Bleed Cubbie Blue

"Ah, but the strawberries... that's where I had them!"

ernaga - September 17, 2011 reply

"The pilfering of bison dogs is a very serious occurrence at a major league concession stand."

the nth - September 18, 2011 reply

Like the U.S. Navy, MLB has never witnessed an incident of true mutiny,

although it was attempted with the ’71 Cubs.

ernaga - September 19, 2011 reply

no "they" being every one who broadcasts the game including MLB

but what I can’t get over is all the wet blankets on this: .424/.512/.788 1.300-OPS .568-wOBA 265- wRC+ and he is responsible for half of the runs produced in the last two games, and he almost hit another that was knocked down by the wind.

Celebrate a find, forget some conventional wisdom that does not apply, his name is not Micah, he is Bryan….

Back in 2008 Micah had 80 PA was: 342/.400./534 .934-OPS .409-wOBA 144-wRC+ LaHair if he played the remaining 10 games would get roughly 80-90 PA and at this rate LaHair is 70% greater in OPS and SLG’g, 40% better in batting average and 60% at HR per plate appearance.

Let the 28 year old play out the year and let us see if he is the real deal is what I am saying, not some subjective opinion based on flawed judgment or criteria.

Ivy Walls - September 18, 2011 reply

Because he does it every few days.

I’m a LaHair fan, but if I want to know his slash line I’m capable of using google. It knocks more valuable posts down the list and doesn’t bring anything new to the conversation topic.

Dcr18 - September 17, 2011 reply

It seems to me that this post was about Quade's...

….mealy mouthed tribute to LaHair, he just happened to include his stat line with it. Not a big deal.

Can we just make a fan post "Lahair Fan page/ 1st base debate"

Mitchener - September 18, 2011 reply

He is so mad that the kids are making him look bad when they finally get a chance to play!!!!!

Vet lineup coming tomorrow in this all important game vs the Astros!!!!!

TJ11 - September 17, 2011 reply

LaHair bomb!

his plate discipline, his power and that beautiful swing suggests to me that this guy...

…looks like a late bloomer. A lot of people on this site seem to think that he would be a nice addition to the bench, with his hitting talent I think he could be the starting first baseman next season. No Joke.

I hear you on that. He also doesn't expand his zone like so many Cubs do.

Seems to know what his strike zone is and sticks to it. Which is something the Cubs sorely need.

Pena has the ability to draw walks but he misses too many pitches. This guy seems..

…to find a pitch he’s looking for and he doesn’t miss. I heard on the radio this morning that there are quite a few scouts OUTSIDE the cubs organization that project him as a .275 25hr guy. That’s obviously not his ceiling but if he could produce what’s projected for him that would be a decent offensive upgrade over Pena. He hasn’t had many starts at first under Quade but he is certainly not considered a defensive liability at his natural position.

I'll take that at 1B next year and save 10MM to put to pitching or other pressing needs.

Pitching is what it's all about and if the new manager can squeeze out of...

….LaHair what I think he can, then his value would be so much more than that of a Fielder.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer a Pujols/Fielder at 1B next year in Cubbie Blue.

However, I’m not so delusional to believe one Pujols/Fielder and one TOR pitcher is what the team needs to compete. Big Z doing what he did really hurt the 2012 Cubs big time and his replacement would probably mean we are paying a pitcher around 25-30MM (that includes Z’s money) to take a rotation spot.

It's definitely delusional thinking to believe that the cure for this schlock...

..is simply adding a number three hitter and a starting pitcher. I do not want that. The money needs to be spent on the starting rotation and the NEW manager needs to spend every waking minute ingraining into the minds of every Cub player the fundamentals this team and past teams have been sorely lacking. LaHair I think is a start at that.

Fielder and Pujols have already peaked in their careers

Fielder has a 4.7 WAR this year, his high was 6.4 in 2009 and Pujols is at 5.2 down from a great 10 year run where he averaged 8.28

they are illusions….in that the money spent will be foolish

which has been the Cubs organization modus operandi in recent...

…years, ridiculous contracts for little in return. If LaHair could produce .285 25+hr’s, his value would be well beyond that of Fielder or Pujols because of the money that could go to the pitching staff.

You can't

fix stupid.

So the Cubs would be better off

with LaHair than Fielder.

God help this fan base.

Again, the argument he presented isn't LaHair > Fielder

the argument is that LaHair + $20-25 million per year spent elsewhere > Fielder. I don’t know if I agree with that argument or not (depends on what the other $20-25 million is spent on), but at least acknowledge the actual argument and don’t make stuff up.

Or, feel free to continue to continue to misrepresent people’s arguments.

Not a misrepresentation at all

Not. One. Bit.

But feel free to defend the indefensible.

Yes. It. Is.

You. Do. It. All. The. Time.

You refuse to listen to a differing point of view and then lump the contributor in with a mythical group of fans that you’ve named the “meatballs” and as soon as someone presents a cogent argument you disappear.

The bottom line is

that’s what’s being advocated here.

If you want to just use this as a cudgel against me, feel free, but at least be honest about it.

Dude.

Read SouthernCub’s post again (assuming you actually read it the first time).

Here is a typical discussion with you:
Poster X: The Cubs have more problems than one player can fix. Maybe they should spend the money elsewhere until they are ready to contend.

You: Meatball! You think Campana is better than Willie Mays! Go root for the Royals, you worthless idiot!

/hyperbole added . . . but not much

Read my post again

and you’ll find you’re doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing.

In your zeal to condemn me, you’ve revealed yourself as a hypocrite. Nice work.

Keep fighting the good fight, NBF.

You, too, SB

Wow, his prediction came true in 2 minutes....

Reading comprehension

is your friend.

I wish it was yours.

I think you nailed it

Rec’d.

One man's "cogent argument"

is another man’s poppycock.

One man's tireless crusade to talk down to everyone else

Is most other’s fodder for disdain and ridicule.

Seriously, you felt the need to add this nearly two hours after your original sanctimonious reply? Wow.

Are other posters allowed to behave like this??

Behave like what?

Not falling into the groupthink that permeates this place?

You know whats hilarious about this comment?

If there is one thing that goes on with this site on a daily basis is that we argue about literally EVERYTHING that has to do with the Cubs. For god’s sake we argue about whether or not the bat boys should be retained before the new GM is hired.

There is literally NO “group think” on this site. Unless that group is three people.

We argued about the bat boys?

I must have missed that.

Al Yellon - September 22, 2011 reply

Don't get me started...

shoemile - September 22, 2011 reply

I was being a bit hyperbolic with the bat boys.

I would assume you’d be willing to admit there’s a fair amount of disagreements on this site.

jesus christos - September 23, 2011 reply

I think Al made a joke.

Maybe?

Arbusto - September 22, 2011 reply

Yes.

Al Yellon - September 22, 2011 reply

NO!

Nunyabidness - September 23, 2011 reply

Actually, yes.

Or was that hyperbole?

Al Yellon - September 23, 2011 reply

maybe

Either you're intentionally misrepresenting...

Or you have very poor reading comprehension and analytical skills. One of the two.

Because changing the argument from “LaHair + $20+ million to spend elsewhere” to “LaHair” is a substantial misrepresentation.

Maybe the equation should have been wrote like this so nobody can break the equation to how they see fit.

( LaHair + 20MM ) > ( Fielder )

Now with those parenthesis you can’t say ( LaHair ) > ( Fielder ) without willingly breaking the equation.

And that $20MM is probably too low an estimate for Fielder's contract

$25+MM may be more accurate based on the extension Ryan Howard got from the Phillies.

Fielder may still be the better choice. But to simplify the argument to LaHair versus Fielder is absolutely a misrepresentation of the argument, because that extra money could go to an ace starter instead.

And it’s the type of shenanigans NBF pulls all the time.

Oh, forgot Howard got a 5yr/125MM extension.

However, I think Fielder may want more years, so he may have to setting for maybe 22.5MM a year. I can understand NBF’s point on picking up an elite player though. Things would be so much easier if Big Z didn’t pull his stunt this year. Now the Cubs are going to have to ship him out paying virtually all of his 19MM 2012 salary on top of getting a viable replacement. That could look to be upwards of 30MM net to take a pitching spot in the rotation if nobody in house can do it. I just don’t see how the Cubs can replace Z and add another pitcher that they sorely need and get Fielder. Hell, the Giants won the WS with one of the worst offenses through pitching. Maybe the Cubs should forgo the all power at all spots in the lineup and think about pitching and defense for awhile.

It isn't a misrepresentation, SC

It’s exactly what was said. Exactly. Period.

