this is exactly what he has lined up. Or perhaps it is the Pie-led deal for Roberts and a deal to Texas for Byrd. I don't know, but, in any case, I doubt if he is thinking one-dimensionally about this. I know McPhail isn't. I'm just saying that a package of your "usual suspects" without Pie is less likely to land you Roberts than Greene.
  24. And, by the way, the Mariners have stated that it is also their policy to not announce trades until after the physicals. Jones' inadvertent statement to the press that he had been traded caused the deal to be delayed. Perhaps Bavasi should have told him to stay quiet, but this really isn't the big deal the media and bloggers are making it out to be. We had a delay, but it is getting done.
×
×
  • Create New...