No, it wasn't

Slight edit...

it’s not ALL that was said. You’re omitting the key part of the argument, which is disingenuous. Hence, a misrepresentation.

Nothing disingenuous about it

It’s a fair representation of what was said.

No, it's not a fair representation

I’m sorry you can’t seem to grasp that.

The Cubs would be better off with LaHair

than with Fielder. That was the point.

But you hate me, so it’s all good. Just so we’re clear.

I don't hate you

(another misrepresentation). I just hate when you misrepresent other people’s arguments.

I don’t know you at all, so I have no opinion about you as a person one way or the other.

Right

It’s impossible to misrepresent when it’s basically there in black and white.

Except it's not

Hence, you’re misrepresenting.

It's a damn shame to watch one's stubborness overtake one's intelligence.

shoemile - September 20, 2011 reply

Though with Bruce, not particularly a surprise

Assuming CJ Wilson will get 15MM (really low balling here) and the next best FA pitcher being Edwin Jackson getting 10MM.

What would be better for the team. (LaHair+CJ+Edwin) OR (Fielder+much lesser pitcher @ 5MM)? I could see the Cubs landing both Wilson+Edwin for around 30MM. Whereas Fielder will be near 25MM himself.

This is not a LaHair > Fielder one bit.

Fielder is much more superior. But the OVERALL value to the Cubs using the money spreading it out more.

Not when you have a chance to get

a truly elite player. LaHair is no better than a backup. No amount of CJ Wilson or Edwin Jackson (who isn’t worth it) makes up for that.

I can live with Fielder and Wilson. I think the Cubs could pull off that. But the Cubs would not be better off with LaHair as a starting 1B under any scenario.

Don’t pee down my leg and tell me it’s raining.

I would love to see them get both Wison and Fielder.

But you have to be realistic. Yankee’s will be bidding and Rangers will be bidding on him. He could get Zambrano money. I don’t think spending 40MM for both Wilson/Fielder will really help this team overall. There are just too many holes overall.

Also, I don't think it would be a Wilson/Fielder.

If you get Fielder, the pitcher the Cubs land will be a Marquis.

So don't even try?

Then you really never will get any better.

If you’re making a 1,000-mile trip, you have to take the first step.

This sounds like typical Cub-fan Eeyore stuff, ub.

I don’t think the Cubs should even try to get Pujols. Too old and too much a threat to decline. But a 27-year-old MVP candidate? Absolutely, other stuff be dammed.

The way this team is build currently..

Do you really think he’ll put this team over the edge? Honestly, I don’t think Wilson/Fielder will be even close to enough. With this lineup, you walk fielder and “clog” up the pads and go after the rest of the anemic lineup. Next season’s rotation is Garza/Dempster/Wells/?/?
SS Castro/2B Barney/3B ??/1B Fielder/LF Soriano(You know he’ll play)/CF Jackson/Byrd/RF Byrd/Colvin Too many holes.

This is reminiscent of the Garza-deal talk

Someone like Fielder isn’t a one-year fix. He’s likely to be stellar for a long time.

Shanghai Badger - September 20, 2011 reply

Building a better team by acquiring several better parts is Eeyore?

Arbusto - September 20, 2011 reply

No, disagreeing with NBF is.

I don't think we can get both Fielder and Wilson

obviously getting both would be great. But I think the payroll would have to go up by quite a bit to pull that off, and I don’t see Ricketts doing that.

If the payroll expands, I’d absolutely be on board for Fielder+Wilson.

I see the payroll sitting around 125MM total.

I think Ricketts is lowering MLB payroll and dropping more in IFA/Draft. Hence, why we saw that 17MM used this year in those.

I think $125 million is a good guess

The problem with this line of thinking

…is that you’re 100% focused on what makes the Cubs better in 2012.

You need to be looking at the free agent classes of 2013 and even 2014 as well, when a ton more money comes off the books. There are better SP options in those classes and fewer elite bats, making Fielder a better choice in the long run.

I don't disagree...

but, since you seem to be in agreement with NBF on many issues, please answer this:

NBF has frequently said that in a market like Chicago, you don’t “punt” on a season.

If the Cubs don’t acquire at least one legit SP, how is that not punting on 2012?

The rotation for 2012, right now is a legit high #2 (Garza), a pricey veteran #3-4 (Demster), two young(-ish, in one case) question marks (Wells & Cashner), and one vacancy.

Even if you add Fielder and keep ARam, the offense is squarely mediocre, unless you’re banking on a bunch of hopes (Castro develops some patience and doubles his power, BJax becomes ROY, Sori finds the fountain of youth, Byrd goes on the juice, Barney is serviceable, and we get good, even-year Soto… probably need half those to hit to get an upper third offense).

The chances that offense could carry that rotation is just… unlikely (to speak nothing of the defense).

I have no issue with pursuing Fielder… and I think it is probably the best course of action (with a financial limit… no more than 5 years and no more than $23M/per). BUT, since I find it highly unlikely we get Wilson and will have to pay Z to go away… I would be very interested to learn what the best course of action is for the rotation (and if you say “trade”, please make a suggestion)…. if we are indeed not “punting” on 2012.

fsuapollo - September 20, 2011 reply

You're improving the team, and hoping your competitors get worse

…which the Brewers and Cardinals very possibly will.

I don’t really believe in assigning arbitrary numbers to starters, so I’m not going to get into whether Garza is a #2.314 starter or not. But the fact is this: a move like Fielder is as focusing on 2013-2015 as it is on 2012.

You’re kind of asking me to defend someone else’s point of view here, though, which I don’t really have any interest in doing. I will say this though: improving the 2006 team to a competitor in 2007 took a lot of luck from low-priced players and timely development by internal guys, in addition to heavy spending.

Also remember that you can, in fact, sign all the guys you want – if they’ll agree to heavily backloaded deals, or at least backloaded off of 2012 payroll.

Fair enough.

Though that makes it likely 2012 is pretty ugly. Personally, I don’t really have a problem with punting (to a point, so long as they are fair to the fans) on next season to build the foundation for a strong run in 2013 and beyond. And Prince might be a part of that.

The Cardinals should be about the same (I doubt Pujols is going anywhere), particularly since they get Wainright back.

The Brewers would recede, but enough to close a 22 game gap, particularly when the biggest difference between the teams has been pitching?

And, IMO, the Reds should bounce back some. CAN the Cubs compete next year? Sure. Likely? No way.

fsuapollo - September 20, 2011 reply

Ugly? I don't know about that.

It really depends on what Cashner and whoever steps up as the 5th starter have to offer (Marshall), what happens with Zambrano, etc.

If you bring Aramis back, sign Fielder, get 2-3 WAR from BJax, and fill the back end of the rotation with pitchers who can at least pitch at league average, you’re talking a 12-15 win improvement. Couple that with bouncebacks from Soto and Wells and that’s another 4 wins.

The Cardinals will be worse – there’s no chance Berkman repeats his 2011, Carpenter is aging quickly, and they got rid of Rasmus for a bunch of guys who won’t be back. The Brewers will be solid but will lose their best player which makes them 6 or 7 wins worse.

It’s not likely but it’s also not outside the realm of possbility. It’s certainly not punting, even if it is more focused on 2012.

Fuzzy math.

If you bring ARam back, you gain no WAR.

Fangraphs has Fielder at 4.8 and Pena at 2.6, so you gain 2.2 WAR.

Byrd’s WAR is 2.1, driven entirely by positional value. If he moves to RF, you don’t gain anything… and if BJax plays RF, it is highly unlikely he could put up 2-3 WAR from that position.

As for the rest, your avatar is fitting… you’re assuming the Cubs (Soto, Wells) get better while everyone else gets worse.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with your particulars (Berkman, etc.), you could do the same thing with the Cubs. Dempster, Soriano, Byrd, and ARam are all on the wrong side of their prime and could easily see drops in production. We also have to see if Garza can maintain (or, hopefully improve even more) his level of performance.

I maintain that it is possible, but highly unlikely the Cubs are competitive next year (while adding Fielder and one filler SP). Fight for .500? Perhaps. In the playoff discussion? We can hope, but it is not likely at all.

fsuapollo - September 20, 2011 reply

I'm not assuming anything at all.

Don’t ignore the heavy, heavy qualifications in my post and try to paint this as something I think is likely to happen. I’m just saying it’s possible.

Soto and Wells are young and unlikely to be as bad as they were this year (give both were hampered by injury).

We’ve gotten a net 0 WAR out of right field this season, so BJax putting up even 1-2 WAR is a net improvement. Likewise, you skipped the part where I said that you get a competent back of the rotation – the 3, 4 and 5 spots have combined for a total of 1 win, so if Wells goes back to his career norms (he was a 3-win pitcher the last 2 years), and Cashner and Marshall or whoever are solid, that’s a net 6-7 WAR improvement right there.

Wreckard - September 21, 2011 reply

I'm not ignoring your qualifiers...

any more than I hope you’re not ignoring my stance that it is possible, though highly unlikely the Cubs can compete next year.

I think Soto can bounce back, but he’s not all that young anymore. He’ll be 29 next season and 30 is usually it for real offensive production for most catchers. My hope is he bounces back and then the Cubs “sell high” next offseason.

Given the positional standard for replacement in RF, getting 2 WAR out of a rookie in RF would be a plus. IMO, that will/would be offset by the clearly declining skills (and WAR) of Byrd.

I think a 6-7 WAR improvement out of the three, four, and five spots might be possible, but still probably a bit optimistic (and that adds up to closer to 8-10 WAR total, rather than 12-15).

But that’s why I’ve been asking what anyone thinks the plan is for the rotation. Setting aside who is an “ace” or “#2”, let’s look at the holdovers.

Garza and Dempster (although it is even possible he could leave) will still be part of the rotation, so they are de facto spots 1 and 2.

I’m hopeful, but not yet convinced, Garza can match this season’s WAR output. He’s at 4.4 now, already 1.2 better than any previous season. Hopefully he’s just getting better and better, but I’m not sure you safely predict that his WAR jumps much (maybe/hopefully to 5??).

Dempster turns 35 in May. He’s posted WAR of 3.8, 3.5, and 3.0 (with the chance to add a fraction or two still) these last three years. He’s a solid member of the rotation, but declining. So staying at 3.0 WAR is likely his ceiling.

As for “spots” 3, 4, & 5… Zambrano earned 1.0 WAR, Wells 0.3, Davis 0.7 (I was shocked by this), Lopez -0.3 (though that is not separated between starts and relieving… the same issue with parsing out Russell and Ortiz), and Coleman 0.5 (rather surprised again). That’s a total of 2.2 for three spots, which is… terrifyingly awful and explains… a lot.

Now, a 6-7 win improvement on that is, roughly, 9 WAR for three spots. I like Wells, but I’m having more doubts he can get back to 3 WAR… but let’s go with that.

I’m on board with Marshall going to the rotation. Can he put up 3 there? Could Cashner put up 3 in the last spot? I’d say both have the talent… but will they be able to throw enough innings to accumulate the total? I mean, we can’t really expect either to exceed, say, 140 innings, right (roughly 24 starts apiece, leaving another dozen or more starts to be filled)?

Obviously, the Cubs could use some outside help… but who? This is widely regarded as one of the worst FA SP classes in a while. I don’t believe the Cubs will get Wilson (outbid and/or he opts to stay in Texas). That leaves the much maligned Edwin Jackson as the next best SP. His WAR has been in the mid to upper 3’s each of the last three seasons, though nobody wants to keep him around.

So, given all that and barring a trade (hopefully an option, but still not likely to land a TOR without parting with BJax), I find it possible, but improbable (too many things have to work out), that the Cubs can improve the rotation by 6-7 WAR.

Don’t get me wrong… despite my posting style, I’m actively looking for reasons to hope/think the Cubs can bounce back next year. I just don’t see the series of moves where I can say there’s even an even money bet to get back to .500. I would be absolutely elated to be wrong (ok… maybe not elated for .500… might have to move toward contention for true elation).

fsuapollo - September 21, 2011 reply

I agree with this.

shoemile - September 20, 2011 reply

That point seems to imply

That the Cubs do nothing with the money not spent on Fielder. Which is what nobody is at all arguing.

Arbusto - September 20, 2011 reply

You're part of the fan base.

Arbusto - September 18, 2011 reply

Nah, he is above us

We are meatballs.

Craig in South Bend - September 19, 2011 reply

I especially love how any idea he disagrees with

coming from ANY individual is automatically labeled with “THE FANBASE” as if that one person speaks for everybody.

he is doing what he has to do force himself on the field

Now as it stands right now his WAR is 7.9 or 3rd in the league behind Elsbury and Bautista and ahead of Pedroia….

it is what it is, when given an opportunity he is a force at the plate and he is discipline regardless of his age…heck remember there is that 35 year old rookie sensation

LaHair wasn't shot by a mysterious woman a few years ago, was he?

no but he was blocked by two high paid 1B

Sexton and DLee

I think he does better than 275…that is a low safe projection, I bet 295, 32 HR’s, OBP 345 slugging 520 or 865 and a WAR of 4.5 and that for a 29 year old rookie at a minimum $425,000

And lets not forget a 8 or 9MM DH while under Seattle.

Just to stop those people saying he could have DH.

I think you're a little to conservative with the OBP, I think he could do...

…than that.

I think he could put up a 360ish OBP.

His career minors is 362. Last two years were 385 and 405. He may have just improved his game.

BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness - September 17, 2011 reply

His MLEs projected over 550 ABs suggest

.272/.335/.515 with 32 HRs

Productive numbers assuming he can translate them. A .295 BA should not be expected though

uptowncub - September 18, 2011 reply

the difference between 272 and 295 with 550 AB's is 12 hits, so let us half it

six hits each way…..284

That would make 860 OPS hmmmmmmmmmmm

what could be bought with an extra $10-12M per year in pitching?

Ivy Walls - September 18, 2011 reply

How do you know.

Barbara Hershey is everywhere!

that is Castro's one weakness

you're right about that but Castro does have an ability to hit bad pitches, he needs,

…to realize that a player like Vlad had an ability to hit bad pitches out of the ballpark because of his natural strength. Castro is only going to increase his offensive production improving his plate discipline.

hear here

BucknerKongCardenal - September 17, 2011 reply

I'd still go after Prince and put LaHair in LF.

There’s probably a team willing to take Soriano for four or five million a year in a trade.

Dcr18 - September 17, 2011 reply

I don't know if any team would take Soriano.

But even if the Cubs are stuck with Soriano I’d rather start LaHair in LF for next year.

The problem is he's not fast or athletic enough to play any outfield position outside...

…of Wrigley. You put him in a place like Coors and he would get eatin alive. LaHair is actually not bad defensively at first, he might even be better than Fielder, but if LaHair could get the production that even the scouts outside of the Cubs organization project him for, his value to the team would exceed that of Fielders because of the money that you could save and put into the starting rotation.

I'm of the opinion that they need an elite middle of the order bat to compete.

LaHair could be productive, but not the game changer Prince could be. If Ramirez walks, then there would still be plenty of cash left to pay a high priced pitcher. And LaHair might not be the best LF, but he’d be replacing a pretty bad defender anyway, and the national league is filled with bad defensive LF.

Dcr18 - September 17, 2011 reply

Not going after Fielder/Pujols because we have LaHair would be asinine

Sure LaHair might be the real deal and turn out to be a consistent run producing 1B. It’s a lot more likely that he’s Hoffpauir 2.0. It’d be one thing to strike out on Pujols/Fielder and turn to LaHair as a Plan B, but to rely on an unproven 28-year-old who’s never been considered a top prospect would be really dumb.

Poloplaya14 - September 17, 2011 reply

Hamstringing a budget on a 100-million dollar 1B isn't all that bright, either.

Ross - September 17, 2011 reply

I’m pretty sure Prince will cost more than that and Pujols turned down almost 200 IIRC. Oh how I hope the Cards keep him.

ol Pete - September 18, 2011 reply

It wouldn't hamstring our budget

The Cubs have a large budget. They can afford to hand out large contracts as long as they’re going to truly elite players. Fielder and Pujols are in that category.

Some Cubs fans

seem to think their team is located in Kansas City or Minnesota instead of Chicago.

Small market worked for Florida

I’d take their two World Series titles from the last fifteen years over how many the Cubs won.

Um, check the team that won in '97

It wasn’t exactly built in the way you envision it.

Again

Florida 2
Chicago 0

Whatever

Maybe you should become a Marlins fan then.

Please

Criticism of the Cubs and pointing out the obvious problems does not make that person not a Cubs fan.

South Side Expat - September 18, 2011 reply

You can say that again.

What?

Is he supposed to be satisfied that the Marlins have won two WS the last fifteen years despite spending less money than the Cubs?

I'm not sure what his point is

and he might not be sure, either.

That he wishes the Cubs had been as successful in that time span as the small-market Marlins.

I didn’t think that was too hard to understand.

The small-market Marlins

who spent like a big-time franchise to win that first one? OK.

Let’s cite every World Series winner for the past 103 years, and I’ll say I wish I could be like them, too — small, medium, big, spending, tightwads, whatever.

And I'll take the Yankees 5 World Series titles over the last 15 years

The Yankees also developed a solid core of players

That made all the difference.

And why would signing Fielder

prevent the Cubs from developing a solid core, too?

I think some people here have this fantasy about all nine spots being taken next season by “young” players. That’s all that is, a fantasy, and that’s all it should remain.

Like NBF said, signing Fielder/Pujols would not prevent us from continuing to build through our farm system

Thank God

someone here has some sanity.

Because throwing money at the problem has produced a World Series championship

And relying on your "own" guys

hasn’t worked, either.

No to Pujols, yes to Fielder. If you don’t like it, go cheer for the Pirates, or some other team that fits your small-market sensibilities.

Hello, Strawman!

He’s entitled to a different opinion. If you don’t like it, go post on Cubs.com or ESPN.

I'm entitled to an opinion, too

If you don’t like it, go post on Cubs.com or ESPN.

I'm entitled to talk to you the same way you talk to others

If you don’t like it . . . I don’t care.

Well played

LaHair is NOT better than Fielder....And if we can get him in the off season we should.

BUT LaHair should be playing everyday now….

"Seeing what someone can do"

is more for the fans, I think, than for the teams.

LaHair has the potential to be a spare part on next year’s team. I don’t need to see him play every day from here on out to know that.

But what is the benefit of playing Pena over LaHair at this point?

There isnt any....

I think Pena is going to get as far away from this team as possible….

People assume he wants to come back…Why would he?

People neglect to realize that Pena is in a situation that he'll be wanting a 3+ year deal.

It’s mindbogglingly stupid to assume he’ll accept a one or two year deal. At that point, if you can’t get Pujols/Fielder, you could save that 20MM over 2 years to put to more pressing needs.

And offer Pena arb to get the draft pick

ClarkFan - September 18, 2011 reply

Pena

is better than LaHair? Just a wild guess.

LaHair has outplayed Pena in his small time here.

He hits for better avg and K’s less too. If you must have have Pena in the lineup, why should Soriano or Byrd play over LaHair in the OF?

Who cares?

Small sample size, thank you.

And in such a small size he's almost equaled Soriano's WAR for the season.

So?

You’re assuming it would continue. It probably wouldn’t.

LaHair has earned the right to stick around and play, and perhaps be in the mix for backup work next season.

This is “Bears Backup QB Syndrome” transferred to baseball, to an extent.

Alot of people care.

In that small sample size he’s shown at the very least that he’s the team’s hottest hitter, so why would you want to put him on the bench? As long as he keeps outhitting the rest of the team he should be in the lineup everyday.

In a small sample size

anybody can be the team’s hottest hitter.

I think he’s being used just fine. Perhaps that use is what’s keeping him hot.

I guess I just don't see a reason to play Byrd or Soriano over him.

LaHair is hitting way better than those two right now, so why not ride the hot hand in a lost season. It’s not like playing LaHair is blocking a hot young prospect.

Fair enough

I don’t think LaHair is going to amount to much, but I’d be glad to be wrong.

Not enough better to make a difference

Especially if Pena = LaHair + a starting pitcher, which is about how the money would work out.

ClarkFan - September 18, 2011 reply

Because he is hitting better than several regulars....that is why he should be playing everyday...

What are you going to do when your boy Quade leaves?

Probably cry all day, TJ

I figure you’d like that answer. :)

I LOVE LAMP!

...

Al Yellon - September 22, 2011 reply

I'm not going to get involved in personal attacks here

People wouldn’t react so poorly to you if you didn’t act like this on the net. What’s the point of bashing people on the net that disagree with you? You’ve never met me. I’ve never met you. For all I know, you could actually be a nice guy. I know you have a right to your opinion, but we could always discuss this in a much more civil manner. Maybe you don’t care if some people on the net respect you or not.

Not all opinions are created equal, alas

Some stuff is pretty egregious.

Whatever, man

You act like someone shot your dog when someone disagrees with you. It’s not exactly going to win you many friends here.

That's OK

I’m not sure I’d want to be friends with people who hold some of those ideas, anyway.

It takes an absolute fool

to not have the ability to give credence to the opinions of other people. Even if you don’t agree with an opinion, it doesn’t give the opinion any less validity.

If you have an opinon that the moon is made of green cheese,

you’d be a fool to give it any credence whatsoever.

That would be because...

arguing that the moon is made of green cheese is not an opinion. That would be arguing facts.

CubFan81 - September 18, 2011 reply

If that's the case, it's a fact

the Cubs would be better off with Prince Fielder as its regular first baseman than they would be with Bryan LaHair.

True...

and thought I haven’t read through all the posts above it seems that that’s not what the others are trying to argue.

They’re arguing that $20M+ for Fielder is not necessarily better than LaHair and $20M+ spent elsewhere.

CubFan81 - September 18, 2011 reply

No way

is that the case. You have a chance to get a superstar player, you take it. Period.

Not if getting that superstar player prevents you from filling your other needs

It doesn't

and I doubt it will.

Only some Cubs fans would rather anoint Micah Hoffpauir 2.0 as their starting first baseman instead of, you know, the possible NL MVP.

To be fair

signing Fielder wouldn’t leave much money to help out the rotation or outfield. I’m still in the sign Fielder camp, but I see the other side of the argument too.

LaHair could be a temporary solution in the outfield

My concern is starting pitching. There is nothing in the system to replace Zambrano, and there is no true number 1 starter. Someone like Wilson will cost money. I am not sure the Cubs can sign both Fielder and Wilson. It may take letting ARam walk to do that. But that creates another hole. There really is no easy solution.

There isn't a lot of starting pitching or OF help out there though

The only quality SP under the age of 30 out there is Edwin Jackson. There’s not one quality OF out there under 30. I don’t get it, would you rather go after 27-year-old Prince Fielder or 31-year-old CJ Wilson (or 34-year-old Carlos Beltran)?

Exaggerate much?

no one has said that, you know it.

Baloney

That’s exactly what’s been said.

Show me!!....in quotes

You say it yourself down below

My bad there are so many posts...

…and I misread yours. I thought you were saying that people here think LaHair is the next MVP.

Yes, he should be given a chance at first. I’m not a big fans of putting all your eggs in one basket especially when the pitching needs the help. If LaHair could produce .275 25+ his value would be greater than that of a Fielder or Pujols. Considering they should not be thinking world series next year , I would give it a shot.

That's a big "if"

and they should be thinking World Series EVERY year.

We aren't going to be filling all of our other needs regardless of whether we sign Fielder/Pujols

There’s not a ton of pitching out there, and there aren’t a lot of impact OFs out there either. The one area of the market that is strong in talent is 1B, and we need a first baseman. Sometimes, life is really simple.

Glad you're not running a franchise because you...

…would obviously run it into the ground. If you’re going to spend Yankee/RedSox money then get your superstar but if funds are limited (and they will be) then you get yourself some pitching first and foremost. That’s how you build a winner, through your pitching staff.

Good thing you aren't either,

or else your franchise will be perpetually rebuilding.

Somewhere in between is the truth.

And that is exactly what the cubs did in 07

and are now stuck with soriano!

Notsnud - September 20, 2011 reply

And without Soriano, the Cubs don't make the playoffs in '07

and have a harder time of it in ’08.

That it didn’t work out perfectly means it never should be done again? What a stupid assertion.

Im not saying the cubs should not have made a play at soriano

im responding to your statement that if there is a superstar out there you go get him. The cubs did in 07 and it backfired in colossal fashion. We could have got a TOR pitcher, and a decent left
Fielder for the money we spent on Sori, and be in much better shape now.

Notsnud - September 20, 2011 reply

And they could have fizzled out, too

That’s the chance you take.

Soriano was a lot older in 2006 than Fielder is now.

And in comparison to Pujols, he was nowhere near as good.

Poloplaya14 - September 20, 2011 reply

And I'm not really sure

that’s the argument.

That's ABSOLUTELY the argument

Whether or not it’s correct is certainly up for debate. But that’s absolutely the argument almost everyone on that side is making.

Shanghai Badger - September 20, 2011 reply

No, if you disagree with NBF

He TELLS you what your argument is.

Sorry, better luck next time.

I'll say this, SB,

when it comes to snark, you take a backseat to nobody.

Shanghai Badger - September 21, 2011 reply

Hello, kettle? This is the pot calling.

Takes one

to know one, right? ;)

Not Bruce Froemming - September 21, 2011 reply

Ok, you made me grin

Shanghai Badger - September 21, 2011 reply

Actually I wouldn't say it's a fact.

You could make an argument that the team would be better with LaHair/CJ Wilson/other FA rather than Fielder/RoLo. I’m not leaning either way, just pointing out that there are two valid arguments on each side of the situation.

I don't think any scenario

in which LaHair is the starting first baseman in 2012 is valid whatsoever.

And I don't think any scenario that includes Coleman or Lopez in the rotation is valid either.

Agreed

One more starter from outside the current system is necessary. Then give Cashner or Shark another shot.

But that's likely the tradeoff

We could try to get Fielder or we could try to get an elite starting pitcher. In order to get both, we would have to expect the payroll go up by $20+ million next year.

I think there's an argument to be made, but it's a really bad one.

A better equivalent to LaHair on the SP side of things would be Casey Coleman, and to be honest, Coleman’s got about as much chance of being an impact player as LaHair does. It’s really easy to look at LaHair’s gaudy numbers and project as being a high-impact player, but the bar for offensive production is really high at 1B. I don’t see LaHair being more than about a 2 WAR player, which is about as good as Casey Coleman would be if you projected his career major league numbers over 200 innings.

And signing Fielder would be much preferable to signing Wilson because he’s younger and, at the same time, has been more productive over his career.

Could you please point me in the direction

of the seasons, at any level, where Casey Coleman has had “gaudy” numbers??

And for the record, basically every poster I’ve seen that wants LaHair to “get a chance”… has still advocated going after a big bat this offseason.

fsuapollo - September 18, 2011 reply

Coleman's never put up gaudy numbers and I never said he did

He doesn’t have to, though, to be an effective major league pitcher. for LaHair to be a starting-caliber 1B, he’s gonna have to rake.

And I’m for LaHair getting a chance, but there are those suggesting we should pencil him in at 1B and balk at Pujols/Fielder.

You equated

the chances of Coleman and LaHair being impact players as equal. Then, you dismissed LaHair’s “gaudy” numbers.

So I’m wondering what your basis is that LaHair (who has put up gaudy stats the last two years, albeit at an advanced age) has the same ceiling as Coleman (who has not put up such stats, though at the “right” age… while having ‘stuff’ that is generally regarded as below average)?

I surely haven’t read every post. But all of what I have read has advocated for giving LaHair a shot at the 1B job over Pena (based on similar-ish offense and far worse defense at a savings of ~$9.5M).

The only mentions I’ve seen of “passing” on Fielder are from the “we are more than one player away” crowd. While they are correct in that the Cubs need a lot more than one elite hitter (like at least 2 new SPs), I still see most pushing to sign Fielder… then go after a top SP the following offseason.

fsuapollo - September 18, 2011 reply

The bar for starting 1B is really high

Like I said, LaHair’s gonna have to absolutely rake to be valuable at the major league level. Coleman, on the other hand, only needs to put up a 4.50 FIP or so to be a capable back-of-the-rotation starter. Coleman’s also a lot younger FWIW. Anyway,s the point is neither one is a guy we should be counting on. Both should be viewed as organizational depth guys, and nothing more.

Also, I’m only in disagreement with the guys who are advocating passing on Fielder/Pujols and giving LaHair the starting job. There aren’t a ton of guys in that camp, but there definitely are a few.

The bar is high for 1B

But you, IMO, dropped the bar for Coleman. Perhaps I’m just parsing words, but you used “impact” as the comparison point.

If Coleman could put up a 4.50 FIP, he’d be a serviceable 5th starter, but I’d hardly call that an “impact” SP. Useful? Sure, particularly given this year.

Whereas for LaHair, there are scouts now mentioning (see one of Ivy’s threads, don’t remember which) and projecting that he could hit .275 with 25 HRs and a solid OBP with a full-time job. While that surely wouldn’t make him an “impact” 1B, the Cubs would have to take that in a heartbeat (and that doesn’t mean take it over the opportunity to sign Fielder).

So, for me, as far as ceiling… I think Coleman might be a 5th SP / swingman for a couple years as his best outcome… with long reliever the more likely outcome.

For LaHair, their just might be enough there to make an intriguing 1B/LF (defense, I know, but we stomach Soriano) starter during his cost controlled years, in particular. More realistically, I don’t really see why he couldn’t be a bench bat with pop.

fsuapollo - September 19, 2011 reply

No, that's an opinion.

Holy shit you’re dense

Not Bruce Froemming - September 26, 2011 reply

If you really think LaHair would be better

then YOU’RE the one who’s dense.

STOP THE NAMECALLING!

Both of you.

Al Yellon - September 27, 2011 reply

The problem is that you think that about anyone who disagrees with you.

ol Pete - September 19, 2011 reply

No

But if you’re going to be a meathead …

Not Bruce Froemming - September 19, 2011 reply

This team did not spend well

I doubt if the Cubs could get Pujols or Fielder for a fair price and a fair amount of years. Then take into account that these two players are starting a decline phase. If the Cubs were within reach of contending again, this wouldn’t be a bad deal. But this team needs to recover from the Jim Hendry era. I’d rather take a few years in the dumps if it means there’s something better on the horizon. Spending is far too risky and it hasn’t worked.

There's a difference between throwing money at players who deserve it and throwing money at players who don't

A lot of our big contracts given out over the past 5 years or so worked out very well (Lilly, Lee, Ramirez, Dempster). Others didn’t. At the end of the day, you have to spend money to compete. The key is spending it on players who are actually good and likely to remain so.

The problem with spending money is it's inherently risky

Pujols and Fielder are in their decline phase. We don’t know how hard they will decline. Giving one of them Soriano money would just be foolish. The years where it would pay off would be early in the contract. The Cubs are many years away from contending, so all you would be doing is putting people in seats to come watch Pujols or Fielder. The Cubs won’t be winning a championship in 2012 or 2013.

So a 27-year-old is on the decline?

And the Cubs are many years away from contending?

You must think your real name is Clair. Clair Voyant.

I'm being realistic

No, you aren't

I’m not saying the Cubs will or won’t be competitive next year. That’s realistic.

The Cubs are a basket case right now

The core is too old. They don’t score runs. They have poor defensive fundamentals. They can’t hit in the clutch. The pitching isn’t there. The Cubs are absolutely awful and there’s no hope for them to compete next season.

I wish I was as certain as you about things

One year ago, how did you feel about the Diamondbacks’ chances?

I don't follow the Diamondbacks closely

I’m just telling you not to put money down on the Cubs to win a championship in 2012 or 2013.

I'm not

But that doesn’t mean they won’t. Neither of us knows that, and if you were honest with yourself, you’d acknowledge that.

I'm perfectly honest with myself

I also don’t believe the Cubs will ever win a championship as long as they call Wrigley Field their home, but that’s a different story.

Now on that,

I might agree with you. If Wrigley Field came down tomorrow, I could not care less.

They need a Wrigley Field 2.0 with a retractable roof!

I think you'd be foolish to rule out 2013 as a year of contention

A lot can happen in 2 offseasons.

I think we'll see improvement in 2012

I would hope that it can’t get worse than it is now, and I believe new management will make a difference even with the vets. I expect the team to be much improved in 2013. I do believe it is important to build around a young core and solidify the pitching staff. This organization currently lacks someone like a Fielder or Pujols who can be a game changer. I am not convinced that now is the time to pursue such talent, and I am not convinced that either of them is the answer. Pitching is currently the glaring weakness of this team.

If Pujols and Fielder aren't the answer, nobody is

You’re talking about 2 of the best hitters in baseball. The underlying theme that I’m sensing in this discussion is that nobody seems to be realizing just how good Fielder and Pujols are and just how rare it is for 2 hitters of that caliber to hit the market in their prime at the same time.

Exactly right

Louie’s comment that he is not convinced that now is the time to pursue such talent is asinine. Talent like that does not come available on your schedule. There’s no guarantee that if the team will be “much improved in 2013” (and really, what is he basing that on?), that anybody like Fielder or Pujols will be available.

When someone like that can be had, you do everything you can to get it, your current situation be dammed. If you don’t try, you’ll never succeed.

Asinine? there you go again, insulting someone when their...

..opinion doesn’t agree with yours.

If you think the Cubs can solve their problems by throwing 25 million dollars per year at one player and ignore the infected abscess that is their pitching staff, then I would argue that you know very little about baseball.

Again, there will not be a spending spree this off season and acquiring a player just simply for the wow factor will show that this organization is still stuck in the same mindset that got them into this mess in the first place.

btw, Pujols is on a decline, there are a lot miles on that body and he is certainly not worth a $100 million dollar contract.

I don't want the Cubs to get Pujols

Fielder is 27 and just entering his prime.

And I didn’t say he was asinine, I said his comment was asinine.

Saying a comment is asinine isn't the same as insulting someone personally

Smart people have make dumb statements (and vice versa). I don’t see what’s wrong with criticizing the content of someone’s post.

Shanghai Badger - September 19, 2011 reply

I think its reasonable to infer that accusing a person of making an extremely stupid statement is suggesting that the person is stupid.

ol Pete - September 19, 2011 reply

Even if that were true

Is calling someone stupid really that heinous? If some faceless entity on the Internet insulting your intelligence really bothers you, I think you should probably grow some thicker skin.

Poloplaya14 - September 19, 2011 reply

Not the point

It’s uncalled for.

Like any society, this virtual one has its own set of standards. That kind of discussion on a routine basis isn’t appreciated by most.

I think it points to the cowardice of the person...

..behind the keyboard. I don’t think you, NBF or anyone else hear would say some of the things I’ve seen in this thread to me if they were face to face with me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not threatening you or anyone else, but I’m a pretty intimidating looking dude and the things that I read here have most certainly never been said to my face.

troutfishin - September 19, 2011 reply

You haven't seen me, either

I’m not threatening, either, but I’m pretty intimidating as well. Bet your trope would be just as applicable to you.

Not Bruce Froemming - September 19, 2011 reply

and you're right my point applies to me as well

troutfishin - September 20, 2011 reply

I can't speak for anyone else bit there's not a thing I've written in this thread that I wouldn't have said to someone's face.

But props to you for being a “pretty intimidating looking dude”.

Poloplaya14 - September 20, 2011 reply

you both missed my point

the moral of the story is courage does not come from behind a keyboard.

btw, I never said you said anything untoward.

troutfishin - September 20, 2011 reply

Okay, in that case, I don't see what courage has to do with making a logical, convincing argument

You can be a coward or a jerk and still be right.

Poloplaya14 - September 21, 2011 reply

Only certain targets are worthy of criticism at BCB

Otherwise, the long knives come out.

I'm thinking you're only saying that because he is agreeing with you (at the moment).

to me, he’s sort of like Blou, but without the nasty language….he scares me

cooliogirl47 - September 19, 2011 reply

Bigger words can be just as nasty.

Arbusto - September 19, 2011 reply

Hardly

I think, generally speaking, people on this site are way too concerned with being polite and considerate. I’m a firm believer in allowing people to speak their minds, and sometimes harsh rhetoric is warranted in a discussion. I personally have thick enough skin to handle someone trashing my opinion, and I’m not going to hold it against anyone personally if they think my opinions are wrong. There’s certainly a line which shouldn’t be crossed, but I don’t think anyone’s crossed it yet in this conversation.

Poloplaya14 - September 19, 2011 reply

It's like a comedian who has to swear to get laughs

The point can be made without the insults

Shanghai Badger - September 19, 2011 reply

I totally agree with you,

that everyone should be able to speak their minds and debate or discuss their differences….personally, that is how I’m learning about baseball here. I encourage people here to tell me why they have a certain or different opinion. My skin does seem thin though when a person has to resort to calling names or talking to me or anyone else here like it was idiotic not to agree with them.

cooliogirl47 - September 19, 2011 reply

Exactly correct.

Attack the argument, not the person.

And still, being polite and considerate trump everything as far as I’m concerned..

Sanity = agrees with you?

Arbusto - September 18, 2011 reply

In this case,

absolutely.

The argument they're making is that the money could be better spent elsewhere...

I’m not saying I agree. I’m just saying that it’s not as simple as LaHair vs Pujols/Fielder. Obviously Pujols or Fielder would be the better option at 1B. The question is whether LaHair + $20-25 million of improvement in the starting rotation is the better option than Pujols or Fielder.

I know that

But many are still under the impression that the drop off from Fielder/Pujols to LaHair wouldn’t be that large. Even under the more optimistic projections for LaHair, he’s still not going to come close to 5 WAR production, which is what you can almost guarantee for Pujols/Fielder if they stay healthy.

Doggie Stalker - September 17, 2011 reply

I would agree with the idea of going after Fielder (worried about age with) Pujols

And having LaHair as an option shouldn’t rule out that kind of move. But there really is not point in pursuing Carlos Pena-type players right now – they cost too much and the team isn’t good enough for them to make a difference in contending.

ClarkFan - September 18, 2011 reply

Hmm you could substitute "Al" for "Quade" in the headline

but of course Al has not had a press conference admitting this yet.

Not really.

LaHair is still poor defensively. It’s a small sample size. And it’s mostly against bad teams in September.

Quick quiz: whose numbers are these?

.342/.400/.534, eight doubles, two HR, eight RBI in 73 at-bats.

I won’t answer. Let’s see who can guess.

Micah Hoffpauir

qwerty123 - September 18, 2011 reply

Very good.

That’s pretty much what LaHair is.

FWIW, go look it up. Hoffpauir had BETTER numbers at Iowa than LaHair did.

Unless someone took Hoffpauir DNA and cloned him to make LaHair then...

…argument hold no water. They are two very different people. Stop with the comparisons, as you would tell others on this site “it’s getting old”,

All I see is...

… two VERY similar players who are doing much the same thing, at almost identical ages, with almost identical skillsets.

I’ll compare them if I choose to, since they are EXTREMELY comparable. Your opinion may differ. That’s your right.

Nevertheless, I think it’s far more likely that LaHair = Hoffpauir than LaHair = MLB All-Star.

They're actually not THAT similar

Hoffpauir had no plate discipline. LaHair does.

And I’m not sure what the value of your last statement is. OF COURSE he’s more likely to have a similar career to Hoffpauir than an all-star. The question is whether it makes sense to write him off simply because Hoffpauir was a AAAA player.

It’s very possible LaHair is a AAAA player. It’s also possible that he’s a legitimate MLB level hitter. I could definitely see him being a 25+ HR, .270+ hitter with a decent walk rate.

Here's another example, from several decades ago.

At age 26, this hitter played Triple-A ball and hit .288/.388/.587 with 35 HR and 108 RBI. He walked 76 times — showed decent plate discipline.

Also, that was in the International League, a league that was tougher to hit in than today’s PCL, in a lower-offense era.

Any idea who this minor league masher was and what happened to him? Hint: the Cubs thought this guy would be a big-time major league hitter.

I'm sure you could find tons of examples both ways if you wanted to do so

You could also probably find lots of guys who could have hit MLB pitching but never got the chance because they were blocked by guys at the majors.

Most guys never succeed, so you’re always going to see more guys who fail than who succeed. That’s not Earth-shattering research. It’s also not a reason to resolutely state “this guy won’t cut it.”

Yes, but odds are MUCH higher that they'll fail than they'll succeed.

Further, VERY often when these sorts of players DO get a chance, they fail.

Here’s the answer to the question I posed. That’s just about what I’d expect from Bryan LaHair.

Is that what I just said?

OBVIOUSLY the odds are that they’ll fail. The odds are against nearly every minor leaguer.

You seem to be completely missing my point. Is it likely that LaHair is going to be good enough to be an MLB regular? Probably not. Does that mean he should be written off as the next Hoffpauir beforehand? No.

As I've said.

If I’m wrong about LaHair, I’ll be happy to say so. But I don’t think I’m going to be proven wrong here.

Al, you could use your argument against literally every player drafted last year.

Pick any single one of them. In fact, pick any player in the entire minor leagues. I’ll be able to come up with a dozen examples in the history of baseball of similar players who failed to become MLB All-Stars.

D98 - September 18, 2011 reply

Have you been watching or can you not see very well...

…from your perch in left field. LaHair has proven so far to be the antithesis of every hitter in the Cubs lineup. Good plate discipline and he doesn’t miss a pitch when he gets one to hit.
As I said earlier I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about scouts outside of the Cubs organization that think he project as a .275 25+hr player. If you know better than mlb scouts then you might be in the wrong profession.

I would be in favor of selling high on LaHair

If other teams think highly of him. I’m not really sure he nets us much in return though.

I still think his value would come in the idea...

..that by playing him at first for a full season it would allow the Cubs to allocate money to more pressing areas. If he pans out at first then that’s just gravy.

LaHair has been pretty good defensively as a Cub.

Obviously small sample sizes, but solidly in the “very good” range at all positions.

D98 - September 18, 2011 reply

Really?

I haven’t seen that.

LaHair's defense is fine...

…if his offense is as good as it appears…AND if it saves this club from signing Pena again for $10+ million AND multiple years. If they can sign Fielder for 5 years @ $120M then they should. He ain’t worth any more than that and Pujols definitely ain’t worth the quarter billion he’s gonna want.

Easy Ed - September 18, 2011 reply

His natural position is at first and he's more than adequate there.

I can’t believe that your judging him based on a position he doesn’t normally play. And btw, he’s been better in left field than Soriano.

You keep saying "bad teams in September"

But LaHair has actually faced some pretty decent pitchers. He’s homered and singled off Mike Leake. He doubled off Aroldis Chapman. He got two hits off Charlie Morton (3.81 ERA as a starter this year). He got a triple and a walk off Mike Pelfrey. He got a hit off Johnny Cueto. He drew a walk from Tim Byrdak (a lefty specialist). He singled and drew two BB off Homer Bailey.

These are legitimate MLB pitchers. Sure, Bautista (too old) and Sosa (too inexperienced) are more borderline. But he’s gotten a lot of his hits off of real pitching.

The small sample size definitely holds water. The “bad competition” argument doesn’t.

Geez.

Some of those guys are good. Pelfrey isn’t great. Cueto has been pitching hurt. Charlie Morton has been awful during the second half.

You’re really reaching here.

I'm not reaching

Cueto hasn’t been pitching hurt. He just got hurt in his last start.

You have been simply writing these games off as though they’re AA/AAA filler. I was merely pointing out that most of the guys who LaHair is hitting off of are legitimate MLB pitchers. Some of them are actually really good.

I don’t know if LaHair will amount to anything. And I agree this is a small sample size. But it’s not like he’s just raking off of AA/AAA filler out there.

Geez, Al...

you make it sound like that in order for you to be “somewhat” impressed with LaHair, he needs to go 8 for 10 against Halladay, C. Lee and Hamels or somethin’. Do you think all Castro’s 190+ hits are against TOR pitchers? I’m fairly certain that if you look at EVERY major league hitter, it’ll show that they face “average” pitchers MORE than “aces”. LaHair is doing just what he’s suppose to do right now…see multiple pitches and hit the ball. If you check out the rest of this team, I think you’ll find a grand total of 1 or 2 that do that…if that many.

Easy Ed - September 18, 2011 reply

Great points.

My guess is that he will be more than .6 WAR once the page updates

Mitchener - September 18, 2011 reply

You're right. LaHair's WAR to date is .8 whereas Soriano's 1.0.

Is WAR accumulative or do they do magic with numbers and extrapolate it?

It's cumulative

More games means more WAR, all else being equal. A 0.6 WAR is very very good for only 12 games.

It should also be noted that 0.6 of his WAR is due to the fact that he has a UZR/150 of 46.0 in the OF this year.

My best guess is that he is not in fact the best defensive outfielder in baseball in 2011.

His UZR/150 for 1B is 0.0, which may actually be a bit high for him overall as well.

The guy is a good hitter, but you everyone here is running wild with small sample sizes and looking at WAR based on a ridiculous OF UZR/150 over 30 some innings. He’s earned himself a 1B invite next year, however I don’t see any way based on a handful of games people can be comfortable with not going after a big name 1B and slotting LaHair in that spot.

bdlugz - September 19, 2011 reply

In this case, WAR is being used to show how little value Soriano has, don't you think?

In any case… from what I gather on this board… most of the “LaHair-iacs” favor giving Bryan a shot at 1B over resigning Pena. I see very, very, very few people posting the notion that we should ignore Pujols & Fielder because we have LaHair.

fsuapollo - September 19, 2011 reply

There has to be a better term than LaHair-iacs.

It does flow as well as the DeRomantics.

rlpete - September 19, 2011 reply

LaHairistas

like this

cooliogirl47 - September 19, 2011 reply

Perhaps just:

LaHair Club? Or…….
The LaHair Club for BCB?

fsuapollo - September 19, 2011 reply

The LaHair Club for Men (and Women)

Has a ring to it, or maybe a dull thud.

LaHair: I'm not just the President, I'm a client too!

the thing

with lahair is he’s having that once in a lifetime season. has he blossomed and will he be like this next year???we’ll find out next year.

NOMAR - September 18, 2011 reply

We dont know where he will be playing next year....

It will be shocking if he is even in the lineup today…

did I hear Quade say he was going to play the kids today....or am I just hearing what I want to hear.

I have not heard that....But you know this games means too much in the standings....

It would be nice….Have you noticed the kid days usually produce wins?

I just watched the video again....and he did say (@ about the halfway mark) that he was

“playing the kids tomorrow” which is today. I think he said he was sitting “Sori” for sure and someone else who I couldn’t understand. So we’ll see what his version of playing the kids are.

should it be "is" instead of "are"? does anyone know?

In that case, it's "is"

The “is/are” in that sentence is related to the version, not the kids (you can tell by taking the preposition “of playing the kids” out of the sentence:

“So we’ll see what his version … is.”

thanks....that's what I thought but it didn't sound right when I said it aloud.

Probably means Soriano and Ramirez sit

Maybe Byrd too.

CarrieMuskat #Cubs lineup vs #Astros: Castro SS, Campy RF, LaHair LF, Pena 1B, Byrd CF, DeWitt 2B, LeMahieu 3B, Hill C, Dempster P

Today's lineup, which I will repost in the game preview

Castro SS, Campana RF, LaHair LF, Pena 1B, Byrd CF, DeWitt 2B, LeMahieu 3B, Hill C, Dempster P

We may not see any of these guys play today. It’s raining in Chicago.

So the kids will get screwed because he wont do it on Monday....

Colvin and Montenez wish they could play…..

Very important to see what Pena, Byrd and DeWitt can do….

Montanez isn't a "kid".

He’ll be 30 in a couple months.

He never plays, it would seem like a good day to play him.....

Dont call it a kiddie lineup if Colvin isnt it in it.....

And we know what Colvin can do.

You would rather see Byrd?

jesus christos - September 18, 2011 reply

atleast byrd has the decency of looking like an idiot for only one pitch during an AB

than colvin’s three pitches

lol...well put.

Easy Ed - September 18, 2011 reply

I don't know.

Byrd doing it in one pitch is actually putting the ball in play rather than Colvin just missing the ball 3 times above his eyes.

I really don't care which one.

Your constant moaning for players who suck just because they are under 30 is mind-numbingly boring and dumb. Colvin is batting .155 in 200 AB’s. Do you realize how bad that is? Look at that number again, yes it is .155 and you keep harping for more of that.

He also has more strikeouts than hits. Who know who is the other Cub with that wonderful distinction? Koyie Hill. Why aren’t you moaning for your boy Koyie?

Colvin, Hill, Soto and Pena

are the illustrious 4 with more K’s than hits. Yes, we need more of that.

Well you got 2 of them today....So you should be happy.

No, I'm just not moaning that poor Tyler isn't playing.

I don’t need to see him to know what he can do.

I dont need to see Byrd either

Because the Cubs were to stupid to bring up another catcher

Because the one they could bring up was in the playoffs...

But keep ripping on them for things that they didn’t screw up.

bdlugz - September 19, 2011 reply

A guess

Basically, he’s playing the callups today and he won’t be playing them for the most part against the Brewers. For those who want to see what the callups can do, and don’t necessarily care about winning, Quade should be doing the opposite. The kids should be facing contending teams whenever and wherever possible. Quade might be fostering cooperation from veterans by letting them have the prime time.

With Castro and Cashner being the better examples, the Cubs should know whether LaHair has what it takes to succeed in the majors. If the answer is ‘no’ then they should trade him for the best players or prospects possible. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the next thing is to see where he fits into next season’s plans. The Cubs have to replenish too much talent to think they will be able to during this coming off season. So, they should be able to accommodate him on the roster if the answer is ‘yes’.

We’re stuck with small sample sizes for the callups.

AboutTheCubs - September 18, 2011 reply

I think the biggest cheers will come from Colvin and Castro when there is a manager change.

Tweet from Bruce Levine about LaHair

ESPNChiCubs Bruce Levine
LaHair is a nice story but let’s take a breath. Teams out of the race do not use advance scouts in sept.

BVictor - September 18, 2011 reply

Eh

I never put much stock into what Levine says.

I don't put much stock into this either, but I'm sure this will be used as another round...

…in Al’s cap gun. Anything to be right.

There's little doubt that advanced scouting would find a hole(s) in his swing.

But to what effect? Does advanced scouting drop his OPS .400?

What seemingly gets overlooked by everyone looking to pull LaHair down is that his approach at the plate is solid. Nobody thinks he can keep an OPS over 1.000… but it doesn’t seem all that likely that he would suddenly be incapable of hitting. His approach is simply too solid.

fsuapollo - September 18, 2011 reply

If the Cubs can get Fielder, I say go for it.

He’s an elite player at a position of need and those don’t come around every day. True, the rotation is a mess, but I’d rather not overpay for mediocrity just because we’re lacking. That has screwed us in the past…and present.

As for LaHair, well, I’d rather bring him back than Pena. Bringing back Pena is punting the season again. Might as well save the cash.

shoemile - September 18, 2011 reply

I'm definitely not LaHair over Fielder.

BUT, if the Cubs can’t land either Pujols/Fielder I would rather see LaHair in there over Pena. Those of you that want Pena there just to scoop Castro’s throws are just wrong. If Castro can’t improve his defensive side, he needs to be moved to a position that he can handle. I feel if they went with LaHair, they should send him and Castro to special training over the offseason to work on Castro’s throwing and feet work to improve how they interact on the field.

Agreed.

Castro will be fine and continue to improve at short. Pena is a great defender, but I’m not willing to pay him 30 mil over 3 years for it. I’d say it’s Fielder/Pujols or bust, with LaHair being the backup plan.

jerry morales rules - September 18, 2011 reply

The Cubs have to get Fielder

In my mind, there is no “plan B” to that. He’s an elite power hitter that plays a position for which the Cubs have no legitimate candidates. I like LaHair, but the risk that he flames out at the expense of having Fielder signed on the team in not one I would like to take.

That being said, the Cubs will most likely need two corner outfielders next season. From what I’ve seen of LaHair, I think he can reasonably play LF well enough. No to him in RF though, at least as a starter.

I like the idea of LaHair in LF too.

I’m guessing there is a team out there willing to take Soriano for 4-5 mil a year, and I think LaHair could provide similar production to Sori.

Orval Overall - September 18, 2011 reply

Let me make both constituencies disagree with me all at once:

1) There was nothing begrudging about Quade’s praise. He’s understated by nature, but when asked about LaHair he said (more or less) “When he squares it up, it’s pretty impressive. We’ve liked what we’ve seen from him so far, that’s for sure.” Where’s the begrudging praise? We need to get past the idea that just because we don’t think Quade is up to the task of being an MLB manager that he’s necessarily a villain who wants to see players like LaHair fail. That’s just silly.

2) LaHair should play every day from this point on so that they can continue to evaluate him with as many AB’s as possible. Also, as hot as he is, he gives us the best chance to win, no matter who he replaces in the lineup right now.

3) The presumption should be that LaHair will be on the team next season, whether as a starting 1B or LF, or at worst as a platoon OF.

4) There are reasons to pass on signing Pujols and Fielder next year, but LaHair isn’t one of them. Those are the only two truly elite bats in the FA class at any position. Likewise, there are not multiple elite SP’s in the FA class next year; there’s really CJ Wilson and not a whole lot else. If you can sign one of the elite hitters at a price that won’t cripple the franchise, and if doing that delivers more value than would be had from spending a comparable amount on middle of the rotation pitchers, then they should do it and try to play LaHair in the OF. The question is which FA gives you the most bang for the buck – not any one FA measured against LaHair.

Good post, OO

I think LaHair’s best option is as a platoon OF, but he most definitely should not be the starting first baseman next season. That’s capitulation before the first pitch is thrown. (And sorry, he isn’t a kid.)

One more thing to add to the discussion

Everybody seems to be under the impression that the bidding for Pujols and Fielder is going to reach extremely high levels. Well, the two most notorious spenders in baseball, the Yankees and Red Sox, are set at 1B and therefore won’t be involved. Who’s out there that needs a 1B and has enough money to give out a $25 mil/year contract to either of them?

The Yankees could use a DH

I know how either of them feel about not playing in the field but would they do it for enough $$?

Lets not rule out Red Sox for DH.

Hell, even the Angles, which have been burned by so many players, may put up big bucks to land an offensive player like Pujols/Fielder.

jesus christos - September 18, 2011 reply

the angels will be too busy trading for barry zito

If they can't get "extremely high level" money...

why would they leave two far more successful franchises that have the money and desire to retain them for the mess that is the Chicago Cubs? If they don’t get $25m/yr… they’re staying put, like they should.

jameslcrockett - September 18, 2011 reply

The Cubs still need to outbid everyone else

But they don’t have to do more than outbid the second-highest bidder. If the Brewers (or whoever else) offer $20 million/year, we just need to offer $21 million/year. Also, Chicago should be a much more appealing market than St. Louis or Milwaukee, but everybody’s different.

That...

and Fielder’s already made cryptic comments about not being in Milwaukee next year.

Kansas25 - September 18, 2011 reply

First bid has already been made – 5/100. O’s, M’s, A’s, Sawx, Jays, Nats, whatever mystery team that nobody anticipated as well as the mythical teams that Boras seems to conjur have yet to get in on the bidding. Brewers ownership has already said it intends to continue bidding. Unfortunately for every bidder, Boras will drag the thing out to manipulate interested parties.

Cubs bid 21…

ol Pete - September 19, 2011 reply

It's a contract signing, not an auction

Wreckard - September 19, 2011 reply

It may not literally be an auction

But teams absolutely bid against each other for players’ services.

Well, except for Jim Hendry, who often bid against himself.

Yes except that...

1) you have no idea what the other teams are actually bidding, since the only person who knows that information is the team making the bid and the agent representing the player
2) Players don’t always simply take the highest bid, as there are other human factors involved (where they want to play, family considerations, other contract clauses of value such as NTC)

I suspect that while people always trot out the “Hendry bid against himself thing” the truth was probably more complicated than that, as Wrigley isn’t exactly the most enticing place to play – all the day games make it harder to go out and party, it has easily the worst player facilities of any stadium in baseball, there’s a tradition of losing, and our fans are rabidly unforgiving.

It seems distinctly possible to me that it’s actually necessary to overpay some (not all obviously) players to come here.

Wreckard - September 19, 2011 reply

You list a number of negatives coming to Wrigley.

That “rabidly unforgiving” fanbase can also give a lot of love to players if they perform well.

Also, there’s the idea that FA’s want to be part of the Cubs team that finally wins it all. That isn’t as true now, obviously, as it was in 2007 or 2008.

You’re right about the player facilities. And good point about the human factors, which I think some do tend to forget. Take Jered Weaver’s signing as a good example of that.

But in general, there IS a bidding war of sorts going on, whether public or not.

That's not really enticing

That "rabidly unforgiving" fanbase can also give a lot of love to players if they perform well

Oh, they’ll love me if I’m good, but if I struggle even for a couple weeks at the start of my tenure I’ll be booed mercilessly? Sign me up!

Also, there’s the idea that FA’s want to be part of the Cubs team that finally wins it all.

This is why I said some, not all. I know Derosa cited this as a reason for coming here – and maybe it’s no coincidence that he signed for less than he was worth.

While I do think this might appeal to some players, for most players a contract is just a job. What the Cubs have to offer doesn’t make them more comfortable, and doesn’t help them put up better numbers. Baseball history is great but I doubt it enters into most of their minds. And if they want to win a championship the odds are never in the Cubs favor.

Baseball history is great but I doubt it enters into most of their minds.

Going to disagree with you here. Every single player/manager/coach in baseball knows that if he is part of the Cubs team that does win the WS, that he will be deified forever. It has to be very enticing. That’s why Dusty and Lou came here.

You’re right that those odds seem very low right now. But it’s not always that way.

Al Yellon - September 20, 2011 reply

Again though - history doesn't pay the bills

Most players say the right things, but I would bet money that behind closed doors at the end of the day this is just their job.

While I’m sure some are concerned about building a legacy, most are probably more worried about where their kids will go to school than they are how future generations will remember them.

Even adding the "Wrigley Premium" usually hasn't been enough to land top free agents.

With the exception of the collusion-enhanced, gift-wrapped arrival of Andre Dawson, the only other top-tier position players to sign as FA’s have been Soriano, ’Dome, Kong, and MB. Signing each of those last four names not only required management to pay the premium, but also to ignore the warning labels attached to each of these players.

ernaga - September 19, 2011 reply

Good post, Wreck

“Rabidly unforgiving” is a very good description.